Category: RKBA

The carjacking surge in Philadelphia shows why the Second Amendment is so important

Democrats routinely disparage guns and gun ownership in this country as one of the main reasons for violent crime. As soon as there is a mass shooting, Democratic politicians beat the drums for gun control legislation.

Even now, amid a violent crime surge largely resulting from failed Democratic policies in cities nationwide, they still blame guns. Yet, what goes ignored are the incidents in which guns are used for self-defense.

People are fighting back, demonstrating the importance of the Second Amendment.

Philadelphia has had a tsunami of violent crime in the past couple of years. Homicides reached an all-time high in 2021 after nearly setting a record in 2020. Carjackings have also experienced a surge in the city, going from 225 in 2019 to a whopping 720 in 2021, CBS3 reported .

The crime wave forced the Philadelphia Police Department to publish a survival guide on what to do if confronted with a carjacking. But with the city failing to protect its citizens, some have realized they must protect themselves. As a result, there are numerous stories of citizens defending themselves from carjackings by using their legally owned guns. In these incidents (with several that do not make the news), guns saved lives.

The “good guy with a gun narrative” is widely disregarded by those on the Left in the debate over guns. They continually promote the narrative that guns are evil tools that cause nothing but destruction and the loss of human life. While this is absolutely true, so is the opposite — guns save lives. According to statistics, guns are more often used to save lives than take them.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are anywhere between 30,000 to 40,000 gun-related deaths each year, with about 60% of those being suicides. Conversely, the CDC reports between 60,000 to 2.5 million incidents involving guns to save lives. The “good guy with a gun” narrative happens a lot more than the media or agenda-driven Democratic politicians like to acknowledge. The stories in Philadelphia are just some of the most recent examples.

With people needing guns to defend themselves out of necessity, the Second Amendment is needed now more than ever. Legal gun ownership can mean the difference between life and death. At a time when Democratic politicians have prioritized the safety of criminals over the welfare of the innocent, the Second Amendment could be the difference between being the victim of a violent crime or surviving one.

A Frank Discussion of Knives for Self-Defense

This article owes a lot to Marc “Animal” MacYoung, a prolific writer and thinker about self-defense issues whose work you should really check out. One of his areas of expertise is knife fighting and the use of knives in self-defense. MacYoung presents three basic considerations for knife use in a self-defense context in his must-read article on the subject, and I’m unable to improve on them:

  • A knife is a lethal force item
  • As such its legal/moral/ethical application is narrowly allowed
  • ‘self-defense’ is a legally defined term.

Any discussion of knives for self-defense has to keep these three points in mind. Legally and morally, you’re introducing a lethal weapon into the conflict—and that may have long-lasting repercussions for everyone involved. You may not intend to do lethal damage, but that’s the trick: knives can wound or kill with a touch, and in the chaos of an assault that can happen inadvertently. Another caveat: this article is about the general use of knives in self-defense, not engaging in a knife fight with another armed person. With all that having been said, let’s talk about choosing a knife as a self-defense tool.

The first step, as always, is to get familiar with your local laws on the subject. Each state—and many municipalities—has its own laws about knives: what you can carry, where you can carry, when/how you may use them, and what constitutes the legal use of lethal force (yes, that again) for self-defense. It might be a good idea to book a consultation with an attorney. Yes, that’s expensive, but it’s best to get legal advice from a professional who is bound to act on your behalf.

The second step is to consider your self-defense plan as a whole. Personal protection does not start and end with weapons; there’s a lot that goes into conflict-avoidance and safety planning other than planning for use of force. Make sure you’ve got those bases covered.

Nor should you neglect other possible self-defense tools. Even if you have a knife, you may not be able to deploy it in time, or you may need a less-lethal tool instead. Make sure to keep those options open.

Now, let’s talk about the knife you’ll be carrying. Unless you live in a rural area, you’ll probably legally and logistically be better of with a lock-bladed folding knife, one designed as an all-purpose tool. Because that’s what it’ll spend most of its time doing. Opening boxes, cutting strings and rope, and other mundane tasks are its purview. If legal in your state, there are knives made specifically for knife fighting such as the Colonel Blade or the Clinch Pick.

Finally, you’ll need some training. Probably quite a bit of training. There are numerous systems for the use of knives in self-defense out there. One that comes to mind but I have not taken is the Edged Weapons Overview course by Shivworks. I would suggest selecting a system or school that teaches both armed and unarmed techniques—you’ll likely need both if something does go wrong. I’m a big advocate of the notion that a short-range weapon like a knife exists to give you the time and space to run, so please give that some thought.

These are just some thoughts to get you started. Please reach out to me in the comments section or via email and let me know if you have any further questions or ideas. I love hearing from you.

Wisconsin Assembly OKs GOP-led gun rights bills

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Assembly approved a package of Republican-authored bills on Thursday that would dramatically expand gun rights in the state, moving forward with the proposals even though Democratic Gov. Tony Evers will almost certainly veto them.

The proposals would allow people with concealed carry licenses to go armed on school grounds and in churches attached to private schools; lower the minimum age for obtaining a concealed carry license from 21 to 18; and allow anyone with a concealed carry license from any state to go armed in Wisconsin. Currently, only people with licenses from states that conduct background checks on applicants can carry concealed guns in Wisconsin.

Assembly Democrats railed against the bills during a news conference before the floor session began, saying the measures would make the state more dangerous.

“Today we vote on bills that will bring guns to our school grounds, a bill that will allow high school seniors to carry concealed weapons and a bill permitting people from out of state who would normally fail a criminal-background check to carry guns in Wisconsin. As a parent, as a teacher and as a citizen, this is terrifying,” Rep. Deb Andraca, an elementary school teacher and a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, a group that works to reduce gun violence.

Republicans defended the proposals at their own pre-session news conference.

“Our Second Amendment rights, those are just critically important to everybody across Wisconsin,” said Rep. Shae Sortwell, who is the chief Assembly sponsor for the bill that would lower the concealed carry age. “(We want to) make sure that every adult American, whether they are visiting Wisconsin, whether they are living in Wisconsin, has the same rights under the law.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
It’s well past time that lawmakers recognize that the laws aren’t working except to hamstring the law-abiding citizens of this great nation, so maybe it’s time to repeal some of these stupid laws and give us a chance at standing on a level playing field with the bad guys.

Teens leaving funeral arrested for full-auto guns

Full-auto.

I’m not going to lie, I have almost no experience with machine guns. They’re too expensive for me to obtain legally, and the penalties for doing so illegally just make them another kind of expensive.

However, for some people, that second kind of expensive just doesn’t seem to be that bad. They’re mostly convinced they won’t get caught. That’s probably especially true if your age starts with a “1.”

As some teens in Minneapolis just found out, though, being young and having a weapon modified to be full-auto doesn’t protect you from arrest.

Teenage twin brothers have been charged with possessing firearms illegally altered to fire automatically and with fleeing police after leaving the funeral of a slain friend this week in Minneapolis.

According to charges filed in Hennepin County District Court, the 18-year-old brothers, Quantez and Cortez Ward, were seen riding in a vehicle from which police seized three handguns outfitted with devices called auto-sears — commonly known as “Glock switches” — that can turn the weapons fully automatic.

The brothers did not have lawyers as of Wednesday afternoon, but they were scheduled to make their initial court appearances Thursday, when the court could assign them attorneys.

Minneapolis police and Hennepin County Sheriff’s personnel were conducting surveillance at a funeral for 15-year-old Santana Jackson on Jan. 17 when they saw the brothers arrive, according to the charges. Authorities had learned earlier that they would attend and likely be carrying handguns modified to fire fully automatic.

Authorities and crime prevention workers say the modified firearms have been showing up at crime scenes with frightening frequency in recent months.

Now, this is a good time to look at gun control as a whole.

Full-auto is tightly regulated. Handguns are regulated, too. And no law allows teenagers too young to be named in the papers to purchase firearms, much less buy handguns.

And yet, here we are.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
As with any crime, and to be clear, willfully violating the Constitution is a criminal act. You have to look at motive, means and opportunity. Joe Biden has the motive to violate our rights and the means to do so. And although I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, unless fate or the 25th Amendment intervene, for the next three long years he’ll have opportunity for all the infringing he and Kamala desire.

The Question On Gun Owners’ Minds: What Will Joe Biden’s Next Pivot Be?

The Biden-Harris administration is trapped inside a hostile media spotlight, a victim of their own incompetence. They’re like a cornered animal – desperate for a way out, but clearly willing to settle for anything that would shift the public focus off of their ever-growing list of failures.

They’re a consistent bunch, that much is true. They consistently lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to another, while we pay the price for their mistakes.

It began with Joe’s unconditional surrender of Afghanistan and was followed by the Build Back Better bust and the deadly fiasco on our Southern border. Added quickly to the mix were skyrocketing inflation, lots of empty shelves, the Supremes embarrassing denouncement of a clearly unconstitutional vaccine mandate, COVID tests becoming unobtainium while omicron surged.

All the while, the filibuster remaining as strong as it was a year ago thanks to good Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and the fact that Russia is making ready to launch an invasion of the Ukraine, which could trigger a third world war, in which Joe Biden (!) would be the defender of the free world.

The Biden-Harris administration tried to get the focus off of its near-daily faux pas by uploading a Jan. 6-themed “democracy is under threat” speech onto Joe’s teleprompter. The speech caught hold of the media’s news cycle for about a day, but the respite didn’t last long, despite hard-sell attempts by Pelosi et al.

Next, Joe tried pivoting to voting rights, but when voting rights advocates themselves boycotted his speech, his pivot lost its luster. The speech itself – “Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?” – was about as easy for most Americans to stomach as a fistful of ghost peppers. It was, in fact, more of a cry for help – another what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-Joe exemplar.

Now, what has me and some of my much smarter and more experienced friends losing sleep, is trying to fathom what Joe will try next. It is time, we fear, for Joe to pivot once again toward gun control, as he did right out of the box a year ago.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Preservation Act introduced in Iowa Senate

A bill in the state senate would establish a $50,000 fine for an Iowa city and law enforcement agency where an officer enforces federal gun regulations that are stricter than the state’s.

The bill is part of a campaign that has prompted county supervisors to designate 33 Iowa counties as “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” where federal gun laws wouldn’t be enforced by local officials if the Biden Administration or congress were to enact tougher regulations. Senator Zach Nunn of Bondurant, a Republican congressional candidate in Iowa’s third district, is the sponsor of the so-called Second Amendment Preservation Act.

“We want to protect our law enforcement officers on the front line who are serving the community, but not deputize them as agents of a department or agency to go in and infringe upon an Iowan’s Second Amendment constitutional rights,” Nunn said yesterday during a subcommittee hearing on the bill.

Continue reading “”

Can the DC Project be the 2A counter to Moms Demand Action?

We’ve all become familiar with the gun control lobby’s group of red-shirted women demanding more infringements on our right to bear arms, but Moms Demand Action isn’t the only game in town when it comes to a female-centered movement dealing with gun ownership. Since 2016, the DC Project has been attracting a growing number of women who support the Second Amendment, and at this year’s SHOT Show, the group’s founder Dianna Mueller hosted a press event to help spread the word about the organization and its efforts around the country.

Mueller wants the organization to become a counter to Moms Demand Action, and one of the most visible ways the group is doing so is by adopting the color teal to serve as a visual sign of support for the Second Amendment, just as the red shirts of MDA are an easy way for lawmakers to see gun control activists in attendance at legislative hearings or in statehouse galleries. But Mueller and the other DC Project leaders aren’t just looking for ways to visually signal their pro-2A attitudes. They’re looking to have an impact on legislative policies around the nation. In fact, as Mueller told the audience at the DC Project presser on Tuesday, their goal is nothing less than to “save the country” through activism and education.

One of the things that’s most impressive about what the DC Project has been able to accomplish in just five years of existence is that the women have done this largely on their own. Sure, the group has some corporate and individual sponsors, but there’s no deep-pocketed billionaire bankrolling the organization as we’ve seen with Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action. This is a true grassroots effort, and it’s so great to see how the organization has grown over the past five years.

In 2016, the DC Project’s first goal was to bring 50 women, one from every state, to Washington, D.C. to simply demonstrate to lawmakers that yes, pro-Second Amendment women weren’t mythical creatures. From there, the project has snowballed to the point that there are now more than 40 state-level directors for the DC Project leading the pushback against gun control legislation and pressing legislators to approve pro-2A bills, while DC Project members have been called to testify on Capitol Hill on an increasingly frequent basis.

Mueller pointed to the passage of Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, as well as the defeat of a bad bill in the Democrat-controlled legislature in Nevada last year as two examples of the state-level work that the DC Project is engaged in, and also discussed the legislative battles over multiple gun control bills that they’ll be engaged in this year in Washington State, where lawmakers are once again looking to ban so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines while further eroding the state’s firearm preemption law and allowing localities and counties to impose their own restrictions on the right to carry during public meetings, permitted events, and in government-owned buildings.

The DC Project is still a pretty new endeavor, all things considered, but they’re already doing great work and have big plans for the immediate future. I’d encourage every woman who supports the Second Amendment to become a part of this organization and get involved in what the DC Project is doing. As their sign says, gun rights are women’s rights, and it’s critically important for more of us to be politically engaged if we want to see those rights safe and secure.

Alabama – ASA and Bloomberg Fight Against Constitutional Carry

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Bobby Timmons, director of the Alabama Sheriff’s Association (ASA), is so opposed to acknowledging your inherent right-to-carry, and wants so badly to protect the revenue stream from permit fees, that he openly opposes the Second Amendment and allies with anti-gun extremists. He said in a media interview that the ASA is working with a Bloomberg-backed, national anti-gun group in order to oppose the constitutional carry legislation currently in the Alabama Legislature.

From the 1819 News article:

“Timmons has claimed several times that the Second Amendment was not written to give citizens the right to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion, saying that the amendment was only written to allow citizens to have weapons to defend their homes.

Given his interpretation of the Second Amendment, 1819 News asked Timmons if ASA would support amending the Constitution to limit the Second Amendment to the possession of firearms only for the defense of a person’s home.

‘Oh yeah,’ Timmons said. ‘I’d be in favor of that. But, I mean, it would never get passed.’”

…

“When asked if permits were a significant revenue stream for Alabama Sheriffs, Timmons conceded this was true, but stressed that any such revenue would come from permits or taxes on the public.”

Joe Biden Admits More Gun Control Wouldn’t Have Stopped Synagogue Attacker

President Joe Biden took questions on Saturday’s Texas synagogue attack and suggested more gun control would not have stopped the attacker.

Reuters reports the attacker, 44-year-old Malik Faisal Akram, was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Federal agents stormed the synagogue after a 10-h0ur hostage standoff and Akram is now dead.

Biden commented on the incident, mentioning more gun control, only to admit that more gun control would not have helped in this situation:

Allegedly, [Akram] purchased…[the weapons] on the street.  Now what that means, I don’t know.  Whether he purchased it from an individual in a homeless shelter or a homeless community, or whether — because that’s where he said he was — it’s hard to tell.  I just don’t know.

…The guns are — we should be — the idea of background checks are critical.  But you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street.

Biden then criticized the surging gun sales America has witnessed during the past two years: “There’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous.”

Breitbart News reported nearly 23 million guns were sold in 2020 and that the FBI conducted over 38,8 million National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks in 2021. The 38.8 is not a precise indicator of  the number of guns sold, but it does suffice to show that surge in gun sales continued into 2021.

It is important to understand nearly 23 millions guns sold in 2020, mentioned above, and the number sold after NICS checks in 2021 were all sold via background checks.

BLUF:
To Biden and Democrats, violent crime is a gun crime problem, but they ignore that 92% of violent crime has nothing to do with guns. And they ignore that defensive guns uses are four to five times more common than gun crimes.

The bottom line is that the media could do a much better job of asking politicians such as Biden tough questions on crime. If we want to save lives and protect people from violence, we need those questions asked.

What Reporters Should Ask Biden About Guns at His Promised Press Conference on Wednesday

President Biden’s remarks after the hostage situation at the synagogue in Texas leave more questions than answers.

What were the motivations for the attack occur? A full day after a Pakistani Muslim attacked a synagogue on the Jewish sabbath to gain the release of Aafia Siddiqui described as the “Lady of al Qaeda,” Biden doesn’t know. The synagogue was near where Siddiqui is held. But when asked why the attacker targeted that synagogue, Biden again responded that he didn’t know but promised more at a press conference on Wednesday.

Those answers are surely much better than the answers given by the FBI on Saturday, where they were not sure of the motive but ruled out the attack being “specifically related to the Jewish community.” The investigation should go forward, but it is troubling that the FBI’s immediately concluded no connection between a radical Pakistani Muslim trying to free a prominent al Qaeda member and an attack on a synagogue. The “massive backlash” forced the FBI to walk back its claim.

But there are other important problems with Biden’s comments. While he concedes that “you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street,” what he does know is that this type of attack occurs because “there’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous.”

His first suggested solution? Background checks. Presumably, he means background checks on the private transfer of guns – so-called “universal background checks.” The problem is that even if such a law had been in effect and perfectly enforced, it wouldn’t have stopped one mass public shooting this century.

Continue reading “”

I’ve got a phone number for him – 1-800-CRY-BABY Waaaahhhhh.

Joe Biden Complains About ‘Ridiculous’ Number of Gun Sales After Synagogue Terrorist Incident

President Joe Biden complained about the number of guns sold in the United States after an armed terrorist suspect took four hostages at a Texas synagogue on Sunday.

“There’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous,” Biden said when asked by reporters on Sunday about gun control after the incident.

Biden noted that suspect, Faisal Akram, 44, a British national, had allegedly purchased his gun on the street, before the incident.

“The guns are — we should be — the idea of background checks are critical,” he said, but admitted that “you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street.”

Biden said that country had failed to “focus as hard as we should and as consistent as we should” on issues like gun purchases, gun sales, and “ghost” guns.

Akram was killed by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, nearly eleven hours after he entered the synagogue. None of the hostages were harmed.

Biden called the incident “an act of terror” but said he did not know why Akram was demanding the release of Aafia Siddiqui, known as “Lady al-Qaeda” imprisoned at Fort Worth for trying to kill American soldiers.

“I don’t– we don’t have I don’t think there is sufficient information to know about why he targeted that synagogue, why he insisted on the release of someone who’s been in prison for over 10 years, why he was engaged, why he was using an anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli comments,” Biden said.

Just me, but if your congregation doesn’t allow for people to carry, find one that does.

Synagogue standoff shows why we need guns during worship

Imagine you’re sitting in your place of worship, and some psychopath comes in and decides no one gets to leave. His intentions are unclear, but there’s no doubt he’s dangerous. After all, he’s armed and is threatening, if not in words, then in mannerisms.

That’s the reality we saw unfold for some people in the Texas synagogue standoff over the weekend.

The FBI and local police said at a news conference Saturday night that three hostages who were held in a Colleyville synagogue for nearly 11 hours are unharmed and the hostage-taker is dead after a hostage rescue team breached the building.

Authorities said the hostage-taker was killed in a shooting but did not answer a question about whether he was shot by law enforcement or if the gunshot was self-inflicted. The man claimed to have explosives, according to statements he made on livestreamed video, but police have not commented on whether any weapons were found.

Exclusive video taken by WFAA-TV photographer Josh Stephen shows at least some of the hostages running out of a door at the synagogue just before FBI agents enter the building. The footage, shot just before 9:15 p.m., shows a man who appears to be holding a gun following the hostages as they escape, then almost immediately going back inside.

Officials said the rescued hostages are being interviewed by the FBI and will be reunited with their families as soon as possible. Authorities did not release the name of the hostage-taker or the ages of the hostages, but did confirm they were all adults.

Absolutely horrifying, to say the least.

As noted, the hostage-taker is dead. He’s also been identified by police.

The FBI on Sunday identified Malik Faisal Akram, a 44-year-old British national, as the man who held four people hostage at a Texas synagogue in an hours-long standoff Saturday before a rescue team entered the building and killed the suspect.

An FBI Hostage Rescue Team killed Akram after the hostages were released around 9 p.m. local time, the agency said. Crime scene investigators at the Beth Israel Congregation in Colleyville, Texas — about 15 miles from Fort Worth — recovered one firearm they believe belonged to Akram, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CNN.

Of course, the FBI says it doesn’t know the motive, seemingly trying to deflect from this being a case of terrorism.

And, in theory, it may not be. I don’t think that’s likely, mind you, but whatever.

However, what isn’t being talked about is how there are still people who see this who think guns shouldn’t be allowed in our houses of worship, regardless of religion.

Some will somehow delude themselves into thinking that if Texas didn’t permit guns in churches to any degree, this wouldn’t have happened. We know this to be true because the laws against taking hostages worked so well. I mean, how can you have a synagogue standoff if there’s no standoff possible? Too bad this jackwagon decided to ignore all those laws.

So, if he’d ignore them, why wouldn’t he ignore the ones saying he couldn’t bring a gun?

Yet, there have been some unconfirmed reports floating around that Beth Israel Congregation’s rabbi didn’t permit firearms in the synagogue. If that is, in fact, the case, then none of the hostages were legally allowed to carry a gun because Texas law allows places of worship to decide for themselves whether to permit firearms or not.

Had one of them been armed, the situation may have turned out very differently. Malik could have come in just the same, of course, but he may have ended up dead hours earlier, and all that would have been left for law enforcement was to clean up the mess.

That would have been a win for everyone there.

Instead, it seems they weren’t allowed to.

But again, that’s based on reports I haven’t been able to confirm just yet. If those aren’t true, well, then it’s still a stark reminder of why people need guns in churches, synagogues, and any other place of worship you care to name. This synagogue standoff was unpleasant for all involved, but we’ve seen far worse committed in places of worship.

This is bad, but I’d much rather experience a hostage situation than a mass shooting. Even if you go home, the trauma of talking about being inside during the synagogue standoff is nothing compared to the trauma of seeing people gunned down before your very eyes.

However, both can be prevented by carrying a firearm. It’s just that simple.

Washington state forges ahead with three of the most extreme gun control bills in the nation

The Washington State Senate is considering passing three of the most extreme gun control bills in the country.

Assault Weapons Ban/Ban on Most Semi-Automatic Rifles

SB 5217 would establish a traditional Assault Weapons Ban, which includes modern sporting rifles, such as the AR-15.

What makes this bill even more extreme is it bans most semi-automatic rifles.

According to the bill, all “assault weapons” and their “copycats” are banned. Notice

“‘Copycat weapon’ means a semiautomatic, centerfire firearm that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” as well as one other feature, such as a suppressor, threaded barrel, muzzle brake, or grenade launcher.

“High-capacity” Magazine Ban

SB 5078 would create a “high-capacity” magazine ban. To skirt the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Duncan v. Becerra, which struck down California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban, Washington State would grandfather in those that already own these magazines.

“The legislature does not intend to create a blanket ban, but only to limit the prospective sale of large capacity magazines, allowing existing legal owners to retain large capacity magazines for the purposes of defending themselves and their homes and using those large capacity magazines in other authorized locations,” the bill reads.

Interestingly enough, the bill also redefines what constitutes as a “high-capacity” magazine. Traditionally, anti-gunners consider magazines that hold 10 rounds or less as “normal” and 11+ rounds as “high-capacity.” SB 5078 changes the definition to 12+ rounds.

“Ghost Gun” and Bump Stock Ban

HB 1705 is rather redundant to federal legislation. It bans new “ghost guns” from being built. Those that own these firearms must have serial numbers before selling to an FFL, which is already federal law.

The bill also outlaws bump stocks, which are deemed a “machinegun” under the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. The ATF changed the bump stock designation after the Route 91 shooting in Las Vegas.

No, Gun Culture Has Not Been Radicalized

In a single issue in March of 1961, Guns & Ammo ran ads for a “Sniper Model” Enfield Match rifle, a French 8mm machine gun (“used in two World Wars”), a Mannlicher military pistol, a U.S. .30 M1 carbine, and a police-ordnance Ingram Model 6 submachine gun chambered in .45 ACP (only $49.95!). If you’re surprised that these machine guns and high-powered military rifles were marketed to hunters in the 1960s, you might have unconsciously accepted a flawed but popular narrative about American gun culture.

According to this story, gun owners have only recently become “militarized,” thanks to the machinations of the National Rifle Association and its infamous leader, Wayne LaPierre. That military-style attitude has further resulted in a recalcitrant stance toward gun control and an obsession with armed self-defense.

There are many examples of this fable, but the most recent comes from the New Yorker, in a declaratively titled piece, “What Happened to Gun Culture.” As author Benjamin Wallace-Wells helpfully explains, gun culture has become “one of the most dangerous elements of the right” during LaPierre’s tenure.

“Military” or “militarization” appears nine times in the article, as Wallace-Wells claims that only since the 1990s have manufacturers been allowed to sell “military-grade weapons” and “market them as military weapons.” Ultimately, Wallace-Wells writes, LaPierre’s NRA “brainwashed an entire country” by transforming a political base of hunters into a “new, expanded audience of gun guys” who support a “maximalist defense of guns.” This new gun culture has spawned characters such as Kyle Rittenhouse, the January 6 rioters, and, most horrifically of all, Black Rifle Coffee Company.

As with all stories that attempt to shoehorn the history of a community into a convenient political narrative, this myth is mostly untrue.

Continue reading “”

What happened to San Jose’s insurance mandate for gun owners?

It’s been more than six months since the city council in San Jose, California unanimously approved a measure requiring all legal gun owners in the city to carry liability insurance and pay the city a fee for the “privilege” of exercising their Second Amendment rights, but so far the city hasn’t taken any concrete steps to start enforcing the ordinance or even explain to gun owners how they’re expected to comply with the unconstitutional mandate.

Still, the city clearly hasn’t given up on the idea, with Mayor Sam Liccardo touting the plan in his recent State of the City address.

Continue reading “”

A not so modest proposal for mandatory training

In the past week or so, we’ve seen a push by anti-Second Amendment folks to call for mandatory training prior to people being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. And not just to carry a gun, but to simply own one.

Now, we oppose this when it comes to gun rights for obvious reasons. However, it’s very clear that many don’t. As such, I figured I’d offer something of a compromise.

In particular, if gun control folks are going to be insistent on mandatory training, then I’m going to push back with calls for mandatory training before exercising other rights.

To start with, we should require mandatory training before allowing people to vote.

After all, an uninformed electorate could lead to all kinds of problems. I mean…<gestures toward the White House>.

We should require all citizens wishing to vote to undergo a mandatory training course prior to being able to cast a ballot. The course should require some degree of basic civics as to which elected officials can do what they cannot.

It should also include the constitutional limits to the government so that these voters don’t get led astray by promises that won’t pass legal muster. You know, things like free money, forgiveness of college loans, things like that.

Additionally, we should also require mandatory training before anyone can attend a house of worship of any faith.

After all, you wouldn’t want someone to walk into a mosque and do everything wrong, deeply offending our Muslim neighbors, now would you? The mandatory course would include a basic primer on all faiths worshipped in the United States so people can make an informed decision as to where to worship and what to do when they arrive.

The fact that such a course would amount to the coursework for a theology degree is completely irrelevant.

We should also require mandatory training before exercising one’s freedom of speech. After all, some people talk a lot of nonsense. I mean, I saw someone advocating for communism just yesterday. That shouldn’t be allowed!

So clearly, before people speak, they should be required to undergo a mandatory training class. I mean, they might offend someone by advocating for socialism, communism, or some other faulty line of thinking.

And while we’re at it, we need to mandate training for journalists. No, I’m not talking about journalism school–something that’s not actually required for one to become a journalist–but a government-mandated training course one must go through, lest they report inappropriately. I mean, we can’t have journalists giving government officials a hard time like they did President Trump, right?

What? What’s that? You think this is all out of line and unconstitutional?

Well, that may be, but if you’re someone who thinks I should be forced to undergo training before exercising a right protected by the Constitution, then why shouldn’t you be forced to undergo training before exercising some right precious to you?

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is treated as a second-class right. The idea of mandatory training in order to exercise it illustrates this idea perfectly. Especially since we know that many of these other proposals I just made would be shot down in a heartbeat.

After all, how is something a right if you must pass a course first in order to use it? At that point, it becomes a privilege.

If you have an issue with any of those proposals above, then you should at least show some consistency and stand against mandatory training for gun ownership.

Stop the fearmongering on guns

In a Dec. 31 guest column (”Locked and loaded – and inviting disaster”), Matthew P. Moriarty called the Ohio legislature “gun-crazy” for proposing to make concealed-carry licensing optional. But his arguments parrot the same alarmist talking points we’ve been hearing for 20 years whenever there’s a bill to allow law-abiding gun owners a little more freedom. His most egregious claim was that, “Criminals might be able to carry with no fear of a concealed-weapon prosecution.” That’s misleading.

Nothing in the proposed legislation would empower criminal behavior. Those who are prohibited from possessing guns would continue to be prohibited. Areas off-limits for firearms, such as school zones and posted property, would continue to be off-limits. And the standard for using lethal force in self-defense would not change.

Moriarty talks as if permitless carry is an untested idea. But in fact it’s the law in 21 states, including Ohio’s neighbors West Virginia and Kentucky. Plus, 34 states, including Ohio, already allow open carry without a license.

All of these states are doing just fine. The alarmist claims never materialize. So stop the fearmongering.

Dean Rieck, Westerville

Dean Rieck is executive director of the Buckeye Firearms Association.

When the anti-self defense writer uses ‘information’ from the Brady pro gun control group, he immediately showed his views were not based on actual biblical principles, even though scriptures were used to support them. (Remember, satan himself quoted scripture for his own nefarious purpose)
But read both at your convenience

Guns or Roses?

The issue of Christians owning and using guns, especially against other humans, has been debated almost since firearms and gunpowder appeared in Europe in the 13th century. In today’s fragmented religious environment, many opinions are advanced in churches, in the public square, and on media. Seventh-day Adventist Christians, often influenced by polarizing political, social, or cultural viewpoints, debate this issue both publicly and privately. We asked two authors with contrasting opinions to engage in an imagined conversation with a respected Adventist friend who holds a different opinion about this divisive topic, each explaining their viewpoint from a Christian and Adventist biblical worldview.—Editors.

Continue reading “”

Well – they’ve got  crap-for-brains to begin with, so ignoring truth is not ‘second nature’ but first nature for them.

BLUF:
They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

How anti-gunners ignore inconvenient facts

When it comes to a discussion of guns in America, there will always be something of a divide. Those who want to regulate almost anything will always want to regulate guns and those who do not wish to be ruled will argue against such regulations.

It’s really not a difficult dichotomy to comprehend, all things considered.

Currently, with violent crime raging, anti-gun folks are pushing hard and using the violence to justify any and all demands.

Take this bit regarding Iowa.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa wrote an issue brief warning that, while gun violence in Iowa remained relatively low compared with other states, efforts in the Legislature to weaken the state’s gun laws threatened the safety of Iowa communities. Unfortunately, Iowa lawmakers did not heed this warning and in 2021 continued to undermine gun safety in the state by repealing two crucial measures that have helped keep gun violence in Iowa at comparatively low levels: 1) the law requiring a permit, and therefore a background check, prior to every handgun sale and 2) the law requiring a permit to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the community.

At the same time, similar to trends in other states, the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in gun deaths in Iowa: According to early data from the Iowa Department of Public Health, gun-related deaths reached an all-time high in 2020, with an estimated 353 people killed. Once again, it is crucial that policymakers in Iowa take the issue of gun violence seriously and resist efforts to further weaken the state’s gun laws.

Now, on the surface, if you knew nothing else about guns or gun control, it would be easy to look at this plea and think that maybe it’s a good idea.

The problem is, it isn’t.

Now, 2020 was a nasty year for violent crime all across the nation. That includes states that have long favored gun control policies such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and so on.

2021 was a slightly different animal, but not by much.

Chicago saw the highest homicide rate it had seen in 25 years. Los Angeles had the highest it had seen in 15 years.

So clearly, it was rough for a lot of places.

However, we also saw violent crime go down in a couple of large cities. Dallas saw a decline. So did Miami.

So what’s the difference between these four cities? The two where homicides went up were in anti-gun states while the two where it went down were in pro-gun states.

Now, I’ll be the first to concede that this is just a data point and far from conclusive evidence. However, if fewer restrictions on guns result in greater violent crime as the anti-Second Amendment types claim, then shouldn’t Dallas and Miami have seen the worst violent crime compared to Chicago and Los Angeles?

What happens is that anti-Second Amendment folks don’t want to look at that. They prefer to ignore inconvenient truths whenever possible.

Gun-controlled states are having issues while non-gun-controlled states are having fewer problems. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, one based on the actual numbers.

But you’ll never get an anti-Second Amendment type to acknowledge it. Instead, they’ll just pretend those facts don’t exist, all while pushing the next bit of gun control to strike their fancy. They’ll ignore it, all while pretending that those who oppose gun control want to do nothing to address violent crime.

The term is cognitive dissonance. They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.