Yes, this is known, but it always bears repeating.


BLUF:
But that is really what Kulturkampf politics is all about: fortifying one’s own social status by exercising ritual domination over cultural rivals. That’s how you get punitive tax policies that don’t raise much revenue, “inclusiveness” policies based on exclusion, and gun-control proposals that don’t have anything to do with gun crime. It just feels good to exercise power over people you loathe or envy. That is the beginning and the end of it.

Gun-Control Laws Aren’t about Preventing Crimes

In the latest issue of National Review, I write about the lax enforcement of our gun laws and touch on a theme that is worth exploring a little more: Gun control is not about gun crime — gun control is about gun culture.

If we cared about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, we’d be locking up straw buyers. We’d be prosecuting prohibited “lie and try” buyers who falsify their ATF paperwork. And we’d be confiscating guns sold in retail transactions that were wrongly approved because of defects in the background-check system. But, for the most part, we don’t do much of any of that.

Instead of doing the hard work of enforcing the law on people committed to breaking it, we focus almost all of our efforts on the most law-abiding group of Americans there is: People who legally buy firearms from licensed firearms dealers, a group that, by definition, has a felony-conviction rate of approximately 0.0 percent. These are law-abiding people, but they also are, in no small part, the type of people who mash the cultural buttons of the big-city progressives who dominate the Democratic Party both culturally and financially. From that point of view, what matters is not that retail gun dealers and their clients are dangerous — which they certainly are not — but that they are icky.

Continue reading “”

The pandemic and the homicide surge will have a lasting effect on our gun control politics

The surge in new gun owners could have a political impact that lasts far longer than the pandemic and the surge in homicides that inspired it.

Between January 2019 and April 2021, approximately 7.5 million people became first-time gun owners. Nearly 50% of them were women. More than 40% are black or Latino. This is bad news for the gun control movement and, perhaps in the long term, for the Democratic Party.

One of the most telling graphics from the 2016 election came from the New York Times. It showed the great bulk of voters in households with no guns voted for Hillary Clinton in every state except West Virginia and Wyoming (the latter had insufficient data). Voters in gun-owning households favored Donald Trump in every state but Vermont. That includes the most Democratic states in the country, including California, New York, and Hawaii.

According to Gallup data , roughly two-thirds of Republicans live in gun-owning households, compared to just one-third of Democrats. Half of Republicans personally own a firearm, compared to 18% of Democrats.

Granted, it isn’t as simple as these first-time gun owners immediately becoming Republicans. But, even among Democrats, gun owners are more likely to oppose gun control measures. According to data from the Pew Research Center, 87% of non-gun-owning Democrats support banning “assault-style weapons.” That number drops to 65% among gun-owning Democrats. Allowing concealed carry in more places has support among 39% of gun-owning Democrats, compared to 16% support among Democrats who don’t own firearms.

Gun control, despite polling well as a collection of general platitudes, is already a losing issue throughout the country. Each time someone becomes a first-time gun owner, the chances of passing the strict gun control measures that the gun control movement and the majority of the Democratic Party want to see implemented go down. The pandemic will go away, and homicides will decline — but this will continue to shape our gun control politics for years to come.

Gun Grabbers Outraged At Suggestion Asian-Americans Should Get Guns

We hear an awful lot about anti-Asian hate crimes. Asian-Americans are being targeted for violent crime, and it often appears to be because they’re Asian. This is a significant problem. Anytime anyone is targeted because of their ethnicity, it’s a problem.

As such, many of us have recommended these folks look at getting firearms. After all, if you’re concerned about being attacked, having a gun is probably a good idea unless you actually like being injured or possibly killed.

Apparently, for some people, that’s a problem.

Gun control advocates from Connecticut and across the country say the firearms industry is exploiting fear of hate crimes to sell more guns to Asian Americans, according to a study led by the Violence Policy Center.

“Historically, Asian-Americans have owned very few guns, which is precisely the reason why we have experienced comparatively low rates of gun violence. That the gun industry is now targeting our community as a lucrative new market is incredibly troubling, because more guns means more gun-related injury and death,” said Gloria Pan with advocacy group Moms Rising, another contributor to the study.

Advocates said groups like the NRA and the Newtown, Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation have targeted people of color since 2015. But since the pandemic, they have started groups and social media campaigns to reach Asian-Americans.

In other words, the gun industry is looking at a series of high-profile crimes, then are trying to leverage it to make money by telling people this will make things better?

Yeah, that’s absolutely awful…wait, isn’t that literally what gun control groups do?

Why yes it is.

Look, I don’t care if someone with Moms Rising, Moms Falling, Moms Tripping Over My Socks, or any other “moms” group finds it troubling. The truth of the matter is that if law-abiding citizens are armed, they can respond to violent attacks with something besides begging or harsh language. Will it result in more gun-related injuries and death? Yeah. For the bad guys, you simple-minded twit!

That’s kind of the point of carrying a gun, for crying out loud.

Law-abiding Asian-Americans aren’t going to result in more criminal activity. Why would they? Unless Ms. Pan is suggesting that Asian-Americans are somehow incapable of controlling themselves, which sounds like a pretty racist thing to suggest. I’m sure she didn’t mean that, now did she?

Yes, many of us are suggesting these folks get guns. Law-abiding citizens acting responsibly for their own safety has never been an issue and will never be an issue for anyone except for shrieking violets (yes, this is phrased this way intentionally) who think that the entire universe really revolves around their preferences.

I, for one, welcome our Asian-American gun-owning brethren to our ranks. I’d love to invite each and every one of you to the range. I just don’t think my local range would hold everyone.

And if it infuriates the gun control crowd because yet another minority group seems to be leaving the reservation for the land of milk and freedom, so much the better.

I’m not going to ‘fisk ‘ this in too much detail. It’s clear that this college student is just another over educated indoctrinated proggie.
What I will do is this:
I remember somewhere years ago reading an article about placing too much reliance on centuries old English goobermint declarations and documents, their 1689 Bill of Rights in particular.
The point being made was that, although our nation was formed from English colonies, and our Bill of Rights was based on the concepts found in the earlier English one, ours is not bound or restricted by it.
We The People‘ , citizens of the U.S., secured rights to ourselves and restricted goobermint, as specified in our Bill of Rights own preamble.
The subjects of England have their rights granted and restricted by their goobermint.

This child can ‘observe’ all he wants. What I see is another elitist who likely finds all those icky guns in the hands of all those icky people almost too much to bear.


Observations Regarding the Interpretation and Legacy of the Statute of Northampton in Anglo-American Legal History

The Statute of Northampton of 1328 remains central to the current debate surrounding the limits and protections the Second Amendment provides to carry arms in public.[1] The Statute provided that “no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king’s servants in his presence…come before the King’s justices, or other of the King’s ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers” (2 Edw. 3, c.3). Certain Second Amendment scholars hold that the Statute was “not interpreted literally” and was only enforced when weapons were carried with the intent to terrify or threaten or when dangerous and unusual weapons were carried.[2] While the Statute has been much studied, some key sources remain neglected, namely the reliance of Sir. Edward Coke on 13th Century English legal scholar Henry de Bracton in Coke’s interpretation of the Statute. Coke’s quotations from de Bracton, which have usually been ignored because they are written almost entirely in Latin, offer additional evidence that the Statute of Northampton was understood to be a broad-based prohibition on the carrying of arms.

Continue reading “”

New York Files SCOTUS Brief Defending Its Carry Laws

Oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen won’t take place until early November, but both sides have now filed their main briefs in the case, with New York AG Letitia James submitting the state’s response to the plaintiffs on Wednesday of this week.

James’ main argument in defense of New York’s “may issue” concealed carry permitting system amounts to this: since the Second Amendment doesn’t curtail any and all gun regulations, New York’s restrictions should be okay even though they result in the plaintiff’s being unable to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense outside of a few wilderness areas or, in one case, on the way to and from their job.

Because the Second Amendment “codified a preexisting right” to keep and bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), its contours follow “the historical understanding of the scope of the right,” id. at 625. Given the many historical limits on publicly carrying firearms, this Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment does not confer an “unlimited” right “to carry arms for any sort of confrontation.” Id. at 595. Petitioners’ claim of an entitlement to carry concealed handguns anywhere (or virtually anywhere) in public thus defies both the historical record and this Court’s precedents.

Honestly, this is a really bad argument for James to make, though I do understand why the brief spends so much time and attention arguing about where folks can carry as opposed to who can carry. The question before the Court is whether or not the Second Amendment rights of the individual plaintiffs were denied when they were denied a carry permit, not whether or not New York’s carry laws deprive everyone of their Second Amendment rights. As you’ll see, James’ argument is that Robert Nash and Brandon Koch aren’t having their rights infringed, because the fact that they’ve been issued a restricted license should satisfy their 2A rights even though they can’t carry for self-defense in the course of their daily lives.

Continue reading “”

David Frum is wrong: Guns save lives and sustain communities
From self defense to funding fire departments, they’re woven into the culture of red America

The debate over guns in the United States could, until recently, be divided into two extreme camps: the liberal elites (invariably protected by armed guards) who call for ever-more restrictive control of firearms, the basic functionality of which they cannot even begin to explain, and the uber-conservative right, for whom guns are a way of life and are ofttimes life-sustaining.

David Frum is evidently of the first faction, writing in The Atlantic this month about how ‘Responsible Gun Ownership Is a Lie.’ Gun sales – especially among first-time gun buyers – surged between 2019 and 2020, and continue to smash records. This trend has Frum worried.

As a card-carrying member of the second camp (I literally have a Sandy Ridge Sportsmen’s Club membership card a’settin’ here on my desk), I’d like to give Frum and other anti-gun radicals the benefit of the doubt, at least until they’ve had the chance to finish reading this article. Let’s pretend that their civilian disarmament schemes stem from innocent ignorance. Perhaps Frum and others like him simply do not understand the life-giving role guns play in society – especially in rural America.

Guns can be scary. I get it. They are loud, and, with even a little power, capable of much destruction. They are not unlike elected officials in these ways.

But in the backwoods of Pennsylvania, where Hunter-Trapper Education Certification was part of my required fifth-grade curriculum, and the opening of deer season always means two consecutive school holidays, guns are more than a political talking point.

Considering this, the debate over guns should really be set against the backdrop of two different, apolitical sets: those who understand gun culture and those who do not.

Those of us who grew up around guns know them to be tools useful in the procurement of food, the dispatching of predators, a unifying pastime, the prize showpiece of a collector’s mantle, and, yes, an invaluable means of self-defense.

Guns are more powerful than Frum thinks, but not in a bad way. In some places, firearms take on a vital role that sustains entire communities.

Continue reading “”

Women Are Nearly Half of New Gun Buyers, Study Finds

SAN DIEGO—Close to half of all new U.S. gun buyers since the beginning of 2019 have been women, a shift for a market long dominated by men, according to a new study.
The preliminary results from the 2021 National Firearms Survey, designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University, show an estimated 3.5 million women became new gun owners from January 2019 through April of this year. About 4 million men became new gun owners over that period, they found.
For decades, other surveys have found that around 10% to 20% of American gun owners were women.
The number of federal background checks for gun purchases hit an all-time high in 2020 of 21 million, according to an analysis of federal data by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade group.

Continue reading “”

David Hogg: Second Amendment Is Collective Right

If you want a hot take on guns and gun rights that probably has no resemblance to reality, you should follow David Hogg’s Twitter feed sometime. Of course, it’s also a place with a lot of stupid that’ll probably cause you to give yourself a concussion with the constant overwhelming need to smack your forehead.

The failed state-college applicant turned Harvard man–if that phrase doesn’t tell you all you need to know about Harvard, I don’t know what will–has said some pretty dumb things, including recently claiming he thinks he’s the target of Russian bots.

But on Wednesday, he went down a rabbit hole of stupid with just one single tweet. Pretty impressive, until you see the tweet.

Now, Hogg isn’t a thought originator. He’s a parrot, repeating what others have told him and making himself sound important so the media will keep fawning all over him.

This ain’t original either.

A lot of people claim that the Second Amendment was never meant to be an individual right. Yet people like Hogg can never answer one simple question in response. If it’s wasn’t intended to be an individual right, then why did the writers use the phrase “the right of the people” in the first place?

In the First Amendment, it makes reference to “the right of the people” to assemble peacefully and to petition the government.

The Fourth Amendment highlight “the right of the people” to be secure in their homes and their property from unreasonable search and seizure.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment both also reference “the people’s” rights.

How is it, in 50 percent of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the writers refer to “the people” but it was only in the Second Amendment that they really meant the people collectively and not an individual right?

In truth, any deflection from this fact is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters, to make it seem less clear that our right to keep and bear arms wasn’t so the state could have guns or formally recognized militias could, but for you and me to have them.

This bizarre claim that the Second Amendment isn’t an individual right keeps cropping up, and a number of people share it. It’s almost a litmus test for where someone stands on gun control.

Regardless, though, it’s a tired argument that’s been trotted out over and over again.

I find it amusing that people who think Roe v. Wade is definitive and should be the final say on a topic like abortion are so ready to completely dismiss Heller which specifically found that the Second Amendment was an individual right and not a collective one.

The question was answered, and it’s highly unlikely to be overturned on the merits of anything. If it is, it’ll be an activist court pushing a leftist agenda. It won’t be because of anything else, as I’ve clearly shown.

But people like David Hogg will persist, no doubt, to try and insist it’s a collective right, as if that term has any actual meaning in the first place, and consider themselves smart because they believe that.

However, if David Hogg is the caliber of person who can get into Harvard and manage to stay, then we as a nation need to seriously rethink how much gravitas we give Ivy League graduates.

Sheriff Arnott’s example is bogus. Missouri Law (as well as Federal) makes  firearm possession by convicted felons a felony. Of course – knowing him since he was a patrol deputy – his intellect never did impress me.


Springfield law enforcement weighs in on impact of ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) – Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott has been vocal throughout his 20 years with the department. He is pro-Second Amendment rights. It’s why when the Second Amendment Preservation Act was first introduced he thought it was a good thing.

“Basically the way the bill was designed or the intent of it. I totally agree with,” he says.

The intent is to protect Second Amendment rights for gun owners by stopping local law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws.

Some local agencies say this law will prevent them from doing their jobs. Sheriff Arnott doesn’t see it quite that way, but he does see it has changed the way they work.

He gives the example:

“We stop somebody on a vehicle stop,” said Sheriff Arnott. “They have a hunting rifle in the back, you run the numbers and it’s not stolen. But that’s because [the person] just burglarized a house and they’re a convicted felon but the case hasn’t been reported yet. Nine times out of ten we would seize the weapon in the past. If things don’t add up like he doesn’t know where he got the gun, we [usually] would want to seize that gun but now we’ll send it down the road. Now we’ve probably let a stolen gun go down the road.”

And he says that can mean consequences.

“We may not recover as many stolen guns,” said Sheriff Arnott. “Somebody may get killed because, again, it was used in crime that night that we would have had on a car stop earlier. But that’s how the new statue that’s how we’ll operate.”

Republican Senator Eric Burlison sponsored the bill. He says it is designed for law-abiding citizens and has a loud and clear message to the Biden Administration.

“This is a way of reminding the president, that this is the proper role of government, is that these laws are to be handled by the state and not by the federal government,” State Senator Burlison says.

And he says the federal government will of course be able to enforce its own rules and regulations.

“The people that we pay, and that we tax, our tax dollars are going towards, we want to make sure that they’re following the laws that we are passing in this state,” he adds.

Springfield Police Chief Paul Williams says day to day, this won’t have an impact on the way officers work.

“I don’t think the street officer worries or cares about this whatsoever,” Chief Williams says. “And I’ve tried to make that clear that this is a very limited potential where it would affect them.”

But he says he has seen the criticism.

“Legislators I’ve talked to say this is preemptive. What if something happens? What if the federal government says start registering and tracking firearms? What if the federal government says we want you to go out and confiscate guns from people? We’re not going to do that,” Chief Williams says. “This helps provide that protection. I’ll say I’ve seen some comments from even some of my peers across the state, who I know haven’t read it completely and totally, to see how it’s gonna affect us and how it’s not,” he adds.

Both Sheriff Arnott and Chief Williams agree there are parts that will likely see change. Some they call “grey areas”

“There’s a couple of things in that law that is probably going to have to go to court for the court to decide what is constitutional and what is not,” Sheriff Arnott says.

Chief Williams can see some tweaks.

“I’m anticipating the legislature will hopefully come back this next session and clear some of that ambiguity up, clarify some things, and make some adjustments to any negative consequences to the public or the police.”

But both say, for now, they will follow the rules, enforce the law, and their focus remains the same keeping citizens safe in our community.

Court Rejects Qualified Immunity For Cop Who Arrested Gun Owner Carrying Valid Permit

In a welcome win for police accountability and gun rights, a federal court rejected a Connecticut police officer’s demand for qualified immunity after he arrested a driver with a valid gun permit for his legally-owned firearm. Blocking the driver’s lawsuit and siding with the officer, Judge Janet Bond Atherton wrote in her opinion, “would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals.”

Continue reading “”

Washington State Supreme Court Will Review Gun Storage Law

A storage law in the Seattle suburb of Edmonds, Washington that requires gun owners to keep their firearms locked up unless they’re under the control of the gun owner will face scrutiny by the state Supreme Court, and Second Amendment activists are hopeful that the local ordinance will be tossed as a result.

In fact, a state appellate court struck down the law earlier this year, ruling that the city violated the state’s firearm preemption law by imposing its own rules on gun owners. Now it’s up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether or not the lower court got it right. As a local website in Edmonds reported back in February when the appellate court decision came down, the case has had a long and winding road since litigation began several years ago.

Continue reading “”

Almost forgot.
Happy Assault Weapons Ban Sunset Provision Day, Everyone!

On this day in 2004, the Assault Weapon Ban that had been enacted in 1994 reached its sunset date.
Lest anyone also forget, the NRA had a big hand in getting that 10 year sunset provision added.
Also, this law was one of the major factors in such a massive demoncrap loss in Congress when 8 Senators and 54 Representatives were sent packing.

ATF nominee’s fall is just latest defeat for gun control advocates

President Biden’s decision to pull David Chipman as his nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is a high-profile victory for pro-gun groups and a defeat for gun control advocates in what will likely be this year’s most consequential gun debate.

The withdrawal shows that even under Democratic control of Congress and the White House, efforts to tighten restrictions on guns face an uphill climb.

Chipman’s nomination fell not just because of opposition from Republicans, but also moderate Democrats.

Biden pulled Chipman’s nomination after Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, privately said he wouldn’t support him. Democrats had no room for defections in the 50-50 Senate, and Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also declined to endorse Chipman.

It’s just the latest defeat for gun control advocates.

Continue reading “”

Scathing review of Everytown For Gun Safety left by “former employee”

Continue reading “”

Guns are Used Responsibly in the United States

The most effective lie is the lie by omission. Tell part of the truth but not all of it. This propaganda technique works particularly well with an audience eager to believe the lie.

The US mass media lies to us a lot, in exactly this way: They feed us selected facts without proving their true context.

I follow the news about armed defense. I notice the things that are so consistently not said that the omissions must be deliberate. In this article, I will present the most accurate facts I can find. I list the sources where I got those facts. I give you my opinion about what those facts mean in full context. I want you to be able to make up your own mind about guns, and the media that reports on them.

Continue reading “”

Negative Reactions Dominate Pistol-Brace Ban Proposal as Comment Period Ends.

The legal status of a popular firearm accessory is facing a direct challenge from the ATF, and the response from opponents was immense.

The public comment period for the Biden administration’s proposed ban on most stabilizing pistol braces ended Wednesday, after 90 days and more than 209,000 submitted comments. April Langwell, Chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division, said the proposal is among the most commented on in the agency’s history.

“ATF received over 186,000 comments on the NPRM on bump stocks,” she told The Reload. “In comparison, ATF received 294,632 on the NPRM for definition of firearm frame/receiver that closed on 8/19, but as mail is processed this number will increase. Currently, the number of comments received on the NPRM for stabilizing braces that closed on 9/8 is 209,044, but as mail is received & processed that number will increase as well.”

The comments on the proposed brace ban were overwhelmingly negative, as many commenters accused the ATF of criminalizing law-abiding Americans while failing to substantively improve violence prevention.

“Banning the use of pistol braces will not lower gun crime rates,” Blake Nicholson said. “As a matter of fact it will only raise the gun crime by turning many law abiding gun owners into felons.”

Opponents of the proposed rule change are hopeful that their comments will make the agency rethink the pistol-brace policy, as it has in the past. In 2020, the ATF under the Trump administration proposed a similar ban, only to withdraw the proposal after more than 70,000 mostly negative comments. However, the Biden administration may have more resolve than its predecessor, despite facing greater backlash, due to the president’s enthusiasm for pursuing new gun control measures.

As previously reported by The Reload, several gun-rights groups created campaigns to organize their members in opposition to the rule once it became available for public comment. It appears that gun-control groups recently launched comment campaigns of their own.

Continue reading “”

US Military Courts Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns in the United States v. Ali Alkazahg.

Marine Corp Private Ali Akazahg was convicted of possessing two machine guns, in violation of Articles 83, 107, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ]. These “machine guns” that Private Akazahg processed were bump stocks. The Private’s defense counsel argued that bump stocks did not meet the federal definition of machine guns. The ruling is found here and embedded below. US Military Courts Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns.

The judges laid out a case that anti-gun activists put political pressure on Congress after a mass murder in Las Vegas that saw 60 people die. A bill was set forth in Congress called “Closing the Bump Stock Loophole.” The bill would have treated bump stocks as machine guns. The bill failed to pass either chamber of Congress.

The judges point out that after the bill failed in Congress that political pressure was put on then President Trump to act against bump stocks. The President said he was “looking into” banning bump stocks. Ultimately President Trump would order the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [ATF] to ban bump stocks. The judges on the panel do not believe that the President had the authority to make de facto law.

The judges wrote: “Instead, the President directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [ATF] to issue a new interpretation of a rule—that contradicted the ATF’s previous interpretation—governing legislation from the 1930s. This Executive-Branch change in statutory interpretation aimed to outlaw bump stocks prospectively, without a change in existing statutes.”

The judges carefully go over the history of the bump stocks in their decision. They highlighted that the ATF never considered bump stocks to be machine guns until President Trump ordered the Bureau to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns. The panel points to the original letter issued to William Akins in 2002 for his “Akins Accelerator.” The level of detail shows the judges heavily researched the topic before issuing their decision. The original Akins Accelerator used a spring.

In 2006 the ATF reversed course and ruled the Akins Accelerator was a machine gun. Mr. Akins filed for a summary judgment in district court and lost. The judges in the case stated that a “single function of the trigger” means a “single pull of the trigger.” Since the Akins Accelerator used a spring, it was a machine gun. If the Accelerator didn’t have a spring, it would not have been considered a machine gun.

Modern bump stocks use recoil and do not contain a spring, and use recoil. Every shot requires a trigger pull. Since each shot was a single pull of the trigger, the judges ruled that bump stocks could not be considered machine guns.

The judges also point out the classification of bump stocks as machine guns relied on Chevron deference. The panel points out that the courts have not settled if the ATF can use Chevron deference to make bump stocks machine guns. They point to the GOA case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and highlighted other instances in which the courts say that the government cannot use Chevron deference for a criminal statute.

Although I agree its  ‘The American Rifle’, I’m not so exclusive.
I’d say it’s a lot more than just Stoner’s rifle that contains wanna-be tyrants


AR-15s Are Why Leftists Can’t Commit Taliban Atrocities Here
Taliban executions remind Americans to never give up arms they need for the primary reason the Constitution guarantees their right to have them.

In Afghanistan the world is again seeing that radical Islam is an ideology premised on murdering non-believers and using that example to intimidate everyone else. Historically, the same has been true of leftism, when its adherents have achieved totalitarian control in a country.

Leftists don’t have totalitarian control in America yet, so over the last few years they have mostly given us a heads-up about their desires by rolling out mock guillotines during their protests and riots, posing for photographs with mock-ups of President Trump’s guillotined head, talking about burning down the White House, and on social media wishing death upon Trump, his supporters, and Americans who express skepticism about the 2020 presidential election, masks, or vaccines.

However, they are working toward totalitarian control, by opening the border to people they think are future Democrat voters; proposing that felons, illegal aliens, and minors be allowed to vote; threatening to pack the Supreme Court; pushing federal legislation to take over election rules to benefit the Democrat Party; and, as Democrats have done for decades, stealing elections.

Even if they had totalitarian control, they would still need a willing army to do in America what they have done in every other country in which they have achieved it—disarm, then round up and kill or imprison their opponents. Under the noses of naïve, uniform-worshipping Americans who have assumed everyone in the military has the same values they do, the transformation of the military has been underway for a long time. It is being continued by the Biden administration and its Marxism-enabling sycophants among the military’s senior commissioned and non-commissioned officer ranks, but it is not complete, particularly in the military’s all-important combat arms elements.

However, even if the left had a willing army, it still would not be able to impose the tyranny for which it lusts because, unlike its victims in other countries, the American people are armed. Contrary to Biden’s claim that Americans would not be able to protect their liberty without F-15s and nuclear weapons, it is still true today, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist Papers,” No. 29, that the Army “can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.”

James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, made the same point in “The Federalist Papers,” No. 46, writing, “Let a regular army . . . be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger (with) a militia . . . of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”

The citizens Hamilton and Madison had in mind today include millions who own AR-15s and other firearms and ammunition magazines the Democrats have been trying to ban for the last three decades, including thousands of military veterans who know how to fight and tens upon tens of thousands of civilians they, their students, and their students’ students have trained.

Continue reading “”