By KEVIN MCCABE
The Second Amendment is not a footnote in our Constitution; it is a promise. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These are deliberate words from our Founders. They meant what they wrote. They understood that the right to bear arms was not granted by government, but a natural right of men that must be recognized by that government. It is a natural, God-given right, fundamental to liberty and self-governance.
Alaskans know this instinctively. We live in a place where self-reliance is not a slogan but a way of life. Firearms are not symbols; they are tools of survival and security. Yet even in Alaska, legislation has emerged that seeks to undercut this right, not through outright bans, but through clever language and incremental encroachment. This year, two bills in the Thirty-Fourth Legislature, HB 134 and HB 89, are nibbling at the edges.
HB 134, introduced by Representative Carrick, is titled the “Alaska Child Access Prevention and Secure Storage of Firearms Act.” While it seems to promote responsible gun storage, it goes further. It amends existing laws and creates a new criminal offense that holds gun owners legally accountable if a minor or prohibited person uses their firearm to commit a crime. Though it stops short of confiscation, it lays the foundation for a legal structure that mirrors so-called “Red Flag” laws. It moves responsibility away from the individual committing the crime and places it on the law-abiding gun owner, a significant and dangerous precedent.
HB 89, introduced by Representative Josephson, creates “gun violence protective orders” that allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to remove firearms if someone is deemed a threat. These orders can be issued without the gun owner’s presence and require the surrender of firearms within 24 hours. Twenty-four hours, in Alaska? Violations carry stiff penalties, including jail time and heavy fines. This firearm confiscation without due process is not safety, it is big government control.
The Founding Fathers warned us about such measures. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own land.” Patrick Henry declared at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” They did not believe the right to bear arms should be handed out selectively by the state. They believed it was inherent to the dignity and sovereignty of a free citizen.
George Mason, also at the Virginia Convention, stated plainly, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” John Adams, quoting Cesare Beccaria, considered the father of modern criminal law and criminal justice, warned that laws forbidding arms “disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” He added that such laws “make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” These are warnings written in blood and experience.
The American Revolution began with British efforts to disarm the colonies. In 1775, General Gage ordered the seizure of weapons in Boston, with thousands of muskets and pistols taken from the people. The Founders never forgot that. They lived the reality that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Their solution was clear: the citizen must be armed, both for self-defense and as a check on government power.
That dual purpose is embedded in the Second Amendment. James Madison, in Federalist No. 46, wrote of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” He understood the link between personal liberty and national sovereignty.
These are the principles that shaped our nation. They should be the same principles that guide Alaska’s Legislature today. Yet HB 134 and HB 89 disregard them. They prioritize theoretical safety over constitutional certainty and open the door to abuse, placing power in the hands of judges and petitioners without the presence or knowledge of the accused. They presume guilt and seize property before any crime has occurred.
In rural Alaska, the implications are even more severe. Law enforcement may be hours or days away. Court systems are distant, and legal representation is scarce. The practical result of these bills is not increased safety; it is the criminalization of responsible firearm ownership and the erosion of liberty for those who live farthest from government services.
History is full of warnings. In the 20th century alone, governments that disarmed their citizens:
Turkey in 1911,
Russia in 1929,
Germany in 1938
All paved the way for atrocities that cost millions of lives. The pattern is always the same: disarm, then dominate. While we often assume that such tragedies cannot happen here, the Founders knew better. Their solution for this eventuality was the Second Amendment.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. That ruling, like the Amendment itself, is not subject to Alaska reinterpretation or legislative dilution.
The right to bear arms is not something to be balanced against the whims of political pressure or temporary fears. It is a bedrock of a free society. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to his nephew in 1785, “Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Not because violence is inevitable, but because freedom must be preserved.”
In Alaska, where isolation and wilderness are part of life, that right is essential. HB 134 and HB 89 may appear measured and moderate, but they start us down a path we cannot afford to walk. They represent a retreat from the vision of our Founders, from the realities of our state, and from the rights of our people.
We must reject them.
The Constitution is not a suggestion.
The Second Amendment is not conditional.
In Alaska, we will not be disarmed.
Despite what you may hear from Alaska Gun Rights, Representative McCabe is an ardent supporter of the second amendment, he is a shooter, a reloader and a hunter. He serves in the Alaska House where he represents District 30.
“Gun Safety” is enemy code for citizen disarment.
All U.S. citizens should have the right to keep and bare arms except, mentally challenged, convicted felons, children, illegal aliens, people who have made documented threats encompassing the use of a gun.
What I hear you saying is Democrats should not be allowed to own guns?
😉
No guns for non-violent felons?
Trump is considering pardoning all non-violent felons so they can vote and bear arms.
Once they’ve served their punishment should they be banned from voting and possessing firearms for life?
I say no.
And no I’m not a felon – I just believe in freedom.
Going to have to disagree with you on that front… partly. Kind of. Owning and using a firearm is not a casual responsibility.
.
If you are a felon, even one that committed a non-violent felony, that demonstrates a very poor level of responsibility and decision making. Simply serving your time does not mean your ability to remain law abiding and responsible (stress the responsible) has been restored to the level of non-felons.
.
The real test is not “did they do their time.” It is did they spend their time outside of prison living within the law, and demonstrating they are, in fact, law abiding and responsible. A blanket “it is OK, go ahead and get a gun” is not the right way to do it.
.
Fictional example here, but do you think Jordon Belfort from the Wolf of Wall Street is a law abiding and responsible individual, even after he was caught and did his time?
Voting it not a casual responsibility. Yet we have low-IQ voters pulling the lever and voting for people like sleepy joe. Voting really has no vetting or background checks to ensure they eligible to vote. Make voting like buying a gun from a store and see how many heads explode.
Oh… I agree totally and completely.
If there was some way to test voters for current affairs knowledge before allowing a vote, i would be all for it. But, the closest we can get is in-person, one day only, voting. The logic is if you are interested enough in the election to actually go and vote at a polling place on a specific day, you likely have a minimal level of current events knowledge. (And, I will openly admit I am being overly optimistic on that front.)
.
As to voting, that is also a right that the felon knowingly ceded access to when they chose to break the law. I do not agree with allowing felons who have served their time to get their voting rights restored solely because the have gotten out of the big house. Have the demonstrated responsible behavior? if not, no vote either.
CBMTTeK, you should pick up a copy of the book “Three Felonies a Day” by Silverglate. It might be an eye opener for you. The writer contends that the average US citizen commits that many major societal sins on average per day. If the system wants you, the system will find a way.
Familiar with it.
I also recommend searching for a paper called “Ham Sandwich Nation” It is available on the ‘net as a .pdf.
Apparently the game is for law school students to convict a ham sandwich of a felony. And, turns out it is possible.
.
However, that is not my point, and your referencing of that book implies you realize it.
There is a HUGE difference between committing three felonies inadvertently and without your knowledge, and actually doing something egregious enough to get convicted. The first, if you even get caught, will result in a smack on the wrist at best. (Unless you are a former President. Then it results in 34 guilty convictions). Getting convicted implies you knowingly violated the law. Ergo, you have demonstrated you are not responsible.
Your correct once released from prison they need to be made whole citizens again and have returned all the rights and powers of a citizen they have satisfied the debt handed to them for the crime committed if the prison saw fit to let them out, either through time served or reform they need the basic tools to reasseimilate into american society and their local communities the 3 greatest tools for self-defense in America, are free speech, the right to vote and the right to bear arms.
There are over 500 years of restrictive gun control laws on the books. To date, every single one of them says almost exactly the same thing:
“You, a law abiding and responsible individual, should not be allowed to own an item because someone you have never met, might use a similar item to commit a crime.”
.
Every single one of them has made innocent people into criminals because of actions taken on the part of others. Every single one.
.
And… here we are, once again. A new bill introduced that makes the gun owner responsible for a crime they did not commit. Despite claims otherwise, there will be zero crimes stopped by this law, if it passes. The only want to enforce the law is to arrest the gun owner after the crime is committed.
Everyone seems to miss the salient point. With approximately 1/2 billion firearms in private hands in the United States foreign powers would not dare invade. The militia evolves from the people.
Radical leftists, indeed diehard statists of all stripes, hate individual gun ownership because they hate the very idea of self-defense, and personal autonomy in general. For them, nothing is meaningful or legitimate if the government is not involved (meaning, governmental coercion).
Correct.
The leftists will always advocate for recreational drugs, sexual expression of all kinds, and gluttony. (see body positive).
Leftists will also fight stringently against personal ownership of arms.
.
The first is a way for the government to control the masses. The second is a way for the masses to control the government. And, since leftists are adamant they should be in charge, and having childlike intellect they cannot handle any form of disagreement, they will always push for both of the above.
Despite what you may hear from Kevin McCabe, his record does not support his rhetoric when it comes to actually voting on gun rights. More here: ‘https://alaskagunrights.org/vote-against-kevin-mccabe/
I did an AI search.Background of Representative Kevin McCabe
• Personal and Professional Background:
• Kevin McCabe is a Republican representative for Alaska House District 30 (formerly District 8), covering the Big Lake area. A nearly lifelong Alaskan, he is married to Linn McCabe, a conservative activist since 2008. He is retired from the U.S. Coast Guard, holds a Bachelor of Science and an MBA, and flew Boeing 747s for Atlas Air until retirement (Kevin McCabe Official Website, Alaska House Majority).
• Elected in 2020 for District 8 and 2022 for District 30 after redistricting, he won re-election in November 2024 (Ballotpedia – Kevin McCabe).
• Political Stance:
• McCabe is a staunch conservative, advocating limited government, fiscal restraint, and constitutional rights. His writings emphasize the Second Amendment as a God-given, natural right to counter tyranny, not just for hunting or sport (Must Read Alaska – Gun Safety).
• He opposes bills like HB 134 and HB 89, viewing them as incremental gun control, and sees the Second Amendment as protecting the First, ensuring free speech and assembly (Must Read Alaska – First and Second Amendments).
Investigation of Rick McClure’s Accusations
Rick McClure, President of Alaska Gun Rights (AGR), in his November 1, 2024, email, accuses Representative Kevin McCabe of anti-gun votes, including empowering government to shut down gun stores, ignoring red-flag confiscation bans, and earning “2A Traitor” status. Below, each claim is evaluated using McCabe’s writings, legislative records, and Linn McCabe’s perspective.
1. Accusation: Voted to Give the Government Power to Shut Down Gun Stores
• Claim: McClure alleges McCabe voted for House Bill 61 (HB 61) in 2023, granting the government power to shut down gun stores during emergencies.
• Evidence:
• McCabe’s Position: McCabe’s articles don’t directly address HB 61, but he strongly supports the Second Amendment, vowing to fight any legislation limiting gun rights (Kevin McCabe Official Website). Linn McCabe defends HB 61, noting it was Speaker Cathy Tilton’s bill, co-sponsored by Kevin McCabe, and backed by the NRA to prevent gun store closures during emergencies, like Anchorage’s 2020 COVID shutdowns, unless all businesses are closed (Must Read Alaska – Linn McCabe).
• Legislative Record: HB 61, passed in 2023, protects gun stores, ranges, and sporting goods stores from being singled out for closure during emergencies, signed into law July 29, 2023 (Alaska State Legislature – HB 61, Fox News – HB 61 Signing). AGR and McClure later opposed it, claiming it allows closures, ignoring the “all businesses” caveat (Alaska Gun Rights – Wall of Shame).
• Context: Linn McCabe argues AGR’s opposition was retribution after Representative David Eastman’s exclusion from the Majority Caucus and Judiciary Committee, not a genuine 2A concern.
• Finding: FALSE. McCabe co-sponsored HB 61, a pro-gun bill protecting stores from selective closure, directly contradicting McClure’s claim. AGR’s critique misrepresents the law’s intent, which aligns with McCabe’s staunch 2A support.
2. Accusation: Ignored Legislation to Ban All Red-Flag Confiscation
• Claim: McClure asserts McCabe refused to co-sponsor and undermined House Bill 152 (HB 152), breaking a campaign promise to ban red-flag gun confiscation.
• Evidence:
• McCabe’s Position: McCabe vehemently opposes red-flag laws, calling HB 89 a “significant overreach” that violates the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by allowing firearm confiscation without due process, based on subjective “reasonable belief” (Must Read Alaska – Red Flag Law). He cites the lack of evidence for effectiveness and risks to rural Alaskans, pledging to reject such bills (Must Read Alaska – Gun Safety).
• Legislative Record: HB 152, introduced by David Eastman in 2021, aimed to ban state enforcement of federal red-flag laws but stalled in committee with no final vote (Alaska State Legislature – HB 152). AGR claims McCabe refused co-sponsorship and opposed it, but no vote or debate record confirms this (Alaska Gun Rights – News).
• Campaign Promise: No evidence of McCabe’s survey response or promise exists in his writings or public records. His consistent opposition to red-flag laws (e.g., HB 89) suggests alignment with bans.
• Finding: MISLEADING. Lack of co-sponsorship for HB 152 may be accurate, but no evidence shows McCabe undermined it. Lack of co-sponsor does not indicate no support in most legislatures. His strong stance against red-flag laws, as in HB 89, implies support for bans, contradicting “ignoring” claims. The “broken promise” lacks substantiation.
3. Accusation: “2A Traitor” Status on Wall of Shame
• Claim: McClure labels McCabe a “2A Traitor” on AGR’s “Wall of Shame,” citing anti-gun votes like tabling a campus carry amendment and refusing the 2024 AGR survey.
• Evidence:
• McCabe’s Position: McCabe champions the Second Amendment as essential for liberty, self-defense, and deterring tyranny, opposing any infringement (Must Read Alaska – Gun Safety, Must Read Alaska – First and Second Amendments). Linn McCabe defends him as a shooter, reloader, and hunter, highlighting his pro-2A record (Must Read Alaska – Linn McCabe).
• Legislative Record: AGR claims McCabe voted to table a pro-2A budget amendment for campus carry, but no amendment number or vote details are provided (Alaska Gun Rights – News). His support for HB 61 and opposition to HB 89 and HB 134 show a pro-gun stance.
• Survey Refusal: AGR alleges McCabe refused their 2024 survey, plausible but unverified, as no response is documented.
• Context: Linn McCabe argues AGR, tied to Eastman and led by Rick and Jerad McClure, attacks pro-2A legislators like McCabe for not aligning with Eastman, suggesting political retribution over genuine 2A issues.
• Finding: True but inaccurate in scope. McCabe is on the “Wall of Shame,” and survey refusal is plausible. However, his consistent pro-2A votes and writings contradict the “2A Traitor” label, which seems driven by AGR’s feud with legislators not fully backing Eastman.
Conclusion
• Summary of Findings:
• Gun Store Shutdowns: False. McCabe co-sponsored HB 61 to protect gun stores, not enable closures, refuting McClure’s claim.
• Red-Flag Legislation: Partially true but misleading. No proof McCabe undermined HB 152, and his opposition to red-flag laws like HB 89 aligns with supporting bans.
• Wall of Shame: True, but the anti-gun portrayal is inaccurate, given McCabe’s strong 2A record and writings.
• Assessment: Rick McClure’s accusations are largely unfounded or exaggerated. McCabe’s articles and legislative actions demonstrate unwavering Second Amendment support, clashing with AGR’s narrative. Linn McCabe suggests AGR’s attacks stem from political grudges, particularly tied to Representative Eastman, not McCabe’s actual record.
And yet, Jerad, your boss David Eastman, co-sponsored the EXACT same bill the year before.
So what changed?
Oh yeah – he was pissed at Tilton so he and your dad concocted a reason, against all legal advice – and against the NRA, to line up against the bill which was the flagship bill of the NRA in both years. You and your dad can continue to lie, or you can just admit you are wrong. Matters not to me.
‘https://www.akleg.gov/PDF/32/Bills/HB0179A.PDF
For those who are still reading, HB61 (and HB179 the year before) were equity in commerce bills, nothing more. All they did was require that gun stores (commerce) be treated the same as any other store. If the mayor kept his restaurant open then he needed to keep gun stores open. There are laws that give mayors the right to shut down commerce in an emergency. ALL commerce if necessary. Gun stores are commerce. Your argument is ridiculous, but typical of a NAGR associated group. No wonder no serious gun group, or gun owners, will have anything to do with you.
ps, thanks for the research TTAK. Who knew all of that stuff.
Jerad, Holy smokes, you are a perfect example why we have commie/ democrats running our State. This bickering and bitching amongst ourselves divide us and weaken us. Doing so allows the evil commie bastards to gain control. Enough already! Quit it with the purity tests against your fellow Republicans. Work in solidarity with those of like mind, differing yet finding a compromise amongst ourselves so that Liberty can be maintained.
BTW, this isn’t an endorsement of McCabe, I’m predisposed to not liking him, I’m not sure why I do but by Jove, I’ll support him when he is on the right path. McCabe is largely on your side you knucklehead, lets work together, okay?
Columbine, Uvalde, Sandy Hook …
And, your point?
In each and every one of the cases you cite, the guns were properly locked up. This law would not have prevented any of them. In fact, had Nancy Lanza been irresponsible and not locked up the guns, she would likely still be alive today. But, her loony son murdered her first in order to access the gun safe.
.
Seriously. If you wanted to point out how this proposed law might actually help, you could not have chosen a worse example to cite.
Random place #1, Random Place #2, Random Place #3 …. Random Place #10,433,695, Random Place #10,433,696, Random Place #10,433,697, …..
All three gun control zones.
And when seconds counted for armed response by law enforcement, they were minutes away. Didn’t they wait over a half an hour outside the school at Uvalde because they were waiting for either backup or the perp to run out of bullets? Cheers –
Yup.
Gun free zones.
That’s where cowards go for mass shootings – where guns are prohibited.
That’s funny…
“In Alaska, we will not be disarmed.”
We’re already disarmed.
What happens if you drink a beer with a sidearm?
AK law disarms you before you crack that frosty open.
What happens if you go into a bar, or virtually any state government building?
AK law disarms you before you get out of your car.
What happens if you pick your kids up at school – or attend classes at UA?
Alaska law disarms you before you drive on campus.
What happens if you’re pulled over for speeding with a sidearm?
You’re required to declare – and SURRENDER your firearm to the trooper/police.
How about, what happens if you go into the State Capital with a sidearm?
Go ahead and try – they have metal detectors and armed security to make sure THEY are safe from YOU.
It takes a lot more than shooting and reloading to be a 2nd Amendment advocate – especially when you’re elected to office.
Elected Representatives advance and defend our rights in three ways that the rest of us cannot:
Vote YEA for bills that expand and protect our rights.
Vote NAY for bills that infringe upon our rights.
Sponsor (write and offer on our behalf) legislation that expands and protects our rights.
We’re five years into Kevin’s political career; two years were in the majority. We’re still waiting for legislation to repeal the laws disarming law abiding Alaskans when they have a beer with dinner, eat dinner in a bar, pick their kids up at school – attend night school on a UA campus.
You’ll find a lot of photos of hard-left politicians hunting, shooting, and reloading. They might even write an op-ed about doing so. Tampon Tim, from Kevin’s home state, has plenty of videos on the internet of him shooting guns. Owning, shooting, and reloading guns doesn’t make either Tim or Kevin ardent defenders of the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry Kevin, writing and fighting for bills that advance and protect our 2nd Amendment rights – during session – is what makes a 2nd Amendment Champion.
Writing op-eds in Republican echo-chambers after session ends does nothing for our right to keep and bear arms.
Pat…
No. Not true.
Want to have a beer while carrying… go ahead. Not illegal. It is, however, a very, very stupid thing to do.
Want to go into a restaurant that also sells alcohol? Go ahead and carry into it. However, do not sit at the bar, as that implies you are there to drink, not eat.
Government buildings that have security can choose a no firearms allowed policy as well.
Schools are covered under the Gun Free School Zone act, a federal law, not an AK law.
If you are pulled over for speeding while carrying a firearm, yes, you have to declare to the police officer you are carrying. And, if the officer requests it, you are to surrender your firearm. The officer will return it to you after you get your ticket, if they even take it in the first place. To date, I know of now concealed carrier that has lost their gun because of a speeding ticket. In fact, the folks I know that have had traffic infractions generally report the cop says to just leave it in place.
.
I am guessing you have read the regulations, but you do not understand the regulations, or the laws the regulations implement. Speak with an attorney about this. There are plenty that shoot and carry.
What happens if you drink a beer with a sidearm? AK law disarms you before you crack that frosty open.
* can’t drink and drive either. In Alaska, however, you can go to a restaurant, carry concealed, and have a meal. You just can’t drink.
What happens if you go into a bar, or virtually any state government building? AK law disarms you before you get out of your car.
* see above for the bar. Any business owner is allowed to restrict firearms in their building. Carry one in there, and all you will get is trespassed. Same with state buildings, they will just kick you out on a trespass.
What happens if you pick your kids up at school – or attend classes at UA? Alaska law disarms you before you drive on campus.
* see above for UA, it is a trespass if they catch you, nothing more. But it is federal law that governs schools, regardless of what McCabe ever did or did not do to change that.
What happens if you’re pulled over for speeding with a sidearm?You’re required to declare – and SURRENDER your firearm to the trooper/police.
* Simply not true. In Alaska, there is no “Duty to Surrender” – Alaska law does not mandate that you automatically surrender your firearm when pulled over. You do hava a “Duty to Inform” so if you are carrying a concealed firearm, you must immediately notify the officer. And You must cooperate if the officer chooses to secure the firearm for safety during the stop. And the officer may temporarily take possession for their safety, but this is not a permanent surrender and it is only if he feels unsafe. I have been stopped many times while carrying concealed. It has never been a problem.
How about, what happens if you go into the State Capital with a sidearm?
* Nothing. They will simply ask you to return it to your car, or they will lock it up for you. Can’t carry on a cruise ship or through an airport either. What is your point?
Damn.
Savage.
Thanks for keeping it real
You are right.
McCabe, what says you – don’t talk about it – you’re in a position to eliminate some of the unfounded restrictions the State has out on us gun owners.
If a driver parks his car, leaves it unlocked with the key in the ignition, and a criminal uses it to run over people on the sidewalks, the car owner must be held unaccountable?
Really?
Reggie, do you think of a pretty lady wears a dress it’s her fault if she gets raped? Really?
No, but if she’s walking publicly naked? Yeah, that should be considered partly responsible. In short, firearms get regulated……..”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Regulated. Regulated well. Where are soldier’s rifles and ordnance stored, Steve? Does it get laid around? Really?
No. It goes to the armory.
Really………….
Reggie,
Thank you for your response. You have removed any doubt as to your ability to formulate and share thoughts.
A naked woman deserves to be raped and is responsible for it. Really, that’s what you just wrote. And you want to pretend to have an informed discussion about gun control?
“…….And you want to pretend to have an informed discussion about gun control?…….”
Yeah, Steve, I sure do. It was you who feebly turned my analogy of a driver leaving his car unlocked and key in ignition being partly responsible for a jacker using said car to harm others into the silly pretty girl being raped because she’s pretty. This “debate” attempt is as irresponsible as laaving your car unlocked with the key in the ignition.
An average of 400 kids per year are killed in the US annually with unsecured firearms. I understand your fear of legal abuse by the left over gun safety regulations, because we all know that’s exactly what will happen (because the left abuses everything legally), but it’s my opinion that unsecured firearms are dangerous, and I’m accustomed to military regulation. The right being irresponsible with the argument that the left is irresponsible is………wait for it………….irresponsible.
That, Steve, is an informed discussion.
Reggie, I was actually going to defend your vehicle analogy. Right up until I read this.
.
And, you lost my support. From what I can tell, you are just another gun control moron, who thinks no one (but yourself) is responsible enough to own guns safely.
.
I initially thought your car analogy was pointing out the ridiculousness of the left’s argument, and the futile nature of this law, but now I see you actually believe it. Sorry bro, you are on the wrong side here.
.
The person who uses a stolen car to commit another crime holds full responsibility for both crimes. The person who uses an unsecured gun they do not have the right to access for a crime is the only one responsible. And, the pretty lady is never at fault in any way for actions taken by a rapist. It does not matter if she is fully clothed or naked.
Victim blaming is what simple minded people do.
Reg,
Your attempt to equate leaving keys in a car to gun ownership is the equivalent of your belief that it’s ok to rape naked women. Somehow you are unable to see the equivalence even after having made your “analogy”. You support raping naked women but are somehow morally aghast at gun ownership or leaving keys in vehicles…that’s one strange moral compass there, bud.
In other words your “analogy” shows your argument isn’t to be taken seriously because you have no point nor understanding of the scope of the debate. You apparently believe inanimate objects are inherently evil and the person who uses inanimate objects aren’t to be held to account for their actions, all while thinking that naked women are objects to be violated and they are responsible for the actions of those who violate them.
Simply put you have no credibility on this subject whatsoever due to the opinion you’ve shared here. I thank you for being so honest with your beliefs, as shocking and morally repugnant as they are.
Absolutely not. She has the right to bare arms….
The scandal of federal and state laws concerning firearms is not that we have too few laws, but that the courts are not holding the accused gun criminals in jails, nor are the courts sentencing to prison many of the criminals who are convicted of being in possession and using firearms. For example, the accusation of racism is being used by political activists who favor an ‘equitable’ racial representation in prison populations, and now too many irresponsible judges are suspending the stipulated prison sentences for felony gun crimes. Until this and other grave prosecutorial and judicial defects are corrected, let us not suppose that any new law will move the needle a millimeter closer to a ‘gun-safe’ society.
((Andy Josephson)), no surprise there, his track record earns the stereo type.
So cut to the chase already.
.
Shall we, or shall we not, obey HB 134 & 89 when vetoes are overridden and each becomes law?
Both proposed laws are tired, shopworn anti-gun strategies. Both are obviously unconstitutional. In many jurisdictions, divorce lawyers automatically file restraining orders against men in divorce cases, even when there has been no threat of violence. Those orders would generally trigger “red flag” laws.
The goal of both bills is simply to remove as many guns from private individuals as possible, although democrats, being dishonest people by nature, would never actually come out and say so.
We all know that laws like these don’t help anyone but gun grabbing left wingers. If you are serious about making guns safe around kids, you would make an effort to gun proof ever kid. How to do that?
Well for starters you could teach the kids about gun safety. That would help eliminate the mystery and curiosity, of firearms. The best place to do that is in a school setting. These classes should be taught every year in school from about 4th grade through 12th.
So if you are sincerely looking for a true method to help stop most children accidents related to firearms, that is the most direct method that works. Especially since firearms are present in most Alaskan homes, and vehicles.
That is a practical method to gun proof all of our children. It addresses the issue at the source. Our children are well worth the effort. The schools can have technical assistance with the training course and information to be taught through our Fish & Game Hunter Safety Program, and/or through the National Rifle Association. It’s a real world assist for a real world problem. Let’s protect our children, and stop promoting anti gun agendas of the left, that end in tragedy.