L. Neil Smith Quotes

Because the state can no longer protect us from crime, it wants to take away from us the means of protecting ourselves. This is the logic of gun control.

The right to carry a gun has nothing to do with the rights of other people.

Victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, who'd rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.

Americans have the right to choose to be unarmed and helpless. Be my guest.

I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere. But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family - whether it's from an intruder or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection.

Even if you don't like guns and don't want to own them, you benefit from those who do.

It's well known that the greatest defence against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back.

I ask the question all the time of people that are on the anti-gun side. And I say, OK, if you're in a situation like the tragedy and the murderous rage in San Bernardino and you're in a room like that, would you want somebody that knew how to use a firearm and had one with them, or if somebody breaks into your house, what are you going to do if they are armed and you are not? And there's not a good answer. There's no good answer except you're a sitting duck for the most part if you're not armed.

Why do people carry guns? Protection, right? To protect me and myself. Whether it's home protection or street protection.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such [gun control] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist.

Every person, whether in wartime or not, should keep a pistol and rifle in his house at all times. If a person is not going to protect himself, and wishes the government to do it for him, how can he complain when the government decides to protect itself against him, and executes him?

Free men and women have the right to own a gun to protect their home.

How far are we to go in pursuit of greater security at the cost of essential liberties?

In the same way we all have a right to bear arms, we all have a right to live.

There's no way I'm not gonna have a gun, 'cause you just never know what'll go down in Atlanta. But I'd rather be able to protect myself and have the right, and not have to think about the consequences if I'm just trying to protect myself.

A gun in the hand is worth any number being tested.

Man should not be in the service of society, society should be in the service of man. When man is in the service of society, you have a monster state, and that's what is threatening the world at this minute.

It is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law. It is at just such times that the constitutional right to self-defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that law-abiding Americans have the right to self-defense.

A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia.

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.

The freedom-hating gun-grabbers do not care about reducing crime or saving lives, or they wouldn't be fighting for more gun-free zones where the most innocent lives are always slaughtered. Those squawking the loudest for banning guns from we the people will not get rid of their we-the-people tax-dollar-paid armed security guards.

Government's power to bully people who have broken no law is dangerous to all of us.