INALIENABLE RIGHTS

INALIENABLE RIGHTS

Recently, Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and wounded 28. The only good news was that he killed himself.

Our judicial system is a joke. I really believe that the liberals are destroying America by perverting the judicial system. Eventually, the public will lose confidence in our laws and in America.

If he hadn’t killed himself, the psychological testing, pretrial hearing and actual trial may have taken several years. If the jury had given him the death penalty, a liberal judge may have set aside the jury’s verdict and issued his own ruling of life with the possibility of parole.

In the Charles Manson case, the families of the victims had to show up at the parole hearing and beg to keep him in prison. Then, they had to hold their breath until a liberal parole board decided to keep him in prison. Every two years, they have to go through the whole process all over again.

If he had been given the death penalty, he may have sat on “death row” for eighteen years before he was executed as was the case with John Wayne Gacy who killed over thirty little boys in Chicago and buried them in his basement. Justice delayed is justice denied and for years, the courts argued over whether he killed thirty-two little boys or thirty-three.

The concept that more guns equal less crime is a proven fact. If every person at that university had taken charge of their life and had carried a gun, it is possible that only one person may have been killed, the criminal himself.

With 20,000 gun laws on the books and more being added everyday, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t the liberal, socialist politicians understand? The Second Amendment is an individual right as are all of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights.

I have an “inalienable” right to defend myself. My inalienable rights were given to me by God and not by the government. When you break down the word, “in” means not, “alien” means stranger, and “able” means able. Therefore, my right to defend myself is “not stranger able”.

In a legal dictionary, “inalienable” is meant to go both ways. No one can separate me from my right to defend myself even if they think that I might not be very good at it AND on the other hand, I cannot separate myself from my right even if I think that a battalion of Marines are better qualified to defend me. I can invite them to help me but the ultimate responsibility for my self-protection rests with me. My inalienable rights are stuck on me like superglue.

GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA

GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA

Aftermath of Tragedy

Gun Owners of America

Tuesday, April 17, 2007


Our hearts and prayers truly go out to all of those affected by Cho Seung-Hui's evil actions. But not even senseless, brutal murder justifies taking away the God-given rights of the law-abiding.

It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are denied their right of self-defense.

In fact, pro-gun forces just last year tried to get the Virginia legislature to address the problem. The bill to allow permit holders to carry on state-supported college campuses died, due in no small part to rabid opposition from Virginia Tech itself.

VT spokesman Larry Hincker put it this way after it became obvious that the bill would not pass: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

The unfortunate irony continues when one recalls that not long ago, two students at nearby Appalachian School of Law managed to stop a gunman at that institution. Thankfully, they were able to dash off-campus to retrieve their guns from their vehicles.

Four GOA spokesmen (one based in downtown D.C. and three at our Springfield, VA office just outside the Beltway) are working non-stop -- doing literally interview after interview -- making certain that the above points reach the public.

GOA has appeared on Fox News, ABC, CNN, BBC -- lots of alphabet soup networks -- as well as countless talk shows like Michael Reagan and Lars Larson. GOA spokesmen have been heard in every major radio market around the country and have done interviews with large print media outlets, such as the Associated Press and U.S. News & WorldReport.

The overall message that GOA is delivering is that gun prohibitions are part of the problem, not the solution.

We can expect some forms of new gun control to be pushed in the U.S. Congress. The Democrats control Congress, but more importantly, anti-gun politicians control the Democrat party. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- certainly no friend of gun owners -- gives free rein to virulently anti-gun House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI),
literally anything can make it to the floor of the full House.

Conyers' counterpart in the Senate is Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), whose GOA rating of "F" is well-deserved. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has also earned an F. Gun owners will have to be especially vigilant in the coming weeks to block any new attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

And whereas the predictable media stampede to give voice to the possibility of such new gun control is certainly there, it does not seem to have the same "this simply must happen now" tone that it did after the Columbine tragedy in 1999. Indeed, the idea of firearms for
self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction. Which should not be all that surprising, given a Research 2000 poll which showed that 85% of Americans find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" in stopping a
massacre.