Category: RKBA

The author makes a small mistake:
“There are no NEWLY MANUFACTURED ‘assault rifles’ [machineguns] being sold to private individuals in the United States.” is wrong.
All the ones that were transferable before May 1986 are still transferable and – at increasingly higher prices due to the market principle of ‘supply and demand’- are still being bought and sold. Other than that, he’s written well.

After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”

In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.

Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

They created and then banned a class of weapons.

“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986, was always hushed up.

Yes, it has been 28 years since a single machine gun was manufactured for the American public. There are no assault rifles being sold in the United States. There are only firearms that look like weapons of war, but which lack their ability to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.

These firearms—AR-15s, AKMs and similar rifles—while incredibly popular with America’s law-abiding gun culture, simply aren’t used in many crimes. This should be surprising, since they are now among the most popular firearms sold in the United States in the past decade. The AR-15, in particular, is the most popular rifle sold in the United States year after year, and there are ten times as many in civilian hands as there are visually similar M4/M16 assault rifles in the entire U.S military.

But career criminals don’t want long guns. They want firearms that are compact and easy to conceal.

The op-ed concludes that violent homicides are primarily a poverty issue disproportionately concentrated among small groups of particularly violent young men, a stunning and rare admission that poverty and the drug trade are the primary problem driving murder, not access to firearms.

Don’t expect this sort of stunning admission of the facts to mark a change in cover from the Times, however. The brief bout of lucidity will quickly fade behind the veil of Alzheimer’s liberalism, and we’ll hear the rest of the deranged gaggle of op-ed writers to quickly fall back into the mantra of “Guns are bad, the NRA is evil, we need more taxes, government, citizen control, etc.”

Still… it’s nice to see that every once in a while a real and honest thought can escape from the morass of Manhattan, however fleeting that honest thought may be.

Furious WA Voters Tell Sen. Kuderer Guns Definitely ‘A Woman’s Issue’

Washington State Second Amendment activists are on the warpath against anti-gun State Sen. Patty Kuderer (D-Bellevue), sponsor of a bill to ban so-called “high capacity magazines” now moving in the Legislature, because during testimony supporting her measure, she declared “Guns are not a woman’s issue.”

Women gun owners are chiming in on the Washington 2022 Legislative Action Group’s Facebook page, telling the 48th District senator in no uncertain terms that guns are definitely a “woman’s issue.”

The magazine ban legislation was introduced at the request of anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson. Kuderer was joined by several other Democrats to introduce the bill.

Now, the Washington Civil Rights Association has put together a scathing video featuring a video clip of Kuderer making the statement on TVW, the legislature’s pubic television service, accompanied by clips of several women involved in acts of armed self-defense. There is circus-type music in the background, and the overall effect is to portray Kuderer as out-of-touch with reality. While there might be a disclaimer if this video were to appear during a television news broadcast, the images don’t seem to bother any of the grassroots activists who have been viewing it.

Continue reading “”

Well, if the left – including demoncraps – didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all. And since they’re noted for vote fraud, which photo IDs make much more difficult to get by with, they’re simply maintaining form.

The left’s double standard on photo IDs

Both the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are preserved in the United States Constitution. Few dispute this and no one who has actually read the constitution does.

However, there’s a curious double standard coming from the left when it comes to things like photo IDs.

First, let’s talk about them with regard to voting.

In a number of states, there’s a requirement that voters show a photo ID to prove they’re actually the person registered to vote.

These measures are surprisingly controversial, however.

Why? Because many on the left argue that poorer folks, particularly minorities, have a difficult time obtaining photo IDs. They any number of reasons such as travel difficulties getting to whoever issues IDs, time off from work to get one, and a number of other factors.

Regardless, though, they don’t think you should have to show a photo ID in order to exercise your right vote.

Yet find me the opponents of voter ID requirements who oppose having to show an ID to purchase a firearm. I’d really like to meet those folks. After all, even if I disagree with them, I respect consistency.

Meanwhile, gun rights supporters might be annoyed at having to show an ID to buy a gun, we kind of shrug at it and don’t lose much sleep over the requirement.

But these same people who are so concerned about poor folks not being able to get an ID–despite needing one for a thousand other things and actually being able to provide it for those other things–think nothing of not just photo ID requirements for guns but also adding more and more costs to the equation if you want to actually bear your arms.

In Illinois, a carry permit costs an additional $150 plus a credit card transaction fee. That’s in addition to the fees for the 16-hour training course required.

So that’s two full days sitting in a course in order to exercise your right.

In other states, the challenges are greater. For example, in Nebraska, you don’t just run down to the local state police barracks and get fingerprinted. There are only a handful of places authorized to conduct those kinds of fingerprinting, and they’re spread out.

And training? While it’s only 8 hours, you may have to travel hours just to get to a class.

So in addition to the cost of the permit and the training, you also have lost time from work money spent on gas.

My question is why is all of this acceptable to require before exercising a constitutionally protected right while asking for a simple state-issued ID that they’ll give for free isn’t?

The reason is that none of these people view the Second Amendment as a right. They may pay lip service to the idea that it is, but they don’t really believe it. If they really saw it as a right, they’d treat it like a right and try to remove barriers to exercising it, not erect more of them.

If voting is so important that we should allow anyone to do it based on nothing but their word they are who they say they are, why should we have to jump through so many hoops just to carry a gun?

And I didn’t even get into all the requirements in places that require a permit to purchase a firearm, which is actually worse than carry permit requirements.

Then again, I don’t really expect ideological consistency from the same people who scream about multiculturalism and how important it is to appreciate other cultures while also screaming about cultural appropriation.

Permit-less gun bill moves through General Assembly
‘Constitutional carry’ bill makes last stop before floor debate.

ATLANTA – After years of unsuccessful efforts, gun rights advocates have never been closer to convincing the General Assembly to pass legislation letting Georgians carry concealed firearms without a permit.

“To build a safer, stronger Georgia, we must ensure every Georgian feels safe and secure in their communities,” Gov. Brian Kemp said during his State of the State address last month.

“I believe that starts with fully recognizing the constitutional rights granted to law-abiding Georgians in our founding documents, and I look forward to supporting constitutional carry legislation this session.”

The constitutional carry bill, sponsored by Sen. Jason Anavitarte, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee Feb. 2 along party lines, with six Republican senators supporting it and three Democrats opposed. Its next stop will be the Senate Rules Committee, which is expected to send it to the floor of the chamber for a vote of the full Senate.

“Our organization is grateful for Senator Anavitarte and his unapologetic support of the Second Amendment,” Jerry Henry, executive director of the Georgia gun rights group GA2A, said in a statement issued after the committee vote. “We are one step closer to restoring the constitutional rights afforded to every law-abiding citizen in Georgia.”

Continue reading “”

Protecting Second Amendment rights from Washington

SOUTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM:

The Constitution is specific when it comes to our right to defend ourselves. The words boldly declare, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The fact that I will defend that right is an important distinction between myself and politicians like President Joe Biden , who said from the White House in April of last year that, with regard to the Second Amendment, “no amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” These are the words of a politician with plans to chip away at the Bill of Rights.

The Biden gun-grabbing agenda includes bans on certain firearms, gun buyback programs, lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers, and restrictions on private firearm transfers that fundamentally end gun shows. I am 100% against federal politicians restricting gun rights because I stand with our founders who wrote this country’s founding documents.

The Constitution recognizes an existing natural right of all people to be free from government oppression. It also allows personal protection through the right to keep and bear arms. I have stood strong to protect the rights of my people here in South Dakota. Those on the extreme Left have opposed my thoughtful approach to COVID-19 and condemned my refusal to infringe on the freedoms of our citizens. I kept our state open and did not impose unconstitutional mandates. This battle for our right to bear arms will require the same fortitude and determination.

Our outdoor heritage and hunting culture are popular in my state of South Dakota, yet they’re not so popular with politicians from states such as New York, California, and Delaware. Unlike so many other politicians, I am an actual hunter. My Grandma Dorris taught me how to hunt birds when I was a young girl, and my father was the one who took me big-game hunting. Our family has made so many memories enjoying and exercising our Second Amendment rights. I have never lost that love for the outdoors and hunting, and I have passed it on to my children. Hopefully soon, I will also enjoy this pastime with my brand new granddaughter, Miss Addie. Hunting is an important part of gun rights, yet we must never forget that these rights were protected in our Constitution for another reason, too. Our founders wisely included this language to also guard against tyranny, like we experienced from Great Britain at the founding of this great nation.

Politicians should be judged by their actions. The first bill I signed into law here in South Dakota was constitutional carry. A previous governor had vetoed it, but I wanted the people of South Dakota to know I would protect their Second Amendment rights. Earlier this month, I announced at my State of the State address that I am eliminating all fees associated with permits and federal background checks for gun sales. It won’t cost a penny to exercise your Second Amendment rights in South Dakota.

I recently received the “Courage Under Fire” award from the Safari Club International . I was honored when CEO Laird Hamberlin spoke on my behalf at the event and said, “No governor has fought more to protect our hunting traditions, and we cannot wait to recognize Gov. Noem as we celebrate SCI’s 50 Years of Freedom.” He cited my record for respecting “the rights of her people by trusting them to use personal responsibility to make the best decisions for themselves, their loved ones, and, in turn, their communities.” He thanked me by saying I have been “a leader in promoting hunting, public access, and conservation across her state.” I cite this because it is an award that should be shared with the people of South Dakota who are standing strong against oppressive ideas coming from Washington, D.C.

Conservatives in this country need only look to the states for leaders who have fiercely fought to protect their rights in the past. We will continue to protect Second Amendment rights, even if Democrats have total control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. As governor of South Dakota, I have proven I will stand strong against any attempt by Biden or a woke Congress to take away fundamental rights from South Dakotans. And I am ready to defend our constitutional right to bear arms once again and always.

Kristi Noem is the governor of South Dakota.

Eric is nothing if not determined….. and patient.

Measure derided as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act’ killed in Missouri Senate committee

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri Senate panel on Thursday terminated a proposal one county prosecutor called the “Make Murder Legal Act.”

The official name of the measure is Senate Bill 666, which the sponsor, Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, said he didn’t choose.

Members of the GOP-controlled Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee failed to advance the bill out of committee on Thursday.

Burlison, however, told the Post-Dispatch that he could bring the measure back as an amendment to other firearms legislation he’s sponsoring.

“There are multiple ways to pass language,” Burlison said.

The legislation would’ve established a presumption that a defendant acted reasonably in self-defense when they use force against another person.

“I refer to it as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act,’” Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver, a Republican representing the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in a Senate committee hearing last week.

“What we are doing with this bill is … basically saying the 6,500 assaults that are committed every single year in Missouri — that every single one of those are automatically presumed to be self-defense,” Oliver said.

Burlison said the claims are overblown.

Continue reading “”

I think 25,000,000+ AR ‘style’ rifles can be termed  “in ‘common use™’”
Now where have I read ‘common use’ before…Oh! Oh! Oh! Mistah Cahtahr!
I’ll take Caetano V Massachusetts for $500, Alex
So, guns in ‘common use’ are especially protected by 2nd amendment restrictions on goobermint?
Who Da Thunk It!

Common Use: Academic Survey Shows Over 30% Of Gun Owners Have Owned AR Style Rifles

Wake Forest sociology professor David Yamane is an active analyst of America’s gun culture and runs the Gun Curious blog. He also teaches a course in the sociology of guns. In his latest Light Over Heat video, Dr. Yamane calls attention to a survey done last year by Georgetown Professor William English.

From the survey’s abstract . . .

This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms.

English is also the author of a paper last year titled The Right to Carry Has Not Increased Crime: Improving an Old Debate Through Better Data on Permit Growth Over Time.

In the 2021 national survey, English set out to, among other things, determine exactly how prevalent AR-pattern rifle and “high capacity” magazine ownership really is among America’s gun owners. That’s not merely an academic question as the Heller decision established the “common use” standard for firearms that can’t be regulated out of existence by hoplophobic politicians.

What exactly constitutes “common use” is, of course, an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, you-know-it-when-you-see-it style subjective legal question. But as Professor Yamane notes, Professor English’s survey found that just over 30% of gun owners report ownership (past or present) of an AR-15 style rifle. He also found almost half of gun owners surveyed report owning “high capacity” magazines, those that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition.

Yamane isn’t an attorney and neither are we. But English’s survey has turned up AR ownership by roughly 25 million (higher than the number usually quoted) and “high capacity” magazine ownership by close to 50 million gun owners (which seems low to us).

As Yamane puts it . . .

If we look at one-third to half of gun owners, I would say that ownership of AR-15-style rifles and high or standard capacity magazines is fairly common empirically.

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. Whether you’re a fan of the “common use” standard or not, that’s the law of the land right now. And data such as these demonstrate — quite clearly — that any efforts to limit magazine capacity and ban scary-looking firearms are, by any measure, unconstitutional. That’s hopefully something that the Supreme Court’s pending decision in the New York case and others will help to further clarify.

See Professor English’s full 2021 National Firearms Survey results here.

IIRC, this is similar to Maryland’s law where you can possess magazines, you just can’t sell them in the state, and that means you can buy all you want when out of state and bring them back.
I’m not going to ‘fisk’ the release, but if the mentioned – noted anti-gun – Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health “study” and  – also noted anti-gun – Violence Policy Center, doesn’t set off your ‘Fraud!” alarm, nothing will.
And the last:
“There is currently no split or controversy in the federal courts of appeal on this issue. The United States Supreme Court has allowed appeals court decisions upholding these laws to stand.”
is – at best – disingenuous propaganda, as the 9th Circuit Court just recently overturned a District Court decision that ruled the California magazine ban was unconstitutional and this case hasn’t reached the Supreme Court for consideration yet. If that isn’t a ‘controversy’, I don’t know what is. So, the Washington State Attorney General merely confirmed he’s just another lying politician.

Washington [state] Senate passes legislation to ban sale of high-capacity magazines in historic vote

OLYMPIA — Today, the Washington state Senate passed Attorney General Request legislation sponsored by Sen. Marko Liias, D-Lynnwood, banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in Washington by a 28-20 vote. The bill prohibits the sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. This is the sixth session the Attorney General has proposed this legislation. Today’s vote marks the first time a limit on magazine capacity has passed a chamber of the Washington Legislature.

Senate Bill 5078 prohibits the sale, attempted sale and distribution of high-capacity magazines. It does not prohibit the possession of high-capacity magazines. The bill now heads to the House for consideration.

Continue reading “”

Letters to the Editor: You don’t have to shoot someone to use a gun defensively

To the editor: Dr. Steven J. Sainsbury pushes the absurd claim there are only 2,000 defensive gun uses per year. (“Thinking of buying a gun for self-defense? Don’t do it,” Opinion, Jan. 31)

The claim overwhelmingly relies on counting defensive gun uses reported in news articles, but that is a dramatic undercount because the vast majority of successful self-defense cases don’t make the news. Ninety-five percent of defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing a gun, and less than 1% involve the attacker being killed or wounded.

But most news stories only report on cases where attackers are killed and brandishings are ignored.

Seventeen national surveys find an average of 2 million defensive gun uses per year. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey puts it at around 100,000. Both show the 2,000 claim to be ridiculous.

Finally, the article labels me as a “gun rights advocate,” not a researcher who has held academic positions at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, Stanford and Yale. I have also been a senior advisor for research at the U.S. Department of Justice.

John R. Lott Jr., Missoula, Mt.

This would have been an addition, a further restriction on RKBA by adding ‘dating partners’ to the original list of relationships that the ‘Lautenberg amendment’ added to the list of people who be permanently prohibited from lawfully possessing a gun. In other words, more gun control.

Lawmakers rolling out Violence Against Women Act without ‘controversial’ provision

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced on Wednesday that it had reached an agreement on legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that forgoes a key provision that drew opposition from gun rights advocates.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) was joined by co-authors Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in announcing the legislation at a press conference on Wednesday.

Actress Angelina Jolie, who has been working with lawmakers to promote the legislative effort, was also in attendance with other advocates, along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who have also been involved in the push.

If passed, it would mark the first time in nearly a decade that the bill has been reauthorized — a move advocates have said is necessary to update the legislation to adequately meet the needs of those it is designed to protect.

“Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last reauthorization bill in 2013,” Feinstein said, adding the bill will strengthen “existing programs to support survivors and to prevent and to respond to domestic violence, and that’s dating violence and sexual assault and stalking.”

Feinstein said the legislation will seek to enhance and expand services “for survivors of domestic violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors,” as well as survivors with disabilities, and strengthen the criminal justice response to domestic violence.

However, Feinstein added that the bill “is not perfect” and will not address the so-called boyfriend loophole, despite recent efforts by the lawmakers to have it included in the legislation.

In late December, lawmakers unveiled a framework for their reauthorization proposal that outlined a provision advocates said would partially close the loophole by prohibiting individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against a dating partner from possessing or purchasing firearms or ammunition. Similar restrictions apply to spouses or formerly married partners under current law.

The move marked the latest attempt by lawmakers to go after the loophole in recent years, after previous efforts were attacked by gun rights groups and Republicans as unnecessary “gun control,” though proponents have said it would save lives.

“The boyfriend loophole is a play straight from the Biden gun control agenda. It’s just gun control,” Aidan Johnson, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, said in an interview last month opposing the provision.

Continue reading “”

5th-graders learn to shoot guns by using school gym as target range

A school district in Wyoming posted pictures of 5th and 6th grade students shooting targets with air rifles in a school gym.

A school district in Wyoming recently used a gymnasium as a shooting range, training fifth and sixth grade students in marksmanship during PE. Hot Springs County School District #1, in the small town of Thermopolis, shared photos of the sharpshooting session in a Feb. 2 Facebook post, and it quickly caught the attention of thousands.

McClatchy News has obtained a screengrab of the Facebook post, which is no longer publicly available. In the pictures, the children are seen aiming air rifles across the gym at a set of targets propped up against the bleachers with what appears to be plywood.

Often a child’s introduction to the world of firearms, air rifles generally use gas stored in a small canister to propel a BB or pellet out of the barrel at relatively high speed. While far less lethal than true firearms, they can cause serious harm in some circumstances. “All students passed their safety test and have been sharpening their skills,” the post said.

As of the morning of Feb. 8, the post had garnered 13,000 reactions and 5,700 comments and had been shared over 60,000 times. For perspective, the population of Thermopolis is around 2,700.

“This is what America needs more of,” one comment read.
“Education and responsible firearm ownership.”
“This is so awesome! Probably one of the safest schools in the country too,” a commenter wrote.
“I need to find a school like this for my son once he’s old enough!”
“CA masks their kids, Wyoming teaches marksmanship,” said another.

Of the nearly 6,000 comments, most are in support of the district.

Well, he’s a politician which means he’s a professional liar.

Beto’s about-face on AR-15s: “I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone”

Virtually every poll in the state of Texas shows Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s gubernatorial campaign is in serious trouble, but the biggest sign that the Democrat is failing to make inroads with Texas voters came on Tuesday, as O’Rourke was stumping for votes in Tyler.

Here we are in 2022, and suddenly O’Rourke has a very different message for Texas voters.

Speaking to reporters, O’Rourke also took a question about his controversial stance on guns and remarks made in 2019 about taking away AR-15s and AK-47s.

“I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone. What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment,” he said. “I want to make sure that we protect our fellow Texans far better than we’re doing right now. And that we listen to law enforcement, which Greg Abbott refused to do. He turned his back on them when he signed that permitless carry bill that endangers the lives of law enforcement in a state that’s seen more cops and sheriff’s deputies gunned down than in any other.”

So the guy who said he was coming for our guns now claims he wants to defend the Second Amendment, yet in the same breath declares that protecting our right to keep and bear arms means criminalizing carrying a gun without a government permission slip? Does he actually think anyone is going to buy his supposed newfound respect for the Second Amendment when he keeps belittling it?

Continue reading “”

I Was Anti-Gun And A Pregnant Mother When Home Invaders Broke Into My House

(SOFREP invites reader submissions for publication. Today we offer you this harrowing story from one of our members named Marcie who writes about how a home invasion while she was pregnant and home alone with her other child changed her entire worldview when it came to gun ownership.)

Few people would look at me now and think that, but yes, I used to believe that guns were a danger to society.

The media likes to show us gun violence all the time, with the insinuation that it’s the gun, not the person, who did the crime. Rarely do they show you examples of guns being used in self-defense. Most people who promote gun control live in quiet neighborhoods where residents see guns as almost alien.

But if you have ever lived in a dangerous place, then you know the importance of guns. That’s what happened to me when I moved to Tolleson, Arizona, two years ago.

I moved there to live with my husband, who is a firefighter. After moving, my husband needed to leave town for training. So I was left home alone, pregnant with our child. I didn’t mind too much, as I thought it would be a little staycation. I couldn’t go anywhere, anyway, since our clunker of a car was in the shop.

In hindsight, I should have known that no car being at our home for an extended period made the wrong people think that both of us were gone. Sure enough, that happened. When two thieves broke into my home through the kitchen door, it happened so suddenly that I had no plan of action. My heart racing, I ran into the bathroom where I thought it was safe and took out my phone.

I frantically started to call 911. However, my phone could not get through to a responder. The bathroom was a dead zone for phone service where I lived. However, my phone was connected to my WiFi. I contacted my sister on Facebook, and she managed to call 911.

As I waited for the police to come, my heart continued to race. What if the police did not respond in time? There are many cases of the police taking too long to respond to a situation that requires immediate action, as many factors can delay response time.

As I heard the thieves rustling around the house, I wondered what they would do. Steal my TV or jewelry? That was replaceable. However, what if they found me and did something horrifying to my unborn child and me?

All these worries soon subsided, luckily, as the police did arrive in only a few minutes. After seeing the police approach my door, the thieves immediately ran away, their pockets empty. One bystander told me the thieves were armed as I was filing a report. Once again, those thoughts about what the thieves could have done to me immediately raced to my head.

It was at that point I realized I needed to arm myself. Since then, I have never left home without a pistol. I have to protect myself, my husband, and our two-year-old daughter. Chances are, you have someone you want to save. I recommend arming yourself as well with an easy-to-access pistol.

Speaking of pistol, what’s my favorite? As a woman, I wanted something easily concealable that I could fire at a moment’s notice. I wanted something powerful yet easy to use for a more petite frame.

Upon research, I chose the SIG Sauer P365. This 9mm pistol is a little under 6 inches wide and slightly above 4 inches tall, making it perfect for concealing. Despite its small frame, it holds ten rounds and packs quite a wallop. Any woman can use it to even the odds if a thief enters their home. With its small trigger, it doesn’t matter how small you are. You can fight back.

That’s my story. Since having a gun, I’ve felt safer, and I’ve found a new hobby to enjoy. If you’ve been interested in owning a firearm, now is the time to do so. I hope this article helped you learn where I’m coming from when advocating for guns.