Note To Biden: Gun Stores Aren’t Responsible For Veteran Suicides

Suicide is a serious problem, but it’s especially problematic among veterans. Many of the brave men and women who fought for our nation and survived find they can’t seem to make it through peace quite as well, so they claim their own lives.

Few people don’t see this as a significant issue. The problem is that we rarely agree on how to address it.

After all, we live in a world where President Joe Biden seems to blame gun stores for those veteran suicides.

The Biden-Harris administration is using veteran suicides to garner public support for their war on gun dealers, whom they blame for skyrocketing violent crime rates in cities historically controlled by Democrats.

“The Biden administration is rolling out a new initiative aimed at reducing suicides by gun and combating the significant increases in suicides by members of the military and veterans,” the Associated Press reported Wednesday. As part of the plan, Biden will order the ATF to “seek to revoke the licenses of dealers the first time that they violate federal law.”

This is nothing new. Biden first announced he was targeting gun dealers in June. The only difference is now he’s doing it for the veterans.

That’s sick – even for Biden – using the deaths of heroes to sell his gun control plan.

The other team doesn’t care. They love the plan. John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, told the AP the administration was “blazing a new path to keep guns away from people who could be a danger to themselves.”

To be clear, gun dealers – even the rogue ones – do not contribute to veteran suicides. The Veterans Administration contributes to veteran suicides. If a veteran decides they need help, they’ll spend months fighting to get the VA to accept that their illness is service-related and that they qualify for care. Democrats want to give away universal healthcare. In my humble opinion, it should go to the people who have earned it. All veterans should have access to immediate care.

It’s true. Trying to navigate the VA healthcare system makes a trip to the DMV look like a visit to a Chic-fil-A driver-through. There’s no way that helps.

So why is Biden trying to pin it on gun dealers?

The answer, of course, is that he’s been looking to blame gun stores for all manner of ills and has since he took office. If he could blame the current inflation on them, he probably would.

Since he despises gun stores so vehement, it stands to reason that he’d try and blame them for veteran suicides.

The problem is, of course, that gun stores aren’t really to blame.

Unless someone walks into the store and asks something like, “Which gun is best for killing myself with?” it’s kind of hard for the dealer to realize there may be an issue there. After all, this is a law-abiding citizen with no felonies and hasn’t been adjudicated as “mentally defective” by the courts. There’s nothing there for a store to see that maybe this is someone who shouldn’t buy a gun.

Blaming the stores doesn’t make any sense.

Then again, little of Biden’s anti-gun jihad has made much sense. Most guns used by criminals are stolen, but he’s focused on straw buys. Now he’s looking at them to pin the blame for suicides on them.

While I agree suicide is an issue, it’s not a gun issue. It’s a mental health issue.

If Biden really wants to reduce veteran suicide numbers, there are some steps he could take. One would be to make sure that the VA doesn’t try to interfere with people’s right to keep and bear arms, as they have in the past. Veterans need to be free to talk with their counselors without fear of their guns being taken. If not, many may hold back how they feel, which means not getting the help they truly need.

Then there’s the issue of access, which was mentioned in the above-linked post. It’s not easy getting your first appointment with the VA and it can take a while on the follow-ups as well.

But none of this is the fault of gun stores and Biden–or his administration, at least–damn well knows it.

In early colonial times, some colonies often ordered the populace to bear their weapons to work and even to church services. Even farther back than that, in medieval Europe, the practice of being armed at certain public functions finally devolved into carrying huge, ornately decorated ‘Bearing Swords’ which was more an indication of class status. The bigger and more expensive, the higher up the ladder you- or the master a squire was carrying for -was.
The city council of this town wants everyone attending council meetings to bear arms…. if they want to.
I rather like the idea.

‘Legally armed’ rule has critics gunning for New Mexico town

ESTANCIA, N.M. (AP) — Mayor Nathan Dial said a recently approved rule requiring people to be “legally armed” to attend an Estancia Town Council meeting is just a way of sending notice that the town is not going to let the state dictate what it can and cannot do.

“Rural New Mexico is just tired of being pushed around,” Dial told the Albuquerque Journal as he sat in town hall with a snub nose .357 on his hip. “This is not just about the Second Amendment. This is about all civil liberties.”

Continue reading “”

Right To Dissent & The Right To Bear Arms: Bulwarks Against Tyranny

Americans remain at the moment privileged to celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas, Independence Day, Labor Day, and other Holidays. But, for how much longer.

A year ago July, Independence day we wrote of the dire threats to our Nation, coming from within.

“With Independence Day only days away, this Country can hardly be in a celebratory spirit, as the very words, ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ are treated like obscenities.

We witness two-legged predators laying waste the Land, destroying property, intimidating innocent Americans, causing bedlam and mayhem. The police, under fire, are ordered to stand down. Government cowers. Law and Order breaks down everywhere. The seditious Press and Radical Left members of Congress, along with Radical Left State Governors and City Mayors give their blessing to the perpetrators of this violence.”

See also our sister article, posted a few days earlier.

Has anything changed, almost seventeen months later? Yes, the threat to our Nation has only grown direr.

The Trotting Horse of American Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism is now running at full gallop. It is charging directly toward a formidable defense to be sure—the Bill of Rights. But it is determined to break through, destroying the Constitution of the United States, annihilating a free Republic, subjugating a free and sovereign people.

Evidence for this is everywhere, including, inter alia:

  • Government acquiescence to violent rioting, and looting in the Nation’s cities.
  • A systematic plan to indoctrinate the Nation’s youth with “Critical Race Theory”.
  • Constraints on the exercise of Free Speech/Intolerance toward Dissent.
  • Violations of Due Process and Equal Protection Guarantees.
  • Violations of the Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. [Red Flag Laws]
  • Unlawful Government orders and mandates, such as mandatory COVID Vaccinations.
  • Failure of Government to Enforce the Nation’s Immigration Laws.
  • Debilitation of the Military: Purging of the Ranks, Politicization of Upper Echelons, Creating Dissension, and Destroying morale.
  • Consolidation of Governmental power in a single Branch.
  • Expanding Federal Government power over the people and the States.
  • Emasculation of State and Community Police Forces.
  • Politicization and Corruption of Executive Branch Departments.
  • Deliberate Destruction of the Nation’s Economy.
  • Collusion between the Government and the Press to Distort News and to indoctrinate the public. [Fake News Media]
  • The defacing, destroying, and removing of national monuments.
  • Denigration of the American Flag and other national emblems.
  • Belittlement of the notion of “Citizen of the United States”.
  • Ennoblement of Marxist Lawbreakers and Illegal Aliens.

And most ominously,

  • Concerted Attacks on Civilian Possession of firearms and of the inherent, natural Right of Armed Self-defense.

Continue reading “”

Bill Introduced To Expand List Of Disqualifiers

The Federal prohibitions on who may or may not purchase/possess a firearm are a subject of debate with many. On one side of the aisle we’re told that too many violent people are still able to get access to firearms. The other side might be saying “shall not be infringed” until blue in the face. Personally, just trying to report on this subject, I’ve been accused of being too “progressive” and that my views embrace unconstitutional provisions in the law. I imagine this’ll be no different. Just trying to get the details out in the open. What’s the subject today? Expanding who’s disqualified from firearm ownership.

A bill was recently introduced by Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse, the Vice Chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. Neguse announced on November 4th the introduction of the legislation. The Congressman was joined by Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Robin Kelly in bringing the bill forward. H.R.5878 – End Gun Violence Act of 2021 aims to add certain misdemeanors to the current list of those who no longer have a Second Amendment right.

Continue reading “”

The Second Amendment Ain’t That Complicated

When looking at the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear that the Second Amendment is pretty important. After all, it’s second in the list of amendments. Additionally, the First Amendment preserves a number of specific rights, whereas the Second is focused on a single right. That suggests some importance for that particular right.

For many of us, we’ve referred to as the insurance policy on the Bill of Rights. After all, your right to protest or worship as you see fit can be snatched away by any government willing to ignore words on a piece of paper. Having the right to keep and bear arms means a potentially tyrannical government will have to account for a populace that is both armed and outnumbers them.

But some have managed to take this relatively simple concept and make it complicated.

That’s at play in a recent editorial that appeared in several newspapers, but appears to have originated from the L.A. Times:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a mess, a muddle, a grammatically challenged pair of clauses that allows two or more readers to insist that it says two starkly different things, both of which are of life-or-death importance and each of which can be only partially defended.

To some, it is foremost the militia amendment, plainly referring to “the people” as a collective entity and embodying a young, rebellious nation’s mistrust of professional standing armies in favor of armed citizens banding together at times of crisis.

Yet to others, it is primarily the gun-rights clause, safeguarding an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the clear references to “the security of a free state” and the lack of any mention of individual rights.

The drafters of the Bill of Rights were learned men who knew how to write, so there must have been some reason for them to submit these oddly assembled 27 words that give us such trouble today. They most likely disagreed over the place of firearms in American society. Was their primary and most contentious purpose to defend the nation (against foreign invaders, but perhaps also against the abuses of their own government)? Or was it for shooting squirrels for the dinner table (and defending against slave revolts and Indian uprisings)?

I’m going to give the writer credit. For once, they at least acknowledge that we have an argument at least as equally valid as the gun control crowd’s.

Usually, they simply pretend we’re making stuff up.

However, I have to point out that the Second Amendment really isn’t that difficult to understand.

Let’s start by addressing the militia clause for a moment. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is an introductory clause, but it doesn’t actually carry much weight grammatically. You can purge it from the sentence and it still makes sense. Trust me, I use way too many introductory clauses in my own writing. I’m well versed in what they are.

But even if it’s not, the claim that “the people” refers to a collective group should be problematic for each and every person in this country, even if you don’t like guns.

After all, “the people” are referred to multiple times in the Bill of Rights. At no other point does it seem to refer to a collective right except with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. Now, why would the Founding Fathers write it that way?

Oh, and it’s highly unlikely that our Founding Fathers disagreed over the place of firearms in American society. These aren’t the vanguard of an ancient civilization lost to time. Their writings still exist, preserved by a society that recognized the importance of their words. We have many comments about preserving the right to gun ownership. We also have stories of these same men carrying firearms with them as they passed through the city.

What we don’t have, though, are any references to them believing that the right to gun ownership should be limited.

I mean, the Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque, empowering privateers to hunt the shipping of our nation’s enemies. That at least suggests that the private ownership of artillery was on the table. If they were unwilling to restrict cannons, then why should we believe they were accepting of any other restriction.

The fact is that there’s no evidence to suggest our Founding Fathers struggled with the role of guns in our society. Quite the contrary, actually, they not only accepted them but felt that they were a necessity for maintaining a free society.

The editorial goes on later to argue:

In some parts of the country, people still do use guns to put food on the table, for sport or simply as an attribute of their lifestyle. Gun-toting behavior that would be natural and acceptable in, say, rural Pennsylvania, would be menacing and is wisely prohibited in downtown Los Angeles. For now.

In issuing a ruling in the case currently before it, the Supreme Court may well strike down not merely New York’s permit requirements but also California’s, and those of the six other states that reserve the right to grant or deny permits based on the applicant’s reason for wanting one.

States have long made their own decisions about how to balance residents’ safety with their gun rights, based on the values expressed by voters at the polls and their representatives in the legislature.

This, of course, is in reference to the case before the Supreme Court, as is most of the editorial. The editorial board responsible for this one argues that these restrictions are good and necessary.

However, as I’ve already illustrated and as the courts have found, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That means restricting people from exercising that right based on a subjective interpretation of need is an infringement of that right. You can’t argue otherwise without simply pretending the right doesn’t exist.

The truth is, the Second Amendment isn’t that complicated.

*gasp* Horrors! *faint*

CNN: ‘Americans Are Buying More Guns Than Ever Before’

CNN used a Tuesday column on the decline in gun control support to affirm “Americans are buying more guns than ever before.”

CNN pointed out that Democrat House members have passed gun control that the Senate is not even expected to consider, as “support for gun control just hit its lowest point in almost decade.”

They pointed to a Gallup survey showing only 52 percent of Americans support stricter gun control. That is the lowest level of gun control support since 2014.

CNN also acknowledged a new Quinnipiac Poll, which found 48 percent of registered voters oppose stricter gun control.

CNN observed: “Americans are buying more guns than ever before. In 2020, nearly 23 million guns were bought — a record. That surge has continued through 2021.”

On September 9, 2021, the National Shootings Sports Foundation looked at numbers from the first six months of 2021 and estimated there were 3.2 million first-time gun purchasers during that time-frame.

Celebrity crap-for-brains on display once more.

Mobile Co. lawmaker believes he’ll be able to get rid of pistol permit requirements in AL

Representative Shane Stringer (R-Citronelle) says you shouldn’t have to purchase a permit to carry a concealed gun because the Second Amendment guarantees your right to do so. His “Constitutional carry” proposal would eliminate pistol permit requirements in Alabama.

“Alabama is already an open carry state. You can walk outside your house with a gun on your side, as long as it’s open. If it’s wintertime, and you put a coat over it, you need a permit,” said Stringer.

Stringer says he’s been working with other lawmakers and believes he has enough support to pass his plan and get rid of pistol permit requirements next session. He says many lawmakers were swayed because the state is now in the process of creating a prohibited person database. It will list people who are ineligible to possess a firearm due to state or federal convictions or mental health illness adjudicated by a court.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
“…what is needed is a change in the behavior of gun owners.”
No, what is needed is a change in the behavior of criminals who commit 90%+ of the non-suicide shootings in the U.S. Law-abiding gun owners are just that, law-abiding. We are not the ones responsible for the cost of “gun violence”.

Miss Bland thinks: ‘Let’s use high taxes to make it harder to exercise a right’.
Taking notes, right?
And I don’t think she remembers that there was a rebellion over depriving rights through high taxes that ended up being a revolution. Of course, modern education seems to be purposefully lacking in U.S. History and Civics

The Second Amendment, Taxes, And Gun Control

Americans may be divided over the necessity and efficacy of gun control, but it is hard for anyone to deny that the healthcare costs for victims of gun violence are substantial.

State and local governments must spend a significant amount of tax dollars for law enforcement, ambulance services, and more, which can cut deeply into the budget and leave less money for other important government services.

When a state or locality proposes a new tax on firearms and ammunition to recoup some of the costs resulting from gun violence, the opposition argues the measure constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment. The question is whether that is true.

Continue reading “”

Warning; Obscene language

Basically guys, all the outrage over this trial is because the left is terrified of losing another tool in their toolbox. They love lawless mobs terrorizing you and wrecking your stuff. They love having you too scared of the system to stand up to their dirtbags.


In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial there are a bunch of posts like this floating around social media. They all work off the same talking points so they are basically interchangeable. These are all being shared to bamboozle the gullible and shore up the dedicated idiots. I picked this one because of how many lies and distortions it packed into one post.

Continue reading “”

The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left’s Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense

The American left’s determination to conduct a media-inspired political trial of Kyle Rittenhouse had as its objective the ultimate disarming of Americans and the elimination of the Second Amendment.  While Kyle Rittenhouse was listed as the defendant, it was the right of self-defense that was on trial.

To what extent does man have a natural or God-given right to self-defense and protection of himself and his property?  This question has been bandied about for thousands of years and that issue, not guns (which are an instrument of self-defense), is at the heart of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States is the only nation in the annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given, rights.
Among these are self-defense and property.  Property rights are the bedrock of the American political system; without that foundation, there is no freedom.

The Founders held that property rights encompass not just physical property but also one’s life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they must own the products of that life which can be traded in free exchange with others.  Further, as there is a natural right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, that would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.

Continue reading “”

Governor Parson can be as ‘open to adjustments’ as he wants, but that counts for little as the legislature passes changes to laws, not him.

Police Propose Changes To Missouri’s 2A Preservation Act

Even before Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act took effect, there were a lot of grumbles from some law enforcement in the state who felt that the new law was going to set them up to be sued if they cooperated with federal agents in taking down criminal suspects who might be armed with a gun. SAPA, as it’s commonly called, not only prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds in enforcing any unconstitutional gun control laws, but provides an avenue by which officers can be individually sued for doing so.

Since SAPA took effect back in September, a handful of agencies have suspended all cooperation with federal authorities for fear of running afoul of the law. The law was also the subject of litigation by the city of St. Louis and a couple of counties, but a judge rejected a request to block the law from taking force. And while I don’t believe that the law as written should stop police from working with their federal counterparts, and plenty of agencies continue to do so, the Missouri Police Chiefs Association is now officially asking lawmakers to make some changes.

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Star, the MPCA proposes specifying that the law would only apply to new federal gun restrictions approved after this past August, and that it doesn’t apply to suspects whom police encounter committing a crime.

It also proposes clarifying which weapons-related federal crimes local police are allowed to help enforce. The current law allows them to help enforce gun restrictions that are similar to those in Missouri law, as long as those charges are “merely ancillary” to another criminal charge — wording that police groups have called vague.

“It is our desire to protect the rights of ALL Missourians while protecting officers from frivolous civil litigation related to the continued joint endeavors with our federal partners,” the association wrote. “We look forward to working with you and your fellow lawmakers to address some clarifications in the law and eliminate those unintended consequences without derailing the intent of SAPA.”

MPCA director Robert Shockey, who is Arnold police chief, declined to be interviewed about the requests.

I haven’t seen a copy of the letter, so I can only base my opinion off of the report by the Kansas City Star, but the first two requests don’t seem to be unreasonable. I do have some concerns about the MPCA wanting to “clarify” which gun-related federal crimes can be enforced by law enforcement, though. First, if SAPA is only going to apply to federal gun laws that were passed after August of 2021, then there’s no need to clarify anything. Beyond that, though, does the phrase “merely ancillary” really need clarification? If an agency is cooperating with, say, a federal drug task force and a gun is discovered in the course of that drug investigation, then the gun charge is an ancillary one. If the feds are going after someone specifically for violating a new federal gun control law or regulation that isn’t mirrored in Missouri state law, local police can’t help. It’s really not that complicated.

Even if some of these complaints by police are overstated, I expect that they’re finding some receptive ears among lawmakers. SAPA original sponsor Rep. Jared Taylor has said he’s not in favor of any changes, but Gov. Mike Parson has indicated that he’s open to “adjustments” if necessary.

I don’t think there’s any chance of the law being repealed outright, but whether or not the changes would make the law better or merely water it down is going to be the topic of much debate in Jefferson City in the months ahead, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see at least some minor revisions agreed to next session.

David French’s Irrational Fear of Guns is No Reason to Outlaw Open Carry.

Instead of asking why a then-17 year-old was there helping to guard a business and putting out fires, the question should be why the governor didn’t call out the Guard in the same way he is before this verdict. The question should be how elected officials failed to protect the community they represented and made a teenager feel like he needed to go and offer what protection he could as a substitute. My grandfather was Kyle Rittenhouse’s age when he signed up to serve on the USS Alabama in WWII. Men a year older can openly bear arms to fight overseas but not to defend their own communities when rioters are allowed to turn a town into a war zone?

Rittenhouse had every right to be in Kenosha. His father lives there. His grandmother lives there. He works there. His rifle was there too, (not driven across state lines) despite media’s best intentions to turn Rittenhouse’s short 20 minute drive from his mom’s house in Antioch to Kenosha into the modern journey of Odysseus. In fact, you might argue Rittenhouse had more of a reason to be in Kenosha than the rioters from California or Oregon.

It makes no sense that [David] French is arguing against open carry by citing the case of a teenager (the court determined he was legally open-carrying a rifle) who can’t carry concealed because a) how do you carry a rifle concealed and b) he’s too young to purchase and carry a handgun, much less carry it concealed.

No law-abiding person should feel persuaded to forfeit their rights because someone harbors an irrational fear of the inanimate object they possess. A person’s comfort level doesn’t determine the extent to which a right can be exercised. If you dislike open carry then carry concealed, but no one has the right to determine for others how they may lawfully carry.

— Dana Loesch in Kyle Rittenhouse Isn’t a Villain and There Is Nothing Wrong with Open Carry

Defeat the Lies of Gun Control with Facts

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace went on a rant that targeted conservative media and the Second Amendment. It’s one that Second Amendment supporters should pay some heed to, even though Wallace these days is little more than a Beltway version of Regina George.

Wallace may be a NeverTrump “mean girl” these days, but she also was – at least putatively – a one-time Second Amendment supporter (and she worked for a President who appointed two of the five justices in the Heller majority). She also was a White House communications director, and as much as we may want to dismiss her, dummies don’t become White House communications directors. People who show loyalty and competence usually get that job.

This is why her claim that America has a gun crisis needs to be taken on, forcefully. Like David Frum’s lie about responsible gun ownership and the phony bologna claims about the origins of the Second Amendment from Carol Anderson (via the ACLU), we must push back. These lies are not small potatoes.

How do we fight back? With the facts.

Some of these facts come from looking over the latest FBI stats. In 2020, a total of 455 homicides were carried out with rifles, with another 203 carried out by shotguns. To put that into perspective, “personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet, etc.) killed 662 people or more than rifles and shotguns of all types combined. Handguns and “firearms, type not stated” were used in 8,209 and 4,863 homicides, respectively.

There are roughly 150 million handguns in the United States, according to an NRA-ILA Fact Sheet. That means in 2020, .0054 percent of handguns were used in homicides or one in 18,272.627603. It should be noted that since the landmark Heller ruling in 2008, the Supreme Court has held that handgun bans are unconstitutional.

The next fact that Wallace ignores is that we know what has caused the latest upswing in violent crime: No prosecuting the violent offenders. Take some of the outrageous decisions from Chicago, for instance, or for the prosecutors whose campaigns George Soros has funded. Even if authorities can’t get murder charges perhaps some of the rarely-used provisions of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 could make a dent. The problem is, these aren’t used, and similar state-level provisions also aren’t used.

Second Amendment supporters can debate the wisdom of various gun laws, but the laws that Project Exile enforced can and would make a huge difference in the places that are seeing the worst of violent crime. Part of the way dishonest hacks and anti-Second Amendment extremists will sell the false notion of a ”gun crisis” (especially in the “public health” arena) is to point to murder rates and violent crime.

The ultimate task for Second Amendment supporters is to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level – not to mention in corporate boardrooms and elsewhere. However, to do that, they need to not only prove claims of a “gun crisis” are phony, they need to show that the solution to the real crisis is not found in attacking the Second Amendment.

The Illinois state constitution lets the rights to keep and bear arms be subject to ‘the police power’. The head justice recused hisslef and the other 6 tied 3-3 so the lower court decision remained standing.

Illinois Supreme Court upholds ‘assault weapons’ ban

DEERFIELD, Ill. (WLS) — The Illinois Supreme Court issued a split-second decision Thursday allowing a ban on assault-style weapons in the Village of Deerfield to remain in effect.

The ordinance bans weapons such as AR-15’s, AK-47’s and Uzis. AR-15 rifles have been used in various mass shootings, including the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
The Deerfield Village Board voted unanimously to ban some semi-automatic firearms in April 2018 by approving an amendment to the village’s gun ordinance. The ordinance also prohibits high-capacity magazines.

Deerfield’s amended ordinance was patterned after Highland Park’s ban on high-powered weapons. That ordinance survived a 2015 legal battle that went to the United States Supreme Court.


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finding that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on gun policy as an acknowledgement that Americans are rejecting the Democrats’ radical gun control agenda.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 5-7 and revealed that in the top five areas of concern—national security, the economy, gun policy, immigration and jobs—polling results show Democrats trailing.

“These survey results are revealing, especially on firearms policies,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After years of failed gun control policies, the public has finally concluded that Democrats have only worked to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us more vulnerable to criminal attack. Policies advertised as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals have actually only been tough on their intended victims.

“The survey found that 46 percent of all American voters think Republicans do a better job on gun policy, while 39 percent still cling to the notion Democrats have the right approach, but a significant 15 percent are still in the middle,” he continued. “When the survey numbers focus on important suburban voters, the numbers get even worse. Forty-seven percent of voters in the suburbs believe Republicans are better on gun policy, while only 37 percent support Democrat schemes, and 16 percent remain undecided.

“The ten percent margin in the suburbs is extremely important for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” Gottlieb said. “That is where almost all the swing congressional districts are. This could cost the Democrats between 40 and 60 seats in the House.”

SAF has run more than 1,000 national TV spots on over 24 cable networks, along with radio advertising and millions of impressions on the Internet have helped educate the public on gun policy and the survey reflects the impact.

Gottlieb pointed to the election results in Virginia, which signaled a “new direction in the Old Dominion.” Commonwealth voters filled all statewide offices with Republicans, and put the House back in GOP control following two disastrous years.

“I anticipate Virginia gun owners will press the new administration and legislative majority to quickly undo the policies adopted by Ralph Northam and his cronies in 2020,” Gottlieb predicted. “Those policies, specifically the destruction of state preemption which guarantees uniformity of gun laws statewide, and the one-handgun-per-month purchase restriction, penalize honest citizens and do nothing to reduce violent crime.

“Democrats may have forgotten that right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution,” he concluded. “Rights are not up to a public vote, but people who attempt to infringe on those rights certainly are. Voters made that clear in Virginia and are poised to do it again in November 2022.”



NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearm industry trade association, praised the introduction of the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Act. This legislation, introduced by U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Manchin and Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso for introducing this vitally important outdoor recreation package,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “In particular, NSSF appreciates the bipartisan measures included in this legislation that would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to ensure that both agencies have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district. Recreational shooting is tied to approximately 85 percent of the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes currently being paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, making it a major driving contributor to wildlife conservation. This legislation would ensure that recreational marksmanship can be practiced in accessible and safe environments while also benefiting conservation.”

Senator Manchin explained in a press release that the Outdoor Recreation Act would support outdoor recreation economies and provide an economic boost to local communities while preserving public lands for future generations. Sen. Barrasso added that the bill not only establishes public access to shooting ranges on USFS and BLM lands, but also ensures access to public lands and modernizes campgrounds.

Specifically, the legislation would direct the Forest Service to issue guidance for recreational climbing in designated Wilderness Areas and require the Forest Service and BLM to designate many new shooting ranges on National Forests and BLM land.

William A. Jacobson-
My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer:
“if you can’t defend yourself in those circumstances and the full weight of the state and the full weight of the media is going to come down on you, then we are in a really bad place”


Free States Must Defend the Right to Self-Defense

The jury is still out as I write this; I wish I could be confident that our justice system will provide what it promises and that the unjustly accused will leave the courthouse wearing a smile instead of handcuffs. Kyle Rittenhouse, who went into the void created by the cowardly leftist officials who refused to protect decent citizens from the militarized wing of the Democrat Party, might well be convicted.

He got dragged through a legal nightmare, and if that’s all that happens to him, then that’s the best-case scenario. Us lawyers understand that evidence and law are not what determine jury verdicts; they are merely factors in a much bigger picture. Instead of facing life in prison, Kyle ought to get a medal for taking out several degenerates, including a promising potential Lincoln Project intern.

If you are looking for justice, you won’t necessarily find it in a courthouse.

Continue reading “”

While they’re being simplistic when it comes to actual ‘use of force’ and do the standard clueless journalist bit about confusing “Self Defense” with “Stand Your Ground”,  at least they’re acknowledging that self defense and concealed carry are ‘normal’.

Amid crime surge in Seattle, some take steps to defend themselves

Reports of violent crime this year in Seattle have already surpassed the historic high number that were reported in the city last year.

It is perhaps not a coincidence then that more people are turning to ways to defend themselves and opting to stand their ground.

From self-defense classes to skyrocketing gun sales, more people are looking for ways to defend themselves amid concerns that they are on their own when it comes to random street crime.

Just a few weeks ago, Morgan Zion, who lives in Seattle, could be heard on cellphone video standing her ground from an attacker.

“I hate to be the person who says, ‘Oh Seattle has gotten so much worse,'” she said. “But it has.”

Continue reading “”