While reading an unrelated weblog, I saw an interesting mention that New Hampshire was one state where voters would be deciding on a proposed amendment to the constitution. I am always suspicious of ballot questions that I have not heard about (usually a sure sign that some group is trying to trick the voters by avoiding debate and then presenting just those sections of the amended constitution or statute that make the change appear to be a good idea), so I searched a bit. I found one comment against the amendment on the Nashua telegraph's website.
The description of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision does not quite agree with the Wikipedia article, neglecting to mention the role of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which is very interesting (and was apparently not accurately presented by either side in the case):
In her most recent column in American Hunter magazine (unfortunately not yet posted to the NRA's website, they still have the October column):
the President of the National Rifle Association attacks Nancy Pelosi not only for her dismal anti-second amendment record, but also because she apparently opposes the current government's efforts to strip away our constitutional rights. President Fromer states that Representative Pelosi "opposes programs our government uses to track down terrorists and stop their attacks". And, before her concluding paragraphs exhorting NRA members to vote for freedom and for "the vision our Founding Fathers had when they risked their lives, their futures and their sacred honor to create the greatest, freest country in the world", she states that "Pelosi and her fellow extremists, who are hoping to take control, oppose our national security efforts. . . ."
Apparently, Paul Hodes feels confident enough that he can afford to throw away some number of votes from New Hampshire gun enthusiasts. The most recent copy of American Hunter indicates that Hodes did not answer the NRA's candidate questionnaire, so they mark him with a question mark and suggest that he is either indifferent or hostile to gun rights. On his website, Hodes states:
"My priorities for protecting our personal freedoms are . . . . Supporting the Second Amendment rights of sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners from federal intrusion."
Yet another school shooting rampage, and yet again the Brady Campaign can't resist exploiting the tragedy to push their gun ban agenda, regardless of whether whatever "common sense" restriction is currently fashionable with them would have done anything at all to prevent the tragedy. http://www.bradycampaign.org/
Ahhh, it's a simple problem, just place strict limitations on who can obtain dangerous weapons to make it harder for "the wrong person to get deadly weapons". The recent Dawson College shootings in Canada suggest that it may not be so simple to determine who "the wrong person" is; the perpetrator, Kimveer Gill, apparently passed whatever qualifications were required to buy and register the Beretta Storm carbine he used (a "restricted" weapon in Canada). http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Looking beyond idealistic "It was committed with guns, so stricter gun laws will magically stop any event such as this from ever happening again" reasoning pushed by the Bradys, one wonders what can be done.