Category: Editorial O’ The Day

What Academics Consistently Miss When Examining America’s Gun Culture.

Fourteen years into my personal and sociological journey through American gun culture, I am constantly reminded of how difficult it is to find scholarship on everyday firearm use. Despite the longstanding presence of a robust legal gun culture, the social scientific study of guns is dominated by criminological and epidemiological studies of gun violence.

To be fair, criminologists study crime, and public health scholars study pathology. Sociologists tend to study what’s wrong with society rather than what’s right. We teach courses on “Social Problems” and “Deviant Behavior”; the unproblematic or nondeviant often remain unexamined. Studying the positive aspects of guns and of the communal life organized around their use falls out-side sociology’s analytic wheelhouse.

I understand the prevailing disciplinary view, to a point. Guns are, in fact, lethal tools. This is “a feature, not a bug,” as tech people say. Firearm lethality explains why, although the United States has only a moderate overall suicide rate compared to other developed countries, it has a firearm suicide rate that substantially exceeds these other nations. When people attempt suicide using guns, they die in up to 90% of cases. Firearm lethality also explains why, although the United States is not exceedingly violent or criminal, its criminal violence is more deadly.

The reality that 80 to 90 millionAmerican civilians own an estimated 400 million of these lethal tools means that guns will play a role in negative outcomes like suicide and homicide. But understanding the fun and community that can emerge from the responsible use of firearms is an important part of the story, too—and one that sociologists have neglected to tell.

In my analysis, guns resist simple categorization as either universally good or bad, dangerous or protective, fun or frightening. Instead, they are best understood through a “kaleidoscopic view,” considering the issue from multiple angles. To be sure, this requires maintaining a clear-eyed understanding of the lethal capabilities of firearms. But an exclusive focus on firearms-related harms fails to acknowledge—much less appreciate—the complex social realities of guns. As with other “serious leisure” activities, we need to appreciate the individual and communal pleasures associated with shooting—the pleasures that led me to fall for guns.

— David Yamane in How I Fell for Guns

 

Gaza On the Brink of A Civil War?
Palestinian Clans Are Battling Hamas

There now are warning signs that the Gaza Strip may be on the verge of a full-blown civil war.

Mayhem is reported to be occurring throughout the Strip as Hamas has begun to launch vicious assaults against its own Palestinian citizens. And local Palestinian clans are fighting back.

If an outright civil war does emerge, Palestinian citizens could dramatically alter their history of oppression at the hands of Hamas. And it appears that in various parts of the Gaza Strip, many Palestinians are seeking genuine liberation.

But the fight is going to be ugly and murderous for those who have the courage to stand up to the terror group. Could we see a bloodbath by Hamas as it tries to suppress the open rebellion?

Today, the British Telegraph reported on the brutal display of public executions by Hamas. According to the Telegraph’s Henry Bodkin, “Hamas has carried out a mass execution in the streets of Gaza as part of a series of bloody reprisals following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from key urban areas.

“Footage has emerged appearing to show around eight kneeling, blindfolded men, bearing signs of beatings, being shot dead in front of a crowd,” he wrote.

For months, there’s been ample evidence of a rising Palestinian rebellion against Hamas throughout the Gaza Strip. My own Substack post from last May highlighted various clans that were mobilizing against the terror group.

But even as yesterday’s international conference in Sharm El-Sheik promised to end the power of Hamas, the terror group has decided to strike back by launching murderous street battles across the Strip against rebellious Palestinian clans.

Yesterday, it appeared that President Trump gave Hamas temporary “approval” to still use its security forces to keep public order. But today in a White House meeting with the Argentine President, he seemed to reverse himself, saying, “If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently.”

But Hamas is used to its power to behave with total abandon and without any international restraints. As Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip acutely know, Hamas has ruled with a mafia-style grip that threatens and murders all of its opponents.

The Jerusalem Post’s Seth J. Frantzman observed the current state-of-play: “Hamas will want to settle scores and also show that it is still in control. Hamas will not remain in the shadows, it is already deploying men with AK-47s in areas of Gaza. It will want to show that it still has a mafia-like grip on power. It won’t want any of the various clans, tribes and militias to get any ideas. It will want to cement itself in power before any new interim administration is appointed. Then it will hand a fait accompli to anyone who thinks they can remove Hamas from Gaza.”

Even the BBC confirms Frantzman’s report, arguing that Hamas is seeking to “reassert control over Gaza as fears of renewed internal violence emerge following the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The mobilization has been widely anticipated as uncertainty grows about who will govern Gaza once the war ends – this is a key sticking point for later phases of Trump’s plan.”

The latest reports of pitched, murderous battles against the Palestinian clans also were filed yesterday by the Saudi state-run news agency Al-Hadath.

The Saudi news service reported that explosions were heard in the Gaza City neighborhood of Sejaia. Hamas claims it is launching a “large campaign” against rebelling clans.

The BBC also reported other battles in the Strip: “Masked Hamas gunmen exchanged fire with clan fighters near the city’s Jordanian hospital, witnesses said.”

The British news agency reported on eyewitness accounts of the clashes that erupted in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southern Gaza City. The BBC stated, “a Hamas force of more than 300 fighters moved to storm a residential block where Dughmush gunmen were entrenched.”

Their reporter recounted stories of sheer mayhem: “Residents described scenes of panic as dozens of families fled their homes under heavy gunfire, many of them displaced multiple times during the war.

“This time people weren’t fleeing Israeli attacks,” one resident said. “They were running from their own people.”

According to another report about the Doghmush clan fighting in Gaza City was from the Israeli outlet Ynet. They stated that 52 members of the Doghmush clan were killed, and 12 Hamas terrorists died in brutal battles.

The outrage expressed by local Palestinians opposed to Hamas is palpable. The Jerusalem Post quoted Hussam al-Astal, the commander of an armed group that’s fighting Hamas in Khan Yunis. He published a defiant post on his Facebook page, harshly attacking the organization, according to the Post.

“To all the Hamas rats,” he wrote, “your tunnels are destroyed, your rights no longer exist. Repent before it’s too late – there is no Hamas from today onward.”

Clearly, the clans also are gunning for major Hamas figures. The infamous Hamas “influencer” and blogger Salah al-Ja‘farawi was one of the most prominent pro-Hamas voices in the Gaza Strip who celebrated the butchery of October 7. He was found dead, reportedly shot in the head.

Interestingly, the wife of New York Democratic mayoralty candidate Zohran Mamdani, Rama Duwaji, mourning his killing. She shared an image of al-Ja’farawi on her Instagram post, accompanied by four broken-heart emojis, according to the Daily Caller. The Caller added she also shared a separate post referring to the “beloved Ja’farawi.”

Also killed by the Palestinian rebels was the son of a senior Hamas military intelligence official, Basem Naim.

The clans clearly are challenging the international narrative about life in Gaza under Hamas. Wrote one clan member, “We are trapped. They arrested all the youths, lined them up against walls, pointed weapons at their heads. There is a massacre here.”

“Children are screaming and dying, they are burning our houses,” another clan member told the Israeli news outlet, Ynet.

The British Telegraph reported in an exclusive interview with Khan Younis clan leader Hossam al-Astal who describes how he and others who hate the terror group await the moment to liberate Gaza.

“It was in the streets of Khan Younis that Hossam al-Astal, a sworn enemy of Hamas, gathered his men for battle against the terrorists after they had attacked the neighboring al-Majayda clan,” the Telegraph reported.

The British news agency further noted, “The bloody battle was the first serious clash between Hamas and the rebel leader’s militia, which he calls Strike Force Against Terror.”

The Telegraph added that the hate for Hamas was deep: “‘No place for Hamas dogs’ reads a slogan emblazoned on a social media picture of the militia leader alongside eight heavily armed men, which was posted around the same time as last week’s battle.”

There are a number of key clans that are leading the uprising. One is Yaser Abu Shabab, a clan leader who I wrote about in my previous Substack. He commands groups of armed men in Gaza’s Rafah area. They patrol and protect aid convoys while openly challenging Hamas’ power.

“Call us counter-terror forces. Our goal is to protect Palestinian human rights from Hamas terrorism,” he has said.

Another is the Doghmush clan whose members were killed this week by Hamas. The clan is large and has weapons. Hamas is gunning for its defiant leaders.

A third is the al-Mujaida clan, one of the largest clans in Gaza’s south. BBC reported that, “The southern Gaza city of Khan Younis has witnessed one of the fiercest internal confrontations since the war began, between a Hamas security force and gunmen from the al-Mujaida clan.

Then there are the community-grown rebel centers like that created by Hossam al-Astal.

Hamas won’t admit that Palestinian unrest is due to the opposition from local clans that are fed up with the terror group. Instead, they’re issuing the ever-weakening claim that Palestinians who oppose Hamas are “collaborators with Israel.”

It’s unclear how quickly an outside security force by Arab states can be mobilized to disarm Hamas and bring some calm to the Strip. This is part of the “second stage” of the 20-point agreement written by President Trump and supported by European and Muslim nations.

Until then, expect Hamas hopes to brutalize those who challenge it. They will probably intensify their killing spree.

Might the Gaza Strip become the Cambodia killing grounds from the 1970’s when communist leader Pol Pot murdered 1.5 to 2 million of its citizens – about a quarter of the country’s population? Might a brutal civil war engulf the small strip before international forces can replace the murderous Hamas?

Only time will tell

My latest Substack essay: The Insurrection Act: A short guide to President Trump’s options.

With resistance to ICE in many blue cities, there’s been a lot of talk about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. There are other, lesser statutes that he can employ, but this is the big gun. It intentionally gives the President enormous freedom and power to put down resistance to the law.

This is the relevant part of the Insurrection Act:

§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

So first, it’s discretionary to employ: “Whenever the President considers.” This language leaves no room for judicial review, by design; it’s up to the President to determine when the predicates for invoking the Act apply. Second, this phrase, “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” seems to fit perfectly with what’s going on in places like Portland or Chicago.

Third, discretionary language again: “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

It’s entirely up to the President under the statute. You may think it’s a bad idea — I’m not so sure it is, because I don’t think it’s a good idea for state and local governments to have a veto on federal law enforcement actions — but it’s entirely lawful. And, properly understood, not subject to judicial review. (The Insurrection Act, once triggered, also overrides the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition on using the military for law enforcement purposes.)

Invoking the Insurrection Act wouldn’t be unprecedented — it’s been done thirty times in the history of the Republic, or a bit less than once every 8 years. A state actively resisting federal authority could be met with the full power of the U.S. military — and the President could even recognize a competing, alternative state government. There’s no meaningful opportunity for judicial review under the Insurrection Act as its invocation is a “political question” and hence non-justiciable. (The same is true, as the Supreme Court held almost 200 years ago, in the case of Luther v. Borden, of recognizing one of two competing state governments as the legitimate government of a state).

“Political question” just means that the decision is left to one or both of the political branches of the government, leaving no room for judicial resolution. There is discipline, just not judicial discipline; instead it comes ultimately from voters.

And invocation of the Insurrection Act carries a special political resonance, though how much of one depends on how it is used. Using it to send troops to Portland to control a mob isn’t likely to be too controversial. Using it to replace the government of California, or to support a breakaway state of “New California,” would be more so.

Unless pushed, I don’t think Trump will go very far with this. Politically, it suits him to have Democrats, who yammered about “insurrection” for the past several years, acting loudly insurrectionary. And he seems to be able to accomplish a lot with threats — a threat to send the National Guard in to Chicago produced a sudden flurry of action from the Illinois State Police.

As Clay Whitehead used to say, the value of the Sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. That may be the case here, too. But if the sword of the Insurrection Act falls, it can fall very heavy indeed.

Cynical Publius

🔥MRS. DR. PUBLIUS ALERT🔥

To the women of the Western world – I have a sober urgent message.

Please listen carefully. For those of you who believe the toxic rhetoric of the left -PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY.

You must stop this nonsense – raging war against Western civilization. Western men do not (as a cultural norm) rape children or adjudicate cases of rape by allowing the rapist to marry the victim as reparations. That’s not our cultural norm.

Western women, we must use our voices and platforms wisely. Our entire culture is under attack – our real enemy will be the implementation of Sharia law. Please investigate the tenets of Sharia law for yourself- don’t take my word for it. Step back and look at the situation. Even without a profound understanding of history, we must look beyond today’s headlines and think strategically.

I’ve spent several months reading from different resources describing what Sharia law really means for non-Muslim, Western women. With certainty, you WILL lose all of your independence/autonomy – you will lose control over your own body – you will lose control over your own life – things you currently possess in our culture. These things don’t exist for Muslim women.

STOP listening to the left – they don’t care if you become subjugated against your will. Look at the Christian churches being burned in Nigeria or in Sudan’s North Darfur- Christians are being killed or young girls are being stalked and raped by rape gangs in the UK – all at the hands of Muslim men. This is the Muslim community’s idea of tolerance. If we in the West don’t reverse course – stand up and state the obvious truth – the numbers don’t lie – our culture will succumb to the will of people who desperately do not share like values with us. This is our very survival.

Women, it is the preservation of our constitutional rights that gives us true equality with men – and it is Christianity that reflects this authentic equality most clearly in our modern world. I don’t care if you are offended by that – history confirms my stance.

This needs to be said – the left is waging a war of distraction while the real travesty of what illegal immigration has done to Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) is being obscured – this policy is engulfing Western civilization because Islam does not practice tolerance of other religions/cultures in its home countries. This isn’t about “working families,” healthcare is a right, or any of the corrupted rhetoric of the left to engender class warfare – neither is the offensive racist rhetoric against white men. The left only pulls these sound bites out for their convenience.

I understand Islam is a religion and in the U.S. people have a right to practice their religion (unless it infringes on the rights of others), all because our Constitutional rights are the great equalizer. However, once Muslims take over our government at all levels by sheer numbers – they will implement Sharia law – this is why Islam is incompatible with our constitutional republic. Under Sharia law, Muslims may mislead non-Muslims in order to benefit the spread of Islam. So today, the left touts an ephemeral alliance with Muslims against Israel, but under Sharia law, these same neo-Marxists will be executed for being homosexual or transgender or having sex outside of marriage, and Christians will be enslaved, reduced to dhimmitude and/or executed for their faith. Convert or die – that will be the only choice – that is the reality.

So, that’s what awaits us if we don’t STOP this nonsense now and if we don’t change course, the perpetrators who engineered this catastrophic collapse of Western civilization will be enjoying their Mai Tais on their private islands while our culture lay in ruins.

Even the globalists who think they will still be in control when Western civilization has imploded are truly deceived – because they will face the irrational hoards of Islamic jihadists thirsting for their severed heads.

The women of the left have alienated the very culture that would have defended them. Please consider my arguments, and reverse course while there is still time.

Peace and prepare.

Cynical Publius
I’d like to add my own 2c here, A lot of Americans think what my missus is saying is hyperbole. Ask any veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan if this is all true. Ask anyone who has ever lived or worked in a Gulf state if this is all true. Not only will they confirm it, but they will tell you Mrs. Dr. P. Is holding back.

@TonemanLives

What are the real reasons Dem leaders do not want Trump to send in reinforcements to clean up these dangerous drug filled, crime ridden cities?

The first reaction is, they don’t want to be embarrassed. They don’t want to look weak and or be exploited for their wrongdoings

But there is a reason for all of it. The lack of policing, lack of arrests, lack of protecting the people.

These corrupt loud mouth corrupt politicians aren’t worried about being embarrassed. Hell, they’re Democrats and never show or feel any shame.

What they are truly worried about is Trump coming in and cleaning up their shitholes. Why? Because these dirty scumbags need this. All of this to survive.

I’m talking about the Dem leadership needs these areas for political control. The worse the area the more money gets pumped in. The more money that comes in the more money they get to control. Just look at the war chests of every one of these politicians in these disgusting 3rd war cities.

It’s right out of the Dem playbook. Money and control. Dems would rather rule over the ashes as long as their money flow continues

The Dems never care about the people. Show me any instance anywhere, where the Dems went in and did something good. Show me a place that the Dems made safer or a place where they are taking criminals off the streets and incarcerating them for long periods of time.

You won’t find any because there aren’t any. The Dems thrive on crime. Crime is good for business. Crime is good for politics.

The Dems are masters at playing with crime numbers and know exactly what it takes to keep getting voted in. They purposely keep the numbers down and are in control of their police departments. They tell them who to arrest and who not to bother. Their control goes beyond the people, it also goes to every state agency they are a part of

You lie about how much you care for the people, you continue to give them crumbs just to survive. You promise as long as you are there you will take care of the people. Then you lie about the crime numbers and tell the people that crime is down even though none of them feel it.

It’s called control. As long as things are bad these politicians thrive. They are masters at it and have been doing this for many years.

What do the scared citizens do? They go out and continue to vote for these same recycled scumbags.

They are afraid of change, and afraid to lose what little they get from these corrupt scumbags. There is a reason this has been a rinse and repeat operation for all these years. It keeps their political carousel turning. It keeps them getting reelected.

Now look at the other side of the equation. Trump comes in and what couldn’t be done in decades because the Dem leadership made them all believe that lie, Trump comes in, conquers and cleans up their shithole in a couple of weeks.

What happens next? The people who were lied to and told what couldn’t be done is not only all of a sudden fixed but they suddenly realize they have been lied to the entire time.

They realize the cities they fear to live in didn’t have to be that way. For the first time in their lives they will know what safety is, what drugs taken off the streets feels like, what living their lives and walking safely down the streets feels like.

Trump coming in and doing a major cleanup in these battle ridden cities is bad for business for the Democrats. It is bad for their party. This is what they fund off of. People living in fear. Once Trump eliminates the fear, Dems are no longer wanted. In fact these lost Americans will finally find their way. They will finally be contributing to society, a society they were all taught they would never be a part of.

Trump is decimating the Dems in more ways than one. These cities which are predominately black are all opening their eyes and it is all because of Trump. That is why Trump’s popularity is at all time highs with the black community. Trump is getting it done. Trust the process. My two cents

Violence and the Left’s Five-Part Strategy

President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a “major terrorist organization” is a major step in dealing with the epidemic of left-wing violence that has gripped the country.  For the first time, we have a president who understands that riots with pallets of bricks that show up at just the right time and place, attacks on law enforcement and on passing motorists, physical attacks on opponents and even assassination do not just arise organically but instead are all part of a larger subversive strategy that enables and supports the left’s violence.

Just prosecuting a violent leftist here and there without countering that subversive strategy is like swatting a mosquito or two while leaving in place the pool of stagnant water that breeds them. Consequently, the president’s executive order recognizes that any effort to stop left-wing violence has to address the larger ideological, organizational, and financial feeder system that breeds and incites that violence.

Now comes the challenge for mainstream Americans.  The radical left knows that the political will to carry out President Trump’s directive will depend on continuing support from mainstream America, and so the left will mount a counter-offensive to wear away public support for any attempt to counter the left’s subversion.  If you think leftists get unhinged when someone simply disagrees with them, wait until you see their reaction when their support network is investigated, their funding is threatened, and they feel exposed and cornered. The left-wing media and elected Democrats who supported the weaponization of government against peaceful opponents during the Obama and Biden administrations have already started a propaganda campaign with cries of “fascism” and “dictatorship” at the prospect of leftists being held accountable for inciting and committing political violence.

To hold fast in the face of the left’s counter-offensive, mainstream Americans need to see how the pieces of the left’s strategy work together to demoralize and destabilize our system of government. In his must-read book, The Memo: Twenty Years Inside the Deep State Fighting for America First, Rich Higgins describes in detail the pattern of subversion that he encountered within America’s security apparatus and his attempt to warn President Trump about it. In addition to a shocking account of delay and subversion from within the deep state, Higgins also reveals in this book and in his other work how leftist violence is only one of five lines of effort in the Maoist approach to political warfare. Expanding on his work, we see the outlines of the left’s five-part strategy:

(1) Forming alliances of grievance groups:  Socialists, radical feminists, minorities, gender identity groups, climate extremists, Islamists, and other grievance groups are pulled together toward a common aim, the destruction of the Judeo-Christian foundations of America and the West.  Supported by a complex web of foreign and domestic funding, conflicting interests such as those of the LGBT movement and those promoting sharia law are tempered—at least for now—by that shared aim.

(2) Non-violent action: Many of the left’s tactics are non-violent in themselves but promote a dangerous climate for anyone who disagrees with their authoritarian agenda. Condemnatory terms such as “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “transphobic,” or “fascist” and characterizing opposing opinions as driven by hate are all intended to intimidate and silence any viewpoints deemed politically incorrect by the radical left. Boycotts of companies that don’t toe the party line as well as deplatforming and debanking of opponents create a climate of fear and send a clear message that you will pay if you cross the left.

(3) Violent action and intimidation: The above tactics provide propaganda air cover for looting, riots, attacks on people who disagree, and even assassination as supposedly legitimate means of bringing down “fascists” and the hateful and oppressive system they support. As was the case with the paramilitary Red Guard in China, we see that young people are particularly enticed to join in the destruction of the existing cultural and political order.

(4)  Sanctuary:  Subversive actors need safe spaces where they can be encouraged and protected from the consequences of their actions, and so speech codes and leftist indoctrination in our education system make it clear that only left-wing opinions are permissible and that open exploration of ideas should not be tolerated.  Left-wing DAs who view criminals as victims and victims as oppressors release dangerous offenders on the street, undermining public trust in government protection.

(5) Direct political action: The above tactics then enable the election of radical leftists who use the formal power of government to attack and undermine our constitutional system. You don’t’ have to search long to see a number of public officials who already spout the Marxist line under the cover of “progressive” or “democratic socialist” labels.

When we see the full extent of the left’s multi-front campaign of subversion, it becomes clear that only a multi-front response such as that in President Trump’s directive has any hope of protecting public safety and restoring our ability to have civil discussion of differences without threats of violence from the left.  When you hear the left bemoaning “weaponization” of government, remember that an age-old tactic of the left is to accuse their opponents of what the left actually does.

Dr. Tim Daughtry is co-author of Waking the Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own Game.  F

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Oft Evil Will Shall Evil Mar
Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and a New Great Awakening

The title to this essay is a line from Tolkien. But I’m also reminded of two distinct lines from Star Wars, paired:

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I dunno, I can imagine an awful lot.

Charlie Kirk was a powerful force. He went from campus to campus and he talked to people. Generally when he was debating, he would put his microphone down, to reassure his partner that he wasn’t going to talk over them. He was respectful, and he was highly effective. He played a major role in winning over Gen Z to the conservative side. That’s why he was killed — murdered. He was murdered not because he was “hateful,” or “extreme,” but because he was effective.

But now, even dead, he’s beating them, worse than he ever did when he was alive.

For all the fear of “Christian Nationalism,” a shallow, largely fictitious bogeyman for years, the murder of Charlie Kirk has effectively called it into being as a force.

(Ron Coleman, by the way, is an observant Jew.)

Trump couldn’t, and wouldn’t, have called Christian Nationalism into being himself. (Though, to be honest, it’s currently in a form FDR or Truman would have been comfortable with, if not Obama.) But Charlie Kirk’s murderer did. Christianity has historically advanced martyr by martyr. The way to kill Christianity is to ignore it. But the left can’t do that, of all things.

For one thing, leftism has the instinct to extirpate all potential rival power centers. And at a more fundamental level, since leftism was (to invoke Tolkien again) created in mockery of Christianity, as the Orcs were created in mockery of the Elves, there’s a fundamental hatred there that can’t be tamped down for long.

That hatred isn’t really returned by its objects. But if you get people’s attention, well, you may not like what comes next.

Why are they afraid? Erica Kirk today offered forgiveness.

Her full eulogy is here. On the other hand:

Forgiveness doesn’t mean avoidance of responsibility, or of consequences in this world.

But the real — and most hated — consequence won’t be FBI raids, and RICO prosecutions against the leftist groups that organize and finance terror, though those are likely to happen. It will likely be in another Great Awakening. There have already been signs of a religious revival among the young, both here and even in Europe. My University of Tennessee colleague Rosalind Hackett has been predicting for some time that the big religious force of the 21st Century is going to be militant Christianity, not militant Islam.

Tyler Robinson played a major part in helping to move that prediction closer to reality. I hope he reflects on that, in whatever time he has left.

No, It Wasn’t Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.

Inevitably, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some observers looked at the problem of a radicalized young man who drove hundreds of miles to plan and carry out the murder of somebody whose political views he abhorred and concluded that the problem is the tool used by the assassin. A few of those observers even gloat that Kirk was shot after defending the right to keep and bear arms when he discussed the tradeoffs inherent in balancing the benefits and dangers of liberty.

Much political discourse was already stupid, but too many people want to make it even stupider.

After Kirk’s assassination, amidst widespread mourning over his death as well as despicable celebrations of the conservative activist’s murder, came a spate of malicious chuckling over the nature of the crime. Charlie Kirk, you see, was shot with a rifle, and he’d once called shooting deaths the price of keeping the Second Amendment. How ironic!

Except that’s really not what Kirk said.

I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk, but this wasn’t one. His comment about the Second Amendment and deaths was part of a larger discussion about the dangers inherent in liberty. He emphasized that you can’t have the good parts of being free without also suffering the negative consequences.

Asked at an April 5, 2023, Turning Point USA event about the Second Amendment, Kirk answered:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government….Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price—50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.”

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am—I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal,” he added.

Kirk might also have mentioned that free speech is also dangerous. Unfettered speech is important to the function of a free and open society. But protecting speech risks the popularization of vicious, totalitarian ideas like those of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. It runs the danger of the radicalization of lost souls who encounter bad ideas, embrace them, engrave “Hey fascist! Catch!” lyrics from the antifascist song “Bella Ciao” and gaming memes on rifle cartridges, and then murder their political opponents.

Undoubtedly, the same people would have found that equally ironic.

And Kirk’s larger point is true across the board. Any freedom that allows us to live to our fullest, any restriction on state intervention into our lives, can be abused by the worst among us. Evil people are shielded by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as are good people. We give up such protections at our peril in hopes of rooting out evil.

What peril? Kirk touched on this in his 2023 talk when he said, “the Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and noted that “governments tend to get tyrannical.”

Yes, freedom can be abused by bad people. But if we can’t trust everybody to use freedom wisely, why would we trust people in government to wisely administer a more restrictive regime by which they get to disarm the public, censor speech, invade homes at will, and more? Those who seek coercive power over others by working in government are at least as prone to abuse their position as is anybody else.

There are tradeoffs not just in liberty, but in restricting liberty. Given that we have a natural right to be free, and that Kirk was correct to say that all governments tend towards tyranny, we’re better off trusting in more freedom, rather than less. That’s a recognition that there are no risk-free options.

The Call for Gun Control Gets Even Dumber

But the focus on Kirk’s death by gunshot gets even stupider. The conservative activist was reportedly killed with a single round from a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. The Mauser 98 was originally designed in the 19th century for military use but has long since been largely supplanted in that role by semi-automatic and then select-fire weapons, most using less-powerful cartridges (yes, the most common cartridges used in AR- and AK-type weapons are generally less-powerful than other cartridges used for hunting).

But the old design remains ideal for hunting large game animals. It is accurate if properly zeroed, has a longer effective range than many modern military weapons, and cartridges such as the .30-06 are likely to cleanly drop an animal with a single shot. That’s why many of the old rifles were adapted, sometimes with modifications, for hunting. Modern bolt-action hunting rifles used for stalking deer, boar, elk, and the like are variations on designs that go back to the Mauser 98 and similar rifles.

That is, the hunting rifle allegedly used to murder Charlie Kirk is an example of the only type of firearm gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban or restrict. No major law advocated in recent years, such as magazine capacity limits or bans on semi-automatic weapons, would have affected it.

Blame Culture?

Some observers are upset that the left—the radical fringe of it, anyway—is blamed for Kirk’s murder when Tyler Robinson’s family is conservative, Mormon, culturally traditional, and comfortable with firearms. But the Robinson family didn’t shoot Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson committed this crime after he adopted views very different from those of his family, embraced the use of violence against political foes, and inscribed antifascist slogans on his ammunition before taking a fatal shot.

If we’re going to delve into culture wars, we could mention the unfortunate use of speech in the social media cesspool. That’s where Robinson was seemingly radicalized, where people celebrated Kirk’s death, and where a few even called for more targets. But that’s part of the tradeoffs of liberty.

If we’re all to be free, and we should be, some will use freedom in repulsive ways. We should punish those who push action to criminal extremes. But all liberty can be misused. And not only are the risks of liberty worth the dangers, they’re also far less perilous than granting governments enhanced powers that they’ll inevitably abuse.

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

So many of you continue to inflame Charlie Kirk’s death by celebrating it. I know why you celebrate it: you genuinely believe Charlie (and the rest of us) are fascist racists who want transgender people in death camps and young women in real “Handmaid” costumes.

YOU GENUINELY BELIEVE THIS.

And that, my fellow Americans, is the problem.

I want to solve that problem. I know it is highly unlikely that any of you will listen, but I will try to help you see reality anyway:

1. Opposing official policies that pass judgment on individuals based solely on their skin color is not “racist.” In fact, it’s actually anti-racist.

2. Opposing abortion means we want to save human lives, not that we want you in a red dress and a hood living out some S&M cosplay that you secretly crave.

3. Self-defense is an inherent human right. Guns are the great equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from stronger predators. That is the main reason we support gun rights: to preserve life, not to end it.

4. We want less government and more personal liberty. That is the complete antithesis of “fascism.”

5. We believe the same thing all mankind has believed for millennia until about ten minutes ago: there are only two genders, and God made us man and woman. We don’t challenge your adult right to mutilate yourselves with the wrong hormones and surgery; we just are not willing to agree that you are ACTUALLY the wrong sex. Our belief is held in good faith, peacefully, and nobody wants to lock you up for wearing a dress.

Democrats, you need not agree with our positions. You simply need to understand that calling us “Nazis” for holding these positions is a sort of defamation that has zero basis in fact or logic. You have been brainwashed into believing our positions are somehow objectively evil. Until you recognize that we hold our beliefs in good faith, and that people of good faith can hold differing positions without hating each other, this violence will get worse.

Because that violence is all coming from your side, fueled by your defamatory rhetoric.

When you stop lying, you will stop giving fuel to the violent crazies on your side.

So stop lying.

For your own sakes, and the sake of this nation. Haven’t you figured out yet that you have pushed us too far?

Sincerely,
CP

Well, I had murderous minded Leftists figured out a long time ago.

Nic Carter

My less online conservative friends have abruptly awakened this week to the reality that their political opponents are not mere sparring partners in a congenial game of democracy but would celebrate their deaths and those of everyone they love.
That’s why “it feels like something is different now.” They have realized the left is playing for keeps and sees them as subhuman monsters. Watching otherwise pleasant leftist friends or family or colleagues celebrating Kirk’s death on main with their real names attached. It’ll change you.

Nick Freitas

I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I’m supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people.

But we aren’t “one people” are we?

The truth is we haven’t been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was.

We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.

I convinced myself for a long time that whenever the left called me a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a fascist, a “threat to democracy” for even the most innocent of disagreements, that it was simply hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect.

And now the “effect” is a widow and two orphaned children, because the left couldn’t bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning.

I don’t think they realize it yet, but murdering Charlie is going to be remembered as the day where we finally woke up to what this fight really is.

It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Charlie tried to win that fight through argumentation, through discussion, through peaceful resolution of differences.

And the other side murdered him.

Not because he was “extreme” or “inciting violence” or any other hyperbolic slur they hurled at him. They murdered him because he was effective. Because he was unafraid. Because he inspired others and made them feel like they had a voice, that they were not alone. And he did it at the very institutions which have fomented so much hatred toward conservatives.

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk.

Social media is aflame right now with leftist celebration of Charlie’s death.

I wonder if any among them understand what has just happened. If there is a Yamamoto somewhere in their midst warning, that all they have done is awoken a sleeping giant.

I doubt it. I think they gave up such introspection and self-awareness long ago.

I don’t know exactly what will happen next. I just know that it won’t be the same as what has happened in the past.

There will be thoughts and prayers…Charlie would have wanted prayers. Not for himself but for those left behind and for the country that he loved.

But then there will be a reckoning.

My Christian faith requires me to love my enemies and pray for those who curse me. It does not require me to stand idly by in the midst of savagery and barbarism…quite the opposite.

So every time I feel tired, every time I feel discouraged or overwhelmed, I am going to watch the video of a good man being murdered in Utah…I will force myself to watch it…and then I will return to the work of destroying the evil ideology responsible for that and so much more.

Rest with God Charlie, your fight is over.

Ours is just beginning.

Second Amendment rights must apply to our military service members | PHIL WILLIAMS

Gun control laws continue to fail.

And where gun control laws make the least amount of sense are on U.S. military installations ― policy that must change.

The world turned its attention recently to an active shooter incident in Manhattan. A depraved individual drove to the heart of New York City, walked calmly into a downtown high rise, killed five people and took his own life. No one knows why a bad guy took up arms and committed heinous acts of terror.

Just weeks before the New York shooting, we saw the heroism of a former Marine named Derrick Perry in Michigan, who pulled his concealed-carry firearm and saved innocent bystanders from a knife-wielding madman who had just stabbed multiple people at random. A good guy who took up arms and stopped heinous acts of terror.

In reality, it is not guns that are bad. It is bad people with guns who are bad. Let’s keep in mind that both New York and Michigan have stringent gun control laws. Gun control did not stop the loss of life in Manhattan. Gun control laws did not stop the violence in Michigan.

More recently, another episode of gun violence erupted at the U.S. Army’s Fort Stewart, Georgia. Army Sgt. Quornelius Radford, using a personal weapon, opened fire on fellow soldiers, wounding five. He was stopped by other servicemembers who have since been decorated for their bravery.

But none of the responding soldiers could be called “good guys with guns.” Why? Because the U.S. military has the most draconian gun control laws in the nation.

Let that sink in.

Fort Stewart is home to the legendary 3rd Infantry Division, whose exploits include those of Audie Murphy. It’s the same Fort Stewart with two Armored Brigade Combat Teams, and its nearby sister installation Hunter Army Airfield, which houses the 1st Ranger Battalion. Soldiers who are trained as experts in the use of firearms, yet they cannot have their own firearms on post. Unless of course they are a bad guy who snuck it in with intent to do harm.

What about red state Alabama whose state motto resounds “We Dare Defend Our Rights?” All personal firearms on Alabama’s Redstone Arsenal must be registered or be subject to confiscation. Outside the gate, Alabama citizens may freely open carry a firearm, and concealed carry no longer requires a permit. But on Redstone Arsenal, where soldiers have far more firearms training than the average citizen, that freedom is curtailed. The same is true for Alabama’s Fort Rucker.

Consider the disparity in treatment here. Outside the gate, civilians freely exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They do so with no prerequisite training or conditioning. There are no mandatory gun safety course. There are no annual weapons qualification requirements for civilians.

But on an Army installation, soldiers have all of the above: Basic training with firearms, advanced training, reflexive fire training, annual qualification and awards for marksmanship. And yet, they must face the complete curtailing of their Second Amendment rights.

In 2016, President Donald Trump called for the military gun control policies to be rescinded. Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley opposed the idea. Go figure.

Firearms are not scary. People are scary. Period.

Aside from noise and a general lack of familiarity, most people are more concerned about the manner in which firearms are used, maintained or handled, which are issues of purely HUMAN fault. Those are issues for which the U.S. military is more than qualified to address.

I bear the surgical scars from someone being lax with firearm safety. Despite getting shot by one of those evil firearms I was able to separate the causation from the instrument. It was not the shotgun that shot me in and of itself. Rather, it was the knuckleheaded laxity of the guy who shot me and who should have known better.

And soldiers? They know better than most.

Soldiers know how to handle firearms. Breach load, bolt action, magazine fed and pump. Holographic sights, iron sights, and no sights. Holstered, unholstered and slung. Long guns, sidearms and scatter shots. They are trained to carry them in combat. Trusted in every respect. Except when they are in garrison on the Army installations to which they are assigned.

“You don’t forfeit all of your rights when you enter the military,” Carpenter said. “Outside of a military situation, the service member has just as much Second Amendment right as anyone else.” Referencing the recent shooting at Fort Stewart, Carpenter also said, “All those rules aren’t going to prevent someone from doing what the guy did today,”

Guns are not scary. People are scary. GOOD people with guns are what often stands between potential victims and bad people with guns. And our U.S. servicemembers are among the best. We trust them with our lives and swear them to an oath before taking up arms. It is time that we looked them in the eye and told them that we trust them with their rights.

Let’s restore the Second Amendment for our military. They’ve earned it.

Phil Williams is a former state senator from District 10 (which includes Etowah County), retired Army colonel and combat veteran, and a practicing attorney. He previously served with the leadership of the Alabama Policy Institute in Birmingham. He currently hosts the conservative news/talk show Rightside Radio on multiple channels throughout north Alabama. The opinions expressed are his own.

Voter Registration vs. Gun Registration: Should We Register Both?

The debate over firearm registration often includes a familiar analogy: “We register to vote, so why not register to own a gun?”

At first glance, the comparison appears simple—both voting and keeping arms are rights protected by the Constitution. However, a closer look at the legal, historical, and functional differences between these rights reveals why the analogy is flawed.

The Constitutional Foundations

  • Multiple constitutional amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) protect voting, which is recognized as a cornerstone of representative democracy.
  • The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, with the clear directive that it “shall not be infringed.”

While both rights are essential to liberty, the Second Amendment contains an unusually strong prohibition on government interference—language not mirrored in voting amendments. This distinction matters: it shows the framers saw the keeping of arms as a safeguard against government overreach, not just a civic process to be managed.

The Purpose of Registration in Each Context

  • Voter Registration exists to confirm eligibility: age, residency, citizenship, and prevention of fraud. It does not restrict the existence or possession of the right itself; it simply manages when and where it is exercised.
  • Gun Registration, by contrast, involves cataloging the private ownership of specific tools that can be physically seized. This creates a direct pathway to confiscation—something voting registration does not enable.

In practical terms, voter rolls are lists of people eligible to cast a ballot; they are not inventories of ballots stored in citizens’ homes. A firearm registry is an inventory—linking specific tools to specific individuals—making the potential for abuse much higher.

Historical Risks of Gun Registration

Throughout the 20th century, authoritarian regimes often began disarming citizens by first requiring registration. Historical examples from Germany, the Soviet Union, and other nations illustrate how such registries became tools for confiscation, leaving the population defenseless against state power.

Voter registration lists have never been used to prevent lawful citizens from casting ballots in a similar sweeping, physical manner. While voter suppression exists as a political problem, it is not comparable to the armed seizure of constitutionally protected property.

The Role of Government Trust

Supporters of gun registration argue it could help law enforcement assess risk before responding to dangerous calls. Opponents note that it requires a level of trust in government that the Second Amendment was specifically designed to limit.

Voting rights advocates may accept government control over voter rolls because the act of voting inherently depends on a centralized process—elections. Gun ownership, however, exists independent of the state and is meant, in part, to provide a counterbalance to it.

Key Differences in Liberty Impact

Aspect Voter Registration Gun Registration
Purpose Verify eligibility Track possession of physical property
Risk of Abuse Administrative errors, targeted suppression, corruption by non-citizens Enables confiscation, historically misused by authoritarian regimes
Dependency on the State Inherent—elections are state-run Independent—firearms are privately held
Constitutional Language Multiple amendments, no “shall not be infringed” Explicit “shall not be infringed” directive
Effect of Registry Removal Harder to confirm eligibility Removes pathway to confiscation

Conclusion

The analogy between voter registration and gun registration oversimplifies two fundamentally different systems. Voter registration is an administrative safeguard for a state-run process; gun registration is a list of private arms held by citizens—precisely the kind of record history shows can be turned against the people.

In a free society, protecting the right to vote matters greatly. But, protecting the right to keep and bear arms is what ensures all other rights—including voting—remain secure.

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.