Gun-Free Zones Like Fort Stewart Invite Mass Shootings

On Wednesday, another mass shooting unfolded — this time at Fort Stewart military base in Georgia. A male Army sergeant, who illegally carried a gun on the base, wounded five soldiers before others tackled and disarmed him.

Typically, only authorized designated security forces such as MPs are armed on duty. Any other soldier caught carrying a firearm faces severe consequences, ranging from a rank reduction, court-martial, potential criminal convictions, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and even imprisonment.

So why would a soldier risk such harsh penalties? Because if you’re the attacker, planning to murder fellow soldiers, gun control laws won’t stop you. If you expect to die in the assault, as most mass public shooters do, extra years added to your sentence mean nothing. Even if you survive, you already anticipate multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But for law-abiding soldiers, those same rules carry enormous weight. Carrying a gun for self-defense could turn them into felons and destroy their futures. These gun control policies disarm the innocent while encouraging a determined killer to attack there as they will know that they are the only ones who will be armed.

Yes, military police guard entrances, but like civilian police, they can’t be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to off-base mass shootings.

Consider the attacks at the Navy Yard, both Fort Hood shootings, and the Chattanooga recruiting station. In each case, unarmed JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers had no choice but to hide while the attacker fired shot after shot.

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, then commander of Third Corps stationed at Fort Hood, testified to Congress about the second attack there: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.” But eight minutes was simply too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they’ll face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back. While we don’t yet know if the Fort Stewart shooter made that same calculation, his actions fit a pattern seen in dozens of other cases. It’s no coincidence that 94 percent of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.

Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers are defenseless.

These are soldiers trained to handle firearms. We trust them with weapons in combat, yet we deny them that same trust on their own bases.

In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military into a more “professional, business-like environment.” That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.

After the 2015 Chattanooga recruiting station attack, the military slightly loosened the rules. Commanders gained the authority to approve individual service members to carry privately owned firearms. But in practice, commanders rarely grant that permission.

Importantly, U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan were required to keep their weapons on them at all times — even on base. These soldiers needed to protect themselves against threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other. The policy worked.

So why do we make it easy for killers to target our own troops at home? Why do we force soldiers, like those at Fort Stewart, to tackle armed attackers with bare hands?

Let’s stop pretending that gun-free zones protect anyone. They only protect killers.

Jankovich: Walmart stabbings show flaw in gun control logic

Last weekend, a man walked into a Walmart in Traverse City and stabbed 11 innocent people in a random, brutal act of violence. The scene was horrifying—but thankfully, everyone survived.

The media covered the initial shock. The politicians issued generic statements. But something’s missing — something that always seems to go missing when the narrative doesn’t fit: no one is talking about “knife control.” Why is that?

A knife was used to commit mass violence — just as we’ve seen before with hammers, axes and even cars. These are real tragedies, carried out without a single bullet fired. And yet, no one is proposing sweeping legislation to regulate or ban knives or to require background checks before buying a truck.

Because deep down, we all know the glaring truth: it’s not the object that commits the violence; it’s the person. But the moment a firearm is involved, the story changes. The headlines explode. Politicians scramble to propose more restrictions. And the blame shifts from the criminal to the tool they used.

Police respond to multiple people being stabbed inside a Walmart Supercenter store near Traverse City, Mich. on Saturday, July 26, 2025.
This double standard isn’t just frustrating, it’s dangerous. It distracts from real solutions, and it deliberately ignores the fact that, in Traverse City, a law-abiding citizen with a firearm stopped the attack before more people were stabbed.

When police arrived at the scene, the alleged attacker had already been restrained, held at gunpoint by a shopper.

That’s right: a proverbial “good guy” with a gun stopped a “bad guy” with a knife. It’s textbook self-defense and the outcome we hope for in moments of crisis.

This is the very reason Women for Gun Rights exists. We believe the Second Amendment protects not just the right to “bear arms” — but the right to defend yourself and others when no one else can. At the end of the day, despite the best efforts of law enforcement, you are your own first responder. Your life, and the lives of others, is your responsibility.

This incident also highlights another uncomfortable pattern that truly undermines the efficacy of gun control. Authorities said the suspect had a history of “assaultive incidents.” In other words, they knew he was dangerous and capable of violence. While shocking to hear, this isn’t an isolated occurrence. Over and over, we’ve seen mass casualty events carried out by individuals who were already on law enforcement’s radar. The signs were there. The threats had been made. Reports were filed. But the system didn’t act.

And yet, every time a tragedy occurs, the focus shifts — not to the failures of intervention, but to restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. Groups like Moms Demand Action and anti-gun politicians push for Red Flag laws, assault weapon bans and magazine limits, as if taking tools away from the responsible will somehow stop the reckless and violent.

But Traverse City shows the flaw in that logic.

The attacker didn’t use a gun. He used a knife. Would a Red Flag law have prevented it? Would a gun ban have saved those people? Of course not. The answer isn’t to criminalize gun ownership — it’s to crack down on actual criminals, take real threats seriously and enforce the laws we already have against people who have proven themselves violent and dangerous.

This is an important moment in Michigan and across the United States. It’s time to stop pretending the tool is the problem and start focusing on the truth: dangerous people are the threat. And guns, in the hands of the right people, save lives.

Marcy Jankovich is the Michigan State Director for Women for Gun Rights.

Sen. Murphy’s Crushing NFA Tax Proposal is Really a Preview

The firearm industry and gun owners just got a preview of what’s in store should antigun politicians again be able to force through punitive gun control measures.

It’s a daunting – if not egregious – example of just how much contempt some elected officials have for Second Amendment rights.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slipped in a proposed amendment to a Defense spending bill that would skyrocket the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax to $4,709. That proposal comes just weeks after Congress reduced the tax to $0 from the previous $200 requirement that was in place since 1934.

Gun control advocates like Sen. Murphy don’t just recoil at the idea of lawful gun ownership. Politicians like him, bought and paid for by billionaire gun control benefactors, absolutely loathe the Second Amendment. And they’re willing to make gun owners pay the price. Literally.

Sen. Murphy slipped his proposed amendment into the U.S. House of Representatives spending bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. That bill, H.R. 3944, is being considered in the U.S. Senate. That’s where Sen. Murphy proposed Senate Amendment 2973, which states, “There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $4,709 for each firearm transferred.” That’s specific to the tax allowed by the 1934 NFA, so it would apply to tax stamps for suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns and the $5 tax on “Any Other Weapon” would increase to $55 from the current $5 tax.

That’s a 4,709 percent increase from what gun owners are expecting to pay now, and a 2,254.5 percent increase from what gun owners were paying when the $200 tax was in effect. Sen. Murphy didn’t feel the need to punish gun owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights when they were paying the $200 tax. It’s only now that the tax is lifted is he reacting to his frustrations that he couldn’t prevent the changes in the One, Big Beautiful Bill.

More importantly, Sen. Murphy is revealing what he – and his antigun partners – will do if they are in a position to force through unfettered gun control policies. Sen. Murphy would punish law-abiding gun owners, and the firearm industry that serves them, with burdensome policies that would price out everyday Americans from lawful firearm ownership.

If Sen. Murphy were to get his way, Second Amendment rights would become a right in name only. It would “only” be for the elite few who could afford the punitive tax. It would be “only” for those the government deems are affluent enough to afford it and it would “only” be a right that would be accessible until the next time gun control elites raise the price and the bar once again.

States Already Doing It
Critics who scoff at this notion that government officials bent on denying Second Amendment rights would twist the law to make lawful firearm ownership unaffordable aren’t just in a squeeze attempting to explaining Sen. Murphy’s proposal to levy nearly $5,000 each and every time a law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a suppressor, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun. Those critics know they can’t explain away the fact that there are antigun legislatures in the states that are already doing this.

Currently, California adds an 11 percent excise tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition. Colorado passed legislation to add a 6.5 percent excise tax on firearm and ammunition sales. Several other state legislatures – including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Washington have proposed similar “sin taxes” on law-abiding citizens seeking to lawfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.

Firearm and ammunition manufacturers already pay a 11 and 10 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, which funds wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, public land access, construction of public recreational marksmanship ranges and hunter education in all 50 states. This “user-pays” system has generated over $29 billion, when adjusted for inflation, for conservation through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax since its inception in 1937. The industry asked Congress to have this excise tax used for conservation as wildlife populations at the time were struggling. The Pittman-Robertson excise tax enhances the exercise of the Second Amendment rights and enables passing on the American heritage of hunting and recreational sports shooting to the next generation.

In contrast, Sen. Murphy’s $1,000 tax, like one previously proposed by U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), is unconstitutional because they are transparently intended to suppress the exercise of a constitutional right. Imagine a $1,000 tax on purchasing a book that certain politicians don’t want you to read.

Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), along with U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), introduced federal legislation to keep antigun politicians from pricing lawful gun ownership out of reach for Americans through “sin taxes.” They introduced the NSSF-supported Unfair Gun Taxes Act as H.R. 2442 and S. 1169, respectively.

The bicameral legislation would prohibit states from implementing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund gun control programs.

Pass HPA & SHORT Act
There’s yet another way Congress can prevent Sen. Murphy from running rampant over Second Amendment rights by jacking up taxes. Congress can take up and pass the Hearing Protect Action (HPA), introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 404 by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) and in the Senate by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) as S. 364 and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act as H.R. 2395 by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and S. 1162 by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Those bills remain an NSSF priority.

HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA) and make them accessible for purchase in the same manner as a firearm. That means no more tax stamp requirement (which is currently $0, but which couldn’t be raised to $4,709 by a future antigun Congress in a reconciliation package), fingerprint and photo submissions, redundant background checks, notification to the chief law enforcement officer and, importantly, no registration with the federal government. Suppressors would be available for purchase at retail with a simple Form 4473 and FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification the same way actual firearms are purchased and transferred. Suppressors would be on display right next to choke tubes.

The SHORT Act would do the same for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons” that are regulated by the NFA.

The hurdle remains high. It takes 60 votes to clear the filibuster in the Senate. Right now, only 53 senators could be counted on to protect Second Amendment rights. If Sen. Murphy is willing to punish law-abiding American gun owners with thousands of dollars in punitive taxes to put Second Amendment rights beyond their financial means, he assuredly would block HPA or SHORT Act in the Senate. That’s why gun owners must not risk their rights and #GUNVOTE in elections.

Right to bear arms also a responsibility

A violent attack in Traverse City, Michigan, would not have been prevented by any of the myriad proposals for more intrusive “gun control” — the attack, in which 11 people were viciously stabbed, was carried out with a folding knife.

Instead the first gun at the scene of the attack, which authorities are seeking to define as terrorism, was carried by a law-abiding citizen, who helped defuse the situation and coax the alleged perpetrator into surrendering.

The citizen, a retired Marine bearing arms in concordance with the Second Amendment rights we frequently defend in our editorials, acknowledged in an interview with the Detroit Free Press that the Second Amendment is as much a responsibility as a right.

“The only that separated me from the other gentlemen that had stepped in as well was what was I was carrying in my hands,” Derrick Perry said. “I think I would have ran out there or walked out there and helped either way. … It was just a moment of ‘I got a duty to protect.’”

We are not saying that everyone needs to bear this responsibility, or that everyone is well-suited to bear it. We recognize that a society that allows people to pursue their opportunities and exercise their liberties will depend on everybody taking on different responsibilities — the responsibilities they are best equipped to fulfill.

But we believe that the men, women and children of Traverse City should appreciate that Derrick Perry understands that he not only has a right to own and carry a firearm, but as someone willing to train and educate himself on the use of firearms, he has an opportunity to shoulder the responsibility of helping to keep his community safe.

While we are far from the scene of this crime in northern Michigan, we appreciate Perry’s willingness, as a retired Marine, to serve his country and his willingness, as displayed by his bravery that day, to continue to serve his fellow Americans by being prepared to defend their lives and liberties.

We hope people across our nation can learn both to respect the necessity of a sense of responsibility in each of us, and the necessity of respect for the freedoms and liberties that allow us to bear those responsibilities.

American Gun Culture is Changing

Glenn Harland Reynolds

Guns are more plentiful in America than ever; to say lots of people own them would be an understatement. Handgun sales are and have been booming, and gun sales in general have been going up for decades. People who, in my grandfather’s time, would have had a shotgun, a deer rifle and maybe the odd Police Positive or Chief’s Special revolver are now buying bigger gun safes for all the firearms they own for sport and self-defense purposes. According to some estimates, America has somewhere around half the world’s total number of citizen-owned firearms. (As Rosie the Riveter said, “We can do it!”)

As readers of this magazine know, carry permits are common and, as this was going to print, 29 states had constitutional carry, which requires no permit at all for those who can legally possess a firearm. Indeed, open carry itself isn’t something only for Western films. It’s not unusual for me to see someone with a handgun on their hip walking around downtown Knoxville—a few even have a Bowie knife on their other hip. (In Tennessee, since the passage of knife-rights legislation a few years back, automatic knives—the polite term for what used to be called “switchblades”—and fixed blades of any length are legal to carry, which makes me feel vaguely tempted to wear a rapier just to class things up.) People who might have unnecessarily panicked at such a sight a couple of decades ago barely notice now.

So, guns are common. But are they really normal—by this, I mean are they normal in the way they were in my grandfather’s day? Well, I’d say we’re now seeing the beginning of a new normal.

When I was a kid, you could walk into the Sears at the mall and they’d have a gun department, with both long guns and handguns. Catalogs listed them, and Christmas ads in magazines—including kids’ magazines—extolled .22 rifles or .410 shotguns as suitable gifts for boys and girls. Sometimes the ads pictured entire families proudly displaying new guns around the Christmas tree.

High schools had rifle teams, even in New York City. A New York Post retrospective remembers: “Many of the city’s public high schools had shooting clubs and a few even had gun ranges on their premises, according to accounts from the Department of Education and others.” (You can find photos online of teams carrying their rifles to a match as they ride the subway or posing on the school steps with their guns.) Elsewhere, high schoolers would hunt on the way to school or on the way home, leaving their guns in their lockers. Pickup trucks in high school parking lots had gun racks, sometimes with rifles or shotguns visible.

Summer camps and Boy Scout troops inevitably taught riflery, and even my junior high school had an after-school shooting program staffed by NRA volunteers. And none of it was controversial. The “gun culture” was just part of the general culture, as it had been for over two centuries.

Nowadays, after decades of political and cultural attacks from the far Left, guns are common, and there’s a booming gun culture, but it’s different. Interestingly, an increasing number of schools do have shooting teams again. The Scouts still teach riflery, as does 4H, the NRA Youth Hunter Education Challenge (yhec.nra.org) and others. And today, an increasing number of folks, even on the Left, are buying guns for self-defense. But also today, guns are treated as a political statement by some, or they are kept in secret by others who are perhaps afraid of what their friends or neighbors might say.

Sometimes hiding guns from the general public is taken to the point of absurdity, as when, years ago, the filmmaker Steven Spielberg used CGI to turn the federal agents’ guns into walkie talkies in the reissue of the movie E.T.

Actually, these days, Hollywood is a diverse and complicated thing. There are plenty of anti-gun politics to talk about, but then we get a popular character like John Wick. He has plenty of guns, and he’s good with them, but still the things he does are obviously not how guns are actually used in America. Even in movies where guns do play a major role, they’re often not shown realistically. But then, a few popular films and TV dramas have gotten them right, such as much of what Taylor Sheridan has brought us with Yellowstone1883 and his other productions.

Of course, most guns in America aren’t carried by individuals like those portrayed in films and TV dramas. They’re carried by ordinary people, or they sit in gun safes waiting for a trip to the range or the hunting grounds. A realistic portrayal might show a gun carried by an ordinary person stopping a crime, as opposed to an arsenal of guns carried by a distinctly unordinary person. (No disrespect to you, Keanu; I’m just saying.)

Yes, movies aren’t realistic. Most people don’t drive like people do in the Fast and Furious movies, either. But you see more automobiles portrayed normally in most movies than you do guns.

All of this has a lot to do with politics, myths about guns and even misunderstandings by producers who clearly don’t understand this culture. Gun controllers started a campaign to “denormalize” gun ownership in the 1970s. They did this through media, with increasingly restrictive rules on the sale, carry and shooting of guns and through across-the-board efforts to eliminate this very mainstream American gun culture.

Even now, the Ad Council—once known for its work targeting forest fires and crime prevention with characters like Smokey the Bear and McGruff the Crime Dog—produces fearmongering anti-gun propaganda exaggerating the supposed dangers of firearm ownership.

These efforts to denormalize guns have worked in certain strains of popular culture and in far-Left enclaves. I remember when I was in law school and I mentioned that I like to go shooting. A classmate asked incredulously, “You’ve shot a gun?” That question was said with a tone of shock—this would not have happened a couple of decades prior.

Fortunately, this cultural divide has changed somewhat since the turn of the millennium and especially since the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision of 2008. But we have further to go.

So, that said, how do we continue to renormalize guns in the various slices of the American culture where they have been marginalized? The answer is actually not that complicated. We basically have to do in reverse what was done in the attempt to denormalize them.

As the NRA has long done and is now putting a lot of resources behind, we need to encourage shooting clubs and shooting teams for high school and college students and to support public ranges. We need to continue to defend the citizens’ right to legally purchase guns—again, as this association does so well.

When people walked into a Sears or a Walmart and saw a gun department back in the era of black-and-white TV, even those who never wanted to buy or own guns were exposed to them in a very normal context, and thus to the idea that their fellow citizens owned and bought guns. This still happens today in a lot of stores, but nowadays, you aren’t likely to walk into a general retailer and see guns a few aisles away from refrigerators and washing machines.

On the other hand, you can go on various websites, which did not exist back then, and order an enormous variety of firearms and ammunition (some of my recent law students even launched a successful ammo shop called LuckyGunner.com and this is now where I buy most of mine). Firearms ordered on the internet must—notwithstanding the claims of anti-gunners—be delivered through a licensed gun dealer who will make sure of the paperwork and thus the background check today, whereas, back in my youth, they could be mailed to your front door. But still, the wide array of choices available today trumps anything you could have gotten at Sears or anywhere else back then.

Hunting isn’t as common as it was a half century ago, but it has hardly faded away—and indeed is increasingly popular among nontraditional participants who want organic meat untainted by antibiotics or hormones.

Without getting into all the statistics, it is clearly true that the shooting sports have become much more common than they had been in a long time. (I saw a woman at my gym hoisting a 15 pound barbell up to her shoulder over and over again. “Practicing for 3-gun?” I asked. “How did you know?” she responded. It was pretty obvious, really.) I also now run into shooting clubs at my range all the time, made up of people of all ages and demographics.

Making it easier to carry a gun has gone a long way already to reinforcing how normal this right is. Further progress toward constitutional carry will help. For a long time, I tended to look askance at open carry as tactically unsound (the bad guys know you have a gun) and unnecessarily provocative to those with an acquired dislike of firearms. But Leftists have normalized a lot of things and behavior by simply exposing people to what they hoped would become normal. Why shouldn’t we? It works.

One of my philosophy professors used to talk about the “normative power of the actual,” which is just a fancy way of saying that people tend to think that the things they’re used to are right. We need to get even more people accustomed to guns, at all levels of society. The more this happens, the more it just factors into people’s sense of what is, yes, normal.

And we should openly promote the gun culture, not only through the media, but simply by talking about it in mixed social settings. That’s not a problem for most of us. And everyone here would agree America needs a strong NRA.

Despite the best efforts of the other side, in America, gun ownership has always been normal. Let’s keep it that way, by treating it that way.

A Bold First Step in Dismantling the National Firearms Act

President Trump and GOP lawmakers have every reason to celebrate a bold and historic moment for the Trump administration with the recent passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” – a new law that, among other things, reduces taxes for law-abiding gun owners.

In the original version of President Trump’s bill, GOP lawmakers and the White House strategically focused on the National Firearms Act (NFA), with the goal of eliminating many of the NFA’s burdensome requirements. That language would have removed an onerous $200 federal excise tax, and the needless registry and paperwork currently imposed on short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), firearm suppressors, and “any other weapons” (AOWs) defined within the NFA.

Yet this original language, which we actively supported, was stricken by a Harry Reid-appointed Senate parliamentarian who allegedly applied what’s known as the “Byrd Rule” in evaluating the NFA-related language in the Senate reconciliation package. The “Byrd test” is based upon factors including whether the provision would increase or decrease revenues, and whether the change in revenue would be “merely incidental” to the other alterations that the provision would make to public law.

Considering the NFA was passed as a taxation scheme by Congress and upheld as such by the U.S. Supreme Court, the parliamentarian’s ruling had the hallmarks of political activism designed to thwart the president’s and GOP’s efforts to restore gun rights. While we strongly disagreed with the ruling of the parliamentarian, we were not going to allow an unaccountable bureaucrat to have the last word. NRA therefore worked with House and Senate Leadership to revise language in the legislation that, while less comprehensive than what was originally envisioned, curtailed any opportunities for political gamesmanship under the Byrd test. The end result was legislation that eliminated the unconstitutional, highly punitive $200 tax on short-barreled firearms, suppressors, and other items.

That provision is certainly not perfect, in that it leaves intact the burdensome and intrusive administrative and registration requirements. But, it represents the biggest blow to the National Firearms Act since its creation nearly a century ago and takes a bold step to reduce unconstitutional financial hardships imposed on lawful gun owners. More importantly, this new law sets the stage for a robust fight in the courts to permanently eliminate the NFA.

Since the law zeros out taxes on the sale/transfer of short-barreled firearms, suppressors, and other items, the door is now open to wage a significant legal challenge to the continued existence of the NFA. Precedent supports a challenge arguing that, because the NFA no longer imposes a tax on certain regulated firearms, its constitutional justification as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power has been invalidated. And if it is determined in court that the reason the NFA exists as a taxing authority is now dissolved, then its days are numbered.

This is why the NRA has joined with several other organizations, including the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation, to support a legal challenge that could finally put an end to the NFA and its infringement on your Second Amendment rights. Other organizations are filing similar lawsuits. Our focus now shifts to continuing the fight to fully eliminate the NFA and remove other unconstitutional gun laws. The NRA remains dedicated to preserving and expanding the rights of law-abiding gun owners as we utilize every tool at our disposal to do so on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures, and in courthouses across the nation.

Civil Rights, part 15: From Liberty to Tyranny

BY JOSH FLOWERS

The Second Amendment – How ‘Public Safety’ Is Used to Justify Disarmament

There are two types of governments in this world:
+ The kind that lets its citizens own guns.

x The kind that owns its citizens.

And the people who hate the Second Amendment don’t just want to ban guns.
They want to eliminate your ability to say NO.
They want to turn you from a citizen into a subject.
They want a monopoly on force — so you have no choice but to obey.

That’s why every authoritarian government in history has disarmed its population before taking total control.

Mao did it. Stalin did it. Hitler did it.
And right now, the American government is using civil rights laws and “public safety” mandates to do the same thing — one restriction at a time.

So today, we break it down:
Why the Second Amendment is non-negotiable.
How civil rights laws are being weaponized to justify gun bans.
Why “public safety” is just an excuse for state control.
How we fight back before we become a nation of defenseless subjects.

Because if you think your First Amendment rights are under attack now, just wait until you have no way to defend them.

Continue reading “”

Dan Burmawi

Right after 9/11, while the dust of Ground Zero was still settling, a proposal emerged to build an Islamic mosque and community center just steps away from where nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered by jihadists.

It was called Park51. It was a test to see if the West would tolerate symbolic victory on the site of its own defeat. It was about watching how far Islam could push.

Now, nearly 25 years later, a candidate, shaped by the same worldview that killed 3000 Americans that day, just won a Democratic primary in New York.

This is the consequence of a society that has become so obsessed with appearing color-blind that it has gone morally blind.

Islamic jihad is not like you. It does not apologize when caught, it doubles down. The moment you give it room, it plants a flag.

Park51 was not the last attempt. It was one of many. Today, the battleground is no longer symbolic, it’s political. And New York just opened the door.

After breaking the ceasefire, Iran has a way to go before reaching #5.


The Trump Doctrine (aka the Businessman’s Way of War).

As the dust and smoke settle over Iran’s devastated nuclear weapons program, President Donald Trump’s method of waging war is coming into focus. We had hints of what I call the “Trump Doctrine” in his first term as he annihilated ISIS in Syria, but the two-decade war in Afghanistan that he had inherited initially obscured what has now become a coherent doctrine.

In his second term, the freedom of navigation attacks against Yemen’s Houthis were once again a hint of Trump’s way of war, but Saturday’s attack on Iran—and the events leading up to it—tell us much about the deliberate and precise manner in which Trump seeks to conduct American wars.

Similar to (but different from) the famous “Powell Doctrine” promulgated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell (more on that later), the Trump Doctrine is the doctrine of a businessman serving his stockholders. Explained another way, the Trump Doctrine is the “Businessman’s Way of War.”

To preview succinctly, the Trump Doctrine consists of a series of business-like, iterative steps for all uses of American military force, and it performs as follows:

1. Identify America’s national interest.

2. Bargain with the prospective enemy.

3. If/when negotiations fail, conceal & misdirect.

4. Strike with precision and overwhelming force.

5. Achieve submission.

6. Bargain again (from a position of complete strength) with the defeated enemy.

I’ll now examine each of these escalating steps in detail. Continue reading “”

Five Takes on Bombing Iran
From the department of Earth-shattering kabooms

Bomb Iran - Wikipedia

People have been singing about it since 1980, but yesterday’s bombing raids on Iranian nuclear facilities were the first bombing attack since the 1979 hostage seizure.

Despite numerous calls for action against the Islamic Republic, Operation Midnight Hammer was the first U.S. military action against important Iranian assets on Iranian territory. The bombs fell less than 24 hours ago, but here are a few preliminary takes.

Competence. The most striking thing about the attacks was the extreme competence displayed by the Air Force, the Defense Department under Secretary Pete Hegseth, the various intelligence assets involved, the State Department, and the entire administration. There were no leaks. (How did they avoid leaks? Basically, they didn’t tell any Democrats what was coming. Take note.)

Not only were there no leaks, but President Trump and the diplomatic apparatus kept the Iranians in the dark, giving the impression of waffling in the White House even as things were being lined up. They received unintentional help in this from Sen. Charles Schumer, who had been for some time pushing the “TACO” acronym — Trump Always Chickens Out — in the service of a storyline that Trump was all bluster and no follow-through. The Iranians, apparently dumb enough to believe Democrats and the mainstream news media (but I repeat myself) were snookered.

New Diplomacy: In dealing with the Iranians in the 1980s, Donald Regan told President Reagan that America had been repeatedly “snookered” by a bunch of “rug merchants.” The Iranians were in fact very good at leading Americans down the garden path, invoking (often imaginary) splits between “hard-line” and “moderate” Islamists in their government as excuses for delay and backtracking.

In truth, as Henry Kissinger once said, “An Iranian moderate is one who has run out of ammunition.” After these raids, and the many Israeli attacks that led up to them, all of Iran is out of ammunition.

We’ll see if moderation follows. (I doubt it, as I think the “irrational regime hypothesis” applies heavily to Iran. See below.) But one thing that follows is that threats and deadlines from the Trump administration, unlike those from the Obama and Biden administrations, will be taken seriously in the future. Obama’s “red line” was bluster; Trump’s was not. He gave the Iranians a deadline and when they failed to comply, he destroyed their nuclear capability.

For a couple of decades after World War II, U.S. diplomacy was backed by the belief that words would be backed by force. After a while, our foreign policy elite began to see diplomacy as a substitute for force, not an adjunct to it. As soon as that happened, diplomacy lost most of its power. “Jaw jaw” as Churchill said, may be better than “war war,” but the jawing mostly works because war is the alternative. If the alternative is just more jawing, not so much.

Unsurprisingly the author of “The Art of the Deal” knew this.

The Humiliation of the Foreign Policy Establishment

We’ve had “Middle East experts” for years. Their track record, as the above suggests, has been poor. Our universities have departments of “Middle East Studies,” who have mostly pumped out poorly informed activists, and horrible takes by risible faculty members. Their existence has revolved around the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is in the process of disappearing as the Arab nations have all reached accommodations with Israel, and as the Palestinians suffer humiliating defeat, and the loss of their last major patron, Iran, which will be in no position to help them financially or militarily any time soon, if ever.

Well, an establishment that is organized around a problem is unlikely to go about actually solving that problem: What will its high-paid people, in prestigious jobs, do if that happens?

As it turns out, the solutions were always pretty simple, it just took someone from outside the field to find them. Trump brought Arabs and Israelis together under the Abraham Accords in his first term; now he’s bringing Iran to heel in his second. In both cases it took a willingness to be hard-nosed, and to say and do things that were anathema before because they would have interfered with big donations from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Keep It Simple, Stupid. And that’s a bigger lesson regarding the Trump approach. Our establishment at some level wants things to be complicated and intractable. Solving problems makes them go away, which is unfortunate. We were told before that addressing illegal immigration across the borders required legislation from Congress that would be complicated and require the greasing of lots of interests. Instead Trump just enforced the law, and illegal border crossing basically stopped. We were told that government spending was impossible to control and DOGE showed us otherwise. Obama told us we couldn’t drill our way out of oil shortages. Turned out Sarah Palin was right and “drill baby, drill” did just that — not so coincidentally also strengthening our hand in bringing about the Abraham Accords, etc. Iran’s nuclear program, we were told, was just something we’d have to live with, only it turned out it was something the Iranians could die with.

Our Political Class is Full of Traitors, Liars, and Fools. Okay, this isn’t really news. I’ve been pointing out for over two decades that the “anti-war” movement isn’t so much antiwar as just on the other side. But the speed with which mobs waving Hamas flags turned into mobs waving Mexican flags and then into mobs waving Iranian flags — al with support from pretty much the same gang of pundits and politicians — has been truly striking. Ed Morrissey points out Democrats’ “breathtaking hypocrisy” on War Powers, and of course, it would be more breathtaking if it were any sort of surprise.

Democrats thought it was fine when Obama did it because Lightbringer.

Whatever, Chardonnay Lady. Anyway, no need to take these people seriously on this, and nobody does. Even Ilhan Omar is being corrected by an Imam:

Behave yourself, indeed. Well, I’m not naive enough to expect that will happen. But I do think the Democrats attacking this action are once again on the 20% end of an 80/20 issue.Iran, as I mentioned above, seems to be an example of the “irrational regime hypothesis,” in which the actions needed to achieve internal power in a regime are at odds with the actions needed to succeed in the outside world. (World War II Japan is a classic example.) But it looks as if the Democratic Party today is another such irrational regime, in which the actions needed to move up the ladder with internal activists and donors are counterproductive in the larger world.It generally takes a big shock to overcome this dynamic once it’s in place. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did it for the Japanese. The Israeli/American air campaign may do it for Iran. I have no idea what might turn around the Democratic Party.

It’s going to take more than losing another election, though.

Jeff Clark

Conservative constitutionalists believe the President is a *singular* official — the only branch of our three federal branches of government that consists of only one man.

In important ways, widespread use of the autopen— and certainly abuse without knowledge by the singular President — functionally creates a *multiplicity* of cloaked Presidents.

Thus, Biden Administration’s massive use of the autopen for the Presidential John Hancock, including multiple versions of the purported Biden signature is itself a microcosm of progressive theories of the Constitution: Reliance not on one man to be President — the system of government bequeathed to us by the Founders — but on a profuse coterie of advisors clustered around the actual sitting President who are all able to use the autopen to — let’s not sugarcoat it — impersonate the President as they might see fit.

Even in the small things, the inversion of the true Constitution in the minds of those that hate it in the progressive movement becomes ever more apparent.

Summarized: We do not have a *multiplicity* of Presidential impersonators, in the real Constitution, we have a *singular* President.

A Quick Bible Study Vol. 272: On Father’s Day, What the Bible Says About ‘Our Father’ on Father’s Day

hanks for joining our study on “earthly” Father’s Day, but in the Bible, every day is “Our Father’s Day.” And, according to Jesus, perhaps today should be named “One Father’s Day” since He said:

“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).

Jesus was channeling the prophet Malachi, a “messianic messenger” author of the Old Testament’s self-named last book.  Malachi wrote:

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?” (Malachi 2:10). 

Jesus also said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

So much to ponder here. Let’s start with the theological truth that Jesus’s relationship with God the Father is central to His identity and mission. Cue His most famous “Lord’s prayer.” When acknowledging His Father, Jesus instructed His disciples to “pray then like this”:

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Mathew 6:9-13).

Jesus begins the prayer by addressing “Our Father,” indicating that He has a relationship with the Almighty and invites humankind to enter that relationship. However, the notion of any person, regardless of status, having a “relationship” with God was then (and still can be) considered somewhat radical, unrealistic, or downright scary. Further complicating the theology is the verse we just read in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” And again in Matthew,  “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).

Indeed, all this “truth” is difficult to comprehend and can be perceived as insulting to earthly fathers, but Jesus was speaking from a heavenly, eternal perspective. The larger question is how can Jesus be “one” with the Father? My simplistic answer is that to believe in Jesus, one must know with every fiber of one’s being that He is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And then act accordingly, living your life trying to glorify Him with your gifts and talents.

To recap: Jesus prays to His Father and Our Father. He invites us to pray along. At the same time, “I and the Father are one” means that He existed in two persons while on earth. Then, after Jesus was resurrected, He sent His Holy Spirit to complete the Trinity.

I have always appreciated how C.S. Lewis explains the Trinity in “Mere Christianity,” his classic 1952 published book. Lewis discussed how Christ was manifested as one triune God, much like water, ice, and steam. All three are water, but exist in different forms and appear naturally. That water analogy resonates because water is the vital element for all living things, and rebirth is through the water of baptism.

The magnificence of Jesus is that he is our approachable father, a human who walked the earth. He was betrayed and suffered death on the cross. And if He were only human, His story could have ended there. But He was divine, and now His Holy Spirit lives and dwells among us. He is a loving father, and we are invited to be His children. Do you talk to Him? I do. My favorite time is when my head hits the pillow and I “tell” Him what is on my mind. You might try doing the same. Jesus wants a relationship with us as Fathers long for relationships with their children.

God, like earthly fathers, showed His love by applauding His son’s actions during two pivotal events in the New Testament. First at Jesus’ baptism:

“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased’” (Matthew 3:16-17).

The second time the Father proudly praised His son from heaven was at the “Transfiguration.” On a high mountain top:

“There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus…a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”  (Matthew 17:1-6).

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus consistently refers to God as “Father.” John’s Gospel records Jesus referring to the Father more than 100 times. The following passage is especially revealing on Father’s Day and every day when you are seeking the Father for challenges or blessings in your life. Partially quoted below:

“Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ Jesus answered..  “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?’” (John 14:9).

As previously noted, this is a complex theological concept. However, with great authority, Jesus explains to Philip who He is in relation to His Father:

“‘The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it’” (John 14:8-14).

Any doubters out there? Raise your hand, (if you dare). Speaking truth to His power, Jesus teaches us how and why He reigns supreme with His heavenly Father. Recall that God at the Transfiguration said, “Listen to Him!” and especially at the end of Matthew:

“Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

The power of our Heavenly Father has spoken on Father’s Day. And again, “Listen to Him!”  Amen!

We Must Protect the Right to Self-Defense Nationwide

For the past several years, America has been undergoing a self-defense awakening. From urban centers to rural towns, more Americans spanning all walks of life are making the personal decision to arm themselves for protection. The USCCA has seen firsthand this growing movement — a reflection of citizens taking responsibility for their own safety in an uncertain world.

As a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent, I have spent my 30 year career in law enforcement focused on keeping Americans safe. I understand the importance of preparation, awareness, and the right to self-defense. Today’s environment — marked by rising crime, strained law enforcement resources, and growing concerns about personal security — has prompted a renewed commitment among everyday Americans to take proactive steps in safeguarding themselves and their loved ones.

To put this into context, in 2024, there were over 15.2 million background checks processed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to the NSSF, the Firearm Industry Trade Association, marking the 65th consecutive month with over 1million checks. This underscores a sustained commitment to responsible firearm ownership following pandemic-level highs.

Organizations like the USCCA are encouraged by the tremendous support from Americans across the country who are purchasing a firearm and seeking proper training. Yet right now, because of an antiquated patchwork of state laws, there are tremendous legal risks for law-abiding gun owners who simply want to protect themselves and their families. For example, if a gun owner carries a concealed weapon into a state that does not recognize their permit, they may be charged with a felony or misdemeanor, even if they’re otherwise following the law.

Earlier this year, a bill that would create a federal standard allowing law-abiding gun owners with concealed carry permits to legally carry in other states, was introduced in the House of Representatives. H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson (NC-09), has the potential to be one of the most significant pieces of self-defense legislation passed by Congress in recent years.

This critical framework will bring much-needed clarity to the current patchwork of state laws, which often leaves gun owners uncertain about when and where they can safely exercise their rights, ultimately compromising their safety and the security of their families. By recognizing concealed carry permits issued in any state, the bill empowers responsible gun owners to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense, regardless of state boundaries. If enacted, this crucial legislation will keep us all safer, safeguarding and bolstering Americans’ right to defend themselves and ensuring firearms are in the hands of responsible gun owners.

The bill’s momentum in the House of Representatives represents a move in the right direction, a resounding wave of support for ensuring that Second Amendment rights are respected from coast to coast. It appears now, more than any other point in recent history, there is the political will both in Congress and in the White House to safeguard the fundamental right to self-defense.

President Trump’s administration is already taking decisive action to protect the Second Amendment. Earlier this year, an Executive Order directing a review and rollback of unconstitutional, anti-gun policies from the previous administration represents a strong step toward restoring and strengthening Americans’ right to self-defense.

The message from Americans is clear: the right to self-defense must be protected, not punished. More than half a million citizens have already signed a USCCA-sponsored petition urging Congress to pass national concealed carry reciprocity—demonstrating broad, diverse support from across the country.

As communities continue to grapple with crime, Americans are standing up and saying enough is enough. No longer should responsible gun owners be criminalized for acting on their Constitutional right to protect themselves or their loved ones. There’s a growing national realization: self-defense is not just a right—it’s a necessity. Congress now has a historic opportunity to respond—to recognize that self-defense is not just a right, but a necessity—and enact national reciprocity to protect the Second Amendment for millions of gun owners nationwide.

Rob Chadwick is the Director of Education & Training for the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA)

Alaska must reject infringement that is presented as ‘gun safety’

By KEVIN MCCABE

The Second Amendment is not a footnote in our Constitution; it is a promise. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These are deliberate words from our Founders. They meant what they wrote. They understood that the right to bear arms was not granted by government, but a natural right of men that must be recognized by that government. It is a natural, God-given right, fundamental to liberty and self-governance.

Alaskans know this instinctively. We live in a place where self-reliance is not a slogan but a way of life. Firearms are not symbols; they are tools of survival and security. Yet even in Alaska, legislation has emerged that seeks to undercut this right, not through outright bans, but through clever language and incremental encroachment. This year, two bills in the Thirty-Fourth Legislature, HB 134 and HB 89, are nibbling at the edges.

HB 134, introduced by Representative Carrick, is titled the “Alaska Child Access Prevention and Secure Storage of Firearms Act.” While it seems to promote responsible gun storage, it goes further. It amends existing laws and creates a new criminal offense that holds gun owners legally accountable if a minor or prohibited person uses their firearm to commit a crime. Though it stops short of confiscation, it lays the foundation for a legal structure that mirrors so-called “Red Flag” laws. It moves responsibility away from the individual committing the crime and places it on the law-abiding gun owner, a significant and dangerous precedent.

HB 89, introduced by Representative Josephson, creates “gun violence protective orders” that allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to remove firearms if someone is deemed a threat. These orders can be issued without the gun owner’s presence and require the surrender of firearms within 24 hours. Twenty-four hours, in Alaska? Violations carry stiff penalties, including jail time and heavy fines. This firearm confiscation without due process is not safety, it is big government control.

The Founding Fathers warned us about such measures. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own land.” Patrick Henry declared at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” They did not believe the right to bear arms should be handed out selectively by the state. They believed it was inherent to the dignity and sovereignty of a free citizen.

George Mason, also at the Virginia Convention, stated plainly, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” John Adams, quoting Cesare Beccaria, considered the father of modern criminal law and criminal justice, warned that laws forbidding arms “disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” He added that such laws “make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” These are warnings written in blood and experience.

The American Revolution began with British efforts to disarm the colonies. In 1775, General Gage ordered the seizure of weapons in Boston, with thousands of muskets and pistols taken from the people. The Founders never forgot that. They lived the reality that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Their solution was clear: the citizen must be armed, both for self-defense and as a check on government power.

That dual purpose is embedded in the Second Amendment. James Madison, in Federalist No. 46, wrote of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” He understood the link between personal liberty and national sovereignty.

These are the principles that shaped our nation. They should be the same principles that guide Alaska’s Legislature today. Yet HB 134 and HB 89 disregard them. They prioritize theoretical safety over constitutional certainty and open the door to abuse, placing power in the hands of judges and petitioners without the presence or knowledge of the accused. They presume guilt and seize property before any crime has occurred.

In rural Alaska, the implications are even more severe. Law enforcement may be hours or days away. Court systems are distant, and legal representation is scarce. The practical result of these bills is not increased safety; it is the criminalization of responsible firearm ownership and the erosion of liberty for those who live farthest from government services.

History is full of warnings. In the 20th century alone, governments that disarmed their citizens:

Turkey in 1911,
Russia in 1929,
Germany in 1938

All paved the way for atrocities that cost millions of lives. The pattern is always the same: disarm, then dominate. While we often assume that such tragedies cannot happen here, the Founders knew better. Their solution for this eventuality was the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. That ruling, like the Amendment itself, is not subject to Alaska reinterpretation or legislative dilution.

The right to bear arms is not something to be balanced against the whims of political pressure or temporary fears. It is a bedrock of a free society. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to his nephew in 1785, “Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Not because violence is inevitable, but because freedom must be preserved.”

In Alaska, where isolation and wilderness are part of life, that right is essential. HB 134 and HB 89 may appear measured and moderate, but they start us down a path we cannot afford to walk. They represent a retreat from the vision of our Founders, from the realities of our state, and from the rights of our people.

We must reject them.
The Constitution is not a suggestion.
The Second Amendment is not conditional.
In Alaska, we will not be disarmed.

Despite what you may hear from Alaska Gun Rights, Representative McCabe is an ardent supporter of the second amendment, he is a shooter, a reloader and a hunter. He serves in the Alaska House where he represents District 30.

Calm Down, Conservatives

Many of my fellow America First conservatives need to take a chill pill and calm the hell down. I get the frustration. I get the irritation. We’ve waited decades for justice. We’ve waited decades to use the power granted to us by the American people to reshape this country back into something like it was rather than the gross, formless blob of neo-commie failure it has become. But this Gramscian Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we’re not going to burn it down overnight, no matter how hard we fiddle. Start taking “Yes” for an answer, conservatives.

Let’s take some of the more common gripes, starting with the complaint that our Congress hasn’t passed anything. But, of course, Congress has passed several things. It passed the Laken Riley Act to keep Third World savages who are illegally here locked up. It just overturned the ridiculous California “no gas engines” law. So, the objection is not that the Republicans haven’t passed anything. It’s that the Republicans haven’t passed enough.

But there’s a structural fact that frustrated conservatives refuse to admit exists. This is why most of our actions must be taken via executive orders. Because of the Senate filibuster, we have to get 60 votes, but we have only 53 Senators. All the Democrats hang together, breaking the neck of our legislation.

What is so amazingly difficult to understand about this? Do people not know what the filibuster is? Do they not care? Look, I get the anger. I’ve been a conservative longer than many of you people have been alive. I was a conservative in the 80s, faithfully reading America’s only right-wing outlet, National Review, before it became the Teen Vogue of conservatism.

All the stuff we are trying to do today is stuff that we’ve been dreaming about for decades. But we’ve been lied to, spat upon, disregarded, persecuted, and generally treated like crap not only by the Democrats but our own Republican Party for as long as I can remember. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – the Republican base is the abused spouse of American politics. We are naturally suspicious and looking for any reason to validate our gut instinct that we are about to get screwed over yet again.

That’s why we act like we do, but let’s not pretend it’s always rational. The fact of the filibuster is not an excuse for inaction; it’s the reason for it. Gravity is not an excuse why you can’t jump 50 feet high. The filibuster is a structural reality that we have to work around – unless we make the major decision to get rid of it. If you want to do that, make that argument. But don’t whine because Congress is not doing something it literally cannot do.

Continue reading “”

Ben B@dejo

I think I’ve figured it out.

Harvard never disciplined certain foreign students who harassed and assaulted Jews on campus. They didn’t suspend them, so that they wouldn’t lose their F-1 visa status. That’s what they’re “hiding” from DHS.

Harvard keeps saying they provided all records, which is not entirely false — because there is no disciplinary record for students who were not disciplined. They aren’t failing to produce disciplinary records. The disciplinary records don’t exist. DHS is looking for disciplinary records that should exist, but don’t.

Harvard won’t explicitly say that they didn’t discipline them, because the moment they say that, the Trump administration can issue a finding, on that basis alone, that Harvard violated Title VI by failing to discipline them. And then Harvard has to either agree to a “voluntary” resolution agreement with the federal government (the Office for Civil Rights in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services), or be issued an involuntary resolution agreement on terms that it doesn’t decide, or begin losing its federal funding — in a manner that cannot easily be challenged in a suit alleging violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (because the procedures will have been followed).

Harvard doesn’t want to admit that they didn’t discipline foreign students. And it’s too late to discipline them now, because if they do so now, it will be clear that they only disciplined them after DHS started asking questions.


DC_Draino

This is a brilliant analysis of why Harvard is refusing to work with DHS and why Trump is punishing them

DHS wants to deport foreign criminals who violated the rights of others in violent protests on campus

Harvard never punished them and is hiding surveillance footage of their crimes

Once its proven they failed to protect the Civil Rights of American citizens to protect foreign extremists, Harvard loses its federal funding

Harvard is backed into a corner by Trump

There’s a Difference Between Being Pro-2A and Anti-Gun Control

This morning, as I awoke, the House Rules Committee was debating the budget reconciliation bill. The One Big, Beautiful Bill, as it’s being called. Part of that debate was the inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors – they’re safety devices, by the way – from the list of items regulated by the National Firearms Act.

It should have already been included, but Rep. David Kustoff of Tennessee reportedly offered up something that was just table scraps for gun rights supporters. It reduced the fee for an NFA tax stamp from $200 to nothing.

It’s not nothing, but it’s pretty darn close.

See, the problem here is that we’ve been looking at Republicans and their position on guns wrong for quite some time.

For a while, the big thing was where they stood on gun control. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups’ questionnaires typically revolved primarily around whether they’d oppose things like universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and things of that sort.

There were some questions about measures that would restore people’s Second Amendment rights from where they are now, but a lot of it was about opposing gun control, and not without reason. After all, we were largely playing defense in legislatures across this nation, with more success in some than in others.

In truly pro-gun states, we saw the advancement of gun rights, of course, but in most places, that was much harder. That included in Congress.

The problem with playing defense is that you find yourself with two different groups. Some are pro-gun while others are anti-gun control.

Anti-gun control lawmakers have their place. In a state like California, that can be a big difference, especially if enough of them get elected to office. They can stem the tide of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

These are the defensive players.

What we really need right now, though, are actual pro-gun legislators in Congress.

Those are the ones who would easily back the Hearing Protection Act without hesitation and would insist the SHORT Act – which removes short-barrelled rifles from the National Firearms Act list as well – be included, too. They’d not just oppose gun control, but support legislation like national constitutional carry or, at least, national reciprocity.

Pro-gun doesn’t mean opposing gun control. It means looking at our right to keep and bear arms as a sacred right gifted to all people by virtue of being free men and women. It’s a right that makes damn sure we remain free, too.

For generations, our gun rights have been under assault, but for the first time, we have a chance to correct at least some of those past wrongs.

What we need aren’t anti-gun control folks. Not right now. We need lawmakers to actually be pro-gun for a change. We need them to step up and do what they know is right. We need to get some of our rights back so that we can defend ourselves from tyranny, either a tyrannical government or from the tyranny of the thug.

I’m willing to accept that we can’t get everything back, but nothing but the removal of the cost of a tax stamp is a slap in our faces. That’s the act of Republicans who are anti-gun control more than pro-gun.

It’s time we start calling them what they are.

Make them defend it, if they can.

Guns are here to stay in US, that’s an opportunity not a threat

With yet another school shooting in the news in April, the familiar rhetoric has made a reappearance nationally.

On the one hand, President Donald Trump marked the occasion by bloviating about one short section of the Constitution while systematically flouting dozens of other sections. On the other, the usual gun-control forces are fundraising off the Florida State tragedy with yet another call for “commonsense” gun regulation.

We’ve been here before, and we’ll be here again, and we’re getting nowhere. It’s not where most Americans want to be with gun issues.

As a school board member in Second Amendment-loving Pennsylvania, I see every month urgent, complex challenges connected to firearms that get less attention than shootings, but they’re important, too.

We encounter everything from parents’ worries about the psychosocial impact of active shooter drills to how to deal with kids who bring toy guns to school (sometimes with blaze orange tips unlawfully removed). There are complicated finance and legal issues related to firearms. There are discussions of “hardening” buildings as targets. There are security armories to maintain. All in all, forecasting and policy-making around issues of gun-related safety and crime are inescapable in K-12 education. I don’t foresee that changing.

Why? Because guns aren’t going away. Four in 10 American adults live in a house with a gun, according to one recent Pew survey, and civilians own an estimated 380 million guns. We can’t hide from such sobering data.

Meanwhile, positive community-building gun experiences are being sidelined. Public support for shooting sports and legal hunting have seen worrying declines. Despite two very active popular private shooting ranges in our school district near Bethlehem, for instance, our school’s rifle team — a club that offered students of all ability levels a chance to learn about gun safety in a politically neutral environment — closed down years ago and sold off its rifles for lack of community support.

Any resolve to teach beneficial, sustainable relationships with guns for sport doesn’t seem to exist. It’s easier to slap a SIG Sauer weapons maker sticker on the back of a back of a big pickup than to spend time teaching a high school kid to safely clear a chamber, clean a barrel, use a scope or handle a loaded rifle. We’ve been discussing the process of resurrecting our school rifle team (using air rifles), and I’m hopeful, but we’ll be competing with the easy allure of “Call of Duty” and online cultures.

Young Americans aren’t getting the whole story when it comes to firearms and national history either, so they easily fall prey to steroid-fueled, hyper-masculine, action-movie narratives that grossly distort American identity.

Even before the founding of our republic, Puritans in the Americas needed to protect themselves. From the moment Myles Standish stepped ashore in present day Massachusetts, in 1620, the idea of America was anointed in gunpowder and the unholy chimes of matchlock musket fire. You think Pete Hegseth is a mad Christian neo-fascist militant? You wouldn’t like a hothead soldier of fortune like Standish, whose general rule was kill-first-make-peace-later. Our early settlers were fiercely fiercely protective of their homes, and for better and sometimes worse, this impulse remains part of the American DNA.

A theme of community safety is huge in this country’s gun history, too. As the the writer Charles E. Cobb once said about incomplete portrayals of the Black civil rights movement in the 1960s: “One important gap in the history … is the role of guns in the movement. I worked in the South, I lived with families in the South. There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others, that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe.”

We’ve forgotten that complex, social heritage. Instead of treating guns either as evil instruments of psychopathy, or glorifying them as extensions of an incomplete masculinity, we need to respect their place in American communities, and in our nation, for what they are: Extremely dangerous, essential and often fascinating tools of sport and defense with the deepest of roots in our history and culture.

We can recognize the horror of mass shootings and do all we can to prevent them. There are many preventative actions we can take that don’t involve Second Amendment infringement. But at the level of civic policy and education, this also means working to demystify firearms and remembering their positive contributions to American kinship and community empowerment. By doing so, we help prevent gun pathologies from taking root and give law-abiding gun owners the right to protect themselves.

Guns aren’t going away. The Second Amendment certainly isn’t going away. It’s time to see that as an opportunity, not a threat.

This is a contributed opinion column. Bill Broun teaches writing at East Stroudsburg University[Pennsylvania]. He is a school director for Saucon Valley School District. [Hellerstown PA]

The Totalitarian Impulse Buckley Knew

I’ve just finished reading Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed Americaa forthcoming biography of National Review founder William F. Buckley by Sam Tanenhaus. It is a magnificent, absorbing work about a man known as the father of postwar American conservatism, and one that will lead to a lot of debate when it is published early next month.

That debate will be good, as there is much to consider when thinking about a figure like Buckley today. The book itself is over 1,000 pages, and it’s best to break it down into parts. Naturally, Buckley was disliked by the left, and he was right about the nature of communism. Yet Buckley also has critics on the right. Many consider that over time Buckley kicked out too many real conservatives from of the movement he helped to found—conservatives like Pat Buchanan, who turned out to be right about many issues, such as immigration. Many of today’s conservative’s also suggest that Buckley’s errors led to the sad state of affairs at today’s National Review, a magazine that has become practically irrelevant.

For the purposes of this first part of the review, however, I’d like to focus on the things Buckley got right. Namely, communism and the totalitarian nature of the American left. The most important paragraph in Buckley appears in a section that takes place in the early 1960s. Buckley was debating Arthur Schlesinger Jr., an advisor to President Kennedy. Schlesinger thought that whenever dictatorships arose in the modern era it was “because democratic government is too weak, not because it is too strong.” The best way to prevent totalitarianism was for the government to create economic prosperity and social equality, providing “a minimum national standard to save individuals from intolerable handicaps.” Tanenhaus explains Buckley’s reaction:

This might sound good, Buckley countered, but in reality, Schlesinger and others were concealing their true intentions, their “intellectual desire to redirect society. Even if every citizen had a million dollars, John Kenneth Galbraith would still find a need for government action….There are in motion today forces that want to drain our power into a reservoir. I hope someday Mr. Schlesinger will turn in horror on the system he has abetted.”

Here Buckley gets to the heart of the matter. The left wants revolution and totalitarian control. Period. If every house had a full refrigerator and every American had a job, they would still be calling for revolution. To think otherwise is naïve.

Continue reading “”

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar

2A “SENSITIVE PLACES” EXPLANATION. I wrote this to a Four Boxes Diner fan so I thought I would post it here too! This explains when government can ban guns in a specific location consistent with 2A based on US’s historical tradition of gun regulations. Let me know if this makes sense. The below is superior to the other theories folks have advanced elsewhere!

Mark’s Explanation:
In short, if a government does not provide comprehensive security with limited points of entry, metal detectors and armed guards, then it cannot be a constitutionally-acceptable government-mandated gun free zone. The only time the government can take away your fundamental 2A right to keep and bear arms in a specific location is when the government itself assumes the full responsibility for protecting you with armed defense; short of this, you have a right to protect yourself.

If you look at our Founding history, the three “sensitive places” mentioned in Bruen (polling places, legislative chambers and courthouses) all had armed guards. Sheriffs, sergeant at arms, and bailiffs.

Today, with the rise of small, concealable handguns (less of a problem at the founding where everyone carried unconcealable rifles/shotguns/long guns), to have comprehensive security, the gov’t must provide metal detectors and limited entry points in addition to armed guards. At the founding, you did not need metal detectors b/c the main weapons were big and not concealable. Today, with handguns being ubiquitous, you need the metal detectors for comprehensive security, which is what we see at airports, courthouses and Congress.

Note, the government does NOT have to provide comprehensive security at a location. However, if they want to ban guns in a location, then they MUST provide comprehensive security. No government-provided armed security means the government cannot deprive you of your 2A rights.

Finally, the practical benefit to the comprehensive security approach to the “sensitive places” question is it is an objective test: has the government ACTED to make a place “sensitive” or have they just paid lip service to the question by labeling a place as “sensitive” without treating it as such.

If the government has not provided the same level of security as is provided by the government to protect the judges in a courthouse, then it is not comprehensive security and, by extension, a gun ban would not be constitutional in that specific location.