That’s why our enemies have been telling us to be tolerant.

Well, clearly it’s the democraps, that’s who.

Who’s Behind the Mystery Group Trying to Turn Gun Owners Against Republicans?

In the final days of the midterm elections, a group that’s shrouded in mystery is spending some serious money in an attempt to undercut Republican candidates’ support from gun owners.

According to NBC News, an outfit called “Stand Your Ground” is involved in at least three races around the country: Florida’s 14th Congressional District; where Republicans are hoping to oust Democrat Kathy Castor; the 1st Congressional District in South Carolina currently represented by Nancy Mace; and the Minnesota Senate race, where Michelle Tafoya has mounted a surprisingly competitive campaign against Democrat Peggy Flanagan.

In South Carolina, the mailers are targeting Republican nominee Jenny Costa Honeycutt with claims that she “challenged our 2nd Amendment rights and piled more restrictions on responsible gun owners.”

But in a recent debate between Honeycutt and Democrat Nancy Lacore, it was pretty clear which candidate is actually looking to pile more restrictions on gun owners.

Lacore, a retired Navy vice admiral, backed comprehensive universal background checks and longer waiting periods before someone can purchase a gun.

“There is no rush to have a gun,” she said. “You should be able to wait until that background check is done, and we need to close that loophole because we’ve seen the impact of that right here in our community.”

Honeycutt, a Charleston County Councilwoman, argued that more gun control laws wouldn’t necessarily avert tragedies like the one in Oregon, and pointed to early reports that an armed bystander had been the one who took down the shooter.

“If he hadn’t had a weapon in order to do that, the outcome may have been totally different,” Honeycutt said.

Flyers from the group in Minnesota, meanwhile, claim that Michelle Tafoya backs “red flag” laws, while ignoring Peggy Flanagan’s support for bans on semi-automatic centerfire rifles and “high capacity” magazines, universal background checks, and “red flag” laws. The flyers also ignore the fact that Evertown, Giffords, and Brady have all endorsed Flanagan’s campaign for U.S. Senate.

So who’s behind Stand Your Ground? At the moment, it’s a mystery.

Stand Your Ground is not registered as a political group with the Federal Election Commission. Corporation records in Delaware show a nonprofit group called Stand Your Ground registered there less than two months ago, though it’s not certain this group and the one sending the mailers are the same entity.

However, political nonprofits often register in Delaware, where corporations have to disclose little public information.

Some of these tactics have popped up in other recent elections. In the 2018 midterms, Senate Democrats’ top outside group funded other nonprofits that attacked Republican Senate candidates from the right on guns, immigration and other issues.

As NBC News says, we’ve seen shady tactics like this before, and the Democrats have rolled out some other dirty tricks this cycle like recruiting a random Dan Sullivan to run for Senate in Alaska in the hopes of confusing voters who want to vote for incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. Trickery like this isn’t exactly a sign of confidence in Democrats’ ability to win on the merits, but at the end of the day it’s the votes that matter and not how they were achieved.

Gun owners need to be wary about the messaging they’re getting, do their own research, and vote for the candidate that will best defend the Second Amendment if elected. Some of those Republicans may not be perfect, but in almost every case they’re going to be far better than their Democrat counterparts.

Ballot measure proposes expanding Arkansas constitution’s right to bear arms

A proposed constitutional amendment aimed at solidifying Arkansans’ right to keep and bear arms is needed to better protect that right, supporters say, but opponents argue it will make it more difficult to implement gun safety regulations.

Issue 2 would amend the state constitution to clarify that the right to keep and bear arms includes “without limitation” the possession and use of ammunition, firearm accessories and firearm components.

Arkansas’ constitution currently says the state’s citizens “shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.”

The proposal is one of four ballot measures being considered by Arkansas voters in this year’s midterm election.

The proposal comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider whether bans on assault weapons violate the Second Amendment. Gun Owners of Arkansas President Gary Epperson said in an email that once that issue is settled, he expects the battle to shift to efforts to restrict access to ammunition and accessories. Issue 2 incorporates language into the Arkansas constitution in anticipation of that, Epperson said.

The proposed constitutional amendment is supported by GO-AR for Issue 2, a ballot question committee comprised of Gun Owners of Arkansas board members. The nonprofit advocacy group has donated more than $20,000 to the committee, which has used the funds for advertising, signs and printed materials, according to an October finance report.

Epperson, who’s also the committee’s president, said they proposed the wording of Issue 2 and lobbied legislators to get it on the ballot via their referred amendment process.

The Arkansas constitution allows state lawmakers to refer up to three proposed amendments to voters on the general election ballot. Republicans Sen. John Payton and Rep. Matt Duffield sponsored the resolution that created Issue 2.

Continue reading “”

‘Give me the video’: Armed man shot dead by Valdosta store clerk after shooting incident

A deadly shooting at a Valdosta convenience store unfolded after an armed man allegedly shot another person, continued firing as the victim fled and then threatened a store employee while demanding surveillance footage. Police say the clerk acted in self-defense and will not face charges.

VALDOSTA, Ga. — A violent confrontation outside a Valdosta convenience store turned deadly when a gunman allegedly shot another man, continued firing as the wounded victim fled and then stormed inside the business demanding surveillance footage — only to be fatally shot by a store employee who feared for his life.

Valdosta police say surveillance video and other evidence confirm the employee acted in self-defense and will not face criminal charges.

The violence erupted around 12:30 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 25, at a convenience store in the 1300 block of North Troup Street.

Gunman shoots victim, continues firing as he flees

According to the Valdosta Police Department, a 53-year-old man was outside the store drinking alcohol and carrying a handgun when he became involved in an altercation with a 38-year-old man. Investigators say the older man pulled his weapon and opened fire. Even as the 38-year-old ran from the store, the gunman continued shooting at him.

Inside the business, an employee heard the gunfire and rushed behind the counter for protection while attempting to activate the door locks. But the armed man entered the store before the employee could secure it.

Police say the gunman began yelling threats at the clerk while holding his firearm and demanding the store’s surveillance video. Fearing for his life, the employee pulled his own gun and fired multiple shots, stopping the threat.

Gunman dies, wounded victim survives

Responding officers found the 53-year-old lying on the store floor with multiple gunshot wounds and a handgun beside him. Officers immediately began lifesaving measures before South Georgia Emergency Medical Services and the Valdosta Fire Department arrived. The man was transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Meanwhile, police received a second 911 call reporting another gunshot victim inside a vehicle near North Ashley Street and Rosedale Drive. Investigators determined that victim was the 38-year-old man who had been shot outside the convenience store. Lowndes County deputies helped get him to the hospital. Police confirmed he was treated and released.

Surveillance video confirms employee’s account. Valdosta detectives and crime scene investigators examined surveillance footage and collected evidence to reconstruct the deadly confrontation. According to police, the evidence showed the 53-year-old initiated the gunfire outside the store before entering the business and threatening the employee.

Investigators determined the clerk fired because he reasonably feared for his life. The employee has not been charged with any offense.

Police seek witnesses who fled scene. Investigators also discovered surveillance footage showing several people approaching the store after the shooting and recording the wounded man lying on the floor.

Police say those individuals fled when they heard approaching sirens. Detectives are working to identify them and determine whether they have information relevant to the investigation.

Police Chief Leslie Manahan criticized the decision to record the aftermath rather than remain to assist investigators. “If you witness a possible life-threatening incident, the priority should be getting the person help and providing truthful information to law enforcement,” Manahan said.

Deadly confrontation remains under investigation. Authorities have not released the identities of the deceased gunman or the surviving victim….

Halloween, has its origins in the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, which marked the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter.

It was believed that on this night, the veil between the living and the dead was thin, allowing spirits to return to earth.

It is said that Pope Gregory III established November 1st as ‘All Saints Day’ also called ‘All Hallows Day’ sometime in the 8th century. So, as the evening before would be ‘All Hallows Eve’ – ‘eve‘ being a contraction of evening – and even more contracted; Hallowe’en, we know how the name came to be.

Democrats Say the Second Amendment Limits Gun Control. Just Don’t Ask Them How.

Among the dozens of amicus briefs filed in defense of “assault weapon” bans last week, there are a few that stand out, either because of the ludicrous nature of their arguments or who’s making them.

In the case of the brief filed on behalf of 189 Democrats in Congress, it’s both the “who” and “what” that makes the brief notable. While not every Democrat on Capitol Hill lent their support to the brief (Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are absent, for example), a substantial majority of Democrat House and Senate members did (including John Fetterman, for anyone who mistakenly thinks he’s a moderate when it comes to Second Amendment issues). Their argument is simple, but it’s also glaringly incomplete.

The basic premise of the brief is that “lawmakers have broad authority to address gun violence, subject to the Second Amendment’s limits.” Fair enough, I suppose. But the obvious question then becomes, what are those limits?

Although the Second Amendment imposes constitutional limits on firearms regulation, within those limits, decisions about whether and how to regulate assault weapons properly belong to federal, state, and local lawmakers.

This is a repeated theme in the brief. They even state that judges are responsible for interpreting and enforcing those limits. But they fail to identify what those limits would actually prohibit Congress from doing.

On pages 4 and 5, they point out that Heller recognized an individual right that isn’t unlimited. They also cite Bruen and Rahimi for the proposition that modern regulations need not be identical to historical restrictions, arguing that legislatures retain regulatory authority, particularly when confronting new technologies or changing public-safety concerns.

But they broadly ignore Heller’s actual holding that D.C. couldn’t ban handguns commonly possessed for lawful self-defense or require firearms to be stored in such a way that made them inaccessible for use in self-defense.

That’s a pretty big omission, given that Viramontes and Grant are all about whether commonly possessed semi-automatic rifles can be prohibited.

On page 17, the Democrats do acknowledge that “the enshrinement of a right takes certain policy choices ‘off the table.’” Yet again, though, they decline to state what those policies might be.

If the government can prohibit the possession of some of the most popular rifles in America, what firearms are beyond the reach of legislators who want to ban them? Handguns? Shotguns? Every semiautomatic firearm? The lawmakers offer no answers, just repeated assurances that constitutional limits exist somewhere out there, even as they urge the justices not to enforce one of the most consequential limits identified by the Supreme Court: the protection of arms in common use for lawful purposes.

Imagine 189 members of Congress telling the Supreme Court that the First Amendment absolutely limits the government’s ability to censor speech, but that lawmakers should still be free to ban political commentary they consider dangerous. And when asked what speech the government can’t prohibit, they simply repeat that the First Amendment has limits on government power, without ever saying what those limits are.

If these Democrats want to assert that there are limits on Congress’s power to regulate firearms, I’m in full agreement. But when they argue that those limits don’t include a ban on the most popular rifles in the country, they’ve lost me. And I’d like to know what, exactly, these lawmakers believe is off-limits thanks to the Second Amendment.

They repeatedly acknowledge that constitutional boundaries exist, but never identify where those boundaries lie. That’s a glaring omission from 189 members of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold restrictions on a fundamental civil right. If they believe the Second Amendment actually constrains their authority, they ought to be able to tell the American people what they think it prevents them from doing.

And if they can’t or won’t tell us, the most logical conclusion is that they don’t really believe the Second Amendment places any meaningful limits on their power at all.

Virginia AG: ‘AR-15s Are Machine Guns Except That They’ Are Not

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, who fantasized about murdering his political opponent and wishing death upon the man’s children, thinks the most popular semiautomatic rifle on the market is the same thing as a machine gun.

Jones made his remarkable ignorance on guns and the Second Amendment known on Wednesday in the form of a brief to the Supreme Court, which is slated to weigh a challenge to an Illinois county’s ban on the possession and transfer of so-called “assault weapons”: AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms. In the document filed in support of Cook County’s firearm prohibitions, Jones argues that “AR-15s bear nearly all the same features that take machineguns outside the Second Amendment’s protection.”

He kicks off the brief by lying that AR-15s were restricted by states “since shortly after” they “became broadly available to American consumers.” Colt began selling ArmaLite’s semiautomatic rifle to Americans in the 1960s, but it wasn’t until 1989 that California sought to interfere in those transfers.

Jones also points to AR-15 restrictions in “11 states and the District of Columbia — collectively representing over 34 percent of the United States’ population” as proof that states like his can and should be allowed to dictate Americans’ Second Amendment right to own semiautomatic rifles.

“AR-15s are machineguns, except that they — at least to start — have semiautomatic fire rather than automatic fire,” Jones also writes.

There are significant legal and physical distinctions between automatic firearms and semiautomatic rifles. Most notably, and as the name suggests, automatic rifles or “machine guns” fire continuous rounds. Semiautomatic rifles, however, require an individual trigger pull to fire each round. That means the number of rounds fired depends on how fast one person can pull an AR-15 trigger and how many rounds are loaded in their magazine.

Continue reading “”