Category: Editorial O’ The Day

Krzysztof Szczawinski

The gun is the most misunderstood object in Western civilization. Not a weapon. A technology. The technology that made the idea of equality physically real.

1. The longbow democratized warfare – a peasant could kill a knight with a stick and a string, and Agincourt proved it. The gun completed the process. The armored warrior class whose claim to social dominance rested on physical superiority became obsolete. The aristocratic monopoly on violence ended not with a philosophy but with a mechanism. The gun is the physical enforcement of the idea that all men are created equal. Which is why the American founders put it in the second amendment – not as an afterthought, but as the guarantee of everything else.

2. The Roman citizen had the right to bear arms. The Greek citizen had it. The English yeoman had it. The Swiss canton built its entire civilization on it. The disarming of the population has always been, in every civilization, in every century, the first act of the government that intends to stop being answerable to that population. Show me a disarmed population and I will show you a population that lost something else shortly after.

3. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about sport. It is about the relationship between the armed citizen and the state – the explicit constitutional acknowledgment that the citizen’s right to defend himself, his family, and his civilization against any threat, including the government itself, is not granted by the state and cannot be revoked by it. Power flows upward from the armed citizen, not downward from the armed state.

4. The gun defends the family. The woman alone with her children. The farmer on the edge of civilization. The shopkeeper in the neighborhood the police no longer patrol. The gun is the equalizer – the technology that makes the physical difference between a large man and a small woman irrelevant. Every argument for disarmament is, at its core, an argument that the state will protect you better than you can protect yourself. The evidence for this proposition is not encouraging.

5. In Europe, the disarmament is now nearly complete – and it happened precisely as the state’s ability and willingness to protect its citizens began to decline. The timing is not coincidental. A population that cannot defend itself must trust the state to defend it – which is a population that cannot effectively question whether the state is doing so. The dependency is the design.

6. The gun is a civilizational technology in the deepest sense: it requires responsibility, judgment, and the willingness to accept the consequences of your decisions. You cannot outsource it. You cannot have a committee fire it. It is the most anti-bureaucratic object ever invented – a direct, personal, consequential instrument that puts the full weight of the decision on the individual holding it. Which is precisely why the administrative state finds it intolerable. Not because it is dangerous. Because it is sovereign.

7. The family that can defend itself does not depend on the state for its most fundamental security. The civilization that can defend itself has not yet outsourced its survival to an institution that will negotiate the terms of that survival on its own behalf. The gun determines who controls violence – and therefore who controls everything that violence can threaten. Which is everything. The Sobieski who rode down the hill had a sword and sixty thousand horsemen. The equivalent today is the armed citizen who understands what he is defending and why. Every civilization that forgot this discovered it the hard way. The ones that remembered it are still here

 Crossing a State Line Shouldn’t Cost You Your Right to Self-Defense

Imagine a woman driving across state lines alone at night, fearful that her car might break down and leave her vulnerable. Or picture a truck driver hauling valuable cargo across the country. In states such as California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon – five of the ten states that refuse to recognize concealed handgun permits from other states – these travelers can find themselves defenseless. Nine states also either deny non-residents permits altogether or make them extremely difficult to obtain.

Last week, President Trump again called for passage of national concealed carry reciprocity. The legislation would allow anyone legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in their home state to carry across state lines, much as Americans use their driver’s licenses nationwide. The legislation would affect millions of law-abiding Americans.

Much of the gun-control debate centers on hypothetical risks. With reciprocity, however, we don’t have to speculate. With 21.5 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States, we already know how they behave. In addition, most Americans already benefit from reciprocity. The average state recognizes permits from 30 other states, allowing permit holders to travel legally with their firearms.

Last year, when House Judiciary Committee passed national reciprocity along party lines, Democrats also opposed legislation that would allow current and retired law enforcement officers with at least ten years of service to carry firearms in facilities open to the public – including schools – while traveling across the country. Given their fear that allowing experienced current or retired law enforcement officers to carry would endanger public safety, it comes as no surprise that they also oppose allowing civilians to carry across state lines.

Congressional opponents of reciprocity warned that permit holders would commit crimes but cited no evidence to support that claim. The facts point in the opposite direction. Concealed handgun permit holders are extraordinarily law-abiding. States revoke their permits for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths – or even ten-thousandths – of one percent. Police officers rarely commit firearm crimes, yet permit holders lose their permits for firearm offenses at only about one-twelfth the rate that police are convicted of firearm related crimes.

“This legislation is a dramatic infringement on states’ rights,” claimed Emma Brown, executive director of the gun-control group Giffords, echoing a common criticism. Yet those same organizations routinely advocate federal gun-control laws that override state policy choices.

Opponents also claimed that national reciprocity would confuse travelers about which gun laws apply in each state and lead to more arrests. But reciprocity already exists across much of the country, and no evidence shows that out-of-state permit holders create such problems. Indeed, the same situation exists for drivers when they cross state lines: They are required to follow the driving regulations for the state they are in.

Critics also argue that permit standards vary from state to state. Yet no evidence shows that states with less restrictive permitting systems experience higher permit revocation rates.

Despite these fears, more than 86% of police chiefs and sheriffs support national reciprocity, and over 90% of rank-and-file officers support concealed carry laws. These officers see firsthand how concealed carry works in practice. They understand that police deter crime, but they also know they usually arrive after the crime has begun. Victims often must defend themselves first. Consistent with that experience, the overwhelming weight of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

With tens of millions of Americans legally carrying concealed handguns over many decades, if opponents could identify even dozens of cases in which out-of-state permit holders created serious problems, their concerns would deserve careful consideration. They cannot. Such cases remain exceedingly rare. Americans do not need to guess whether gun-control advocates’ concerns are justified.

Carrying a firearm provides the greatest benefit to those who face the largest physical disadvantages – women and the elderly – and to those who face the highest risk of violent crime, including many poor black residents of high-crime neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, these groups have accounted for the largest percentage growth in permit ownership over the past decade. Between 2015 and 2024, permits held by women grew 112% faster than those held by men, while permits held by black Americans grew 284% faster than those held by whites.

Real life is not the movies. Most women cannot overpower several larger, stronger men, no matter how well trained they are. Men also generally possess greater upper-body strength and speed.

A firearm changes that equation. It gives women a far more effective means of self-defense. If an attacker has already closed the distance enough to seize a woman’s firearm, she is already in grave danger regardless.

Peer-reviewed research finds that allowing concealed carry reduces murder rates for both men and women. The reduction for women, however, is roughly three to four times larger than the reduction for men.

The House will likely pass national reciprocity, but it faces a steeper challenge in the Senate. Breaking the expected Democratic filibuster will require 60 votes, meaning at least seven Democratic senators must cross party lines. Those senators need only examine their own states’ experience. Six states represented by 12 Democratic senators – Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia – already recognize concealed handgun permits from every other state. None has seen a problem with reciprocity.

Police play an indispensable role in public safety. But around 700,000 officers cannot protect over 340 million Americans everywhere at once. Congress should ensure that law-abiding Americans do not lose their ability to defend themselves simply by crossing a state line.

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. 

 

InfantryDort

I think civilization is worth preserving.
I think merit should outrank favoritism.
I think children deserve protection.
I think nations deserve borders.
If that makes me “partisan,” the problem isn’t me.

An idea does not become partisan simply because a politician adopts it.
Some principles existed before parties.
They will exist long after them.
Understand what time it is.

Remember.

What becoming an American taught me about liberty

Growing up in Australia, I lived in what most people would call a “free” society. But it wasn’t until I moved to the United States and embraced the U.S. Constitution that my entire worldview transformed. I realized that back home, freedom was treated as a privilege carefully defined by the government. In America, the Second Amendment taught me a profound truth: we are born free.

Today, as a firearms instructor and the Northeast Regional Director — and former New Hampshire State Director — of Women for Gun Rights, I live by a simple creed proudly stamped on my adopted home state’s license plates: Live Free or Die.

To me, the motto means embracing personal responsibility and never surrendering the agency that belongs to free people. The U.S. Constitution, which is now my Constitution, does not create those rights — it recognizes them and establishes a government whose powers are limited so those rights may endure.

I am now one of millions of American women who choose to live prepared, not scared. Many of us volunteer our time to defend this civil right. Yet for years, well-funded gun control organizations have tried to convince the public — and women in particular — that passing more restrictions is the only way to keep our children and communities safe.

These groups often claim to speak for all women and all families. But those of us working alongside women in our communities know the rhetoric does not match reality.

Now, hard data has finally caught up to what we’ve known all along.

A national survey commissioned by the Crime Prevention Research Center and conducted this year validates what Second Amendment advocates have long argued: the public rejects the gun control premise. When asked what would do the most to reduce violent crime, voters overwhelmingly favored holding criminals accountable over passing new restrictions.

Thirty-one percent of respondents chose enforcing existing laws as the best way to lower crime rates, while more than 30% favored arresting and prosecuting violent and repeat offenders. Only 30% supported passing new firearm-related legislation. Combined, enforcement-focused solutions outperformed new gun-control measures by more than 30 percentage points.

The message from the American people to their legislators is remarkably simple: hold violent criminals accountable, stop treating law-abiding citizens like the problem, and trust ordinary people pursuing their own happiness.

Crucially, the Center’s survey shatters the myth that women universally support disarmament. Substantial numbers of female voters favored enforcing existing laws over passing new restrictions.

Among women, the data highlights a growing trend. Instead of looking to politicians or an unreliable government for a false sense of security, women are increasingly choosing self-reliance. Nationally, concealed carry continues to grow among women, reflecting a profound cultural shift.

According to the survey, 20% of voters report possessing a concealed carry permit, and nearly 30% report carrying a firearm at least occasionally. More importantly, the number of Americans carrying concealed firearms increased by more than 5% in just over a year. Carrying a firearm for protection is no longer exceptional — it has become part of the American mainstream.

In New Hampshire, we understand the value of removing unnecessary obstacles to liberty. We are consistently recognized as one of the safest states in the nation while respecting the right of law-abiding citizens to carry without first asking government permission. A culture that values
So what concerns me in the Live Free or Die state is not death itself, but the slow erosion of personal agency — the quiet cultural shift that teaches us to look first to the government, rather than to ourselves, for our safety, our well-being and ultimately our freedom.

The right to self-defense is not a bureaucratic luxury. It is an inherent human right.

Coming from a country that chose a different path, I can tell you that restrictions do not deter violent offenders. They only disarm the vulnerable. Australia continues to grapple with violence against women and violent home invasions despite some of the world’s strictest firearms laws. While these challenges are not unique to Australia, America remains exceptional in one important respect: it trusts ordinary, law-abiding citizens with access to an equalizing force.

That is true empowerment.

The Center’s survey suggests Americans are waking up to this reality. They don’t want more laws that turn peaceful citizens into criminals. They want safety, accountability and the freedom to protect what they love. They want to live free.

When I first arrived in America, I thought freedom was something carefully defined by the government. Becoming an American taught me something far more profound: we are born free. Liberty is our birthright. The Constitution did not give us that birthright — it recognizes it and establishes a government whose powers are limited so that liberty may endure.

Yet liberty is more than a birthright. It comes with a solemn civic responsibility. As a naturalized American citizen, I swore an oath to honor and defend it. That responsibility belongs to all of us: not only to preserve liberty for ourselves, but to pass it intact to the Americans who will one day inherit it.

Thoughts On Independence Day
by JimT

I am a citizen of the United States of America by birth. By vocation I have been a blocklayer, an aircraft mechanic, a teacher, a pastor, a cowboy, a shootist, a hunter and a missionary. I have lived for more than a year in other countries including South Korea, Japan and Mozambique. I am also a citizen of heaven by Papa God’s grace and mercy. My calling is to love: myself, others including my enemies, and God … all of which I am still learning. If I don’t measure up sometimes please have patience with me. I am still under construction.

My one political quote in this letter:
Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time…
and your government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain-

WATCH YOUR HEART! It controls the issues of life! No. I am not talking about the pump though it too is important. I am talking about the attitudes and emotions that make up and govern our life. Do not allow hatred of others in your life. I AM NOT SAYING THAT WHAT OTHERS DO IS NOT IMPORTANT! I am not saying to agree with them.
BUT
I am saying our attitudes will affect us more than those we disagree with.
HATRED WILL AFFECT OUR PHYSICAL HEALTH AS WELL AS OUR MENTAL HEALTH.
It is like eating poison and hoping it will kill our enemies.
Guard your heart! Get rid of hatred.
You do not have like or agree with … and you do not have to hate!

A Suggestion For Happiness
-look for the opportunity to do unexpected acts of kindness for someone
-help someone you do not know and who most likely you will never find out how your help affected
-stop any judgmental thoughts that may come and do your best to see the person simply as a fellow human being

One of the problems today is “under-defining” grace. We tend to weaken grace and make it just one of the resources of God that helps us do things either for ourselves or for God. We have lost the understanding that grace is the foundation that everything is built on. Somehow we have forgotten that salvation is God’s plan and His doing. We did not find the Lord! He found us and included us in His love. It was totally His doing, not ours. In doing this He gave to us everything that is needed for life and godliness. He made us perfect and complete and we can stand in His presence with no fear, no shame, no guilt. Not because we did so well but because God through Jesus has completed everything that needed to be done to make it so. We often get lost in trying to do when all along we need to realize, it is done! Religion says “Do” while grace says “Done.” Remember, religion is “do-do!”

“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who declares the ungodly “Not Guilty”, his faith is counted as righteousness.”
Romans 4:4-5
Did you see that? God is not asking people to “shape up” and “try to be better.” He declares THE UNGODLY “Not Guilty” and when the UNGODLY believe that, God says, “Not only are you not guilty, you are righteous!” That means we can stand in His presence without fear of punishment. He ain’t out to hammer us! He is out to pour His love upon us.

This is the great mystery of His grace, that He would come and seek us out, rescue us and save us.
We do not deserve it.
Yet He has done it!
It is called “GRACE.”

Celebrate the Birthday of our nation … but even more, celebrate Papa God’s Love for humanity!

Blessings!

Another way to look at it.

Cheer Up! The Birthright Citizenship Case Moves Us Toward Inevitable Victory.

Would I have loved Justice Barrett or Chief Justice Roberts to have defied their natural judicial conservatism—in the non-political sense—and embraced the new thinking today? Yeah, that would’ve been great, but it wasn’t in the cards. Instead, we got two votes that I frankly didn’t expect. And those two votes position us for victory. If one of those five majority justices goes away and President Donald Trump appoints the replacement, it’s very likely we will have a 6–3 majority that supports limiting the current idea of effectively unlimited birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Let me put it in sportsball terms. We didn’t score a touchdown today, but we moved the ball down the field and put ourselves in position for a field goal or maybe even a touchdown in the next couple of plays.

So don’t freak out, don’t cry, don’t scream and yell. There’s no reason to. This result was better than we had any right to expect at this juncture in the process of changing the way the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is viewed under the law. And this is why keeping the Senate in 2026 is more important than ever.

Cheer up. Don’t doom. We did better than we had any right to expect, and in the end we’re going to win.

Cynical Publius

RE: The Reflecting Pool

Let’s review a few undeniable, irrefutable facts about this subject:

1. The Reflecting Pool on the National Mall has been a leaking, algae-overgrown mess for years.
2. Having a national monument in such disrepair reflects poorly on our nation.
3. President Trump saw these problems and decided America deserved better for our 250th Birthday, and has been trying to resolve those problems in time for July 4th.
4. Democrats everywhere want the repair efforts to fail.

*******************

These are FACTS people, not my opinion.
FACTS.

So what logical conclusion do all these facts lead to?
Simple.

***Democrats would rather see the United States of America fail than see President Donald J. Trump succeed.***

Democrats are not patriots. They do not care about our nation or our national pride.
They only care about power, and to achieve power they would destroy our nation if that was what they deemed necessary.
It’s basically the same ethos that caused them to burn down our cities in 2020 rather than see Trump win a second term.

I really do not see how it is possible to coexist with these people unless they change.

Wesley Hunt  ImageIt’s amazing how quickly the gatekeepers of culture decide what’s acceptable.

In June, every logo becomes a rainbow. Every stadium, every jersey, every broadcast gets a political message.

But put a Bible verse on your cap? Suddenly that’s “controversial.”

Put an American slogan front and center? Suddenly that’s “divisive.”

The NFL had no problem painting political movements in the end zone. Major League Baseball has no problem turning every June into a month-long corporate activism campaign.

Yet the moment someone wants to celebrate faith, patriotism, or traditional values, we’re told those things don’t belong in sports.

Funny how the people preaching inclusion always seem to have a very specific list of viewpoints they’re willing to include.

If rainbow logos belong in sports, then so do Bible verses.

If political messages belong in sports, then so do messages celebrating faith, family, and country.

The double standard isn’t subtle anymore. EVERYONE sees it.

Image

Montanans Once Again Reject Gun Control Cheerleader at the Ballot Box

By Larry Keane

OPINION: It’s the same story all over again. Montana voters, who overwhelmingly revere their Second Amendment rights and rich hunting traditions, again rejected one of the more outspoken proponents for gun control as he tried again to win their approval and elected office.

Ryan Busse, the former firearm industry executive who’s now a staunch gun control activist working for GIFFORDS Courage to Fight Gun Violence, tried to sell his “I support the Second Amendment, but …” position to Montana voters to secure the Democratic nomination for the open Congressional seat following U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke’s (R-Mont.) announcement that he will not seek reelection in November.

Montana voters said, “No thanks — we’re just not that into you.”

In the Democratic primary for the First District Congressional seat, Montana voters kicked Busse to the curb and instead chose Sam Forstag as their nominee.

Rejection on Repeat

For Busse, this wasn’t the first time Montana voters turned him down. He thought he could win over Montana voters in his run for the governor’s mansion. But he lost his gubernatorial bid to Gov. Greg Gianforte by nearly 20 percent. Montana voters roundly rejected his platform that included implementing strict gun control laws like banning Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) — highly popular in the Big Sky State among both men and women.

It doesn’t take a political genius to recognize that’s a really tough position to sell to voters in the state with the highest percentage of gun owners per capita in the entire country.

For his part, the outgoing Rep. Zinke has been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and firearm industry that makes the exercise of those Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms possible for tens of millions of Americans. Rep. Zinke earned an A+ in the 2024 NSSF Congressional Report Card. In that regard, Rep. Zinke and Busse were already as far apart on Second Amendment issues as Montana is wide.

Busse, on the other hand, spent 25 years working for a firearm manufacturer, during which span they produced more than 2.3 million rifles, pistols and revolvers. After that, he did a 180 and went and took a hefty paycheck from the national gun control group GIFFORDS. THe national gun control group still has the press release up announcing Busse was joining as a “senior advisor,” and he parlayed that role into multiple television appearances and media opportunities to push an antigun agenda more in line with Fudds than true Montana ranchers and outdoorsmen and women. He hawked his self flagellating book that was just Busse marketing Busse about his supposed “Saul-to-Paul” conversion to gun control.

It wasn’t surprising then that many Montana voters rejected him once again. It’s time he put his political ambitions out to pasture.

Continue reading “”

Eric S. Raymond

Ken Paxton’s victory in Texas has, I think, interesting implications for the national political scene.

Coming on top of a string of similar events, this is very bad news for anybody who wants to think MAGA is declining in influence or Trump is a spent force.

I’m not MAGA – I’m too libertarian and insufficiently populist to fit – so I can analyze this without my wishes interfering with my vision.

There have been a lot of very determined attempts to fragment the MAGA base and attempt to drive a wedge between them and the Trumpster. I see this on X and other social media – lots of indignant blithering about Israel and the Iran war that seems very light on substance and very heavy on attempting to fracture the Republican coalition.

I don’t think it’s working. Tonight is evidence that Trump’s endorsement matters, and the base is not kindly disposed towards any Republican pol who’s perceived as not being on his team.

Perform your strategic calculations accordingly.

Matt Van Swol

Everything about the Left is fake.

Once you understand it, everything make sense.

>Eat the rich… from your mansion

>Save the planet… from your private jet

>Everyone is racist… while you fund the racism.

>Billionaires are evil… unless you fund our candidates.

>Words are violence… but my violence is actually speech

>Wrong pronouns are assault… but burning a courthouse in a protest is mostly peaceful

>We love immigrants… unless you send them to Martha’s Vineyard then we call ICE too

>Democracy is sacred… unless we lose, then it was stolen by Russia, misinformation, or Elon

>Diversity is our strength… unless you’re a Black conservative, then you’re a race traitor who needs to be destroyed

>Tax the wealthy… while your foundation, your trust, and your three LLCs are structured specifically to avoid paying a dime of it

>Capitalism is oppression… posted from an iPhone, on a platform worth a trillion dollars, while wearing merch sold through the your merch store linked in your bio

It’s all fake, it’s all performative and should be endlessly mocked into oblivion.

Give them zero comfort.

The doctrine is always designed so the cost lands on someone else.

The cashier pays for your protest. The suburban parents pays for your sanctuary city. The trade school kid pays for your student loan forgiveness. The taxpayer pays for your foundation’s tax shelter. The working mom pays for your gas stove ban. The factory town pays for your Green New Deal. The girl on the swim team pays for your pronouns. The cop’s widow pays for your bail reform.

It’s a massive, evil, cost-transfer operation that pretends the evil they are pushing, is moral.

…and it’s just evil

Stephen L. Miller

This is one of the keys of his campaign. Nonprofits pay a lot of people to not solve the problem they claim to be solving. Remember when Mr. Beast went to Africa and built two clean water wells, and the NGO nonprofits over there criticized him for it, as some white savior complex or something. He instantly solved the problem they claimed they were advocating and working on.

If you tackle and dent or even solve rampant homelessness, a lot of people lose their jobs and a lot of the funding and donations cease and that’s why there’s a sudden flood of negative media going his way. They aren’t scared of him winning. But they are scared that once people realize problems can be solved, a whole lot of the slush funding dries up.

The Right They Keep Trying to Qualify

The Second Amendment is the most litigated right in the Constitution right now. That’s not because the doctrine is unclear. It’s because several states have decided the Supreme Court’s rulings are inconvenient and have organized their legislative calendars around working past them.

Three decisions settled the questions that mattered. Heller (2008) established an individual right to keep and bear arms. McDonald (2010) applied it to the states. Bruen (2022) replaced the interest-balancing framework lower courts had used to uphold almost every gun restriction with a historical-tradition test: regulations must be consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and the government bears the burden of proving they are. Those are the holdings. California, New York, and Illinois have spent the years since treating them as starting points for the next workaround.

I’m a Marine Corps OCS graduate with 30 years in institutional investment management. My son graduated from West Point and flies Army aircraft. My brother retired from Army Special Forces as a Green Beret. I’m also a Life Member of the NRA. My family has carried firearms professionally in service to this country. That’s the credential here.

Before Bruen, lower courts evaluated gun restrictions through a two-step interest-balancing test. At step two, courts routinely deferred to the government’s stated public safety interest, and most restrictions survived. Bruen eliminated that deference. Justice Thomas’s 6-3 majority required governments to identify historical analogues to their modern restrictions, regulations from the founding era or Reconstruction period that are relevantly similar in purpose and burden.

The state response wasn’t compliance. California passed new restrictions on carry in expanded ‘sensitive places,’ effectively rebuilding a near-total carry prohibition through categories Bruen had acknowledged as legitimate but hadn’t quantified. New York passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act days after Bruen was decided, adding dozens of sensitive places and a ‘good moral character’ requirement that functioned as the old discretionary system under a new name. Illinois added similar restrictions. Each law was designed to produce litigation, not to comply.

United States v. Rahimi (2024) gave the states some judicial support. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for an 8-1 majority that Bruen required only a “relevantly similar” historical regulation, not a historical twin. That’s a real qualification that gives regulators more room. It didn’t restore the pre-Bruen deference. The government still has to find historical analogues. Several of the state restrictions enacted after Bruen are still being litigated, and the outcomes aren’t certain.

One gap the Court’s decisions left is the patchwork problem, and it’s one Congress can close directly. A law-abiding gun owner with a valid concealed-carry permit from her home state may find that permit legally worthless the moment she crosses into a state that doesn’t recognize it. The constitutional right doesn’t change at the border. The state’s willingness to honor it does.

The National Constitutional Carry Act (H.R. 645) requires states to recognize valid carry permits issued by other states. The model is driver’s license reciprocity: every state recognizes every other state’s license to drive. No state demands re-licensure when a visitor crosses the border. No constitutional principle places the Second Amendment below the right to drive in the hierarchy of rights that interstate travelers can exercise. H.R. 645 applies the same common sense to a constitutional right that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court three times.

Polling on this question is consistent: support for carry reciprocity routinely exceeds 70% in surveys that cross party lines. The people most burdened by the current patchwork are law-abiding gun owners who travel, precisely the population least likely to be a public safety concern. The argument for H.R. 645 doesn’t require a particular view on gun policy. It requires only recognizing that a constitutional right the Court has repeatedly upheld deserves the same cross-state recognition we give to a driver’s license. We don’t make visitors from other states pass a new driving test. We shouldn’t make them surrender a constitutional right at the border either.

The Founders wrote the Second Amendment for citizens. My brother was a weapons Sergeant in Army Special Forces. My son carries one now as an Army aviator. Both of them took an oath to defend a Constitution that includes the rights they exercised as their profession. The civilian version of that right doesn’t need a cultural argument. Three Supreme Court decisions have supplied the constitutional one.

It’s worth stating clearly: the population most affected by the current patchwork isn’t the population any legislator is actually worried about. Permit holders went through background checks, paid fees, completed whatever training their state required, and carry legally because they’ve done everything asked of them. That population doesn’t become dangerous at a state line, and it wasn’t dangerous before it crossed one. The argument for H.R. 645 doesn’t require defending anyone’s right to break the law. It requires only that Congress treats a constitutionally protected right with the same cross-state respect we give to a driver’s license.

The question is whether the states that disagree with those decisions will eventually accept the answer, or whether they’ll spend the next decade generating litigation designed to look like compliance while achieving the same practical result as defiance.

New Jersey may have slipped up while defending its ammo ban

Attorneys for the state of New Jersey may have made a significant error while trying to fend off a Second Amendment challenge to the state’s ban on civilian possession of hollow-point ammunition in most circumstances.

The state prohibited civilians from carrying the rounds, which are almost universally used by law enforcement, in public as part of a 1978 overhaul of its criminal code, the only state to maintain such a restriction. In a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations on behalf of Heidi Bergmann-Schoch in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the groups sought to have that prohibition thrown out as a violation of the Second Amendment.

“New Jersey must show a broad and enduring historical tradition, circa 1791, denying Americans’ right to carry a firearm, loaded with ammunition used by all other Americans in other states, outside the home for self-defense,” the initial complaint said. “Because New Jersey cannot make such a showing, the challenged restrictions violate the Second Amendment.”

“By invoking the international law of war and the practices of the U.S. military, Defendants hoist themselves with their own petard,” a reply brief filed Thursday adds. “Defendants’ sources prove that HPBs do not cause ‘unnecessary suffering,’ nor are they restricted for use in warfare. Rather, HPBs were originally developed for hunting, and are widely used by military and police units, and tens of millions of American citizens – nationwide.”

Hollow-point ammunition has been widely used by law enforcement and civilians for personal protection and other lawful purposes for decades. In a 1994 video interview, Massad Ayoob, a police officer who was an expert witness in the use of lethal force in self-defense, explained why hollow-point rounds were preferred for personal protection.

“I think the history both of military battle and police gunfight shows us that hard ball round that is, jacketed round nose, for jacketed round nose round, the nine-millimeter is justly infamous as an impotent man stopper and the .45 [ACP] is justly famous as, eh, being a pretty good man stopper,” Ayoob said in the interview, going on to note that both rounds tended to “perforate” – that is to exit the body of the target and potentially harm bystanders.

Continue reading “”

Zeek Arkham 

The Democrats have been screaming that Jim Crow is back! Just to test it out, I went outside to see if I now have less rights as a black man. I started humming a negro spiritual and set out on my way.

Got on a bus. Sat in front. No one said anything to me. Took it one stop and then did the walk of shame back to my truck.

Went to a restaurant. Sat at the counter. The nice man behind it asked me if I wanted a menu. I informed him this was just a test and he passed. The look of confusion on his face let me know the Democrats hadn’t informed him I can’t sit at restaurant counters.

Looked for separate bathrooms and water fountains. Couldn’t find a single one. Got immediate side eye from an older black woman when I asked her if she’d noticed any separate water fountains or bathrooms. Her answer wasn’t Christian.

Tried looking for a freedom march so I could join it and see if I’d get hosed or dogs turned on me. No marches. I did see someone with a Pomeranian dog, though, but it didn’t attack me.

So… based on my evidence, Jim Crow is still dead. The Democrats lied.

“The Duty of Self‑Defence”, preached in Philadelphia in 1747 by Rev. Jonathan Dickinson:

He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defence, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.

 

The surprising reason why buying guns helps endangered species
And why wildlife agencies are building so many shooting ranges.

Here’s a weird fact: Every time someone buys an assault weapon in the US, such as an AR-15, they’re funding wildlife conservation. The same is true if they purchase a handgun, a shotgun, or any other kind of gun or ammunition.

That’s thanks to a law most people have never heard of: the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. Passed by Congress in 1937, the law channels revenue from a tax on firearms, ammo, and archery equipment to state wildlife agencies — government organizations that restore wildlife habitat, monitor threatened species, and oversee hunting and fishing. Levied on firearm manufacturers and importers, the tax is 11 percent for long guns and ammunition and 10 percent for handguns, and it sits on top of other common taxes.

Over the last decade, the law has channeled close to $1 billion a year into state wildlife agencies across the country, amounting to a substantial share of their budgets. One recent analysis found that Pittman-Robertson made up about 18 percent of state agency budgets, on average, in 2019. (License fees for fishing and hunting, along with a hodgepodge of other revenue streams, including a similar tax on fishing gear, make up the rest.) And revenue from Pittman-Robertson has been increasing, roughly doubling in the past two decades — in no small part because gun sales have surged.

Key takeaways

  • An obscure law from the 1930s channels money from an excise tax on firearms and ammo into state wildlife agencies.
  • Revenue from this tax makes up almost a fifth of these agencies’ budgets on average.
  • Some scholars and environmental advocates worry that funding conservation with guns is morally problematic and creates perverse incentives for state agencies to promote firearm use.
  • Yet, these agencies already face severe funding shortfalls, and losing revenue from this gun tax would likely be disastrous for wildlife.
  • Even with this tax in place, state wildlife agencies need more money to conserve the increasingly long list of endangered wildlife within their borders.

Continue reading “”

Opinion: OK, ‘gun control’ had its chance — here are the results

Using the alleged Trump assassination attempt as a case study, Thomas L. Knapp argues strict gun-control laws failed at every step and show why he sees them as immoral, impractical and ineffective.

In the wake of Cole Tomas Allen’s alleged attempt to assassinate U.S. President Donald Trump and/or other political officials, journalists and general-purpose celebrities come the usual calls for “gun control” because that’s just how things work.

My preferred argument against such nonsense leans hard on morality (it’s evil to infringe on the unalienable human right to self-defense) with a chaser of overall practicality (more than 100 million Americans own several hundred million guns and won’t be giving them up without a fight you do NOT want to witness).

However, it occasionally it seems worthwhile to change lanes and instead examine just how well “gun control” actually works in practice. This is one of those times.

On April 21, Allen boarded an Amtrak train in Los Angeles.

California generally, and Los Angeles specifically, have some of the strictest “gun control” laws on the books, and Amtrak only allows firearms to be carried in locked, checked baggage, with prior written notice/declaration, none of which conditions Allen complied with.

After switching trains in Chicago,, he arrived in Washington, D.C., on April 24 and checked into the Washington Hilton. Like California, Illinois and the District of Columbia have strict “gun control” laws on the books, none of which Allen complied with. The Hilton forbids firearms on its premises other than those carried by “law enforcement personnel.” Allen ignored that rule.

The following day, carrying the 12-gauge shotgun and .38-caliber pistol he’d brought with him over a trip spanning more than 2,000 miles in, from and through various “gun control” zones, he attempted to charge a security checkpoint and reach the hotel’s International Ballroom, intending violence.

“Gun control” had chance after chance after chance to prove it could thwart Allen’s plans.

And. It. Didn’t.

Whoa … violent criminals don’t obey “gun control” laws and private-venue gun rules any more than they obey other kinds of laws and rules? Whodathunkit?

It’s not that the laws and rules aren’t adequately enforced. The only way to reliably prevent Allen from traveling from LA to D.C. with guns would have been to force him to travel on foot and buck naked … after which he’d have almost certainly been able to buy a gun on the street if he wanted one.

“Gun control” laws aren’t just evil and impractical, they’re stump-stupid. As a solution to the violence of criminals, they make about as much sense as a gaudy new White House ballroom.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism

 

John Ʌ Konrad 

Just as I predicted yesterday…. MSM will falsely claim the Secretary of the Navy was fired because of Battleships.

And the NYTimes is actually worse than I thought. Let me explain….

The mainstream media will make this about the ships because the defense “experts” never want more hulls. They want money flowing into consulting fees, AI “solutions,” and think tank white papers. Steel produces nothing for the Beltway class. A flight deck you can launch F-35s off of does not generate PowerPoints.

But the NYTimes is running an even more sinister play.

Throughout the Biden administration, and later during DOGE’s audit work, I translated every major spending bill into a unit every American can actually visualize: one nuclear aircraft carrier.

Nuclear supercarrier cost: $15 billion.

Biden’s BEAD rural broadband program, which connected zero homes to the internet: $42.5 billion, or roughly three carriers.

Pete Buttigieg’s infrastructure package: $1.1 trillion, or seventy three carriers.

Total DOGE savings to date: $215 billion, or fourteen carriers.

Known Somali-linked fraud in Minnesota, per federal prosecutors: $18 billion, or one carrier plus an Arleigh Burke destroyer.

Why do I keep doing this?

Because for the past two decades the NYTimes has run the same story on loop: the military is the reason for America’s skyrocketing national debt.

That is a psyop. It conditions Americans to believe that steel and sailors, not social programs and grift, are what is bankrupting the country.

Human beings are not wired to understand $15 billion. The mind goes blank at that scale. But every American, left or right, understands the sheer weight and menace of a nuclear aircraft carrier. It is the most visible, most photogenic instrument of state power on earth.

So the NYTimes runs the obvious play.

Paint the carrier as expensive. Pile on delays and cost overruns. Quote an anonymous Pentagon source worrying about bloat. Then anchor the defense budget to “discretionary spending,” a small slice of the real pie, and express it as a percentage of that smaller number.

The Pentagon instantly looks like the whale in the room.

But Medicare alone, roughly $1 trillion in 2025, already eclipses the entire defense budget. Add Medicaid and ACA subsidies and federal health spending hits $1.8 trillion, more than double defense. None of those programs are labeled “discretionary,” so by NYTimes accounting, they “don’t count.”

This is a magic act. The NYTimes holds a shiny capital ship up in one hand to keep your eyes off the social programs bankrupting the country in the other.

Once you see the trick, you cannot unsee it. Every time the NYTimes runs a carrier or battleship exposé, ask one question: what is on the page they did not write?

Nine times out of ten, the answer is sitting just outside the “discretionary” column, quietly metastasizing, while a Ford class carrier gets blamed for the deficit.

America is not going broke building warships. Warships are one time expenses that last decades and are a tiny fraction of the total annual budget.

America is going broke pretending the ledgers that matter do not exist, while a national newspaper gets paid to keep the audience looking the other way.

That’s why they hate battleships. That’s why they tell you they are ridiculous and antiquated warships that are a waste of money. To make you think THIS is the reason why the nation is $39T in debt.

And the best part? Their psyop works on both sides of the aisle… on liberals who hate the military and conservatives who hate federal spending.

Battleships are not a waste of money. All the many fraudulent programs that cost more annually than a single carrier are.