Written by Spencer Aland


Far too often people think the solution to solving gun crime is to just take all guns away instead of developing ways to be able to track down illegally used guns. Well instead of spending money to print out new paperwork for legal gun owners some police forces are developing technology to track down illegal guns. The new system is called ‘ShotSpotter’ and it uses highly sensitive microphones designed to pick up specific gun shot sounds within city limits. The system uses these microphones in different locations to triangulate within a few blocks where a gun has been shot, all within a few seconds.


The system is great in the fight on gun crime because it can often alert police before anyone can call 911. There is no invasion of privacy because it only targets the illegal use of weapons within city limits, and if a law abiding citizen has to defend themselves with their firearm the police will be able to come and assist them more quickly.


This is what the government needs to be spending more time and money on- systems and tools to fight illegal gun use and gun crime, and not legal gun owners.

Written by Spencer Aland


A New Jersey Judge has ruled that a quadriplegic man has the right to own and operate a firearm. The man will have to mount the weapon on his wheelchair and operate it by blowing into a tube. The judge ruled that the man may hunt and use the firearm as long as he is surrounded by qualified individuals who can assist him in its operation.


I read this article several hours ago and have been unable to decide whether or not I actually support this decision. As a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment I feel obliged to say that the man has a right to own a firearm regardless of his circumstance, and that the ruling was just. However, I also understand the concern that some might feel towards a man with a firearm attached to his wheelchair bouncing through the forest. There is an obvious need for reasonable moderation when dealing with rights in order to preserve social order and safety; this is similar to the idea that an individual’s right to free speech does not outweigh the social costs involved should that individual yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.


I feel like I should revert back to what the meaning behind the 2nd amendment really is. The amendment represents an individual’s right to defend and preserve his self, family, and property. It also forces the government to live with an armed citizenry which would severely limit a government’s ability to become tyrannical should it ever choose to. The problem with the quadriplegic man in question is that he is physically unable to defend himself or his property without assistance. He is dependent upon others and/or technology to exercise his rights. Also his inability to use a firearm without assistance creates hazards not normally associated with personal gun ownership.


There are two main points that make me feel as if the 2nd amendment does not apply to this situation. Firstly, even if the man was allowed to own a firearm he would not be able to use it for defensive purposes even given the most inconceivable of circumstances. Secondly, the man cannot serve as a deterrent to criminals or any other type of tyrant for that matter. The man in question will only be able to use his weapon while hunting under strict surveillance, and quite frankly, the 2nd amendment was not written to protect hunting. Do I believe that the man should be granted the privilege to hunt under the circumstances the judge presented? Yes. But do I believe that the 2nd amendment should be used as justification for this man to have access to firearms. No.

Do you like to blog? Do you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms? Then tell me about it!


Anyone is welcome to blog about gun rights here, and if you have something you would like to add to the defense of the 2nd amendment, send it to me. If it sounds good then I’ll post it on the website.


Email your blog to blogs@mygunsmyrights.com

Written by: Spencer Aland

(This is the first gun rights blog I ever posted, and since many of you may not have read it yet I thought a re-post of it might be appropriate – also, keep in mind that the context is set in England so that you are not confused)


The country’s top judge has demanded an increase in penalties to those arrested in possession of firearms. The Lord Chief Justice stated that, “Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate” and that public safety must be paramount above all else. The main argument used by Lord Judge is one of deterrence, stating “deterrent and punitive sentences are required and should be imposed” such as mandatory minimum sentences for offenders including life sentences for distributors even if there was no intent to endanger life. In the debate over gun control there are a two major issues people often find themselves divided over: Firstly, where to draw the line between public protection and public dominion, and second, the trade-off between public and private deterrence.


At what point does the government change from protecting its citizens to controlling them? This is not an easy question, and it is one too often ignored by both citizens and governments. Government has a duty to protect its citizens from enemies and at times from each other. However, it is a slippery slope that leads governments down the path to total social control in the interest of protecting everyone everywhere all the time. Although the government should indeed be able to police its own citizens it should never be allowed to absolutely remove any single right. Does the government have a right to outlaw the possession of firearms by its citizens in the interest of protection if it means that they are severely limited in their own ability to protect themselves? Absolutely not.


The other question is that of deterrence. Is public or private deterrence a more useful method in fighting crime? In many crimes the use of public deterrence by the government is most often the best means. The government can do things not available to ordinary citizens such as fines and jail time. But in cases dealing with public or personal safety many times the best deterrence is private. A gun wielding criminal will be more afraid of a gun wielding citizen than of the possibility of incarceration. Private citizens concerned only for their own safety and not held back by court proceedings, warrants, or properly reading someone their rights can be the biggest deterrent of violent crime available.


If you discount the use of air-guns and only count real firearms, the use of firearms in violent crimes has continued to increase in the UK despite them being illegal (as reported by the Home Office Statistical Report on Firearms Offenses, pg 34). In a knee jerk reaction to horrific crimes committed in the past, the government is now controlling people instead of allowing them to protect themselves. Although it may be more difficult for criminals to get guns many will still get them. The problem is that the biggest deterrent against gun crime is no longer available.

Written by Spencer Aland


I am not a hunter, or for that matter even a gun enthusiast. I do enjoy occasionally going out with friends and family for a little trap shooting. But apart from my intermittent outings I rarely shoot, nor do I have any desire to hunt. I do not own a handgun, and I am not even a member of the NRA. Why then do I blog nearly every day about gun rights? There are a couple of answers to that question. Firstly, I want people to understand that not all gun rights advocates are gun wielding extremist; you don’t have to own a gun to believe in a person’s right to own one. Secondly, I truly believe that it is a natural and necessary right that people both need and require in today’s world.


As I stated earlier, I am not a gun enthusiast. I think I only went out shooting guns twice this past year – I golf much more than I shoot. But it angers me when far left individuals speak as if anyone who supports gun rights is a uneducated redneck who would rather shoot someone rather than talk to them. The truth is that all people, gun lovers or gun haters, can see the benefits of the 2nd amendment. Those who do not even attempt to understand the philosophical reasoning behind gun rights are as closed minded as the stereotypes they pretend to combat.


The primary reason I write about gun rights, however, is that I believe gun rights are necessary in our world today. From the beginning of civilization people have had the need to defend themselves. Some of the greatest catalysts for ingenuity and creativity throughout history have come from man’s insistent attempts to better defend himself, his family, and his property. Will there ever come a day when we no longer feel the need to protect ourselves against other people and our governments? I certainly hope so. I absolutely believe in creating a better world, but unfortunately that time is not now. Even the most democratically run governments in the world often need to be reminded that they work for the people. The individual in today’s world is not appreciated enough within the opus of society to feel comfortable without defensive rights. The rights of individuals to protect themselves, even against government, is instrumental in bringing about a society where individuals are protected enough to willingly lay down their weapons. You cannot have a free society where individuals are forcibly disarmed. Disarming citizens leads to an imbalance between individualism and collectivism, which will inevitably lead to an unbalanced and autocratic future.

Written by Spencer Aland


Good news from Canada. The new government has finally voted to scrap the long gun registry. Now let me make something clear before I continue; I am in favor of handgun registration. I believe that knowing who purchased a particular handgun is important in law enforcement to prevent illegal second hand sales. However, I am not in favor of the government having a detailed record of where every gun is at all times, especially in respect to long guns.


This is a big step forward for legal gun owners in Canada because it breaks down a barrier to gun ownership. Under the previous law your guns had to be stored in a registered container and in a particular part of the home; the police also had to come and inspect your home for compliance yearly. This program was costing the Canadian people millions of dollars every year and doing virtually nothing to prevent crime. Police officers should be spending their time preventing illegal gun sales rather than ensuring that a law abiding citizen remembered to store his or her firearms correctly.


Programs like the one in Canada are red herrings that distract people from the real problems. Activist groups make people feel that if the gun registry is defeated that crime will run ramped through the streets and children will be shot on every corner. It doesn’t take an expert to know that things are not true, but most of these groups feed on nothing but fear. They attempt to scare people into what they think is best. The solutions to gun crime will not be found in policing lawful gun owners.

Written by Spencer Aland


Since Obama won the Presidential election in 2008 gun sales in the Unites States have been soaring. Citizens feared that with a democratically controlled congress and presidency that gun rights would inevitably end up on the chopping block. In reality, gun rights have actually increased in America since President Obama took office – especially with the ruling of DC v Heller. President Obama had even stated on several occasions before he ever ran for public office that he actually believes the right to bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon militia service. And the number of democrats in congress that are supportive of gun rights makes it highly unlikely that any gun regulation will be on the docket anytime soon. While it appears that the general public may have over-reacted to the threat on gun rights it has actually given us a unique opportunity to look at what happens to crime rates as the number of private gun owners dramatically increases along with the number of conceal and carry permit holders.


More recently, the number of conceal and carry permit holders has more than doubled in most states. The surprising part is that in areas with the largest increase in conceal and carry permits we are also seeing the greatest reduction in violent crime. Although this is nothing new – as far back as 1997 there have been studies linking crime reduction with the number of conceal and carry permits – it is still surprising to many people when they hear about it, and many choose to disregard it.


Many advocates of gun control tend to sight that crime in general rises when gun are more present in an area. Generally speaking this is true, but the number of violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms actually decrease. It is believed that when criminals face a higher risk of encountering potential victims that are armed they tend to substitute into committing more petty crimes rather than more violent crimes. While the outcome of this criminal-substitution effect generally leads to an increase on overall crime it also decreases violent crime. This essentially leads to fewer crime related deaths and an overall better outcome. I guess President Obama actually has helped make America safer – so you can’t say he hasn’t done at least one thing.

Written by Spencer Aland


Just the other day I had the fortune of riding for the first time in a car in England. My wife and I were offered a ride back to our apartment after a church activity and I was excited to accept since I had not yet experienced the excitement of driving on the left side of the road. The nice couple that drove us home are actually citizens of Australia, but have been living in England now for many years. Unfortunately I did not get to enjoy the full experience because the conversation quickly turned from driving, to the metric system, and then to government regulation. The couple and I agreed that the metric system was better, but they contended that the government should forcibly impose the system in America making it illegal to produce any products not based on the metric system. Being the free market advocate that I am, I stated that it was unnecessary and that if it was profitable, the market would move to the metric system on its own, and much more smoothly. This Australian man then stated something that I will never forget, he said:

“Being from Australia and also living in England has made me used to hard regulation, and I feel more comfortable with it; the government should force people to adapt to things that are better for them.”

Fortunately the conversation never reached gun control or I might have ended up having to walk the rest of the way home. If you didn’t already know, Australia has permanently outlawed the possession of guns just like England did before them. Although we never spoke about guns, I couldn’t stop thinking about what he said and how it related to gun control and gun rights.


I sincerely hope that we never get so used to government regulation that we feel uncomfortable without it. But sometimes I feel like we are already at that point. Every time there is a tragedy or disaster it seems as if no one can sleep at night until some new law has been passed to prevent that catastrophe from happening again. Society now turns to government for answers in times of peril instead of to each other. This didn’t happen overnight; the government regulates inch by inch, not mile by mile.  Before we realize what has happened, we have nowhere else to turn. What does this have to do with gun rights? Gun rights are perhaps the best example of what I am arguing. Why do you believe the people allowed the governments of Australia and Britain to ban all guns? Was it because they sincerely believed that it would stop gun crime, or was it because that so few people were actually able to own guns that nobody really cared? Inch by inch the number of people allowed to own guns dwindled until there wasn’t nobody left to defend them.


In America we have a false sense of security in respect to gun rights. The 2nd amendment itself is not bulletproof. The more gun rights are restricted for law abiding citizens the more comfortable we are with it. The battle for gun rights will be won or lost by inches, not miles.

Written by Spencer Aland


Last week a New Jersey Court ruled that Americans do not have the right to own handguns. Even with the Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v. Heller the New Jersey court stated that the ruling “has no impact upon the constitutionality of” the state law. If you ask me, it sounds a lot like they don’t want to follow the Supreme Court ruling ‘just because’.


I have said this before but perhaps its needs to be said again: You cannot defend one set of rights and argue against another without being hypocritical. The court in New Jersey was so determined on ruling against gun rights that they didn’t care about other rulings or even about the very right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is just astounding how this same court can reverse a very large eminent domain case upholding an individual’s right to property and then shortly after rule that we have no right to protect our property.


This case highlights again how important next year’s hearing in the Supreme Court will be when they review McDonald v. Chicago challenging Chicago’s restrictive gun laws. If the Court rules in favor of gun rights again then these types of selective-rights trampling may finally come to an end.

Written by Spencer Aland


The city of Seattle is being sued over a recent mayoral ban on all guns in publicly owned lands or buildings. The mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, signed the new law even though Washington state law strictly prohibits any city or town from drawing up their own firearm laws. According to the existing state law, all cities are required to follow state law only without any additional restrictions. The law has no exceptions for individuals that have passed background checks or have legal conceal and carry permits. The mayor has even gone as far as to use tax payers’ money to post signs and media adds encouraging residents to call 911 if they suspect one of their fellow citizens is armed.


What I find most concerning about this situation is the fact that this is little more than a publicity stunt by a man who hates guns. There have been multiple cities that have attempted similar laws and they have all been defeated in court, and have been defeated very quickly and decisively – San Francisco being a prime example. Mayor Nickels knew very well that this law would be challenged and would be defeated and yet he still signed the law. Although I disagree with many people and groups, it is a fundamental right for them to be able to stand up for what they believe in – even if they will ultimately fail in their efforts. The problem I have with this situation is that the mayor is using his office, and tax payer money, to make a demonstration. It is wrong for a public official to squander away his duties as mayor in an attempt to picket gun rights. Greg Nickels can protest on his own time and his own money.