National CCW debate reveals hypocrisy of gun control lobby

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner | 15 September, 2011 | Dave Workman

[marktwain]

With this week’s debate over federal concealed carry reciprocity legislation, the gun prohibitionist lobby – which sadly appears to include some law enforcement officials – has revealed (once again) that hypocrisy rather than bedrock is at its foundation.

To wit: Suddenly gun control advocates have become states’ rights advocates.

On Monday, a coalition of 600 mayors, along with police organizations, domestic violence groups, and prosecutors, announced a campaign to defend the states’ rights to decide who can carry concealed weapons. In less than five days more than 45,000 signed a petition against the bill.—SecurityManagement.com

Not that we disagree, but so now, according to the gun ban lobby, each state should have the right to regulate firearms the way it sees fit, eh?

How does that square with the on-going – albeit consistently unsuccessful – effort to renew the nationwide ban on so-called “assault weapons?”

How does this new political positioning stack up to the National Instant Check System (NICS)?

What about the campaign for federal legislation to close the so-called “gun show loophole”; nothing “states’ rights” about that.

[marktwain]

First, the correct nomenclature should be states "powers" not "states rights". States do not have rights, only individuals have rights.

The idea of states rights is just another collectivist word game designed to confuse the issue. Unfortunately, we have gotten used to the nomenclature.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Let’s see if we can get them to roll over for national Constitutional carry!

[marktwain]

Let’s see if we can get them to roll over for national Constitutional carry!

Yes, and we should be looking longterm for reciprocity with Canada and Mexico, and anyone else we have a freetrade pact with.

[RonF]

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. It is as much a civil right as the right to free speech, the right to a free press, the right to practice one’s religion freely, and so on down the line. It’s right there in the Constitution.

So - from now on, we should label “Gun control” people as “anti-civil rights activists”.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I am dubious about federal involvement in this. States reach reciprocity agreements because they want to, or not.

So what if the federal government decides that all States must honor homosexual marriages from the half dozen States that allow it? That is reciprocity as well.

It also opens the door to the onerous REAL ID, that most States don’t want. Recognition of other States licenses is also reciprocity.

The list goes on and on. It is just better to keep the federal’s nose out of it.

[Dead Corpse]

“Shall not be infringed” is the “Supreme law of the Land”. If you come for my guns, I will kill you.

[dragnet2]

Any legitimate, law abiding citizen, who is denied the ability to quickly, readily, legally carry CW, in *any* state, should be able to sue the government for damages, including being barred from using every means available for the safety and security of themselves and their families.

The arrogance of government at all levels, should be enough to make every American recoil.

[Brass Lamp]

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. It is as much a civil right as the right to free speech, the right to a free press, the right to practice one’s religion freely, and so on down the line. It’s right there in the Constitution.

Those are all natural rights which enjoy civil protection. The notion of "civil rights" originates on the left.

[nonsporting]

Let’s see if we can get them to roll over for national Constitutional carry!

Yes, and we should be looking longterm for reciprocity with Canada and Mexico, and anyone else we have a freetrade pact with.

The Feds have jump started a freetrade program (with Mexico) with "Gun Walker" and illegal immigration. How progressive.