Despite the Biden administration’s recent attempt to cut federal funds to schools with hunting, shooting, and archery programs, Congress, with overwhelming support, voted to reinstate funding to these institutions, as explained by Nephi Cole from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It is a common oversight that the Second Amendment rights are not limited to specific uses; the provision grants individuals the right to bear arms in various forms, ranging from self-defense, sporting activities, to hunting. Last year, this principle came under scrutiny when the Biden administration enacted the Safer Communities Act, legislation that redirected funding away from firearm training programs. This situation is further complicated by the excessive regulations imposed on hunting, creating an ironic scenario where wildlife conservation efforts are inadvertently undermined. The increase in illegal hunting and the decrease in funding from hunting programs, which traditionally contribute significantly to conservation, are direct consequences of these stringent regulations. Addressing the issue of gun crimes is indeed crucial, but imposing more regulations is not the optimal solution, suggesting a need for more comprehensive and well-thought-out strategies to ensure public safety while upholding constitutional rights.
Go here to read Cole’s essay, The Right to Individual Security. Listen to the full interview in the first hour.
Interview with Douglas Bruce
Architect of Colorado’s Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) Douglas Bruce discusses why you should vote “NO” on the big goverment money grab Prop HH. Proposition HH stands out as a blatant and audacious scam, drawing widespread criticism for its lack of transparency and deceptive nature. Bruce, an outspoken critic of the proposition, points to an anti-HH website that provides compelling arguments against it, although he notes that finding the site can be challenging due to garbled transcriptions. Adding to the controversy, the wording of Proposition HH itself raises legal concerns, as it neglects to clearly disclose the specific amount of the tax increase it proposes, a vital piece of information for informed voting. This omission is a critical flaw, revealing HH’s true colors as a disingenuous attempt to siphon funds from the public, and underscores the importance of vigilance and critical scrutiny in evaluating such proposals. Listen to the full interview in the second hour.
Responses