Anti-gun Register is crying again

There is a editorial in today's paper bemoaning the fact that there are several gun bills introduced in the legislature this year. The one that has their panties wadded up today is a Constitutional Amendment to add keep and bear arms. It's a simple but strong amendment that states that all Iowans have the right to Keep and Bear arms for all legal purposes. Of course they don't see the need because they are hoplophobes and have no use for the 2nd Amendment.

They start out the editorial still crying about Iowa going to shall issue a year ago. Of course before that happened we heard all of the standard gun hater talking points. Shootouts over parking spaces and fender benders,blood in the streets, you know the drill. It hasn't happened and that's really got their panties bunched up. It really upsets some of them that their predictions haven't come true. I guess we are more law abiding than the paper gives us credit for.

They alwasy talk about "reasonable" or "common sense" gun laws. The problem with "reasonable" gun regulations and "common sense" gun laws is that the ultimate goal is the complete disarmament of the civilian population. All of the gun control groups a one time or another has stated that their goal is only military and police should have guns. Just look at the former names of some of these groups. Handgun control inc. is now CSGV. The rest of them have similar histories. Changing their names to seem more docile. Their claim is they want to stop gun violence. The problem is, the only guns they want to restrict is the ones owned by the law abiding. Criminals by their very nature do not obey laws. All of the gun hater groups support the same civilian disarmament laws. When only the police have guns, you live in a police state. Not someplace I care to live.

The 2nd Amendment tells the government what it cannot do. Of course all of the Constitution is ignored in one way or another. The liberals don't understand "Shall not be Infringed". They always talk about how their "reasonable" gun laws won't affect our "right" to hunt. I have read the Constitution several times and have never found the word hunting anywhere. The 2nd Amendment and the "well regulated" militia isn't about hunting. It's about retaining all of our other rights. It's about the protection of the people from a over reaching, tyrannical government. They like to say that one person won't stand up to the government. Maybe, maybe not. The Revolutionary war was started by one citizen with a gun at Lexington. The Shot Heard 'Round the World. The start of throwing the tyrants out. If one person makes a stand, other will follow. Hopefully we will never see that day, but I'm not that optimistic.

In the Declaration of Independence there is a line that defines the need for a armed populace; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. The founders knew that any government can become over reaching.

They bring up the fact that Iowa has no equivalent to the 2nd Amendment. It is because when it was written there weren't groups trying to ban the lawful use of firearms. Most people at that time owned and carried arms and weren't worried about anyone taking that right. It was a much simpler time. Anyone could go into the local mercantile and purchase guns and ammo. No paper work, no background check, put down your money and get you gun. Now we live in a time where we have to ask permission to exercise a Constitutional right. A right that was denied to many Iowans under the old may issue law. Sheriffs that would either not issue permits at all or only to their friends and political contributors. This brought about the fight for shall issue and our victory in 2010. Some of the sheriffs are still upset over our win and go so far as to state publicly that they are issuing permits to criminals. The Johnson county sheriff probably should be investigated if he is issuing such permits. Or maybe he should learn the difference between arrested and convicted. They get called out on their outright lies. Anyone getting a permit in Iowa must pass a NICS background check. If they pass this how can the sheriff call them a criminal? Sour grapes.

We lost our rights slowly, over the years and we will regain them, one step at a time. The bill for a Constitutional amendment is a necessary step on the road to recovery. The anti's always talk about Heller and McDonald. These cases were decide by a divided court in a 5/4 decision. All it would take is to replace one Justice on the court and both of these decisions could be overturned. The best case is Justice Sotomayor. She stated in her confirmation hearing that Heller was settled law. Then in McDonald, she reversed herself and declared that there is no right to keep and bear arms. That tells me that she outright lied to the Senate at her confirmation hearing. Right now all it would take is to re-elect Obama and one justice retire because of illness or old age. One more antigun liberal on the Supreme court and our rights could be denied.

Iowa Firearms Coalition and the NRA will keep plugging away until our full rights are restored. Our lobbyists are doing a great job and the membership is great about responding to call of action. The Register editorial board is the home of gun hating hoplophobes who's voice is becoming weaker. Look at the numbers for people issued permits and the numbers for gun sales in the last couple of years. The numbers are growing and now the current trend is that more women are getting permits. We are responsible for our own safety. The same Supreme Court that barely affirmed our rights, has also ruled many times that no one has the right to police protection. The duty of the police according to the court is to the "public at large".

Last week Rekha Basu was all in knots over HF573, the stand your ground law. There were blatant lies in her article about how criminals would use the law to kill each other. Of course we have to start out with the old "wild west" statement. Calling the bill "shoot to kill" tells us where this is headed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The law gives law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves in any place they are legally allowed to be. It negates the duty to retreat. Although retreat can be a good thing, there are cases where it is more dangerous to run than to stand and fight. The best part of the law is the fact that the criminals or their survivors, can't sue a citizen that defends themselves. If in the unfortunate event I have to use deadly force to defend myself, why should I be subjected to a lawsuit, costing me hundreds of thousands of dollars (money I don't have) because someone wasn't taught how to play nice. This and the fact that the burden of proof that it wasn't self defense is on the county attorney where it belongs. Our justice system is supposed to be based on "innocent until proven guilty". The County Attorney himself said it's a law to enable criminals. I guess he didn't read the bill. Or maybe he has no reading comprehension. He's a Lawyer, been to law school and otherwise well educated yet he can't understand something as simple to read as this? I don't have near the amount of education that he has and I read the bill and understood what it meant. maybe we need a new county attorney. One with better reading comprehension skills.