Category: RKBA

FIGHT BACK AGAINST ANTI-GUN SOCIAL BIGOTRY
DON’T FEED THE GUN PROHIBITIONISTS!

For the past few months, a major gun rights organization has been quietly — and sometimes not so quietly — conducting what amounts to an educational campaign, alerting the nation’s gun owners about anti-gun businesses and their CEOs who use their profits to discriminate against the Second Amendment.

This is not a “boycott list,” as some have unfairly described it. According to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the purpose is to provide gun owners with information so they can decide where to spend their money.

Continue reading “”

BIDEN’S TWEET WAS ATTACK ON ALL GUN OWNERS; SAF’S PROGRAM FIGHTS BACK

BELLEVUE, WA – Joe Biden’s Twitter message to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords may read like a threat against one gun rights organization, but it is really an attack on every gun owner in the nation, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Biden pledged to work with Giffords on her extremist gun control agenda, and promised to “defeat the NRA,” in the process, but SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said that’s just cover for a bigger goal.

“Joe Biden has labored relentlessly for decades to reduce the Second Amendment to rubble,” Gottlieb stated. “He may attack one group by name, but his goal is to crush the rights of every gun owner in our country.

“By attacking the Second Amendment Rights of 100 million Americans,” Gottlieb continued, “Biden is not bringing us together but dividing us further. If people take to the streets in protest, if violence occurs it will be his fault and he should be impeached for violating our constitutional rights and inciting violence. Maybe it is time to ban him from Twitter and Facebook!”

This week SAF is launching its new major advertising effort to recruit tens of thousands of gun owners into the 2nd Amendment First Responder program. SAF is running a one-minute message 40 times this week, on several national networks, to educate millions of law-abiding gun owners about the gun rights battle. This message will appear on DirecTV, Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, MSNBC, The Weather Channel, One America News Network, CNBC, HLN, Bloomberg and Dish TV.

This hard-hitting ad urges gun owners and viewers concerned about the civil right to bear arms to join the fight by texting ‘PROTECT 2A’ to ‘474747’. By texting, people can support SAF’s educational and legal action programs to protect their rights.

“Joe Biden isn’t fooling anybody,” Gottlieb observed. “He spent 47 years on Capitol Hill trying to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a regulated privilege. Now that he’s headed to the White House, he thinks he will be able to complete his mission. We’re working to swell the ranks of our 2nd Amendment First Responder project to stop him.”

“We didn’t start the fire, Biden did,” he said.

 

Dan Wos, Imagine An America Where All The Good Guys Had Guns

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein

Did you hear about the Indiana man who was shot and killed by a good guy with a gun after attempting to kill multiple people in broad daylight during a deranged rampage that started in Brownsburg Cemetery on Thursday July 16th, 2020? Probably not.

Joshua Hayes chased down Seth Robertson and killed him in the street. According to police, the motive was unknown. He then turned his attention to Robertson’s friend and chased him through a residential neighborhood while shooting at him. Hayes caught up with his victim and a physical altercation ensued. As Hayes had his gun pointed at the head of the second victim, a good guy with a gun reminded Hayes of his “manners” and ended his deadly rampage. How many more people would Hayes have killed that day had he not been stopped? The good news is, we will never know, because a good gun was close by.

“This tragic event could have been much more disastrous. So, victim three not only saved victim two’s life, but he saved potentially the lives of many others,” BPD Capt. Jennifer Barrett. “Victim three did exactly what anybody would have wanted him to do at that scene that day.”

Continue reading “”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” —Sun Tzu

Here’s another presentation of the anti-gun/anti-civil rights (except for their pet rights) academics infesting our colleges and universities. Knowing the direction of attack by these over educated morons are coming from, is simply due diligence.

The professor’s idea is to have the FDA regulate guns and ammunition. If you take the time to read through his paper, you’ll find he makes the same error, purposefully or not, that the Bill of Rights gives rights to the people, as opposed to restricting goobermint.

 

Taking Stock Of A Record-Setting Firearm Year

Twenty-one million. Let that number sink in for a moment.

That’s a very big number. If I told you at SHOT Show® last year that the industry would see 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, you would have thought I was crazy. One year later and with the benefit of hindsight, this was truly a remarkable year for the industry across the board.

The final figures for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) put all of this year’s hard work into perspective. Twenty-one million background checks were conducted for the sale of a firearm over the past 12 months. That topped 2019’s totals of 13.2 million by 60 percent. It also shattered the previous record from 2016, when 15.7 million background checks were conducted for the sale of firearms. This year’s 21 million total surpassed 2016 by 5.3 million, or 34 percent.

Here’s one more incredible number to witness. NSSF estimates that 8.4 million people bought a firearm for the first time in 2020. That’s 40 percent of all purchases. This year’s buyer is increasingly diverse too. Forty percent of 2020’s buyers were women and the biggest increase of any demographic category was among African Americans, who bought guns at a rate of 58 percent greater than in 2019.

Continue reading “”

Record Gun Sales and Diverse Ownership Mean Rocky Prospects for Restrictions
New gun owners are unlikely to embrace disarmament schemes from a government they distrust.

Joe Biden will enter the White House this month at the head of a political party that in recent years has been overtly hostile to self-defense rights, even to the point of advocating impossible-to-enforce bans on popular firearms. But the opportunity has passed for the restrictions he peddles as “common sense reforms.” In an era of political instability and distrust in government, Americans of varying political beliefs are purchasing guns in record numbers. And those millions of new weapons and their owners are bound to remain beyond the reach of politicians’ wish lists of restrictive laws.

Nine of the ten busiest weeks ever for the FBI-administered National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—which performs background checks for most firearms purchases from licensed dealers—occurred in 2020. While background checks don’t directly correspond to gun sales since they can be used for other purposes or for multiple simultaneous purchases, they’re an important indicator. The year ended with a total of 39.7 million background checks, the highest annual count recorded.

The “why” of the surge in firearms purchases is no secret in a year that seems drawn from the plot of an apocalyptic novel. January of 2020 opened with a politically polarized population and the news that “nearly six in ten Americans agree that there will be protests or rioting in the United States over the next year in response to how the country is being run,” according to Ipsos pollsters. They were right, though for unpredictable reasons.

Continue reading “”

Right Out of the Gate: Nat’l CCW Reciprocity Bill Introduced in Congress

Bipartisan legislation aimed at national concealed carry reciprocity has been introduced by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) as the 117th Congress convened, and the bill already boasts a record 154 original cosponsors, according to a news release from Hudson’s office.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38) has been introduced before and even passed the House by a 231-198 vote in December 2017. However, when it went to the Senate, it languished even though President Donald Trump had indicated support.

“Our Second Amendment rights do not disappear when we cross state lines, and H.R. 38 guarantees that,” said Rep. Hudson in his news release. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2021 is a common sense solution to provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. I am especially proud to have such widespread and bipartisan support for this measure and will work with my colleagues to get this legislation over the finish line.”

Continue reading “”

Montana: Permitless Carry Legislation Introduced in the House and Scheduled for Hearing Tomorrow Today.

House Bill 102 would strengthen Montana’s self-defense laws by allowing law-abiding Montana gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense throughout the state without first having to obtain a government mandated permit to do so. Further, this bill would remove some of Montana’s “gun-free zones” from the list of prohibited places and stop the unnecessary disarming of Montanans as they go about their day to day lives.

Utah Lawmaker Reintroduces ‘Constitutional Carry’ Legislation

Utah State Rep. Walt Brooks (R-St. George) has once again introduced legislation to allow concealed carry without a permit, and this time he reportedly has a commitment from Gov. Spencer Cox to sign the bill if it hits his desk.

Brooks’ House Bill 60 will be on the table when the Utah Legislature convenes Jan. 19. An earlier effort to allow permitless carry was vetoed by former Gov. Gary Herbert in 2013, according to the Deseret News. A similar bill was also filed last year near the end of the legislative session.

“We are living through a gun violence crisis in America, and some politicians in Utah not only don’t seem to care about it, they are running bills that will make it more likely that people will shoot each other,” asserted Katie Matheson, spokeswoman for the left-leaning Alliance for a Better Utah, as quoted by the Deseret News. “We shouldn’t wait until we have a crisis in Utah. We need our representatives to wake up — these bills are tragedies waiting to happen.”

But is that an accurate forecast? Not according to Brooks, who spoke with Ammoland News via telephone.

“This is a good step,” the veteran lawmaker said. “This is the same bill I ran in 2013, but Gov. Herbert vetoed it…I reintroduced it at the end of last year’s session, knowing it wouldn’t go anywhere, but that it would give people a chance to look it over and give it some thought.”

Brooks said the legislature meets for 45 days, but since this bill is already on people’s minds, it could be one of the first to be considered during the opening days of this year’s session. He expects HB60 to move quickly and perhaps be through the process by Feb. 1.

He said there are plenty of laws on the books that are supposed to prevent the wrong people from carrying guns, but “as you know, criminals don’t obey the law.”

The key to his permitless carry proposal is in the last two lines of the three-page legislation. There, the bill simply provides that “Subsection 76-10-504(1) does not apply to a person 21 years old or older who may otherwise lawfully possess a firearm.”

Continue reading “”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signs ‘stand your ground’ bill

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense.

Senate Bill 175, fast-tracked through the Ohio General Assembly last month by DeWine’s fellow Republicans, will make Ohio the 36th state to no longer require people to retreat before they can justifiably hurt or kill someone in self-defense.

The governor had previously hinted that he would veto SB175, saying he first wanted lawmakers to pass his package of gun reforms that they sat on for more than a year. But in a release sent Monday afternoon, the governor stated that the measure removes an “ambiguity in Ohio’s self-defense law.”

“I have always believed that it is vital that law-abiding citizens have the right to legally protect themselves when confronted with a life-threatening situation,” DeWine said in a statement. The governor added that he signed the bill in a “spirit of cooperation” with the newly seated 134th Ohio General Assembly.

Until now, under Ohio law, people have been justified in using deadly force in self-defense so long as they aren’t the aggressor, believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and are in their home or vehicle. The new law, which takes effect in 90 days, removes the “home or vehicle” requirement, and instead states that the defendant need only be in a place where they lawfully have the right to be.

Proponents of the measure say it gives law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. The Buckeye Firearms Association said in a release that DeWine promised them and other gun-rights groups multiple times that he would sign such a bill.

“While this bill changes one technicality in Ohio law, it does not change the near universal and well-established standard for use of lethal force, nor does it give criminals a free pass to commit violent crime,” Buckeye Firearms said in a statement.

“Crimes can happen quickly and without warning. Most victims have a split second to react with the best course of action for their survival,” said John Weber, Ohio state director for the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement. “By signing SB 175, Gov. DeWine ensures the law favors victims and not criminals.”

Continue reading “”

Rep Lauren Boebert Trolls Democrats with Video About Her Glock

Will Utah become the next state to drop concealed carry permit?

A Utah lawmaker is furthering his bid to make Utah the next state to allow concealed carrying of firearms without a permit.

And in case that doesn’t work, another lawmaker is looking to suspend that permit requirement amid a declared state of emergency — whether that be for an earthquake, a flood and, yes, a pandemic.

Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, is sponsoring HB60 in the Utah Legislature’s upcoming 2021 general session, set to begin Jan. 19. The bill’s language mirrors legislation he filed in the final days of the 2020 session, which would remove the state’s requirement for law-abiding Utahns over the age of 21 to have a permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

“Every single person has the right to protect themselves,” Brooks said, arguing that right should extend to people uncomfortable with openly carrying firearms. “It’s allowing a law-abiding citizen to be allowed (to put their gun) under their jacket or a wife to put it in her purse.”

Currently, 16 states allow concealed carrying of firearms without a permit: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, North Dakota (residents only) and Wyoming (residents only). Four others allow permitless concealed carry with certain limitations: Illinois, Montana, New Mexico and Washington.

Continue reading “”

The Biggest Threats To 2A Rights In 2021

We’ve finally put 2020 in the rear view mirror, but unfortunately there’s more rough road ahead for those of us engaged in the fight to protect our Second Amendment rights. From an anti-gun administration ready to seize power in just a few weeks to gun control advocacy groups that will spend millions of dollars this year on legal lawfare aimed at turning our rights into privileges, the coming months will challenge gun owners and gun rights activists on a number of fronts.

Despite the dozens of Republicans in Congress who have vowed to challenge the results of the Electoral College on January 6th and the last minute lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are almost certain to be sworn in later this month. Biden’s already indicated he plans to use executive actions and the power of the regulatory state to target both legal gun owners and the firearms industry, and if Democrats capture both of the Georgia senate seats up for grabs next Tuesday, there’s potential for anti-gun legislation to make it through Congress as well.

I think Biden’s plan to ban and “buy back” so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines is still going to face long odds in the short term, even if Democrats have control over both chambers of Congress. Legislation to mandate background checks on all private transfers of firearms, however, could get enough support from Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that even with the legislative filibuster in place a bill could squeak out of both the House and Senate if gun owners aren’t mobilized in opposition.

Continue reading “”

The preceding gets this:

This is the same kind of historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme in the vein of the Aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what Bogus suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery present there.

All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.

The individual right, unconnected to militia service, preexists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.

In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.

“The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service…The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.” – CATO Brief on DC v Heller

Prior to the debates on the US Constitution, or its ratification, multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” – chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont – July 8, 1777.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” – A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania – September 28, 1776.

Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

“And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.” – Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.

The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.

“In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

In Madison’s own words:

“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.

Madison’s first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.

“Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.” – House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789

Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.

This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.

Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service.

This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.

“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; …” – Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824

Cornell is being purposefully mendacious.

 

Cornell’s article was a republished one on Yahoo.
Of interest is the last informational paragraph which notes:

As a researcher at the John Glenn School of Public Policy at Ohio State, Cornell was the lead investigator on a project that was funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to research the history of gun regulation. Part of the research cited in this essay was done under that grant.

The Joyce Foundation is well known as a rabid antigun group. Cornell is known for it too. With such open bias, why should anyone expect any other ‘results’?

Anti-Gunners Attempt To Re-Write 2A History

What did the Founding Fathers think about our right to keep and bear arms? According to historian Saul Cornell, founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison would be far more likely to side with Everytown for Gun Safety than the National Rifle Association if they were alive today, because in Cornell’s view, the early republic was chock full of restrictions on gun owners.
In a new piece at The Conversation, Cornell lays out five types of gun laws that he says the Founders wholeheartedly embraces, starting with gun registration laws.
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.
What Cornell is describing isn’t a registration of privately owned firearms, and he provides no evidence whatsoever that the various colonies actually kept track of the rifles and muskets owned by militia members. Cornell is correct when he says that those mustering for militia service could face fines if their firearm wasn’t well maintained, but that has nothing to do with any sort of registration or list of guns in the hands of private citizens.
Next, Cornell claims that the Founders loved the idea of restricting the right to carry. For this argument, Cornell reaches way back to English common law and claims that there was no “general right of armed travel” at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment. Were there any actual bans on traveling while armed? Cornell doesn’t cite any specific examples, though he is correct when he points out that by the mid-1800s many states had either banned or limited the practice of carrying concealed. What he doesn’t point out is that by attempting the manner of carrying arms, those same lawmakers were tacitly acknowledging a more general right to carry.
The Fordham University historian also argues that the Founders would also have been opposed to “stand your ground” laws, even though the Castle Doctrine had been a part of common law for centuries by that point.
The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.
I’m honestly not sure where Cornell gets the idea that deadly force was only justifiable in the home. I can think of one very famous case from the 1770s where that wasn’t the case. Most of the British soldiers who opened fire on a crowd of angry Bostonians who were throwing chunks of ice and razor-sharp oyster shells at them on March 5th, 1770 were ultimately found not guilty of murder because a jury found that they were acting in self-defense (two others were convicted of manslaughter).
Cornell goes on to claim that the Founders were on board with storage laws, based solely off of a 1786 ordinance in Boston that required guns had to be kept unloaded. His last assertion is that “the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.”
To wage an offensive war against the United States is indeed treason, as defined by Article III of the Constitution. To take up arms in defense of a tyrannical federal government, on the other hand, was most certainly acknowledged as a right of the people by the Founding Fathers. Here’s James Madison writing in Federalist 46.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it 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. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million 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.
Saul Cornell has likely forgotten more history than I’ll ever know, but he’s off-base in asserting that the Founding Fathers embraced the idea of restricting the right to keep and bear arms. There’s simply no evidence to support the idea that the laws pushed by gun control activists today, like bans on commonly-owned firearms or magazines; gun licensing; gun rationing; or bans on carrying firearms would have found favor with the Founders or the early Americans who argued against ratifying the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was included and the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms was protected.

The good news about guns in America

Once upon a time, as a Democrat who grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, I was such an anti-gun fanatic that I donated to the Brady Campaign. Thankfully, I saw the light after Hurricane Katrina (when seconds counted, the police were days away), and have made up for my past bad judgment by being an NRA member, using my writing abilities to promote the Second Amendment, and helping the bottom line at several local gun stores. That’s why it gladdens my heart to tell you one of the good things about 2020: It was a banner year for gun sales!

When it comes to guns, the anti-gun crowd lacks imagination. To them, guns exist for one purpose: To murder people or, occasionally, to kill people accidentally. If you take away guns, they “reason,” you will take away murder and accidental deaths.

People with a deeper and more nuanced understanding support the Second Amendment because they understand that guns don’t commit murders or cause accidents. They are tools and lack agency. People who want to murder someone will commit murder with or without guns. And people who are careless can always kill someone else with everyday objects (e.g., cars, wine bottles, etc.).

While guns lack agency, they confer empowering agency on the people who hold them. Having a gun allows people to oppose oppressive government, as happened during the American Revolution. Guns give women the ability to fight back against predators bigger and stronger than they are. Guns allow people to defend themselves and their property when the civil government collapses, as happened after Hurricane Katrina. Guns allow ordinary people to make crime too costly for criminals. Guns allow good people to take down the bad guys quickly in what can otherwise become a mass shooting situation. Guns give those far from grocery stores the ability to feed themselves. And as sports enthusiasts know, guns are fun when used safely and appropriately.

Guns work in a society that has more good people than bad. And despite the “if it bleeds it leads” approach that has characterized the American media for more than 100 years, and that has escalated appallingly in the last 20 years, most Americans are good people. They are infinitely more likely to defend each other than to kill each other.

Continue reading “”

And with that increase in sales, also goes an increase in ammo sales.

Americans Bought Approximately 21 Million Guns in 2020, Sales up 73%

At this point in December it is already apparent Americans bought approximately 21 million guns this year, an increase of 73 percent over the number purchased in 2019.

ABC News quotes figures from The Trace to report the estimated 21 million guns sold and claims the buying surge is the result of a “perfect storm” consisting of “the pandemic, economic recession, civil unrest and a divisive presidential election.”

They spoke to a mother of three named Trish Beaudet, who explained she has never owned a gun before but is now buying one for herself and one for her 25-year-old daughter.

Beaudet said, “I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve never wanted a gun. I’ve never had a gun in my home.”

She then pointed to the chaos in the streets and on the news, lamenting:

It really bothers me when I watched things on the news, when you talk about the riots, and the looting, and the violence that’s happening. Pulling a gun is the last thing I ever want to do, but I want to know that if I need to protect myself, my family, my, you know, my children, that I can do that.

Continue reading “”

There is a reason I refer to them as demoncraps

Why Working With Democrats On Guns Is Impossible

Right now, political division is extremely high. I don’t want to say it’s at an all-time high because, well, there was that little tiff back in the 1860s that suggests it might have been a tad worse back then. I mean, 620,000 American lives lost is a bit worse than the rioting we’ve seen in the last few years.

Yet, anyone with eyes can see that it’s still pretty bad.

Many are issuing calls for unity, for us coming together and working with one another. Of course, this comes after four years of #resistance and all that, but whatever.

The problem is, when you don’t really understand why some divisions exist, it’s easy to make light of the issues. Take this one, for example.

If your dog won’t stop chewing on the furniture and you work with it to chew its toys are you suddenly on the level of your dog for still allowing the chewing?? Of course not! This is literally how simple and idiotic the arguments that happen on Capitol Hill are. Let’s take gun rights for example:

Democrats don’t want to see people get killed. Republicans don’t want people’s rights infringed on. So suddenly, any Republican who supports any kind of gun legislation wants to take everyone’s guns and any Democrat who wants to compromise is a murder-permitting disgrace.

This also works the other way though too. This means that Democrats now must signal that they are okay with taking guns and that Republicans must signal that they don’t support gun laws. Which, of course, further contributes to the polarization because now each side has a reason to fear that extreme because it’s real now.

Not only that but, if anyone on our side is working with the other side, they must have switched viewpoints because there’s only two and they’re so different. Get the picture?

Sure, if you look at it through a microscope, it appears that way.

When you understand the subject in totality, though, not so much.

See, when we say that anti-gunners want to take away our gun rights, it’s not based on fearmongering or a misunderstanding of their position, but a firm understanding of history. Continue reading “”

Kevin Sorbo: Irony of ‘Men with Guns’ Calling for Gun Bans Proves the Need for the Second Amendment

Actor Kevin Sorbo is stressing that Americans need to understand that the irony of “men with guns” taking Americans’ guns justifies the existence of the Second Amendment.

“If you don’t see the irony of a gun ban being enforced by men with guns, then you fail to understand why the 2nd amendment was written in the first place,” Sorbo tweeted

The Hercules and Andromeda star used an earlier tweet to signal that his “gun ban” observation was a response to President-Elect Joe Biden’s gun control push.

Continue reading “”