|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Saturday, 24 November 2007 10:42 |
Anyone that has volunteered at an OFCC gun show booth in Dayton can attest to the fact that I like to talk... a lot. I enjoy debating. I enjoy researching my arguments. I enjoy trying to persuade others. This is especially true when I am passionate about a topic. Baseball statistics, fast motorcycles, and our Second Amendment rights are conversations that you do not want to initiate with me unless you have an evening to kill. If you gave me a megaphone, I would wear out the batteries in one afternoon. Luckily, there is something much more effective than a megaphone and a corner soapbox available to each and every one of us: our local newspapers.
Letters to the editor are an effective means of furthering concealed carry issues. They allow us to inform the general public of concerns that they may not think about very often and provide a means for correcting false information that runs rampant in the media when firearms are discussed. This could be particularly relevant for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment. One lone voice can educate a large audience on the history and necessity of our right to keep and bear arms.
I have had good luck and almost everything I submit to newspapers around the state gets published somewhere. I humbly submit some suggestions for your consideration when writing your own letters:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Daniel White
|
|
Saturday, 24 November 2007 06:31 |
The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition
By Jeff Knox
(November 13, 2007) Several weeks ago I wrote a piece titled The Color of Gun Control in which I described some of the racist motivations which historically underlie gun control laws. When that article was published in Shotgun News a month later and I re-read it, I was surprised to note a rather glaring error. While I stand by the core premise of the article, that gun control is intrinsically racist, I think some corrections and clarifications are is in order.
What immediately caught my attention was reading my description of the Illinois Firearm Owner ID system as a local jurisdiction, permit to purchase style program. The FOID is no such thing. It is a non-discretionary program operated by the State Police under which any person wishing to own a gun in the state must apply through the State Police and pass a background check. If their record is clear, they get the FOID with no further say-so from law enforcement.
I have to admit that I am at a loss to explain this mistake since I was quite familiar with the basics of the FOID program long before I wrote the article. I can only attribute the error to brain-fade as I focused on the destination rather than the route. My brother and editor Chris also failed to catch my obvious misstatement. He too knows better.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Dave Milthaler
|
|
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 01:03 |
What follows is an editorial that appeared in the Springfield News-Sun some time ago as well as a well-written letter to the editor that was published by long-time OFCC member and supporter John Bailey.
We need to remember that letters to the editor are an excellent way for us to spread the pro-gun-rights message and counter anti-gun-rights position we see constantly in the mainstream media.
Editorial View: Conceal and Carry Permits
Courts don't exist to cover for chickens
By Cox News Service
When issues are put off for a day or a year eventually the clock
runs out.
So it is with the business of how much information sheriffs can keep
secret about who has permits to carry concealed weapons. A new law a
dumb, patently unconstitutional law takes effect Sept. 29.
Its history is thus: Last year the Legislature decided to put even more
limits on what the public can know about permit-holders. The current law
says only journalists can learn the names of those who can hide a gun in
their car or under their coat. And they only are told names, ages and
what county a person lives in. Reporters, for instance, can't learn home
addresses or information about the kinds of guns a holder has.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 05:58 |
It's official. Everyone in the pro-gun rights community as well as the anti-gun rights community were confident that the U.S. Supreme Court would review the Heller (formerly Parker) appellate case.
While nothing is guaranteed, the current court may be the best environment possible for firearm owners to finally have a Supreme Court verdict for what sensible people have known for 230 years, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed.
Supreme Court Will Decide Challenge to DC Handgun Ban
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Mike Kinsey
|
|
Monday, 19 November 2007 12:27 |
A recent letter to the editor of The Dayton Daily News decided to regurgitate a frequent "argument" used by the anti-gun right zealots that want to continue to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights a bite at a time. One class of firearms that they think society will tolerate placing further un-Constitutional restrictions is the misleading named class of "assault weapons." As we know, "assault weapons", or "utility rifles" as they should be called, are semi-automatic firearms that function exactly the same as average hunting rifles used all over the country. Utility rifles merely have certain cosmetic features that do not affect their deadliness, range, or speed of fire in any way.
This initial letter reads:
Constitution does not protect AK-47s
A close friend's son was recently shot to death an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time. The weapon: an AK-47.
The argument of National Rifle Association and other right-to-bear-arms proponents is simply antiquated. The Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. It hardly has the same interpretation today. Let's give everybody a single-shot muzzle loader if we want to hide behind the Constitution.
...
It's time to attack crime and protect our citizens in this country with the same vigor and monetary effort we do in other countries.
Today's Dayton Daily News published my rebuttal. Hopefully, we can all stand up to these inane arguments and remind people what the Second Amendment truly stands for:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 Next > End >>
|
