Category: RKBA

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

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

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

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

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

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

He gives the example:

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

And he says that can mean consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But he says he has seen the criticism.

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

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

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

Chief Williams can see some tweaks.

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

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

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

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

Guns are Used Responsibly in the United States

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Man who shot teen on RTD bus says it was in self defense

AURORA, Colo. (KDVR) — William Farnsworth has had to pull out his gun many times as a bounty hunter, but the 23-year-old said he never thought the first time he would shoot someone would be on a moving RTD bus in Aurora.

“I tried my best to defend myself before I used a weapon, and, in the end, I had to shoot him,” Farnsworth said in an exclusive interview with the Problem Solvers.

“I was losing consciousness, the man was on top of me beating me senseless and he said, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ And I told myself, ‘If you lose consciousness, he’s going to follow through with that threat,’” Farnsworth said.

Farnsworth was riding the bus July 9 with his wife and 18-month-old daughter when he said he and his wife asked a young couple on the bus to stop vaping because it’s not allowed.

“He ignored us until the third time we asked him. He stood up and he said, “F— you, f— your wife and f— your baby.’ And he started swinging at my wife and baby first, and I had to throw myself in-between them,” Farnsworth said.

Farnsworth then took out his gun and shot the unidentified teenager once in the chest.

“He said, ‘You shot me’ and walked off the bus and lied in the grass. Made no attempt to put pressure on the wound,” Farnsworth said.

“I acted in self-defense, and most of the officers on the scene told me they would’ve done the same thing,” said Farnsworth.

The Problem Solvers made a public records request for the bus surveillance video, but an RTD spokesperson told FOX31 the footage would not be released because it’s part of a pending criminal case.

However, law enforcement sources told the Problem Solvers the surveillance video backs up Farnsworth, who insisted he had no choice but to use deadly force when he was attacked.

Even though Farnsworth faces no charges, he’s been told he can’t have his Glock handgun back until the case against the teenager is adjudicated because prosecutors need the gun as evidence.

Why Southerners Don’t Care About New York Times Op-Eds

I was born and raised in the Deep South. I have a deep affinity for the place of my birth, one that I wouldn’t have imagined I’d have in my teenage years.

Down here, we have our issues, to be sure, but one thing we’ve never been really big on are people from the North trying to tell us how to live our lives. Call it a holdover from Reconstruction or just plain stubbornness, but when the New York Times tries to tell Southerners how to live, it usually doesn’t work out well.

Yet, that’s pretty much what the Times decided to do with an op-ed titled, “Southern Republicans Cannot Be Trusted With Public Health.”

Continue reading “”

A Flood of Gun Lies Are Coming & You Need to Aggressively Correct Them

When people lie to you to get you to change your actions, you can bet it’s not in your best interest, but it is in theirs. American gun owners possess over 400 million firearms, and so, in order for the Socialists to disarm us, we would have to give them up willingly, as the Australians did.

They cannot rule the streets of our country until we are disarmed. They need to do it with lies because the truth about firearms has always shown that civilian weapons benefit society.

All the honest firearms research has shown that our guns are a net benefit to our society. Our families, and especially our kids, are safer because we own guns!

To this end, the Biden Regime, and the evil Democrat Congress, are again funding firearms research. Many of you do not remember that such funding in the past, in the 1990s, resulted in a large accumulation of FAKE SCIENCE that supposedly ‘proved’ our guns are dangerous to our families. These funding grants were through the US CDC, and after many battles, the funding was stopped because of the obvious corruption.

We will soon be again inundated with another batch of these fabricated lies. They will be fancied up with scientific words and written by paid-off researchers, who live for these types of grants. The articles are then published in prestigious, but very biased, journals.

The US media will repeat these lies until even many of us are no longer certain about the truth. Many in our extended families will become suspicious of us and our firearms and assume that we are dangerous to them.

Continue reading “”

Let me restate my position on ‘Climate Change’.
When the elitists, who say climate change is a real problem, begin living their lives like it is a real problem, I’ll begin to consider that it may be a real problem. As to the rest of this academic BS? You already know my position.

No, The Climate Chupacabra Doesn’t Cause “Gun” Violence

Bloomberg’s anti-Bill of Rights publication The Trace recently ran an article speculating about a causal link between climate change and “gun” violence. The article, which is an interview of Rutgers University–Camden professor Daniel Semenza, checks every fashionable academic fad: climate change, “gun” violence, inequality, you name it.

Cited in the article and professor Semenza’s Twitter thread (Archive link) are a couple of academic papers that posit a link between climate change and violent crime based on speculative models. One cited paper establishes an incontrovertible connection between weather and crime in Chicago based on real data. However, the article as a whole takes a giant leap from crime data in a specific locale tied to weather to massive speculative claims on a causal link between climate change and “gun” violence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, something that’s missing in the article.

Gun violence tends to cluster in more disadvantaged areas where people are interacting, engaging, and getting into conflicts over smaller things, shows of disrespect, and interpersonal issues that happened with family and friends. When it’s hot outside, we’re more frustrated, and it’s easier to get angry. You throw a bunch of guns into the mix and you can see how violence can ensue.

Shootings spike in summer months, and that’s often because in the communities where gun violence is high, a lot of people don’t have air conditioning or they live in smaller homes where they’re not comfortable, so they go outside more.

Although this seems plausible, I cannot help but point out that the country I grew up in – India – is a mostly sweltering hot country with a population of 1.3 billion. I don’t recall people being nasty because of the weather. I grew up without air conditioning in summers that could get up to 120ºF; we couldn’t even run cheap ceiling fans to keep us cool because the power supply was so unreliable and spotty. (It was truly a democratic socialist wonderland.)

My story isn’t unique by any measure; hundreds of millions of people coped with the summer heat without killing one another over small insults. Indian food requires a lot of prep and women managed to cook for their families in front of a hot stove in a hot kitchen without turning knives into assault weapons. Granted India wasn’t violence-free despite its image in the West as the birthplace of Gandhian non-violent political struggle, the country was and is by and large good, and the people are decent despite the hot weather and endemic poverty.

So, what was different there? Maybe a culture that respects life? Or a family structure that’s largely intact despite horrible poverty? A respect for your elders? Religiosity? That’s for sociologists to study and figure out.

There are lots of tall claims about what climate change can cause, scary enough that it almost has the mythical stature of the Chupacabra. (Check out: “A complete list of things caused by global warming,” and “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.”). One common claim is that impacts on food production will lead to violence, something that has failed the real world test. Another common claim is that climate change drives wars; that also lacks concrete proof. Climate alarmism goes back decades; read this article published June 29 1989, titled, “U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked,” and see how many of those claims have come to fruition. (While you’re at it, look at the current version of the article on The Associated Press website and notice how the headline and date of publication have been memory holed.)

Despite the provocative headline above, I don’t think climate change is something humanity should take lightly; I won’t get into that, but what I do take serious issue with is the exploitation of climate change alarmism to push every far-Left agenda item that many of us oppose: top-down economic planning and control, micromanaging the lives of the hoi polloi, controlling their food choices, transportation choices and lifestyle choices, while the elites shamelessly fly in on private jets to congregate on an island in the middle of a pandemic for an ex-President’s glitzy birthday party.

For a long time, we have seen the CDC camel trying to stick its nose under the Second Amendment tent using the ruse that “gun” violence is a public health issue. What’s next? The United States Geological Survey (USGS) mucking around with the Second Amendment using climate change as a pretext?

Every time permitless carry becomes the law of a state, the same ‘blood will flow in the streets’ whining is heard from the same morons.

Wackos Dial Up the Fear, Disinformation As Constitutional Carry Becomes Law in Texas Wednesday

“When it comes down to it, it’s just a sense of disappointment that the bill ultimately was passed,” Kevin Lawrence, executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association, told the Texas Tribune.

There was some pretense on the eve of the 2021 legislative session among Republican state leaders to promise tightened gun laws and improved background checks, with the people’s memories still fresh of mass shootings in El Paso and Midland-Odessa. Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick both offered rhetorical assurances.

Instead, the state’s ruling party supported multiple bills that make it even easier to legally brandish a gun in public. Anyone 21 years or older who doesn’t have a felony or domestic violence record will be free to carry a gun. A training course on gun safety is not required. Just get your gun and start packing.

How many Texans will pack a gun, come Sept. 1, in their vehicles, their carry bags and purses, or on their bodies? Why do we need guns to live our daily lives? What purpose will drive people to carry a handgun as if it were, like a smartphone or wallet, part of being dressed and ready to go?

— Robert Rivard in New gun laws in Texas will surely lead to more gun violence

 Gun Control Myths: How politicians, the media, and botched “studies” have twisted the facts on gun control.

C-SPAN FreedomFest interview

Lott blows away one false myth about gun ownership after another. As Andrew Pollack’s Foreward notes; “Learn the actual facts that debunk them.” From myths about mass public shootings to suicides to gun ownership rates and crime to gun free zones, Lott addresses the claims you frequently hear in the media and explains what is wrong with those claims. “John Lott has been giving us the facts about guns for decades.

Finally clear to all that one party in America has an anti-Second Amendment platform and wants to disarm you. Now you need to arm yourself with the Truth. Buy and read Gun Control Myths today. Before it’s too late.” Sebastian Gorka Ph.D.,host of AMERICAN First, former Strategist to President Trump “John Lott shows that the media and many politicians are biased against guns.

For example, many stories are written in the media about shooters, but very few about defensive uses of guns. Similarly, he shows that some gun control policies are actually counterproductive. Shooters seek out gun-free zones. If we banned “assault” weapons, shooters might shift to larger hunting guns. The book is copiously footnoted. It is full of statistical and graphical analysis, so that his points are easily grasped and persuasive. Anyone who advocates gun control and does not seriously consider John’s work is negligent.

Any journalist who does not at least consider John’s work is committing journalistic malpractice.” Paul H. Rubin, Dobbs Professor of Economics Emeritus, Emory University “We have John Lott to thank for once again providing factual and empirical based research to counter the anti gun movement’s well funded and organized campaign based on nothing more than slogans, myths and propaganda designed to demonize supporters of our cherished Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.” David Clarke Sheriff(RET) Milwaukee County “John Lott is the go-to expert when it comes to protecting the second amendment.

Without the second amendment Americans could be stripped of our right to arm ourselves against aggressors. Arm yourselves with knowledge by reading “Gun Control Myths” and join me in protecting the Second Amendment.” Eric Bolling Host “AMERICA This Week” Sinclair Broadcast

People, not guns, are the problem

One of the significant concerns held by the founders of our country was that the government not be allowed to get too big. Our system of government is constructed in such a fashion the people are in charge, not the elected politicians. The politicians are elected to do the will of the people.

The Second Amendment provides that citizens can freely possess firearms. The rationale is for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a government that grows too large. The Second Amendment has been under assault for many years. As the government has grown larger and larger, the pressure in Congress to abolish the personal ownership of arms has been increasing year after year.

The primary argument being pushed to abolish the Second Amendment is focused on civilian gun violence in our streets. Is it a problem? Absolutely. Is removing firearms from the hands of citizens the answer? In my opinion, this is the absolute wrong approach to gun violence in the street. Disarming good, responsible gun owners only gives the upper hand to those bent on doing mayhem in our communities.

The focus on removing gun violence from the streets must be concentrated on the people committing the shootings.

In my 83 times riding this rock we call Earth around the sun, I will raise my right hand and swear, I have never witnessed a gun jumping off the table, running into the street and shooting someone.

A gun is manufactured from metal, plastic, wood and a few other inanimate materials. Some are engraved with beautiful designs. Others are plain and simple. However, to my knowledge, there isn’t a firearm in the U.S.A. that has a brain of its own, has the ability to jump out of its place of storage, run out into the street, pick out a specific individual and shoot them.

The person holding the firearm is the cause of the shooting incident. It is the person who picks up this inanimate object, aims it, squeezes the trigger. And the firearm discharges as it was designed to do once it is in the hands of a person.

It is the person, not the firearm, that causes the shooting to occur.

Knives kill, cars kill, trucks kill, sledgehammers kill, bricks kill and any one of a hundred other inanimate objects used in a manner that results in death.

Where is the cry to eliminate any of these objects? There is none. Nada. Zip. Only deafening silence.

What we need to hear is support for reforming our seriously broken welfare system. Look at the statistics. Where is the highest majority of shooting crimes occurring? In the government housing projects and inner-city ghettos. Interestingly, all were created by government programs to, supposedly, lift people out of poverty. In reality, many of these programs were developed to assure a particular block of votes. It has worked.

Let’s use some of the millions of dollars spent, or should I say wasted each day, to build an education system that works. A system that teaches the young how to survive in the adult business world. Pride in heritage must be emphasized. Law and order brought to the neighborhood. Respect for each other and for people they meet in the future.

Will this fix it overnight? Absolutely not. This project will require thousands of hours and extreme dedication from the people working it even to give it a glimmer of a chance to work. I suspect some will be surprised at the amount of help that will come from the gun owner community. Once it is established, this is not another congressional “feel good” project.

The gun is not at fault; blame for misuse lies with the person holding the firearm.

Train young people to respect firearms and use them properly. Train young people to respect each other. Train young people to take responsibility for their actions. Train young people on the proper way to use a checkbook. Train young people on how to succeed in a work environment. Train up each new generation to leave things in a better condition than they found them.

Will the shootings go away? After a time, yes. Once the young people learn to respect others and themselves, the guns will stay in the drawer and no longer jump out to shoot someone.

Jim Ross Lightfoot
Former United States Representative from Iowa.

The Nancy Lanza Test for Gun Control Proposals

This Tuesday, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) published an op-ed at The Philadelphia Inquirer touting universal background checks as a means to saving lives. Tom Knighton has already taken on her misleading op-ed and I recommend that you read his article.

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room that’s missing in Giffords’ article is that the man who shot her passed a background check when he bought the pistol he used in his crime.

That alone undermines Giffords’ claim in a big way. And it’s not just him; most perpetrators in highly publicized mass attacks that I can think of – Sutherland Springs, Orlando, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, Charleston – you name it, all of them passed background checks and in some cases, with glaring governmental incompetence. (Others got their guns through theft and straw purchases.)

Universal background checks simply take the existing background check system and mandate, in an unenforceable way, that all firearms transfers be subject to background checks. This will make no difference in crime because those citizens who will subject themselves to an unenforceable law are by nature law-abiding and the least likely to pose a threat to others. A name that comes to mind as an example of such a citizen is Nancy Lanza.

Nancy Lanza is the benchmark that those who propose new gun control laws must justify their proposals against. Not only would she have passed any background check – universal or otherwise – she would also have met the incrementally higher bars that the Gun Grab Lobby wants to subject ordinary citizens to.

Continue reading “”

Sorry Grannies, I think you too are going to have to learn to live with disappointment.

Grandmothers Against Gun Violence Target Missouri Governor’s Pro-Second Amendment Stance

Grandmothers Against Gun Violence founder Judy Sherry is targeting Missouri Gov. Mike Parson’s pro-Second Amendment stance and subsequent pro-gun policies.

Sherry founded her Missouri-based group after the December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School attack in Connecticut. Since that time, Sherry admits that Missouri has only increased protections of gun rights, rather than passing “meaningful” gun control, Yahoo News reported.

Sherry is especially bothered by the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which Gov. Parson signed into law on June 12.

SAPA “prohibits the enforcement of federal gun laws by local law enforcement agencies,” WLBT noted. Continue reading “”

I think they are going to have to learn to live with disappointment.

Activists Urge Biden to Bypass Congress, Create Gun Violence Office

Advocacy groups are urging President Joe Biden to bypass Congress by creating a White House office of gun violence as the confirmation of his nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives remains in jeopardy, Politico reported.

Four groups send Biden a letter on Wednesday and complained the president’s actions on guns “fall significantly short of the promises you yourself made while running for the presidency,” Politico reported Thursday.

The activists said weapons had not been a Biden priority as 28,000 Americans have died from gun violence this year.

“Your administration is hard at work pursuing important priorities from infrastructure reform to reducing the disastrous impacts of climate change,” according to the letter obtained by Politico.

“But with rising gun deaths and the heightened threat of armed political extremism, gun violence can no longer be seen as a back burner issue.”

With David Chipman’s nomination to lead ATF languishing in the Senate, the groups asked Biden to establish a White House office led by a Cabinet-level aide, who would not need Senate confirmation.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day:

I don’t view gun grabbers as an enemy because of politics, I don’t think they’re evil because of politics. I don’t care about the (D) or (R) after your preferred candidate’s name.

I view them as an enemy because the only possible reason someone would want to disarm me is if they intend to do me harm. If they intend to interact peacefully with me, my level of armament doesn’t matter to them.  I’m a peaceful person and have never given anyone a reason to doubt that. The only people with a vested interested in my disarmament are those that intend to get violent with me and don’t want me to be able to fight back.

Don’t Be Surprised if Gun Owners Don’t Comply With Gun Control Laws

Media outlets love reporting the results of polling on hot-button policy issues, but they rarely tell you if the people supporting proposed legislation (especially when it’s restrictive) are the same people who would be affected by it. That matters in several important ways, not least of which is that getting a law passed is not the same thing as getting people to obey. Nowhere does that matter more than in the heated debate over gun laws.

“Fifty-seven percent of registered voters in the March 24-26 survey said there should be more laws regulating guns in the country,” The Hill reported earlier this year of the results of a Hill-HarrisX poll. That the story might be a little more complicated is hinted at later in the article where the numbers are broken down along partisan lines to reveal that 79 percent of Democrats support tighter gun laws, but only 36 percent of Republicans agree.

Why does the partisan divide on gun policy matter so much? Because gun ownership has traditionally been divided just as starkly along partisan lines, “with Republican and Republican-leaning independents more than twice as likely as Democrats and those who lean Democratic to say they own a gun (44% vs. 20%),” according to 2017 polling by Pew Research. That may indicate an ideological difference, or it may be evidence that familiarity with firearms encourages a more relaxed attitude towards their legal status, or both. Whatever the reason for the deep disagreement, enforcing “tighter gun laws” would require the cooperation of the people who actually possess them and oppose such policy changes.

Recently, though, the partisan divide on gun ownership seems to be shifting. More people from the left side of the political spectrum and members of Democrat-leaning constituencies have been acquiring them as a means for self-defense. They’ve lined up to make purchases at gun stores as faith in police and institutions erodes and society fractures. But even as their partisan identity becomes less predictable, gun owners and non-owners continue to disagree on policy.

Continue reading “”