Category: RKBA

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.

The gun grabbers used to continually squeal that there would be ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ when concealed carry permit laws were being passed during the last 30+ years.
Now that that has been shown to be absolute BS, they’re trying the same old playbook out with permitless carry.
It’s all they have, and everyone should know by now, from the lack of that ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ in the states that have passed permitless carry, that it’s still absolute BS

The weakest argument yet against Constitutional Carry?

Ohio lawmakers have approved two separate Constitutional Carry bills in recent weeks, but neither have received the final votes needed to be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature, and while the bills are still sitting in the state capitol building opponents have been trying to muster up enough last-minute opposition to derail the legislation from becoming law.

There’ve been no shortage of op-eds and opinion pieces proclaiming that Ohio will become the “Wild, Wild West” or descend into a dystopian hellscape if the state no longer requires a government-issued permission slip before legal gun owners can lawfully carry, but one of the weakest arguments I’ve run across came from retired attorney former law professor Doug Rogers, who seems to believe that the state’s current laws are actually preventing criminals from illegally carrying a gun.

The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio testified that Senate Bill 215 will “create a threat to officer safety.”

Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey testified: “Allowing virtually anyone in Ohio to conceal weapons on their person without training or background checks will make Ohio less safe.”

The Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association testified, “There must be a minimum training requirement for someone … with the awesome right of carrying a weapon that can deprive another person of their life.”

Ohio already allows for the open carrying of firearms without a license or training, and there’s no minimum training requirement to own a firearm either. How is carrying a firearm concealed so much different from openly carrying one? While I strongly encourage every gun owner to continually train with their gun, mandating an official training course before one can exercise a constitutionally-protected right is an undue burden on the right itself.

Rogers goes on to complain about several other aspects of the bill, including language that clarifies when someone who’s legally armed needs to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact.

Finally, the senate bill would further endanger police by: (1) eliminating the current responsibility of a civilian carrying a concealed handgun stopped by the police to promptly notify police that he is carrying a concealed firearm; and (2) switching the duty to the police officer to ask if that civilian is carrying a concealed weapon.

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police said, “To remove the duty to notify is setting us all up for confrontation and potentially tragic failure.”

I’d argue that the current ambiguous language is even more likely to lead to confrontation and potential tragedy. With the clear standard outlined in the permitless carry legislation, an officer can simply ask an individual if they’re carrying a firearm when they initiate the stop. I think that’s a much better solution than leaving it up to the gun owner to “promptly” (a term which isn’t defined in state law) notify police themselves.

There are 21 states with permitless carry laws on the books, and police departments in every one of them have figured out how to continue to do their job and arrest violent criminals after the law took effect. No state has ever gone back and repealed its Constitutional Carry statute, which also says quite a bit about how the law actually works in practice.

Rogers wraps up his lame argument by calling on the legislature to reject Constitutional carry “because it is anti-police and anti-public safety,” which is an outright lie. There’s nothing anti-police about a pro-civil rights piece of legislation. There’s nothing anti-public safety about ensuring that legal gun owners can publicly protect themselves. Frankly, there’s no good reason why Ohio shouldn’t join the 21 other states that have already adopted Constitutional Carry. The bills are there and now’s the time for lawmakers in Columbus to move this legislation across the finish line and send it to the governor for his signature.

‘Just call the police’: The Insufferable White Privilege of Gun Control Advocates

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Continue reading “”

‘Trust but verify‘ works for me.

BLUF:
“One thing I’ve learned is the Second Amendment is one of the most important amendments and you look at all my voting record. Listen, you watch this Congress itself—we believe in the Constitution,” McCarthy said.

Exclusive — Kevin McCarthy Pledges as Speaker He Will Not Consider Amnesty or Gun Control Legislation

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview taped in December that the House would not consider any legislation that grants amnesty to illegal aliens if he becomes the speaker next year.

“We know first and foremost one of our greatest strengths is the rule of law, so you have to have an immigration system based upon the rule of law. You have to secure the border. The immigration system is broken and we’re going to fix it. Yes,” McCarthy replied when asked if he could pledge no amnesty would be considered under his leadership.

“Yes,” he reaffirmed when pressed again.

Continue reading “”

Rep. Anthony Sabatini: You Shouldn’t Need Government Permission to Carry a Firearm

Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R) spoke with Breitbart News during Turning Point USA’s Americafest and stressed that Americans “should not have to ask the government for a permit” to carry a gun for self-defense.

Sabatini indicated that being required to get a permit and “pay money” to carry a gun makes no sense.

He said, “I’ve been filing constitutional carry for a couple of years now, but you have some of these soft, RINO Republicans who’ve stood in the way. Thankfully, with our great governor … Ron DeSantis (R) saying that he would sign the bill … I think you’re going to see a lot more momentum behind constitutional carry, which is House Bill 103.”

Sabatini added, “Nearly half of our country is already under this proper state of laws. It’s constitutional; it’s called constitutional carry for a reason. It’s the only gun laws that squares well with the Constitution.”

He suggested that constitutional carry sends a message to would-be criminals as well: “If you know that people can carry and defend themselves without government permission, you’re going to be less likely to be an aggressor toward that person.”

On December 19, 2021, Breitbart News noted a South Florida Sun-Sentinel report that DeSantis has already made clear he will sign constitutional carry if it reaches his desk.

The Sentinel observed that Florida Gun Rights’ Matt Collins posted a video online asking DeSantis, “If constitutional carry made your desk, would you sign it?”

DeSantis responded, “Of course.”

Sabatini’s constitutional carry legislation would also legalize the open carry of handguns in Florida.

On May 20, 2021, Breitbart News pointed out that South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed legislation making his state the 46th open carry state in the Union.

Cracking a Code: Gun Control ‘Brainchild of Privileged Liberals’

Writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, Patrick Carroll may have just cracked a code, and he leans on one of the founders of the modern Second Amendment movement—the late Don Kates—to conclude the gun control crusade began and is perpetuated by a privileged class disconnected from the realities of living in communities where crime is a real problem.

Carroll points to a couple of paragraphs from a 1977 Kates article appearing in the Cato Institute’s Inquiry magazine in which Kates observed, “Gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given up on crime control. Such liberals weren’t upset about marijuana laws, either, in the fifties when the busts were confined to the ghettos. Secure in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by Pinkertons (whom no one proposes to disarm), the oblivious liberal derides gun ownership as ‘an anachronism from the Old West.’”

Yet a Gallup survey released in November showed that “88 percent of gun owners cite crime protection as a reason they own a gun.”

This appears especially true in minority communities, where crime is a far more pressing problem then it is in a gated community.

Fox News has been exploring the rise in gun sales in Beverly Hills in recent months. Early Monday, Fox News interviewed Russell Stuart, owner of Beverly Hills Guns, who explained, “Although that is a part of my living, I get no pleasure whatsoever by having a 60-, 70-year-old woman walk into my store … who looks terrified, and say, ‘I have never liked guns. In fact, I’ve even hated guns. I would have never considered buying one. But I’m so afraid for my life.”

Carroll, who is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education and has a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Waterloo, observed this about gun control proponents, “(D)on’t assume you know what’s best for someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.”

Which brings us around to an Op-Ed in the Wisconsin State Journal by Jon Donohue, a law professor at Stanford University, who raises concerns about a potential ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that, he says, “may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home.”

Gun rights advocates and Second Amendment scholars might argue the high court wouldn’t “create” a right because it already exists and is protected by the amendment, which recognizes the right “to bear arms” as well as keep them.

Donohue is worried about a decision that would expand “the Second Amendment beyond its current scope of a right to possess a gun in the home…”

As Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation has frequently observed, a right limited to the confines of one’s home is no right at all. Rights go with you through the front door and into the public space.

A report from the Post Millennial about a recent Trafalgar Group survey shows 76.8 percent of Americans “regardless of political party affiliation, believe that ‘American society and culture is in a state of decay.’”

“When viewed by political party affiliation,” the Post Millennial reported, “all parties had a majority that said the country is in a state of decline. 61 percent of Democrats, 85.9 percent of Republicans, and 81.8 percent of those identifying as no party or ‘other’ said American society and culture are in decline.”

Perhaps part of that decline involves not knowing the difference between a right and a regulated privilege. Carroll’s article appears to address this dilemma.

BLUF:
……as violent crime soared in the 1990s, states expanded gun rights in the form of concealed carry, driving violent crime down.
I’m sorry, but unless you have an answer for that, I don’t really care what you have to say
And when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, the only takeaway is that when you’re faced with a violent mob, you need all the firepower you can manage.

There are no gun control lessons out of Rittenhouse trial

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder by a jury. Even before that, though, we know he was innocent of all charges because we watched the whole thing unfold on video. We knew he was innocent.

Now, though, Rittenhouse is a free man, but some are using his situation to try and advance gun control.

No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Yet this isn’t the first op-ed I’ve seen that tried to make that case.

As the country awaits a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New York state case that may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home, what lessons can the nation draw from the recent acquittal in Wisconsin of Kyle Rittenhouse and the convictions in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia?

The obvious first lesson is that no one would be dead, maimed or going to prison if the men in these cases had not possessed firearms or had just left their weapons at home. The man Rittenhouse maimed learned that his self-proclaimed constant gun carrying not only did not protect him or others, but simply added him to the victim count when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

No, we didn’t learn any such lesson.

Continue reading “”

Female gun ownership on the rise, femme fatales to anti-2A messaging

Gun ownership in the United States has been on the rise the last two years in a big way. The pages of Bearing Arms has explored this more than once. Left of center pundits might peg this rise as a one-off, or perhaps try to blame the uptick in violent crime on the newly minted gun owners, but the fact of the matter is that these numbers are troubling and damming to the “hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15” crowd. After all, why would someone with a brandy new firearm, just indoctrinated into the world of firearm ownership want to give up a newfound way of life? I’m not so quixotic to think that with the millions of new firearm owners we now have millions of new advocates running balls out, but this rise in legal and responsible gun ownership is a good thing. With that comes the rise in the number of females taking up arms.

Commie mommy groups must be cringing and shaking in corners as they learn they don’t actually have the market cornered on what all women want for the world and or their children. After sifting through the emotional arguments they make, right out of their playbook (don’t focus on the facts, exploit the emotions) many people, including women, including moms, have come to the realization that self-defense is their responsibility and have embraced that independent to the core rugged individualism that makes most of what America is today what it is. There are new momma bears out there and they’re committed to not being victims.

A recent study points to these numbers. From one report:

The number of women who own a gun is on the rise. A recent study from Harvard University shows that 42% of gun owners in the country are women. That’s a 14% rise over the last five years. The same study found nearly 3.5 million women became gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021.

“It’s a responsibility. It’s a huge responsibility,” said Amanda Suffecool.

Suffecool calls herself an “accidental activist.” A firearms instructor and radio host, Suffecool is also an advocate for gun rights in America.

“Unfortunately, the world is not the warm, fuzzy place it used to be,” said Candy Petticord.

Petticord is also a firearms instructor and a mom of 12. She started shooting five years ago.

Suffecool is more than an “accidental activist”. She’s taken the ball of civil liberties and self-reliance and has run with it, dedicated to go for a win. Beyond being an instructor, and the radio host of the nationally syndicated Eye on The Target Radio show, she also is the founder of REALIZE Firearms Awareness Coalition, a not-for-profit dedicated to educating citizens on the historical intent of the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

SAF LAUNCHES HUGE TV EFFORT WARNING OF ‘UNPRECEDENTED ASSAULT’ ON 2A RIGHTS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced a huge new TV effort launching the week of Jan. 3 to warn America of a coming attack on Second Amendment rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the foundation’s message will be broadcast 220 times during the first week on more than 20 cable television networks.

“The well-financed gun prohibition movement is poised to strike in an effort to make up for lost time due to Joe Biden’s failure to get the gun prohibition agenda through during his first year in office,” Gottlieb said. “We’re expecting an unprecedented assault on Second Amendment rights heading into the new year. Anti-gunners will grasp at straws to grab every headline they can, and make no mistake, they are determined to help Biden go after your rights in 2022.

“That’s why we’re kicking off the New Year with a record number of pro-gun rights TV spots in a single week,” he added. “The threat to our Second Amendment rights cannot be over-stated. The billionaire-backed gun ban lobby is fearful of a gun rights ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, and a power flip at the mid-term elections, so they will be pushing Biden and their allies on Capitol Hill and in several states to get things done now, before they lose the political muscle to push their agenda.”

SAF will broadcast its 60-second message on several networks including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax TV, One America News Network, Destination America, Bloomberg, BBC America, Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, SYFY (Science Fiction), TLC (The Learning Channel), TruTV, DirecTV, The Weather Channel, HLN, Dish TV, and CNBC.

“There is no time to waste,” Gottlieb cautioned. “We’re going to hit the ground running in order to grab the high ground and block the momentum of an anti-rights movement determined to smash the right to keep and bear arms. We’ll be asking viewers to call a special toll-free telephone number – (888) 762-0221 – to help in this battle, because once you lose your rights, you will never get them back.”

Defending Armed Self-Defense
It’s easy for many people to see the harm that guns are involved in every day in America, but much harder for them to see the harm that gun prohibition causes.

Gun control laws are wrong because they violate the right to self-defense. Gun control laws are wrong because they were historically crafted with discriminatory intent and create racially disparate outcomes today.

These are two distinct arguments against laws that limit private gun ownership. Libertarians, typically among the staunchest of fans of self-defense and self-determination, have tended to focus on the first. But the second is also important, both on its own merits and because it helps people otherwise concerned about discrimination understand why it is inconsistent to support such laws.

One can make the rights argument a couple of different ways. The first is to start from the belief, shared by many, that human beings are endowed by their Creator (or nature, or their shared humanity, or the universe, or even cultural patrimony) with certain inalienable rights, the right to self-defense among them. Once that is established, protections for those who wish to buy, keep, and use the tools of self-defense, including guns, follow close behind.

The Founders, not ones to pussyfoot around, put keeping and bearing arms right there in the Bill of Rights (although there, as in so many other places in the founding documents, one last pass by an especially pedantic copy editor could have saved the nation in general and the Supreme Court in particular quite a bit of trouble). The Founders were, at best, imperfect scribes of whatever rights people might in fact possess. But they did an astonishingly good job of capturing a laundry list of rights that the state ought not abridge, and they got them written down rather clearly and in short order, all things considered.

One need not be convinced of the existence of God-given rights to conclude that the harsher forms of gun control are unacceptable and unjust rights violations. “I contend that individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important interests,” the philosopher Michael Huemer wrote in one of the more famous modern arguments against such restrictions. While “the right to own a gun is both fundamental and derivative,” he suggests, “it is in its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it is most important.”

Continue reading “”

Facts and Fantasies about Guns and Gun-Control

The gun-control lobby started it. Then, the legacy media joined in and told us that guns and gun owners were dangerous. Their solution is to register and regulate guns and gun owners. They claim their gun-control will somehow, someday, take the guns out of the hands of criminals. If you only read their words then you might be persuaded. Let’s fill in the facts that the gun-prohibitionists left out. Gun-control laws do more harm than good.

armed defenders save lives

Honest gun owners use a firearm to stop a violent crime about 1.7 million times a year. That is a little over 45-hundred defensive-guns-uses a day. That massive benefit overshadows all the other problems we have with the criminal use of firearms. Legally justified armed defense is dozens of times more frequent than the suicides and accidents we see with firearms. It is hard to overestimate the importance of armed defense. Disarming honest gun owners in the hope of disarming criminals is a disaster since armed citizens do so much good.

Continue reading “”

Maybe instead of ‘aspire’, they can all go ‘expire’.

A Year In, President Biden’s Bold Gun Reform Agenda Remains Largely Aspirational
Gun reform advocates who supported Biden have been frustrated by the president’s failure to get any significant reform legislation through a Democratic Congress…………..

Leaders of major gun reform groups predicted that his first year in office, with Democrats also controlling Congress, would be an unprecedented period of progress. Now Democrats are expected to take losses in the House and Senate midterm elections — and Biden could be running out of time. (yippee!)