But as Kentucky’s goobernor is a democrap, the legislature will need a veto-proof majority to override his expected idiocy.


Second State Seeks to Run Its Own Machine Gun Sales to Residents

Following a roadmap drawn by gun rights advocates to end-run around the Hughes Amendment, Kentucky could soon be a very select-fire-friendly state.

As previously reported by Guns.com, a bill in the West Virginia Senate would establish an Office of Public Defense tasked with selling machine guns to interested members of the public who can legally possess such a firearm. Unlike the massively inflated prices seen for “Pre-86” transferable and highly collectible machine guns that were grandfathered under the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act signed by President Reagan, these could be “Post-86” guns at much more affordable prices.

Taking the West Virginia bill – which was written by Gun Owners of America – as a template, Kentucky state Rep. TJ Roberts (R) last week introduced HB 749 to the legislature in the Bluegrass State.

As detailed by Roberts, who is a practicing attorney, a Kentucky Colonel, and a member of the Federalist Society:

Through our history, Americans have armed themselves in case of invasion, but the NFA has significantly overburdened this practice through an unconstitutional tax and registration regime that has not defended public safety but only harmed essential liberty.

But there is a way out!

Since 1986, Federal Law has allowed for state governments to transfer machine guns to their citizens who are otherwise allowed to possess a firearm. HB 749 would create a process to sell machine guns to legal gun owners.

Kentucky House Bill 749, co-sponsored by six fellow Republicans, has been referred to the House Committee on Committees.

“Could Be”? I don’t know what you’d call what happened in Austin anything else.


Be Armed and Ready – the Asymmetrical Battlefield Could Be Here at Home

Asymmetrical warfare means applying the strengths you have against an overwhelming enemy’s weaknesses. The goat sex pest mullahs have been utterly humiliated by America’s and Israel’s overwhelming military superiority in conventional forces, with our airplanes, drones, and other systems traversing their airspace at will after we established total air supremacy. Our ships sail the seas, unthreatened and unchallenged, while most of the Iranian Navy morphs into submarines. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the capacity to strike back, and that doesn’t mean that we don’t have potential weaknesses. Everybody has weaknesses. Ours is located in the United States itself, our homeland, where we’re at. It’s already happening on a small scale, with open immigration poster child Ngdiaga Diagne shooting up a bar in Texas for Allah. We’re vulnerable here, and you are potentially on the front line of this war.

Time to be ready. Time to be armed. Time to get some.

What’s our vulnerability? Civilians, normal Americans, who Iranian proxy terrorists could murder in heaps. Until Donald Trump came back, we had four years of wide-open borders where every Third World indigent with shoes and a dream was able to sashay into our country, unimpeded and often subsidized by President Eggplant and his Democrat administration.

We know the Iranians have agents in the United States – that’s open source, and everybody gets The FBI is on full alert, now that it protects American citizens again instead of oppressing them. This is not wolf-crying. The Iranian mullahs tried to murder Donald Trump and others and have caused lots of other mischief outside their borders. Now, the Iranian jihadis are not superstars, and they’re not super-geniuses. They are cunning and relatively competent at times in doing what they do, and what they do best is attack innocent civilians.

As we can see, when they come up against soldiers, they die a lot. Well, there are lots of innocent civilians here in the United States, and it is not unreasonable to assume that the Iranian Republican Guard Corps has infiltrated sleeper cells into the United States. Once activated, they have the potential to go on a murder spree unparalleled in American history, one that would make Saturday night in Chicago look like a picnic with the Muppets.

I wrote about this in my bestselling novel, published not long after October 7, because October 7 is the asymmetrical terrorist mass assault template, called The Attack. The Iranian thugs helped plan and approve the Hamas massacre of innocent Israelis (as well as some Americans), which is more of the reason that they’re getting nothing but what they deserve right now.

The idea behind an asymmetrical strike is simple. You send in minimally trained but maximally indoctrinated killers through the open border, and they wait. They wait in small groups, taking no action until activated. It’s not hard for them to get weapons into the United States, and part of the beauty is that you don’t need complex weapons.

The AK-47 family of assault rifles was designed so that Siberian peasants would have an effective weapon system they could operate, even if they came from a village still baffled by devices such as the wheel. You can buy ammunition in the United States, and magazines, and recently, it was not that hard to ship fully automatic weapons across the border. Until Trump closed it, there was no shortage of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl. The cartels would eagerly assist, for a price paid out of the pallets of cash that Barack Obama and Ben Rhodes dropped on them.

The advantages of this are obvious. Under Biden, nobody was looking for them. We didn’t do any interior enforcement. Now we famously are, and we can only hope that getting Iranian-adjacent illegal aliens out of the country is one of ICE’s top priorities. Of course, neurotic wine women and femboy libs will have a conniption over us deporting these potential terrorists, but we need to do it, no matter how hard they blow their whistles.

Just remember that the killers don’t have to be Iranian. They can be from Chechnya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Turkistan, or some other random -stan. The Iranians aren’t picky about who they work with. Iranians are Shia and Hamas are Sunni, but that didn’t stop them from getting together to murder Christians and Jews. Anybody from the Middle East who’s over here illegally, and some who are here legally, absolutely have the potential of acting for Iran if activated.

We’ve already had jihad murders here, like the Pulse nightclub and San Bernardino shootings. We hear less about them lately because Muslim murderers have had the limelight stolen by trans deviants who’ve gone on killing sprees over their pronoun gripes, but that doesn’t mean they are gone, as totally as real Americans as you and me, Ndiaga Diagnes demonstrated.

The beauty of this scenario for our enemy is that it is a quintessential asymmetrical attack. It takes the weaknesses of the Iranians, like the inability to coordinate forces, lack of logistical and administrative support, the absence of command and control, and paucity of concurrent communications, and turns those into strengths. When those don’t exist, the cells are hard to locate. If you have small groups of fanatics, whose sole purpose is to go to a given location at a given time, and kill everybody they see until they themselves are killed, you don’t need any kind of support.

They are akin to drones – meat drones that their overlords can fire and forget. And since American forces tend to look at the enemy support systems to find weaknesses, which is one of our advantages because we do it so well, you end up neutralizing the American advantage. Americans want to beat the enemy long before there’s an actual gunfight. In this way, against an Iranian enemy, an asymmetrical attack would ensure lots of gunfights, giving Iranian proxies the ability to cause significant casualties where they wouldn’t have the ability to do that otherwise.

In The Attack, thousands of these little cells are activated and strike, murdering scores of Americans before the government is able to form a coordinated response. But, as in reality, in the book, we see what I suspect we would see if the Iranians attempt something like this in real life. What we would see is normal Americans fighting back.

You see, if the homeland becomes a battlefield, we all become soldiers. We have a great counterintelligence team, and the FBI is back to protecting the American people instead of the Democrat elite. Still, they, along with our great law enforcement first responders, can’t be everywhere all the time. We citizens, can. All of us could be face-to-face with the enemy, whether another Ndiaga Diagne at a bar or a bunch of like-minded psychos in a church, a school, a shopping mall, or at a militantly cis-gender hockey game; their goal would be to bring the war to us, and our obligation would be to fight it and win it. But how do normal citizens do that?

You buy guns and ammunition. You train with them. You carry them legally. You get into the mental mindset that bad things can happen, and you need to be ready. Except in the blue states, where they put up hurdles to stop you from defending yourself, your family, your community, and your Constitution. Gavin Hairstyle and his ilk would rather you die than upset the aforementioned neurotic wine women and femboy libs who fear guns and manhood.

This admonition that you must be a warrior too is not some hooah big talk. That’s reality. As everybody knows, except liars and fools, armed citizens have long been able to intervene to stop crimes with their lawfully carried weapons. What we’re talking about here is something even more sinister than some gender goblin with a grudge over his unwanted penis shooting up a preschool; it’s terrorists shooting up everything as part of a plan to commit mass murder as terrorist retaliation against the United States for taking out their pals in Tehran.

You’ve got to be ready. If you can legally carry a weapon on you, you should, and a long weapon in the truck provides you with critical combat options if this goes down. But you should also practice with your guns. And don’t forget the other component of this – medical training and gear to stop the bleeding should you find yourself in the middle of a terrorist attack.

You didn’t ask to be a hero, but you are an American citizen, and that makes you hero-capable. It is your duty as an American citizen to do your best to protect your fellow citizens. If you can fight, you’ve got to be ready within the guardrails of your abilities and the law.

Our great troops are fighting this battle overseas as we speak. There is a non-zero chance we will have to fight this battle in America. Some people will dismiss this warning as silly. Some people will dismiss this as paranoid. They will run when it happens. You need to decide in advance that you won’t.

If it doesn’t come to fruition, that’s more than fine with us. We don’t want a fight, but, dammit, if those b******s start a fight in our home, we need to be ready to finish it.

Gun Control Groups Mum After Hemani Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani is likely to have major implications for millions of Americans who own firearms, use marijuana, or both (in violation of current federal law). And it’s not like the gun control lobby has completely ignored the case. Both Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety submitted amicus briefs supporting the Trump administration’s position that Section 922(g)(3) can be used to prohibit any and all “unlawful” drug users, regardless of what drug it is, how much of it is taken, or whether that individual drug user has ever shown themselves to be a danger while under the influence.

Yet, at least as of mid-afternoon on Monday, none of the anti-gun groups have made a peep about today’s oral arguments, which doesn’t seem to have gone well for the government. The closest commentary that I’ve been able to find comes from Duke Center for Firearms Law, which is run by an attorney who has worked extensively with groups like Everytown in the past. At least Duke’s willing to acknowledge what happened.

Pepperdine University law professor Jake Charles, who helped author a brief in support of the government’s decision, was also following along to the oral arguments, and he too struggled to find a positive takeaway from the “MOAR GUN LAWZ” point of view.

I think the Chief & Alito are very skeptical of the challenger here; they seem to think Congress can of course disarm drug users. But…it’s hard for me to see many other justices clearly on that side. I’m sure the govt will get more than 2 votes, but not sure it’ll be a majority.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 7-2, though I could also see Justice Clarence Thomas joining Alito and Roberts in voting to uphold 922(g)(3) as it applies to Ali Danial Hemani.

I don’t think Charles fairly describes the challenger’s position, though. Hemani’s attorney Erin Murphy repeatedly stated that Congress could categorically deny firearm possession to some drug users, so long as it its rationale was grounded in the national tradition of firearm regulation and was based on a factual finding of a particular drug’s dangerousness. What it can’t do, however, is look at historical statutes that regulated the behavior of “habitual drunkards” and assume it has the power to treat all “unlawful users” of drugs in roughly the same fashion.

Murphy did an excellent job of pointing out that “drunkards” weren’t just people who regularly imbibed alcohol. If that was the definition, then most American adults could have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights. It was the fact that their alcohol use rendered them a danger to themselves or others that gave the state the authority to step in and impose sanctions on their individual liberties. That argument can and does certainly apply to some habitual drug users, but it’s hard to argue with a straight face that it applies to every one of them.

I was a little nervous about where a majority of the justices would come down before oral arguments began, but I feel much more confident after listening to two hours of questioning. It may be 7-2, 6-3, or even 5-4 if Kavanaugh or Barrett throws us a curveball, but I believe there’ll be a majority ruling in Hemani’s favor. How broad or narrow it is I’d say is still very much undecided, and we will likely see some of the justices in the majority use very different arguments and rationales before they end up in the same place.

Which brings us back to today’s silence of the gun control groups. Yes, Everytown and Brady submitted briefs in favor of the DOJ’s position, but no anti-2A group has really been talking heavily about Hemani, because they know that as much as most Democrats despite our right to keep and bear arms, they’re also not generally fans of putting people behind bars… even for serious, violent offenses. Moreover, most Democrats support legalizing marijuana, and aren’t really keen on using its federal status as a Schedule 1 drug as an excuse to go after people, gun owners or not.

If I’d been advising Everytown or Brady I would have told them to side with Murphy and her client. Even if they had argued that yes, the statute is confusing, vague, and unconstitutional as it applies to this individual, but it still has merit in other criminal cases, that would be a defensible position (at least depending on where they drew the line). By declaring that the law is valid in all applications, though, the anti-gun groups have positioned themselves on the wrong side of history and a large number of the Democrats they depend on as their base of support.

Trump’s ‘wishy-washy’ is him shooting off his mouth “NOO YAWK” style with the first thing that pops into his head. No, I don’t trust him, but he’s 10,000 times better than any demoncrap would be.


Trump’s Wishy-Washy Support of Second Amendment Drawing Mainstream Media Attention

President Donald Trump has, without a doubt, done more for gun rights than any prior administration, at least within my lifetime. Even the great Ronald Reagan managed to take us a step backward with the 1986 machine gun ban, so Trump has that going for him.

The problem, as I’ve already hinted at, is that the bar was so low, an amoeba couldn’t limbo under it even with the help of a shovel.

It didn’t really take all that much.

Which is why I can acknowledge where he stands in gun rights history and still have a problem with the wishy-washy nature of how the Department of Justice looks at gun rights.

The problem is that now, it’s not just us noticing. NBC News is seeing it, too.

WASHINGTON — Soon after President Donald Trump took office last year, he issued an executive order proclaiming his steadfast support for the right to bear arms, but a year later, gun rights advocates say the administration has failed to live up to his promises.

Even as the administration has challenged some state firearms laws, it is also defending long-standing federal gun restrictions in court, including one being considered by the Supreme Court on Monday. That case concerns whether users of illegal drugs can be barred from possessing guns.

Gun rights advocates who are challenging those laws say they are frustrated to see the Trump administration defending the restrictions.

“The Trump administration has been very good on gun rights issues that are coming up in the states. The same isn’t true at the federal level,” said Cody Wisniewski, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation.

While the federal government generally has a duty to defend federal law, there have historically been exceptions when the Justice Department concludes a particular measure is unconstitutional.

Wisniewski expressed some bafflement at the government’s strategy, adding: “I haven’t received an explanation.”

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, similarly praised Trump for taking some actions to further gun rights, but criticized the Justice Department for a “very mixed record on the Second Amendment” overall.

Honestly, Johnston is putting it mildly, to say the least.

While I applaud every step the DOJ has taken to address state and local infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they seem unwilling to look at any federal measure with a critical eye. In fact, every federal law has gotten a vigorous defense from the DOJ, regardless of how stupid it might be.

The latest is defending the law prohibiting marijuana users from owning guns.

The DOJ could go out today and shut down all the dispensaries throughout the country. They could end the idea of legalized marijuana usage on any level, at least outside of the medical field–the Department of Health and Human Services plays a role in where a drug is scheduled, after all–and put all of this to rest.

They haven’t and they won’t.

But they’ll allow it to be used openly for recreational purposes in several states and do nothing but defend the law prohibiting the right of those who do so to even own a firearm.

That’s the inconsistency that bothers me.

What’s more, though, is that while NBC News isn’t particularly trustworthy–it’s just part of the mainstream media, after all–the fact that they’ve seen this and are amplifying it means that some of those who like the Second Amendment but aren’t the die-hard pro-2A advocates are going to see how lukewarm the Trump administration really is on our gun rights.

Is this an artifact of Pam Bondi being in charge? She defended Florida’s post-Parkland gun control laws, after all, and we all know she didn’t have to.

So yeah, this could be a Bondi issue.

However, she still works for Trump. If he tells her to stop, she’ll either stop or be looking for work.

He hasn’t.

President Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that said, “The buck stops here.”

That applies to any president. The buck stops in the Oval Office, which means even if Trump isn’t completely in favor of what Bondi is doing, he’s still ultimately responsible.

With the midterms coming up, Republicans need every vote they can get. Rallying Second Amendment supporters by actually accomplishing something is the best option.

But NBC News figures that’s not going to happen, which is why I think they’re running this. Since they didn’t have to make all that much up, so much the better.

Noah Pollak

One of Trump’s greatest legacies will be how he blew up a half-century of western diffidence, restraint, and failure on terrorism. As the era of Islamic terrorism began in the 1970s, western countries (very much including Israel) spun up all kinds of pseudo-sophisticated theories and excuses to avoid carrying out the only successful policy, which is killing terrorists — as many as you can, whenever you can.

There are entire university departments, think tanks, media outlets, NGOs, foundations, and political parties devoted to promoting self-defeating, enervating fictions about terrorism designed to tie the hands of the West. We just have to live with it, deal with it, accommodate it, accept the barbarism. Terrorists have grievances. It’s partly our fault, after all, because reasons. There are no military solutions. If we’re nice to the terrorists they will actually help us stabilize the region. The tropes go on forever and they are invented by people who want the west to lose, and who would rather be wrong but appear sophisticated than be right and appear crude.

Trump wants our side to win. The winning approach to terrorism is very simple. Bomb them to smithereens. Kill them off. Decapitate the regimes. Sanction them until they have no more money for jihad. Trump gets it, because unlike so many people in politics, he doesn’t care whether Harvard likes him.

Winning is going to generate a real peace dividend for America. Finally dealing with Iran — the head of the snake — will enable the US to step away from the Middle East. It will send a message to our adversaries that the big dog is still in charge. And very enjoyably, it will sweep aside decades of dumb elite groupthink about how we have no alternative but to cut deals with terrorists. Thank you President Trump.