NRANews Channel
NRANews Channel Description

• Some Questions for John Edwards
  Former Senator John Edwards is running as a friend to gun owners.  But his rhetoric seems to change depending on his location.  He's put out a press release saying he "hunted when he was young and grew up in rural areas where owning a gun was part of a way of life.  He respects that way of life and believes that we can do two things at once: protect gun rights and promote gun safety."
  
  Yet a few months ago, Edwards was asked a series of questions from YouTube.  He was asked whether certain things in this country are rights or privileges.  And here's what he said:
  
  A college education, health care, a livable wage... all of these things are constitutional rights in John Edwards' world.  But owning a handgun?  Well, the former senator says that's merely a privilege. 
  
  So with this background, here are a couple of questions I'd like to ask John Edwards. 
  
  Do you believe all Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families inside their home?
  
  Do you believe that right should be limited to exclude the use of firearms?
  
  In your short career in the Senate, you opposed pro-gun legislation like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, while supporting a renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban.  Yet you speak of protecting gun rights.  Name three things you've done as a politician to protect the rights of gun owners.
  
  I think John Edwards is taking a page from his former running mate's playbook.  John Kerry tried to sell himself as a friend to gun owners in 2004, just as John Edwards is doing today.  But that dog didn't hunt four years ago, and it won't in 2008 either.
• Some Questions for Clinton
  I've already asked presidential candidate Barack Obama some questions about what the Second Amendment means to him.  But other candidates have also expressed vocal support for the Second Amendment while going after American gun owners.
  
  Hillary Clinton, for example, told the Des Moines Register, "I support the Second Amendment. Law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns... but I also believe strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists."
  
  Now, I could spend hours asking Hillary about her position on the Second Amendment and her treatment of gun owners, but this is a blog, not a novel.  So here are a couple of follow-up questions. 
  
  Hillary, do you think the law-abiding citizens of Washington, D.C., have an individual right to own guns in their own homes for their own protection? 
  
  Hillary, do you think the D.C. gun ban is a "smart law,?"
  
  Hillary, do you think your husband's gun ban, which lasted a decade and banned thousands of firearms based on purely cosmetic features, is another one of those "smart laws?"
  
  Hillary, so you agree with the position of your husband's administration that the second amendment is only a government right, not and individual right and there's absolutely nothing to prevent the government from confiscating all citizens firearms?
  
  The days of political candidates being able to duck and run on the Second Amendment issue are over.  It's time to find out what their real positions are, and I challenge every reporter who has access to Hillary to pose these questions to her.
   
• A Few Questions for Obama
  Presidential candidate Barack Obama sounded off on the Second Amendment recently, and based on his comments that rural Americans should be able to own firearms for hunting and self-defense, I have a couple of questions for the senator from Illinois.
  
  Do you believe there are other rights that apply to Americans in certain demographic situations?  For example, does the right to free speech exist only for those who make $50,000 a year or more? 
  
  Do you believe the Second Amendment is about hunting?  If so, can you point to a specific part of the text of the Second Amendment that supports your view?
  
  Do you believe the residents of Washington, D.C., have the same right as the residents of Keokuk, Iowa, to defend their homes with legally owned firearms?
  
  It's high time for the media to step up and ask the candidates these types of pointed questions when those running for office try and get by with the same old platitudes.
  
  If they won't, I will.  You can expect more questions for more candidates in the days to come. 
• Gun Control In Finland
  In the wake of a murderous rampage in Finland, gun control advocates there and throughout Europe are calling for more gun control in the country. 
  
  But what effect have strict gun laws had in Mexico? Or Brazil? Or England? Or Russia? Or South Africa?
  
  People like Rebecca Peters say that civilian ownership of firearms needs to be restricted in order to keep us safe. But everywhere you look, the evidence shows that even the worst gun control doesn't reduce the illegal trade in firearms, and the laws don't stop criminals from using their illegal guns. Look at South Africa, where civilian ownership of firearms has been legislated nearly out of existence. They had more than 19,000 murders last year. Does that sound like gun bans work? 
  
  Frankly, it's easy to call for more gun control in the wake of tragedy. It's much harder to push for real solutions. But until the gun-banners are willing to talk about what really works, they shouldn't express shock and surprise that, even in countries with tight gun control laws, the criminals aren't affected one bit.
• Blessed Are The Peacemakers
  In Minnesota, the media's getting it all wrong in their coverage of a Right-to-Carry case.  WCCO-TV reports that a couple of churches are trying to exempt themselves from Minnesota's Right-to-Carry law. 
  
  But that's not really what's going on here.  These churches can already nullify Right-to-Carry on church property if they want, just by posting the legally required signage. 
  
  But that appears to be too much for these houses of worship.  Church leaders want to post their own signs prohibiting Right-to-Carry, or to post no signs at all.
  
  One church has posted a sign that says, "Blessed are the peacemakers.  Firearms are prohibited in this place of sanctuary."  I'd suggest that church read David Kopel's excellent article for America's First Freedom, "Is the Best Defense a Good Book?"  They could also read Kopel's "The Torah and Self-Defense" as well.  These church leaders might realize that there's no religious reason to be defenseless.
• The Slippery Slope
  Think British-style gun control can't happen here?  It's hard to believe, but just a century ago England's gun laws looked a lot like those in the United States.  But as the BBC reports, England has gone from licensing firearms to outright bans on most guns. 
  
  What the BBC doesn't say, of course, is that none of these bans have done anything to reduce violent crime, or even gun-related crime.  Those crimes continue to increase in England, despite the bans they've put in place. 
  
  Now England is trying to spread its gun bans.  The country is pushing the European Union to call for more gun control laws in member countries.  And Great Britain is leading the way in pushing for an arms trade treaty at the United Nations. 
  
  All you have to do is look at the timeline of England's gun control laws to realize the slippery slope does exist, and anything that happened there can happen here.  It's why we must be forever vigilant here at home, to protect our rights and freedoms.
• Blaming the Object
  In Boston, they're once again blaming the inanimate object. 
  
  Michael Graham reports that officials in Beantown are blaming the gun for the death of a pizza store owner, not the murderous thug who actually did the killing. 
  
  Graham s