Category: RKBA

Did Feinstein Just Sabotage The New Gun Bill?

I don’t know whether to condemn Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) or praise her. She has filed a bill as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that would raise the age to purchase many semi-auto rifles, pistols, or shotguns to 21. The impact of this amendment could cause the carefully crafted “compromise” (sic) to fall apart.

From her press release:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today filed the Age 21 Act as an amendment to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the gun violence prevention bill pending before the Senate. The amendment would raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines from 18 to 21.

Senator Feinstein reintroduced the Age 21 Act on May 19, five days after the massacre at a Buffalo supermarket and five days before the school shooting in Uvalde, each of which involved an 18-year-old who legally purchased an assault rifle.

 “The Senate gun safety bill is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address the major problem of teenagers owning weapons of war,” said Senator Feinstein. “It makes no sense that it’s illegal for someone under 21 to buy a handgun or even a beer, yet can legally buy an assault weapon.  My amendment is a commonsense fix with broad public support that should receive bipartisan backing and I hope that it’s allowed a vote.”

Reading through the amendment, something as innocuous as a semi-auto shotgun such as the Mossberg 940 Pro Waterfowl Snow Goose edition would be forbidden to anyone under 21. The reasoning, according to the amendment, is that it has a tubular magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. Likewise, a turkey shotgun that had a pistol grip would be forbidden. On pistols, if you wanted to have a threaded barrel for a suppressor to protect your hearing, sorry but young ears need to be damaged is the message this amendment sends.

I really think these sorts of amendments could cause the whole thing to fall apart and force the Republicans to walk away. It is one thing to say you want to do careful background checks taking into account juvenile records for those under 21 and a whole another thing to ban a whole category of firearms to them. I don’t think a Manchin or Sinema could get by with voting for such a bill that included that along with the other stuff.

I do notice that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is not one of the co-sponsors of her original bill nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Armed Citizens Defend Their Families at Home and on the Street

You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor Heather Reeves joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan?

First story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You are at home at night. You’re taking a shower and you hear your girlfriend scream. You leave the shower and go see what is happening. You are attacked by your girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend who has entered your home. You fight him off. He grabs your girlfriend and forces her outside, dragging her by her arm and her hair. You grab your handgun and shoot your attacker. He lets go of your girlfriend. You and your girlfriend go back inside to call 911. You put your gun down as the police arrive. You pull on some clothes and give the police a statement. Your girlfriend also makes a statement to the police. Emergency medical services take you and your attacker to the hospital.

Your girlfriend stays at your home and watches over the two children inside. Later, you find out that your attacker died of his gunshot wounds. He was 20 years old.

You are not charged with a crime.

Second Story- Are you armed as you drive?

You met someone online. Now you’re going to meet at her apartment. You step out of your car and look around for your date. That is when a stranger runs up to you. He threatens you with a knife. You step back and your attacker steps forward. You have your concealed carry permit and you’re armed tonight. You shoot your armed attacker until he drops his knife. You back away again and call 911 for help.

You stay at the scene and holster your gun. You give the police a statement. Emergency medical services transport your attacker to the hospital where he dies of gunshot wounds to the head and chest. He was 18 years old.

Police identify your attacker as your date’s brother. Texts on your attacker’s phone show that she set you up to be robbed. She is charged with second degree murder.

You are not charged with a crime.

Third story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You are sleeping in your bed. You wake up when you hear someone banging on your apartment and then you hear the sound of glass breaking. You get out of bed and grab your gun. You walk into the middle of your home and see an intruder in your home. You shoot him several times. He stops and falls to the floor. You step back and call 911 to get help. It is 4:30 in the morning.

Police arrive and you put your gun away. Emergency medical services transport your intruder to a local hospital. Police report a stolen car that was found on the highway nearby.

You are not charged with a crime.

Fourth story- Do you have a firearm nearby at night?

You and your girlfriend are asleep in bed. It is 4 in the morning on a weekday when you hear someone beating on your door and shouting from outside your house. You grab your gun and go downstairs to see what is happening. The man outside is an acquaintance of your girlfriend. He says she owes him money and he is going to kill you. He throws something through your upstairs window and fires his gun demanding that you come out. You call 911. You go outside to tell him that you’ll settle the debts. He wants to come inside, but you won’t let him in. Your attacker points his gun at you. You shoot him until he drops his gun. You back away and wait for the police.

You give a statement to the police when they arrive. So does your girlfriend. You show the police the broken window on your home. You think your attacker had been drinking. The police interview your girlfriend and your neighbors.

You are not charged with a crime. You are 64 years old.

A discussion of each story is at the Self Defense Gun Stories podcast webpage.

The reason behind the ‘Right to Bear Arms’

So, you think so called assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be outlawed?

Any person who thinks so, should first re-read and remember the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia et al., v. Dick Anthony Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783. Then look at the news about the Ukraine/Russia war. Putin is a tyrant just like King George was when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, only worse. The 2008 Supreme Court of the United States’ opinion holds that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm/or traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense…” 

The Second Amendment is not just about protecting ones self, home, or family against a bad guy who breaks in or threatens harm. The important points of the opinion centers around the Court’s language stating the reason for the holding of the case was the historical right citizens have to resist tyranny. The Court reviewed the history of old England where Stuart Kings disarmed their opponents of their right to keep arms, to suppress them. Following that example, King George III took the same measures in the colonies against opponents of the King’s rule.

“…[H}istory showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the peoples arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. 

“{It} was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary lo oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.” 

One does not need to be a history buff to know that in colonial days, the average British soldier carried a muzzle loading flintlock gun. A colonist could be as well armed if needed, in order to fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment as it was understood at the time. The Heller case affirms the same right in this United States of America under the Second Amendment.

If this purpose of the Second Amendment is understood in the “gun control” debate going on now, it is reasonable to conclude that the average American citizen may need to be about as well armed as the average military man if a tyrant is intent on oppression or conquering against us citizens or our country. What docs the average military man carry today? An assault weapon with a large magazine. Should not the average American citizen have the same right to carry an assault weapon with a large magazine in order to fairly confront an oppressive tyrant under the citizen’s constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment?

I am sure many will scream “that will never happen!” “Americans don’t need assault weapons with large magazines for such a purpose!” So did the Ukrainian government so think, before Putin attacked! I understand that for many many generations in Ukraine personal firearms were outlawed. People did not even know how to hold or use firearms as a result. When attack by Putin was close the Ukrainian government apparently made wooden replica guns to teach people how to handle guns before handing out military weapons so they could help defend themselves and country. Ukraine citizens lined up for blocks to get a weapon to defend themselves, their families, property and country. And citizens did stand up to and are standing up to Putin. They did so just like the framers of the Second Amendment to our Constitution intended for us to be able to do if necessary.

You think Putin won’t attack the U.S.? Take away the Second Amendment or severely hamper it and you will soon find out. Yes, the mass shootings in our country are horrible beyond belief, especially against little children, and I agree everything that can be done to stop shootings should be done short of eliminating or severally hampering the Second Amendment more than it already is. But if you think nothing can be worse, go over and live in Ukraine for a while and I think you will see that it can be. Do you want to take a chance? I don’t.

He is right, just not in the way this gun grabbing communist is thinking though. People who want to be free to enslave you, want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

Professor Ibram Kendi links ‘freedom to enslave’ with gun rights.

There are some who fight for ‘freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns,’ Kendi said

There is a link between the “freedom to enslave” and the “freedom to have guns,” according to Boston University Professor Ibram Kendi.

Kendi told host Margaret Brennan that “throughout the nation’s history, there’s been two perspectives on freedom, really two fights for freedom.”

“Enslaved people were fighting for freedom from slavery, and enslavers were fighting for the freedom to enslave, and in many ways, that sort of contrast still exists today,” Kendi said.

“There are people who are fighting for freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation, and there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality,” Kendi said.

Kendi did not further elaborate or explain the connection between white supremacy or “the freedom to enslave” and gun ownership.
[He can’t ‘further elaborate‘, because there is no connection. He just thinks you’re so stupid you’ll simply accept his BS ]

Continue reading “”

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill.

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

a synopsis of the new federal gun control law

Section 12001

The bill amends all of the prohibited categories (18 USC 922(d)(1 through 9)) to include actions taken against such person while they were a juvenile (that is, you got convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year’s incarceration as a juvenile, you would be barred from gun ownership).

The bill modifies the above by saying the adjudication as mentally defective or involuntary treatment under section (d)(4) had to be when the person was 16 years old or older.

This would be “retroactive” that is if you were convicted of a juvenile offense in 1992, but you are now 45 years old, you would become ineligible to possess firearms when this bill is enacted, and would have to dispose of any firearms you have, or your possession would be illegal as of the effective date of this law. The bill does not limit it to only applying to juvenile offenses or adjudications that happen after this bill is enacted.

This section also says that firearm transfers to persons under 21 years of age by a dealer may not be made after three days of no response from NICS, the way that current law works. Instead, as to persons under 21 years of age, NICS can extend the “pending” or non responsive response time to ten business days.

In addition to consulting the three Federal databases that NICS currently checks for a firearm background check, if the buyer is under 21, the bill says NICS is to contact the state, or local, repository of juvenile records, to see if the person has any juvenile adjudications that would disqualify the person.  These requirements for NICS to ask the state or local repositories sunset as of 9/30/2032.

The section also asks every State and every Federal agency reporting information to NICS to submit a report on records removed from the database and the reason why the records were removed.

Section 12002

This section rewrites the definition of being engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. Federal law requires persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms have a license. The new definition says that a person is engaged in the business if their purpose is “to predominantly earn a profit.” Formerly, profit had to be the “principal objective” of the seller.

Section 12003

This section allows grants made for criminal justice purposes to states, to also be used for red flag law enforcement. The bill says that such red flag laws have to meet whatever due process requirements the courts have found to be necessary.
The bill says that such programs need not provide indigent persons with counsel at government expense.

Section 12004

This section makes it unlawful to buy a firearm for another person knowing the other person is disqualified from buying a firearm under 18 USC 922(d), or that the other person is going to employ the firearm in connection to a felony crime, a drug trafficking crime or a terrorism crime, or that the other person is going to provide the firearm to a third person who will employ it as described.
The bill defines drug trafficking and terrorism.
The bill provides for a more enhanced penalty for drug trafficking and terrorism, up to 15 years incarceration if the person is buying for someone disqualified under 18 USC 922(d), and up to 25 years if buying for someone who the person knows will employ it for committing a felony, drug trafficking or terrorism.

This section also makes interstate sale of a firearm a crime if the seller knows the buyer intends to use the firearm for crime. It also makes receipt of such a firearm a crime. There is an enhanced penalty, up to 15 years, as compared to regular interstate sale of firearms by unlicensed persons, which is illegal under current law.

The section also has enhanced penalties for unlicensed or unpermitted import or export of firearms or ammunition to or from the U.S.

The section also says that the NICS system may be used for a FFL to conduct a background check on a current or prospective employee. Notice must be provided to the employee, and they have to consent to it.

The section requires the FBI to provide access to FFL holders to the database of stolen firearms maintained in the NCIC database, so they can see if a firearm in inventory is stolen. Checking would be voluntary. Not checking would not create civil liability.

Section 12005

This section creates a new firearm disability for persons convicted of a misdemeanor where the victim is someone the person was ‘dating’. It does not require any prior sexual, or even ‘cohabiting’ relations between the offender and the victim for the relationship to be a ‘dating relationship’.

The section says that in order for the disability to apply, the conviction must have occurred after this bill became law. It will not apply to convictions that happened before this bill became law.

The section says that if a person only has one such conviction as to a dating partner, and five years have elapsed with no other convictions for any crimes involving use or attempted use physical force or the threat of use of a deadly weapon (whether against a domestic partner or dating partner or not), then the dating partner conviction is no longer disqualifying for possession of firearms purposes.

However, convictions related to a domestic partner as a victim (as under existing law) are disqualifying forever, as under current law. And a dating partner conviction, and then a second misdemeanor crime where the victim is anyone, that involves physical force or a deadly weapon (as outlined above) is disqualifying forever.

The powers states have to expunge records and pardon offenders that remove firearm possession prohibitions are not affected

If Gun Control Saves Lives, Then Why are California and New York State so Dangerous?

A few disturbed young men want to become famous by killing innocent people. Each time they try, we are told that we need to take guns away from honest citizens. That proposal isn’t new. Gun-prohibitionists passed severe gun-control laws decades ago in a few Democrat controlled states. Let’s see if that made us safer. Based on recent evidence from New York State and California, it did not.

You don’t have to take my word for it when I say that California and New York have strict gun-control laws. Take the opinion of the Giffords gun-control group funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Giffords gives California an A rating and New York an A-.

Laws like this are why-

  • There are many models of firearms that ordinary citizens can’t own in New York and California.
  • Ordinary citizens must pass background checks when they purchase a handgun at a gun store or at a gun show. In California, there is also a mandatory background check before we may buy ammunition. New York proposed similar ammunition restrictions.
  • California has a mandatory ten-day waiting period after we submit our background check and before we may take possession of our firearm. There is also an additional one-gun-a-month restriction. New York also requires a license before we are allowed to own a handgun.
  • Both states have a magazine capacity limit that reduces the number of cartridges that a firearm magazine may hold.
  • Both states have “Red Flag laws” that allow family members, romantic partners, schoolteachers, doctors, and the police to request that we be disarmed. We are not present when a “Red Flag” hearing is held to confiscate our guns.
  • Both California and New York require statement of “demonstrated need” before honest citizens like us are granted a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public. In many cities, those permits are only given to judges, politicians, and to campaign donors. The rate of concealed carry is far lower in New York State and in California compared to the rest of the US.
  • Schools are “gun-free” zones and even school staff are disarmed.

We were told that gun-control would keep us safe. Last year, California had the most active-shooter incidents of any state in the nation. This year, we saw mass-murders and attempted mass-murders in New York state and even in New York City.

How could these gun control laws fail so badly? Here are a few of the many reasons that gun-control fails time after time-

Continue reading “”

Everytown Calls for Censorship on How to Work on Firearms

This correspondent has repeatedly written the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution are intertwined and support each other. A power-craving government cannot effectively keep a population disarmed unless it censors information on how to make and use arms.

Billionaire Bloomberg supported Everytown for Gun Safety understands they cannot disarm the population, as long as people are free to transmit information on how to make, modify, and use firearms.

Their solution is clear. Forbid the knowledge of how to make, repair, and use firearms. From everytownsupportfund.org:

Based on our review of the writings by the shooter in the Buffalo mass shooting, it appears that he honed his knowledge of firearms and firearm modifications on YouTube. Just days before his attack, posts attributed to the shooter on Discord read, “I’ve just been sitting around watching youtube and **** for the last few days. I think this is the closest I’ll ever be to being ready. I literally can’t wait another week to do this.”

Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users and the public-at-large to insure that posts do not incite violence or promote extremist content.

This correspondent, contrary to what Everytown posits, claims Technology platforms, such as YouTube, have a responsibility to users to protect and support their First Amendment rights of free expression.

Everytown admits they request that videos on how to modify guns be taken down. They say they have requested YouTube take down videos on how to make guns (which they call “ghost guns”).

YouTube has policies that censor some content on how to make or modify some guns and accessories.  From nbcnews.com:

YouTube’s firearms policy says users can’t post videos that show how to install certain gun accessories, including high-capacity magazines. In a statement on Friday, the company said the videos that the suspect allegedly used to modify his rifle don’t violate those policies.

It is more dangerous to people’s freedom to control the information they are allowed than to control their access to arms. Both are important. If the control over information is extensive enough, people will never attempt to use the arms they may have; they will consider themselves in the best of all possible situations, no matter how badly they are abused. This is the warning in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. It is even more difficult for the people to rise up if the abuse is carefully contrived and increasingly applied over generations, allowing the population to become accustomed to it.

Fortunately, the oligopoly of Big Tech’s control over information appears to be on the edge of collapse. Alternative platforms dedicated to free speech, such as Truth Social and Rumble, are becoming popular. Elon Musk may reform Twitter, from a means of directing cancel culture against its victims to a worldwide sanctuary for free speech.

In a famous case, the US government gave up attempts to restrict the publication of how to build a hydrogen bomb. The First Amendment clearly protects the publication of technology that is already in the public sphere.

What Everytown seeks to do is to convince the distributors of information to censor information it deems to be dangerous.

Everytown is unlikely to succeed.

In the Fifth Circuit, Defense Distributed’s lawsuit against New Jersey’s AG, Gurbir Grewal, was allowed to continue, on the grounds that Grewal violated Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights when when he threatened to prosecute them for publishing computer code on how to print firearms parts.

It would be a short step for the newly proposed Bureau of Disinformation to censor information they deem “dangerous” to the public.

Unless the Progressive left succeeds in its Supreme Court-packing scheme, it is unlikely the Supreme Court would allow such an egregious violation of the First Amendment, when the inevitable court challenge is effectuated.

Everytown seems to agree with this quote, attributed to Stalin, but disputed:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

One of the most important effects of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, is the physical embodiment and clear demonstration the power of the government has limits. There are things it is not allowed to do, by law. An openly armed man, in public, is a clear and present demonstration of a Constitutional limit on government.

Progressives hate the idea of limits on government with a passion. It is part of Progressive DNA.

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, had a view the opposite of Stalin’s supposed quote. In a private letter, shortly before becoming president, he wrote this:

 “for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”1

It is clear those who wish for a disarmed public are closer to Stalin’s philosophy than to Thomas Jefferson’s.

Author Stephen Hunter makes valid point about guns

Author Stephen Hunter is best known for his Bob Lee Swagger books. He was also a film critic for the Washington Post until he retired in 2008.

While he writes thrillers, his career might make you think he’s anti-gun.

Well, he’s apparently not. In fact, he made a very good point about guns and massacres.

Possibly you’re old enough to remember the great massacre spree of 1964? Classrooms shot up, strip malls decimated, scout troops blown away, fast food restaurants turned into mortuaries.

And all because, in its infinite stupidity, the U.S. government dumped 240,000 high-capacity .30 caliber assault rifles into an otherwise innocent America.

The weapons clearly had a demon-spirit to them. Compared to anything else in the market, they had that murder-most-easy look. One glance at the sinister gleam of the walnut stock which caressed the military-gray receiver and barrel of the weapon, its magazine wickedly boasting of many cartridges ready and waiting, its photo- and Hollywood associations with war, and some went screwball. They had the overwhelming desire to use it as it was meant to be used. It was not powerful enough for deer and not accurate enough for vermin. It existed only to kill human beings.

Except there was no massacre spree of 1964, despite the fact that in 1963 the United States Army surplussed 240,000 M1 carbines via the NRA. They were available through the mail at $20. Not an NRA member? Eighty bucks, then, from any sporting goods store. Denver’s Dave Cook’s–“Guns Galore at Prices to Score”– had them by mail order, magazine and sling included, postage, $1.25.

The M1 carbine was a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that could fire pretty much as fast as an AR-15 and used a much larger round, from a pure diameter standpoint.

It was a recipe for disaster by today’s standard and yet, nothing. Not a single mass shooting with such weapons.

Hunter goes on to point out that in the summer of 1964, there were tons of inexpensive semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles on the open market that could be mailed right to you, but there weren’t people like the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters.

It’s a very valid point and a great example of how the problem isn’t the availability of firearms. They were easier to acquire in 1964 than they are today and they were just as deadly. They could be discharged at a high rate of fire, too.

These were actual weapons of war, even, not something that just looks like one.

And yet, as Hunter notes, no massacres. No school shootings. None of the things we’re told result from “easy” access to firearms.

That suggests strongly that the problem here is something else, something else entirely. We, as a society, would be better off if we could stop blaming guns for five minutes and start looking deeper into why this is happening and why this continues to be an issue.

Yet that’s apparently not allowed by some in our world. They’ve got a vested interest in blaming the guns rather than in solving the actual problem.

Part of that, of course, is also blaming others for not agreeing that guns are the problem despite clear evidence that they’re not.

Quick take
There are two problems with this. It legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is problematic because it’s a gray area, no matter how many stipulations are in place. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

The Senate gun control bill is finished ….sorta? ‘Discussion Draft’?

bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Andy Biggs — Expect House Gun Controllers to ‘Go After Ammo and Ammo Manufacturers’

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) spoke with Breitbart News about the current push for gun control in the House and warned us to be ready to see gun controllers “go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”

Biggs noted a number of gun controls have been passed by the Democrat-controlled House, and even though those controls have not passed the Senate he believes the House will pass even more.

He explained, “I expect some additional gun control legislation to come out of the House. I expect there will be an attempt to do an ‘assault weapons’ ban, I think they’re going to continue to try to eliminate liability protections on gun manufacturers, and I think they’re also going to go after ammunition and ammunition manufacturers.”

Biggs then talked about gun control in the Senate, where he said, “When gun control reared its head again, after Uvalde, I expected 20 members of Senate Republicans to cave and give things like red flag laws and whatever else that the House pushing. But I’m sure what, if anything, is going to get out now, because it has taken so long and they have no language.”

He added, “When you have no language to look at, they start working off what is called a framework, and that leads to infighting where some Senators want certain things but not other things, and that indicates a lack a consensus.”

And Biggs stressed the more time passes the less chance there is consensus will occur.

He also noted the way Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was booed on Friday at the Texas GOP Convention, and said, “That response indicates that gun owners are not real pleased with the Republicans that are undermining the Second Amendment.”

Biggs emphasized the launch of a watchdog group, the Arizona Second Amendment Coalition, a coalition of people he has pulled together to stay on top of the fight for Second Amendment rights.

Members of the coalition include elected officials, student advocates, individuals who work in the firearm industry, and members of pro-2A groups like the DC Project, among others.

Biggs said, “We’re trying to make it a broad-based coalition where we talk about challenges to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Whether that is an ATF challenge, something the Biden administration is doing, or what policies–local, state, and federal–that may either positively or negatively impact the Second Amendment.”

On January 3, 2022, Breitbart News reported Biggs stressing that carrying a gun for self-defense is part of being a “free American.”

Biggs said, “When you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”

He then added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”

Know the lying demoncraps infesting the White House, this can almost be seen as confirmation

White House denies claims from guns group that ammo ban is under consideration

The White House is denying a recent claim from a gun foundation that a limited ammunition ban is under consideration, which would drive the price of legal ammunition higher.

The Biden administration supposedly informed Winchester Ammunition that “the government is considering restricting the manufacturing and commercial sale of legal ammunition produced at the Lake City, Mo., facility,” a spokesman from the National Shooting Sports Foundation told the Washington Examiner on Friday.

A White House official denied the claim.

Currently, Winchester is allowed to sell surplus ammunition after meeting the military’s needs on the civilian market, but Mark Oliva, the NSSF spokesman, warned that banning the practice would “significantly reduce the availability of ammunition in the marketplace and put the nation’s warfighting readiness at risk. Both NSSF and Winchester strongly oppose this action.”

This practice now represents roughly 30% of the 5.56 mm/.223 caliber ammunition sales.

Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of senators announced they had agreed in principle to the framework of new legislation to instill additional restrictions on guns that may have a chance to be passed in the Senate. Twenty senators, 10 from each party, signed on to the legislation, demonstrating the support it would need to pass the 60-vote threshold.

A White House official told the Washington Examiner that the reports on a possible ban “are way off,” while Oliva warned that the implementation of such a policy “jeopardizes the fragile negotiations of the framework deal that was agreed to by the bipartisan group of senators.”

After mass shootings, such as the ones in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, it is typical that gun owners flock to firearm stores in order to buy weapons over fears of new gun control legislation. That fear also prompts ammunition purchases, which have led to a shortage. Both gun and ammunition manufacturers saw their stocks go up after the Uvalde shooting.

“The typical hypothesis is that this is an exogenous shock, unanticipated, and as a result of a mass shooting, the reaction is there is an expectation that legislative steps will be undertaken to potentially restrict ammunition, access to guns,” Brian Marks, the executive director of the University of New Haven’s Entrepreneurship and Innovation Program, previously told the Washington Examiner.