The biggest thing to take away from the Swalwell story, is not that he is a creep and (alleged) sexual predator.
It’s that the Democrat Party, and their lapdog media, knew this the entire time, and only revealed it when it became beneficial for them.
They don’t actually care.
— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) April 13, 2026
When a government controls both the economic power of individuals and the coercive power of the state…this violates a fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people. –P. J. O’Rourke
We live in a world of morons… pic.twitter.com/7Jh0KKhpHf
— Matt Couch (@RealMattCouch) April 10, 2026
Having Constitutional Carry is rapidly becoming the bright line that separates free states from those run by would-be totalitarians. – Streiff
DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills
For years, gun owners have watched blue-state politicians pass one unconstitutional restriction after another while the federal government mostly stood on the sidelines. That may be changing.
In a April 10, 2026, letter to Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon put the Commonwealth on formal notice: if Virginia enacts a slate of anti-gun bills now sitting on the governor’s desk, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is prepared to sue.
That is the federal government warning a state executive, in writing, that certain proposed gun-control measures appear to violate the Second Amendment and will trigger litigation if signed into law.
The biggest target named in the letter is SB 749, which DOJ says would force Virginia law enforcement agencies to participate in “a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”
For some reason I’m thinking a country that kills its own citizens by the thousands for defying them & screams “Death to America” may not possess the ability to “Negotiate in good faith”. Excuse me for my lack of optimism
Interesting point of view.
The Virginia Democrats’ gun legislation is reactionary, not progressive
The United States is an empire, with the most powerful military in the world. It’s also one of only two nations in the world with the right to bear arms enshrined in its founding legal documents, the other being Guatemala. The Second Amendment is considered by many to be the amendment that safeguards all other rights.
Nevertheless, many people have seen the Second Amendment as harmful due to the presence of powerful firearms, such as semi-automatics, in the hands of U.S. civilians. They point to tragedies, especially mass shootings, as justification for regulating firearms.
They see the “well-regulated militia” statement as a caveat that limits what firearms we can possess, claiming that “weapons of war” shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians. They see those who believe in these so-called weapons of war being in the hands of civilians as inherently taking a normatively right-wing standpoint.
For the sake of testing this argument, we can acknowledge that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed only within the context of where there’s a well-regulated militia in the context of the necessity of the security of a free state. In that case, we must also understand what follows if we investigate the premise that the state itself has refused to self-regulate. When the state refuses to self-regulate, we can come to the conclusion that the civilian populace being armed to counter the unregulated militia becomes, in a sense, the regulation of the unregulated militia.
To those who call themselves progressive and also call themselves pro-gun control or pro-gun ban, I ask you to consider your thought process. Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it’s enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza? Is it a well-regulated militia when it’s engaging in wars to further the longstanding goals of American imperialism that benefit the richest and most powerful, such as in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current war in Iran? Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it violates Americans’ constitutional rights, prioritizes corporate interests and targets people based on race?
To me, the answer is no, in all of these cases. Nevertheless, gun-control advocates seem to believe that the government and military is more entitled than the civilian populace, which does not engage in these acts. The irony, to me, is that many within the gun-control advocacy sphere also happen to oppose at least one or more of the aforementioned operations. I join them in opposition to these actions, but I find their belief in disarming the populace to be self-defeating.
Gun Rights Orgs Align Behind Harmeet Dhillon to Replace Pam Bondi as Attorney General
With Pam Bondi out as Attorney General, no-compromise gun rights groups are already making their preference crystal clear: Harmeet Dhillon is the choice. And unlike the usual political jockeying in Washington, this push isn’t coming from establishment insiders, it’s coming from grassroots organizations that have spent years fighting the gun confiscation agenda head-on.
For many gun owners, Bondi’s tenure represented a familiar frustration. While running the Department of Justice, her record was seen as a mixed bag at best, with lingering defenses of federal gun control policies and a lack of urgency in dismantling the anti-gun bureaucracy embedded throughout DOJ. That’s why her removal is being viewed not as a setback, but as a long-overdue opportunity.
Harmeet Dhillon represents something very different. She has built a reputation as a legal fighter who . . .
Gun rights groups like the National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights are rallying behind her because they see someone who won’t manage decline, but will actively push to restore rights.
Dhillon’s potential elevation wouldn’t happen in a vacuum. White House Chief Counsel Dave Warrington and Harmeet Dhillon both left Dhillon Law to join the Trump administration at the same time, signaling a coordinated effort to place strong constitutional attorneys in key roles.
Barry Arrington, former Chairman of the Texas Gun Rights Board, recently stepped down to join the DOJ’s Second Amendment Section. These aren’t isolated moves. They’re part of a broader shift — one that suggests the executive branch is finally beginning to take the Second Amendment seriously at a structural level.
At the same time, gun rights leaders are making it clear: replacing the Attorney General alone isn’t a silver bullet. The Department of Justice is still packed with layers of the entrenched bureaucracy, thousands of anti-gun holdovers, and institutional resistance to reform
But here’s the difference: Harmeet Dhillon has already been working to dismantle that system from within. And if she moves up, whoever steps into her current role in the Civil Rights Division would be positioned to continue that work — potentially with fewer obstacles.
Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt didn’t mince words:
Gun owners don’t need another Attorney General who’s going to ‘manage’ the Second Amendment’s decline. We need a proven fighter, and that’s exactly what Harmeet Dhillon has been inside the DOJ. President Trump has a real opportunity here to appoint someone who will take the fight directly to the gun confiscation agenda and start cleaning house.
With momentum building, groups like NAGR and TXGR are actively encouraging President Trump to make the call. Because for gun owners who have watched too many “Republicans” fall short, this moment is about more than just filling a position.
It’s about whether the Department of Justice will finally have leadership willing to defend the Second Amendment without compromise.
Why do you carry a gun? Because carrying a cop is too heavy.
