Am I 'skating near the legal edge of making threats of violence'?

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 15 January, 2010 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

© 2010 Publishers Development Corporation

My column "The Perfect Storm," dealing with Hillary Clinton's reversal of U.S. policy to accept the UN's Arms Trade Treaty, appears in the March issue of GUNS Magazine, now on sale at news stands and also online. Every month, the magazine posts its current issue in digital form, accessible by clicking on the flash icon in the upper-right section of their home page. For those of you on dial-up or with older computers, you can still read my current column and many of the other features via traditional html web pages by scrolling down and clicking on links.

But that's not what I want to talk about.

Early on when I began writing about Second Amendment issues, I found that being criticized in print was every bit as satisfying as being published--and a reader who sent a letter to the editor that's printed in the new issue's "Crossfire" section (page six) does not disappoint. To understand what he's upset about, you first need to read my January column, "The Most Dangerous Game" (sorry, this one is only available in the flash edition--from the "Rights Watch" page, click on the "January" link).

To summarize, MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow said she enjoys shooting, but thinks we should not be "allowed" to take our guns home from the range. And leftist cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall had this to say about armed citizens in public who had conducted themselves peacefully and broken no laws:

[Badray]

Really? It’s just you and me here. No one else will see your answer? LOL

[Badray]

When someone shows up at your door to disarm you, does it matter if he doesn’t like the job that he was ordered to do?

If he does what a politician orders and is in direct violation of his oath to protect and defend the people and the Constitution, what makes him my friend?

If the day ever comes, they (and you*) will have to make a decision that will be life altering, no matter what they decide. Everyone will have to make tough decisions.

*If I remember correctly, you are a police officer, right?

[TigersEye]

Water board me. ;^)

[dcwusmc]

The sad fact is, our side is going to have to take the first hit. We CANNOT afford to lose the moral high ground by giving FedGov a Fort Sumter. When they open the ball we are absolved from any further obedience to an immoral and outlaw government.

[Badray]

LOL

You’re too anxious. I think that you’d like it.

[Badray]

You’re right, of course.

[philetus]

People with crime in their minds don’t use guns for lawful purposes, and aren’t deterred by “gun control” laws.”

Exactly why the gun laws are not aimed at criminals.The govt. is not scared of the criminals.
He!!, lots of them are friends and relatives.

[dcwusmc]

Yeah, but I sure wish I wasn’t!!!

[shibumi]

"What is so terrible about law-abiding citizens owning guns to exercise their right, given to them by law, to defend themselves?"

The right to self defense in not given by law. It is recognized by the law as an unalienable right endowed in men by their Creator.

There's a reason for this hair-splitting. What is given by law can be taken by law. Your right to self defense is something the totalitarians would like you to believe the law gave you, as they change that very law at a whim.

[Badray]

You should be used to being right by now.

[dcwusmc]

Dunno about THAT, but I am used to being Wright by now.

[Badray]

LOL

If you are ever wrong, I’ll let you know.