ShareThis Page

Gunning for your rights

| Saturday, Feb. 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Mental midgets of the tallest order (aka gun grabbers) are reaching new lows in their campaign against legal firearms:

• Legislation in at least a half-a-dozen states (including Pennsylvania) would require gun owners to buy liability insurance. That is, government would make gun ownership, a constitutional right, contingent upon your ability to pay an insurance premium. What's next, mandatory, government-ordered insurance for church attendance, speaking in public, posting on the Internet or tweeting, publishing anything, peaceably assembling and petitioning the government to redress one's grievances?

• The Pennsylvania legislation — House Bill 521, introduced on Feb. 5 — would require a $1 million liability policy as a condition of being given a concealed carry permit. And it would allow police to roust any gun carrier at any time to produce proof of insurance — and not merely if you're carrying on your person but, by extension, if you're transporting it in your vehicle. Sans proof of insurance, the government would be allowed to confiscate your guns. Not only is this a Second Amendment nose-thumbing, it violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

• The ignorami argue that such provisions are no different than requiring automobile or homeowners insurance, never mind that operating a motor vehicle and home ownership are not constitutional rights. They also argue that even the National Rifle Association offers gun liability insurance and more than a few people carry gun insurance of their own volition. Indeed it does and some do — but it's voluntary.

• Wonder how many criminals with hot guns will call State Farm?

• Not to be outdone, Democrats in the Washington state Senate thrice since 2009 have introduced bills that would allow annual warrantless searches of homes containing what the state deems to be “assault weapons” and to make sure they are “secured” the way the state deems, too. The latest version was introduced this month. But public outcry forced the offending provision's withdrawal. Federal and state constitutions are dead letters to Evergreen State “progressives.”

• Adding ignorance to buffoonery, Vice President Joe Biden says a shotgun is more accurate and easier to handle than an AR-15. And, by golly, the veep says he's instructed wife Jill to counter any “problem” at the heavily fortified, Secret Service-guarded veep conclave with two blasts from the family's double-barreled shotgun.“You don't need an AR-15,” he said. “It's harder to aim, it's harder to use and, in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”

Obviously, Mr. Biden has never fired the .22-caliber AR-15 semiautomatic. Had he, he'd know it is indeed more accurate, far easier to handle and would not knock Mrs. Veep on her behind the way a shotgun would. And Joe Biden calls himself a Pennsylvania native.

• And finally, Garry McCarthy, the superintendent of police in Chicago — the nation's poster city for proving that more gun laws don't lead to reduced gun crime — says the Second Amendment limits citizens to owning only smooth-bore muskets. By that standard, the First Amendment limits printing presses to those of manual operation capable of printing only one side of one sheet at a time — and would offer no protection to Mr. McCarthy's ignorant assessment, spoken on Chicago's WLS-AM radio.

Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.