BornLib's Blog

Life, Liberty, and the Firearms that protect them both

Archive for the ‘Gun rights philosophy’ Category

One of the most moving statements I’ve ever seen on the Second Amendment

leave a comment »

Written by BornLib

April 13, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Dishonest Solutions

leave a comment »

That’s the title of Colion Noir’s newest and most excellent piece for NRA News:

Written by BornLib

March 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Which Country Would You Rather Live In?

leave a comment »

Compare and contrast:

First the UK (and yes, this is the actual headline):

Drunken thug who battered girlfriend in the street making her face ‘explode like an airbag’ walks away with community service despite the fact he was on PROBATION

Then there is the USA:

Marine with concealed carry permit stops man from beating woman

A Marine Corps veteran was able to stop a man early Tuesday, March 12th from nearly kicking a woman to death. It happened near 102nd and Lincoln, and Wisconsin’s concealed carry law made his efforts possible.

Remember this next time some intellectual lightweight says some nonsense such as, “If there were no guns there would be no need for self-defense.”

Written by BornLib

March 19, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Thought of the Day

leave a comment »

Ma-rooned: Why Do You Need a Gun? You Can Just Call 911…

You are your own first responder. I don’t know why this concept is so hard for people to grasp. No one bats an eye at the thought of having a fire extinguisher in their house – it’s common sense that if a small, manageable fire breaks out, having the tools to quickly and effectively battle that fire handy prevents massive loss later. It certainly doesn’t mean you want to pretend you’re a firefighter. Ditto having a good first aid kit – if something happens, even in the best circumstance help is going to be a few minutes away, and having tools to handle minor medical emergencies is part of a good safety net. It doesn’t you think you’re an EMT or a doctor.

Yet you mention having a firearm for self-defense and all of a sudden you’re a vigilante or a cop wanna-be. I have yet to have anyone on the anti-freedom side explain to me why having a firearm handy in case of a violent encounter is any different than having a fire extinguisher in case of fire or a first aid kit in case of accident. The firearm is a tool for a specific scenario; it is not a magic talisman to prevent violent encounters from happening but to assist you in surviving the encounter with – ideally – minimal injury to yourself.

Why do we treat self-defense as less important than fire safety or first aid?

Or the short version:


Written by BornLib

March 12, 2013 at 7:27 pm

As translated into English by Thomas Jefferson

leave a comment »

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

– Cesare Beccaria

Written by BornLib

March 11, 2013 at 7:45 pm

SAF Launches new effort to defend equality of gun ownership

leave a comment »



Press Release: SAF Launches new effort to defend equality of gun ownership

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today launched a new project aimed at promoting and protecting equality in the exercise of the individual fundamental right to keep and bear arms, with a video message for television and the internet, and a new website with a petition campaign.

President Barack Obama and his cronies have founded Organizing for Action (OFA), which is running a deplorable national media campaign aimed at lobbying Congress for additional restrictions on firearms, the primary means of self-defense for millions of law-abiding Americans. The SAF campaign will counter that effort.

“It doesn’t matter where you live, whether in the city, suburbs or a rural area,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “all law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves and their families.”

The video spot, website and campaign, produced in collaboration with Political Media, highlights the disproportionate impact of gun control laws on African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities, and how it leaves large groups unable to defend themselves, their families, or their businesses. The video shows citizens from different parts of the country commenting on their local gun laws, providing a vivid contrast between people who live in regions with laws that enable citizens to exercise their rights, and those who reside in areas with restrictive gun laws which typically have larger minority populations, including Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City.

“You won’t see President Obama or his anti-gun cohorts admitting it,” Gottlieb observed, “but the simple fact is that gun control has historically disarmed far more African Americans than any other demographic. And, as you can see in our video spot, African-Americans and other minorities are still the primary victims of gun control laws in America.

“It is unconscionable that in 2013, so-called progressives are quietly permitting laws to stand that disproportionately diminish the rights of minorities,” he continued. “The late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was blocked by segregationists when he tried to get his concealed carry permit, because they knew equal strength to defend oneself leads to societal equality. Sadly, gun control advocates today are de facto fighting for that same inequality.”

“I hope that people across this country will join us at and demand an end to this discrimination,” Gottlieb concluded. “It doesn’t matter where you live, or what kind of neighbors you have – all law abiding citizens should be able to arm and defend themselves. “

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Written by BornLib

February 28, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Two John R. Lott Jr. Op-Ed on background checks

leave a comment »

Op-Ed: The truth on background checks

Bottom line: It’s hard to believe that the percentage of sales without background checks is above single digits today.

On to Schumer’s second falsehood — the claim that checks have stopped 1.7 million prohibited sales. In fact, these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after preliminary reviews. Further review cleared at least a fifth of the other 6 percent.

Truth is, these government databases are rife with flaws. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? By Sen. Schumer’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

The flaws in the background-check system carry another price: They cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex.

Op-Ed: Misleading claims about what new proposals will do.

For a few people, these delays can make a huge difference in being able to defend themselves. Indeed, my own research suggests these delays might actually contribute to a slight net increase in violent crime, particularly rapes.

No amount of background checks on private transfers would have stopped the attacks in Connecticut, Wisconsin, or Colorado. Nor could the system possibly work without government registering all guns. And even complete gun bans in Washington and Chicago have not stopped criminals from getting guns.

But it certainly makes no sense to expand the background check system before it is fixed. Passing laws may make people feel better, but they can actually prevent people from defending themselves.

Written by BornLib

February 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm

“A free people ought to be armed.”

leave a comment »

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

– George Washington


Happy birthday George.

Written by BornLib

February 22, 2013 at 7:19 pm

Rape-free zones: They’re not just for Occupy Wall Street anymore

with one comment

Via Ace of Spades HQ: Colorado Lawmaker: Ladies, You Don’t Need a Gun, We Have Rape-Free Zones

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Now here is what we already know:

A study compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, noted that where guns or knives are used for protection by potential rape victims, the rape was completed only three percent of the time as opposed to a completion rate of thirty-two percent for rapes where no guns or knives were used by the victim.

Now these imaginary “safe-zones,” do they cut a woman’s chance of being raped by 90% like weapons do?  How about call boxes?  Whistles? No?

Why is this Democrat advocating alternate behaviors that will lead to more rapes?

Bookworm tears into him quite thoroughly: Dems are troglodytes about women and self-defense, and they’re selling this as a virtue for the next election

Written by BornLib

February 19, 2013 at 7:02 pm

What I wrote to congress today

leave a comment »

Since so many of us seem to be in a sharing mood, here is what I wrote to my senators today:

I oppose S. 33: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2013 because not only does it go against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment which makes clear an inalienable right of all good citizens, but this proposed legislation runs counter to our core principle of equality.

The citizens, who are the very targets of criminal violence and malice, should not be denied the same tools of self defense employed by law enforcement and other public servants for that very purpose. To do so is to create a rank of second class citizens defined solely by occupation. This has no place in a free, egalitarian and democratic society.

Bitter experience has shown us that capacity bans don’t prevent or mitigate mass shootings. The Rio de Janeiro school shooting made this crystal clear.

In contrast, to the informed, there is no doubt as the the defensive utility of magazines of capacity higher than 10. Over and over we have seen law enforcement overwhelmed by riots and natural disasters, leaving citizens without police protection from violent mobs and gangs. Against such overwhelming force it was the high capacity magazine fed rifle, not the double barreled shotgun, that preserved them.

I wrote it in a way that I hoped would appeal to Brown as well as Portman.

Written by BornLib

February 4, 2013 at 5:20 pm