Comment of the day from September's Guns Magazine

[ericire12]

A reader writes into the magazine to say this:

Concerning "reasonable" restrictions to any of our rights, the burden of proof of necessity lies with those who would abridge or eliminate a right.

For example, a recent change in federal regulations restores a right that should never have been taken from us, the right to carry a gun in a national park. An unhappy liberal who called a local talk radio show demanded an explanation why anyone needed to carry a gun in a national park. We do not owe him an explination. He owes us one. He needs to prove the necessity of denying us this right.

Let someone try to prove we have no right to defend ourselves, and let them prove that disarming us will not deprive us of the most fundamental right. What have we become that we must hire lawyers to beg a Supreme Court to grant us the right to defend ourselves? Do we need to produce evidence that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness?

Fred Cardin
Appleton, Wisconsin

Comment of the day award!












Amen, brotha!

This is the narrative that we as gun owners must be preaching.

[tombogan03884]

Problem with the above is that we DON'T have the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness", wrong document.
The Constitution says "Life, liberty and PROPERTY.
Thats beside the point though, I'm posting this nomination from Pecos Bill
    
    
Re: Once Again, BHO Is Insulting America

I think it's time to pass on a definition of politics.

POLI: from the Greek meaning many.

TICS: blood sucking creatures.

Kinda fits don't it?

Su amigo, Pecos