Category: RKBA

A Biden minion blames America’s crime spike on the NRA.
Well, I’ve never yet found a demoncrap that made sense anyway, so…

What a Top Biden Staffer Said About the NRA and the Spike in Crime Makes No Sense

As Katie wrote yesterday, the Biden gun grab is coming. They’re prepping it. They’re doing a test-run with this regulation tweak on pistol stabilizers that will place 10-40 million law-abiding Americans in legal jeopardy. These people did nothing wrong, but the firearms they own must be registered, disassembled, or turned over to authorities to avoid legal action. It will be the largest gun confiscation and registration effort ever. And now, Biden announced new initiatives for gun dealers concerning background checks. It’s not new, by the way. It’s already illegal to conduct straw purchases, falsify your background check form, and knowingly sell to criminals or other prohibited persons.

And now, top Biden adviser Cedric Richmond went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to blame the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the spike in violent crime. Well, first, he picked the right network because MSNBC is only meant to stroke the fragile egos of liberal America. It does well to keep their moral superiority complex well fed. Second, he said that the NRA has governed the country for too long. Uh, what? As Chris Martin of America Rising notes, Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. What the hell is he talking about?

It’s the same old tired game. With the NRA in serious legal and financial trouble, Richmond is doing his part to drive the stake into the heart of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.

Just look in the mirror, man. Your party’s embracing of defunding the police, passing disastrous bail reforms, and letting hundreds of rioters, looters, and arsonists from last summer go is what’s causing this crime spike. You’re telling them they’ll get away with it. This isn’t hard, sir. When a major party decides to adopt a pro-crime stance, mayhem will ensue in the areas this party dominates politically, which would be the cities.

 

Biden’s Gun Control Speech Was A Mistake

Joe Biden had one real goal in Wednesday’s speech announcing a five-point plan to address the rising violent crime rate in many American cities; reassure voters that Democrats have a strategy that will reduce the increasing lawlessness and reverse the spike in crime that began last year.

Instead, the big takeaway from his rambling and semi-coherent remarks was his off-topic warning to Americans that if they want to take on the government, they’ll need F-15s and nuclear weapons. An address that was supposed to show that the president was focused on violent crime turned into a half-hearted stump speech for gun control, and maybe cannon control as well.

Recent polls have shown that Biden isn’t trusted to handle the crime issue, and I can’t imagine that yesterday’s disastrous turn at the podium made voters feel any better.

Polls signal growing unease over crime, a potential liability for Biden and Democrats in next year’s midterm elections. A Yahoo News/YouGov poll released in May found that nearly 50% of respondents said crime is a very big problem in the U.S. About 36% of respondents at least somewhat approved of Biden’s handling of crime, while 44% at least somewhat disapproved.

Republicans have accused the president of being soft on crime, saying he has not done enough to rebut some liberals who call for cutting spending on police departments. Biden has repeatedly said he does not favor defunding the police.

It’s true that Biden announced that cities can use hundreds of billions of dollars in COVID relief funds to spend on law enforcement efforts, but the officer shortage in many cities can’t simply be blamed on budget issues. Instead, as the New York Times reported a few days ago, officers are retiring, resigning, and joining suburban agencies because of the hostility towards law enforcement shown by many Democratic politicians and elected officials in cities from coast-to-coast.

“We have lost about one-third of our staff to resignation and retirement,” said Chief David Zack of the Asheville Police Department in North Carolina — more than 80 officers out of a full complement of 238. “Certainly with the way that police have been portrayed and vilified in some cases, they have decided that it is not the life for them.”

Those reductions in Ashville echo a nationwide trend. A survey of about 200 police departments indicates that retirements were up by 45 percent and resignations by 18 percent in the period between April 2020 and April 2021, when compared with the preceding 12 months. The percentage of officers who left tended to be larger for departments in big or medium-size cities, according to the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington policy institute that will release full data next week.

“It is an evolving crisis,” said Chuck Wexler, the organization’s executive director.

Biden could have engaged in a full-throated attack on the Defund the Police movement, but he can’t risk alienating the Democrats’ base, so instead he pilloried gun owners. He could have issued a stark warning to violent criminals that the Department of Justice is going to be coming after them, but instead he warned “rogue gun dealers” that the ATF will have a zero tolerance policy on violations of agency rules and regulations.

A speech that was ostensibly designed to make Americans feel better about Biden’s handling of violent crime instead left many of us scratching our heads. Even Biden defenders like Geraldo Rivera were less than impressed by the president’s remarks.

“Compassion aside, where was the passion? That speech was as laid back as the program he is proposing,” said Rivera.

The longtime journalist, who has reported on violent crime and other major issues throughout his career, said that Biden’s allocation of resources toward summertime social programs for urban and endangered youth and stemming illegal firearm sales will not go far toward solving the problem.

“This is the civil rights issue of our time, murder has become the leading cause of death, if this is not an emergency, what is it?” he later asked.

Now, Geraldo is wrong about murder being the leading cause of death in the United States (heart disease, cancer, COVID-19, accidents, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and suicides are each responsible for far more deaths than homicide), but he’s right that Biden’s speech was “laid back.” I’d actually call it somnambulate, but seeing Sleepy Joe at the podium isn’t exactly a new phenomenon either.

The biggest problem for Biden is that he can’t actually acknowledge why we’re seeing a rise in violent crime. Biden wants to blame legal gun owners and federally licensed firearm dealers, when we know that the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a violent crime and that criminals are getting their guns on the illicit market or through family and friends. The White House refers to an 18-month increase in violent crime, when we all know that shootings and homicides really increased a year ago, after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the riots and destruction that followed in many cities.

Biden’s address on Wednesday may have checked a box, but I doubt it moved the needle in terms of public opinion on his handling of violent crime. By continuing to call for more restrictions on legal gun owners at a time when millions of Americans are embracing their Second Amendment rights for the very first time and his unwillingness to get tough on those actually responsible for violent acts, the only people Biden really reassured were his gun control allies. When it comes to everyone else, Biden would have been better off politically saying nothing at all.

BLUF:

In my humble opinion, the Biden/Harris administration, the legacy media and the folks at The Trace and other anti-rights groups are scared witless by the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement…..
As the movement grows — and it is growing by leaps and bounds — we will see more attacks from politicians, which will then be parroted by their staunch supporters in the legacy media, assuming, that is, they can break a reporter loose from their hard-hitting, investigative coverage of Joe Biden’s ice cream cone du jour.

No, NPR, there aren’t 400 Second Amendment Sanctuary counties in the US — there are 1,930

Taxpayer funded National Public Radio tries to downplay and trivialize the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, without letting the facts get in their way.

To be clear, there are 1,930 counties that have now become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, which is more than 61% of all the counties in the United States.

Of these counties, 1,137 made the decision to protect the Second Amendment on their own. The rest are located in the 15  states — the most recent being Texas — that declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com.

Davis has the most up-to-date maps and data available on the topic. He has tracked the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement since its inception in his home state of Virginia.

The fact more than 61% of the country has chosen to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens has largely been ignored by the legacy media. If they have bothered to do a story on sanctuaries at all, their goal has been to downplay if not belittle the movement. Of course, that, friends, is what we call spin.

Taxpayer subsidized National Public Radio is the latest to try to torpedo the movement, which is growing every single day.

On NPR’s June 21 edition of “Here & Now,” the host falsely states there are only 400 counties that have become Second Amendment Sanctuaries, not 1,930. This is a common error among the legacy media. Davis has said it stems from a story originally published more than a year ago by Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory — The Trace. The story keeps rebounding around the internet, even though the numbers have increased significantly, because of lazy reporting and shoddy research.

Continue reading “”

F-15S & NUCLEAR WEAPONS: BIDEN SHRUGS OFF 2A IN GUN CONTROL SPEECH

Just over a week before the country’s Independence Day celebrations, President Biden delivered a speech on gun control in which he ridiculed the meaning, feasibility, and intent of the Second Amendment.

In an event meant to be the kickoff for another round of anti-gun legislation and executive actions for an Administration just 155 days in the White House, Biden tried to frame the Constitutional gun rights argument to justify his proposed efforts.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon,” he said.

While the first part, about the Amendment “limiting the type of people,” is somewhat true– for example, the gun rights of enslaved and in some cases even freed blacks were often denied in the Southern States from the earliest days of the Constitution despite the Second Amendment– Biden fails the fact check on cannon ownership. As we have covered before, anyone with the desire and extra cash could acquire their own battery of fully functional cannon without any government paperwork or permission until 1968. 

With that being said, modern breechloading artillery is still available in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” provided it is registered with the federal government and properly taxed. Still, legacy artillery systems such as muzzleloading black powder field guns, do not require tax stamps.

Biden also went further into the woods against what the Second Amendment protects, arguing the enumerated right had something to do with hunting, although many in the gun rights community point out that Washington didn’t cross the Delaware to get to a duck blind.

“No one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something,” he said, although magazine capacity restrictions have only been adopted in nine states– and have been recently found to be Constitutionally suspect by a federal court. Further, industry data suggests consumers in the U.S. own at least 230 million detachable magazines, with about half of those able to hold more than 10 cartridges, the traditional threshold for a “large-capacity magazine” in restricted states.

Then, Biden seemed to paint the Second Amendment’s potential check against tyranny, a concept that dates to the days of Constitutional framer James Madison, as ludicrous in the days of modern warfare, notwithstanding the realities of multi-domain modern insurgency.

“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he said.

The quote Biden ramblingly alluded to, drawn a 1787 letter from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson– author of The Declaration of Independence and later third U.S. President– to William Smith, John Adams’ secretary, can be argued to be directly related to the right to keep and bear arms and was penned at the time of Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts.

We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

It is not the first time that Biden trotted out the Jeffersonian quote in relation to his view on gun policy. In February 2020, while on the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination for President, he argued at a town hall event in New Hampshire that, “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you.”

Mark McCloskey, Who Pulled Gun on St. Louis BLM Protesters, Shows Off New Rifle

Mark McCloskey shows off new gun.

The gun-toting St. Louis lawyer who pleaded guilty to pulling a gun on Black Lives Matter protesters is flaunting his new rifle.

Mark McCloskey picked up a brand new AR-15-style gun — after surrendering his old one last week as part of a plea deal with prosecutors.

“Checking out my new AR!” the controversial attorney, who is running for Senate, boasted on Twitter in two photos, one with his wife Patricia, giving the thumbs up inside a gun store.

The gun revolution

That was then.

This is now.

 

 

Without firing a shot (except at the firing range), Americans have won a revolution — state by state.

Texas is the latest to join the freedom coalition. The Texas Tribune reported to its dismay, “Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill into law………..

That is a big victory in Texas, and another notch on the gun handle nationally. 35 years ago, it was illegal in 16 states (including Texas) for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon. Only Vermont did not require a pistol permit.

Working through the slow process of going state to state to change the law, the revolution happened.

Continue reading “”

Stanford Study: Most Mass Shooters Have Undiagnosed Psychiatric Illnesses
Over half of the perpetrators were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

Researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine have published a study that reveals most of the perpetrators of mass shootings in America are people with undiagnosed psychiatric disorders.

The study focused on 115 assailants of shootings committed between 1982 and 2019, and then narrowed that number down to ones who survived.

“We found that most mass shooters in our study experienced undiagnosed and unmedicated psychiatric illness,” the researchers noted.

Describing the findings as “striking,” the study notes that symptoms of clinical psychiatric disorders were identified in almost all the shooters, 32 out of 35.

Over half of the perpetrators, 18, were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

A further 10 of the shooters were diagnosed as bipolar, delusional and suffering from personality disorders.

The study also noted that “None were medicated or received other treatment prior to the crime.”

To make the diagnoses, the study focused on the records of forensic psychiatrists and court proceedings, in addition to writings and social media posts made by the shooters.

Researchers also found that in 20 mass shooting cases where the perpetrators died, at least eight had schizophrenia, seven had other diagnoses, and five had unknown mental illnesses.

While concluding that diagnosis and treatment of mental illness could have “decreased violence,” the study notes that “Psychiatric research… on the nature and the incidence of mental illness among mass shooters, however, remains largely understudied.”

“Most of the cases of domestic mass murders possibly might have been prevented had the assailant… been more consistently assisted to receive a correct diagnosis… followed by psychiatric medication treatment… to save lives,” the study suggests.

First shot: 141 House Republicans challenge ATF tax, registration of AR pistols

A majority of House Republicans are vowing to kill a new Biden plan to tax and regulate one of the nation’s most popular firearms for target practice and hunting, claiming it discriminates against disabled veterans and would make all owners “felons overnight.”

Led by Second Amendment advocate Rep. Richard Hudson, 141 Republicans (and likely more to come) are targeting a revived rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives backed by the Justice Department to turn AR-style pistols into expensive, hard to get guns.

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson, Hudson wrote, “This proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners and disabled combat veterans across the country.”

He was joined by 140 other Republicans, including the No. 2 and No. 3 GOP leaders, Reps. Steve Scalise and Elise Stefanik, and former leader Rep. Liz Cheney.

Continue reading “”

Does Louisiana have term limits?

Gov. Edwards expected to veto constitutional carry bill

BATON ROUGE, La. (WAFB) – Gov. John Bel Edwards is looking closely at a bill that would allow most people to be able to carry their firearms concealed without taking a training course but the bill’s chances of being signed into law are looking slim-to-none.

“My position on this has not changed,” said Edwards during a recent interview. “A law enforcement officer doesn’t want to discover someone with whom they’re engaging has a firearm for the first time while they are actually searching them and that leads a lot of problems.”

As a self-declared advocate for the Second Amendment, Edwards’s position on legal gun ownership has been firm. But SB 118, which would do away with requiring training, doesn’t appear to be sitting well with him. And with the likelihood of a veto of the bill coming soon, Sen. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe), says the fight will continue until the goal is achieved.

Continue reading “”

The LA Times is Still Denying the Second Amendment

The Los Angeles Times editorial page is less a journalistic enterprise than it is a partisan grievance noticeboard. The editorial board’s descent into trivial activist messaging was on full display in a pair of recent pieces lamenting the federal judiciary’s recognition of the Second Amendment. In both, the editorial board denied the core rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that recognized the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In neither piece did the would-be jurists at the L.A. Times offer evidence or argument as to their incorrect position or why the legal analysis of self-important regime press agents should carry any weight whatsoever.

The first editorial was published on April 26 and titled, “The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could mean more guns in public.” The item took issue with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert to NRA-backed case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. The case challenges New York’s concealed carry licensing scheme and could prompt the Court to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

Lamenting the Court’s cert decision, the editorial board wrote,

The case the court accepted Monday (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. vs. Corlett) follows the court’s controversial 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time enunciated a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, breaking with historic perceptions that the right was conferred only to members of state militias. From our perspective, it was an errant reading of the Constitution, but unfortunately the nation is stuck with it.

The second editorial was published June 7 and titled, “The judge is wrong: California’s assault-weapons ban must stand.” This piece complained about the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Miller v. Bonta. The decision, by Judge Roger Benitez, found that California’s ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms violated the Second Amendment.

Benitez’s ruling on the California ban was the result of a faithful interpretation of the Heller and McDonald decisions. We can be certain of this because Heller author Justice Antonin Scalia signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, that stated as much. The dissent noted,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Continue reading “”

More than half of the country is now a Second Amendment sanctuary – The Gun Writer

The growing national trend of preserving the Second Amendment through local and state legislation has been largely ignored by the legacy media

More than 55% of all U.S. counties are now Second Amendment sanctuaries, and the numbers continue to grow at a rapid pace.

A total of 1,753 of the country’s 3,144 counties — or 55.76% — have either declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries or are located in sanctuary states, according to Noah Davis of sanctuarycounties.com and its companion site constitutionalsanctuaries.com

Continue reading “”

The Second Amendment Isn’t Behind the Rising Crime Rate

In a tumultuous 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic locked down so much of America and the world, one thing that didn’t lock down was the murder rate.

According to the National Commission of COVID-19 and Criminal Justice, which was launched by the left-leaning Council on Criminal Justice, murders across America rose 30% in 2020 when compared to 2019. Based on a survey of 34 cities, they report that: “Homicide rates were higher during every month of 2020 relative to rates from the previous year.”

These gruesome numbers include a 43% rise in New York City in 2020—meaning 131 more murders occurred there than happened in 2019. The numbers were even worse in Chicago, which had a 55% jump (278 more murders) from the previous year.

Not surprisingly, many of those who want the Second Amendment obliterated blame record gun sales for the rise in the murder rate.

“More guns led to more violence,” claimed a story at vox.com. “There’s been a big surge in gun buying this year, seemingly in response to concerns about personal safety during a pandemic. And as the research has shown time and time again, more guns mean more gun violence.”

Of course, most people who follow the Second Amendment debate closely know that, in fact, more guns do not lead to more violence, as researcher John Lott proved back in 1998. Lott, who is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), found that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also tend to have the largest drops in violent-crime rates.

Continue reading “”

Feinstein Introduces Federal Extreme Risk Protective Order Bill

The matter of Fourth Amendment protections for firearm owners has yet to fully have its day in court. The promising outcome from Caniglia v. Strom on May 17, 2021 does point to gun owners having protection from firearm seizure when a warrant is absent. The Caniglia case was reported nearly a month ago by Cam Edwards, and in his correct estimation, it can have effects going forward concerning due process for those trapped up in such situations, and how the high court views them:

It’s encouraging to see the Supreme Court unanimously agree that Edward Caniglia’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his firearms were seized without a warrant, but I suspect that a challenge to a state’s red flag laws would result in a much more divided opinion.

While this case didn’t directly involve a Second Amendment challenge, it’s also good to see that even the progressive wing of the Court concluded that the seizure of Caniglia’s legally-owned firearms infringed on his constitutional rights. It may not indicate a sea change from the liberal justices, but at least in this case they declined to treat the Second (and Fourth) Amendment as a second-class right.

While I agree with Edwards’s suspicion that “red flag” laws might yield a more divided opinion, this case will in my opinion have an impact on litigation against all of the unconstitutional seizure policies. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito conceded the Caniglia case does not address “red flag” laws directly, but I’m sure the case will be cited in case documents filed in lower courts.

Continue reading “”

Ghost Guns and the Deeply American Tradition of Gun Privacy.

“Ghost guns” are the modern manifestation of an American tradition of liberty that stretches back to Lexington and Concord.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) and Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced the Untraceable Firearms Act, a bill that targets “ghost guns,” or unregistered firearms without serial numbers.

Also called “kit guns” or “80% guns,” most are built at home from manufacturer-produced gun kits. Improvised weapons, also known as “pipe guns,” are another variation, and they’re constructed using 3D-printed parts or salvaged and repurposed materials.

The proposed law would place strict limitations on the obtainment and manufacture of these guns. For example, it would prohibit building or housing a homemade, 3D-printed firearm, as well as trading a kit gun with a friend. Punishments for an initial violation include fines and up to a year in prison. Subsequent violations can incur up to a five-year sentence.

Continue reading “”

Yeah, that ‘almost’. They’re still basically nonsensical.

Gun Control Group Almost Talks Actual Gun Sense

The phrase “gun sense” is generally nothing more than a euphemism for gun control. It’s a term that’s been corrupted from what it could have meant to be nothing more than a synonym for a term that has less and less popularity with the American public.

However, a gun-control group has decided to step away from talking about infringing on our Second Amendment rights for a moment to talk about something that almost equates to actual gun sense, more or less.

GunSense Vermont, a non-partisan group that works to keep Vermonters safe from gun violence, is looking to change the conversation around gun violence prevention by focusing on safe storage.

At a panel discussion on Thursday, the group focused their conversation on educating gun owners about their responsibility to safely secure guns in their homes to keep them out of the hands of kids, thieves, and anyone looking to cause harm.

Now, this is actually a non-controversial position we should all be able to rally behind.

Of course, the group also says some pretty ridiculous things, such as:

According to GunSense Vermont, a properly stored firearm is one that is unloaded, separate from the ammunition, and locked in a safe.

Meanwhile, one of the honchos (a deputy director) with the group also says that if you’re worried about needing your firearm in a hurry, you should get a quick-access safe.

Which, of course, would require one not to have the weapon “properly” stored.

Then there’s the very real concern of not being able to access the weapon from the quick-access safe because of a loss of fine motor control during a particularly stressful event. Trust me, trying to grab a gun in the middle of the night can be hard enough if it’s in a nightstand drawer. Accessing a combination safe in the mere seconds provided may well be impossible for some.

Yet I don’t want to be too hard on GunSense Vermont.

While they’re a gun control group, they’re actually trying to reach out and talk about non-legislative solutions to firearm-related violence. This shouldn’t be mocked or dismissed, but encouraged. This is something I’m willing to sit down with them and discuss things like this.

You really can’t claim you’re not about banning guns and then not at least try to find non-legislative ways to reduce deaths by firearms. Many of us agree that weapons should be stored safely away from children and thieves. That’s some common ground we can build from. Who knows, maybe we can build from that and find all kinds of other ways to address violent crime without infringing on gun rights.

Either way, this is a good thing.

However, this shouldn’t be taken as me being remotely open to any of their anti-gun proposals. I’m not and I won’t be. See, I think much of our problems with violent crime and other firearm-related deaths can be solved without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in the least.

My hope is that GunSense Vermont is starting to see things that way as well. I’m not holding my breath, but a guy can dream, can’t he?

Just to point out the intellectual level of some people who believe they’re making a salient point about a subject that anyone can easily determine they are totally clueless about

Letter: What does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Portsmouth Herald

June 10 – To the Editor:

In the news the past month or so:

A 57-year old retired NYC police officer is shot accidentally by a friend trying to break up a dispute outside a pizza parlor.

A 6-year old boy, a passenger in his mother’s car, is shot in a road rage incident.

Another young boy, retrieving his bike from the sidewalk near his home, is shot by a neighbor.

Several dozen are killed or wounded over a weekend in gang-related shootouts in Chicago.

An 18-year old from Ohio is found carrying an AK-47 in a NYC subway.

A woman in Texas shoots a beauty shop owner in a dispute about the cost of her pedicure.

A 5-year old boy is accidentally shot by his mother who was aiming at a dog.

Eight people are killed in Atlanta, followed by shootings in a supermarket in Colorado, an office building in California, a FedEx office in Indianapolis, a rail yard in San Jose. A total of 39 people.

Somebody….anybody….Please! Can anyone tell me what any of this has to do with the Second Amendment?

Anthony McManus

Dover

It’s not just how, but also when, and if you really can that’s important.

There Is Far More to Concealed Carry Than Just Buying a Handgun
You need the proper training and mindset before you decide to concealed-carry a handgun. Here’s what you need to know

There is a lot more to carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense than snapping a holster on your waistband and walking out the door. It’s a serious commitment that will impact pretty much everything someone does outside their home, from the clothes a person wears and how they wear them, to the way they get into a car and buckle a seatbelt, to the exact mechanics of picking something up off the floor—or at least, it should.

If you conceal carry, that means you carry a gun as much as possible to protect yourself and loved ones. It means having a self-defense mindset and having that defensive firearm at the ready. Today, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who may have the necessary physical tools for self-defense, but not the skills or the mindset, which is far more important than which handgun, caliber, or holster someone chooses.

Continue reading “”