Category: RKBA

80% Silencers, the Political Ramifications of Mass Ownership

In the first two parts of this on home made silencers series, I wrote of how we arrived at the current situation, historically, and what exists today, in terms of the technology and legal system, for individuals to make their own silencers utilizing the ATF Form 1.

Because of the tremendous bureaucratic and monetary infringements imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA), very few form 1’s (required to legally make your own silencer, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun) were processed as late as 1990.

It took two more years, to 2016, to more than double again, to 49,985 Form 1s per year. That was the peak, so far. Record firearms sales in 2020 lead to the prediction over 50,000 Form 1’s will be processed this year. The figures for 2019 Form 1’s have not been released at this time, but should be out soon.

About 120 times as many Form 1s are being processed each year, as were being processed 30 years ago. Entire forums on the Internet trade information on what works and what doesn’t.

Forums such as silencertalk.com are potent places for political organizing.

Analysis of the ATF figures shows about 75% of the current Form 1s are for silencers. Most of the rest are for short-barrelled rifles (SBR). SBR Form 1s have probably dropped off as pistol arm braces gained popularity.

The vast increase in the number of legal silencers is altering the political and judicial landscapes.

Such visible numbers are a sign of political and judicial strength. Second Amendment supporters have every logical argument to repeal the National Firearms Act. They do not have the political support in Congress to do so…yet.

The inclusion of silencers in the NFA may be the worst public health blunder made by the Federal Government. Tens of millions of gun owners’ hearing has been adversely affected.

Two million legal silencers are merely the start. There are about 100 million firearms owners who could benefit from owning inexpensive and effective silencers in the United States. Market saturation of silencers in the United States might top out in the area of 200 million. Continue reading “”

How To Learn From Tech Reformers And Make Gun Rights A Populist Issue

The state of the Second Amendment is a barometer for the strength that individual Americans have in relation to their government. Civilian disarmament will weaken millions of Americans — culturally, economically and politically — so why do so many wish to gut the Second Amendment against their best interests?

The principles of the Constitution are too easily eroded by a constantly expanding list of restrictions we are assured only apply to criminals, and gun control is often presented as a way to improve our quality of life through simple, unobtrusive laws.

Magazine capacity is limited because only criminals need standard capacity. Silencers must be heavily regulated because those are tools for assassins. AR-variants must be banned because only murderers use them. Many Americans will yield: “I’m not a bad guy, so if this limits the harm that bad guys can do, it isn’t a restriction on me.”

Americans are both principled and practical — hallmarks of our culture often at odds. At this crossroads, the Second Amendment gets pinned and trimmed. Arguing that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” doesn’t stand a chance against appeals for gun control that seem practical.

Every piece of gun control shifts the cultural and political power to the politically connected. An unarmed population is, by definition, defenseless against the state. Reclaiming these powers requires us to seize the opportunity presented by our current populist moment.

The Populist Opportunity To Strengthen The Second Amendment
Populism is the self-conscious resistance to the ruling class by the politically, financially and culturally disenfranchised. Americans may not be ready to pinpoint specifics, but they recognize that power has been concentrated in a few institutions and social classes that are immune from economic, cultural, and political consequences.

A good example of using the populist appeal is the effort to reform Big Tech, which includes many of the online platforms we all use every day, like Google and Facebook.

The debate on Big Tech isn’t on the merits of their platforms, but the control they exercise against individuals and throughout society. These massive companies abuse outdated communications laws to mute voices that don’t fit the starchy views of Silicon Valley. Continue reading “”

The question isn’t whether Durbin is that stupid, rather, it’s why he believes everyone else is ignorant.
The Court, in Heller, and later in Caetano, addressed that idiotic point and buried it.

The Founders Wanted You to Own an AR-15

In his questioning of Amy Coney Barrett regarding an Indiana case about a non-violent felon and his constitutional right to bear arms, Illinois senator Dick Durbin dropped numerous false claims about Chicago gun crimes. But he topped it all off with one of the most egregiously inane arguments used against the private ownership of guns:

When that Second Amendment was written . . . we were talking about the likelihood that a person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket.

Durbin went on to say that the logical conclusion of the “originalist” position on firearms should be that the Founders were referring to flintlock muskets rather than modern “military weapons.” (A purposefully misleading labelling of semi-automatic rifles that Democrats are trying to ban.)

Originalism, of course, isn’t the same as literalism. Even it were, Durbin would be wrong. Because the right to self-defense isn’t predicated on any one specific weapon but a principle. Which is why the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of individuals to “keep and bear Kentucky rifles” any more than the First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to “write on parchment paper” or to worship “in Anglican and Presbyterian churches.”

Contemporary legislators have the hubris to believe that the Founders hadn’t envisioned any kind of technological advances in firearm technology. It’s an argument tantamount to claiming that free-speech protections are not operable because James Madison couldn’t foresee the incredible speed with which information can be disseminated on the Internet.

Not only did legislators in the late 18th-century witness the advent and adoption of long-range Pennsylvania rifles — ones that could fire at 300 yards with decent precision rather than 50 yards with none — but they were likely acquainted with the existence of weapons such as air-powered repeating rifles that could fire .46-caliber lead balls about 40 times before losing muzzle velocity. No Founder ever said, “hey maybe we made a mistake.” In fact, in the subsequent 150 years — through the rise of the revolver, the repeating rifle, and the gas-powered automatic weapons — no one ever challenged the idea that the Second Amendment protected anything but an individual right. Heller, the decision that so infuriated leftists, simply reaffirmed what had been obvious to everyone since 1789.

The Second Amendment is predicated on the principle that people have the right defend themselves and their liberties. The right to bear arms, in fact, is older than the right to free speech or freedom of religion. The English Bill of Rights, a document cataloging the crimes of James II and codifying the “ancient and indubitable” rights of English citizens in 1689, includes the right “arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Well, for Protestants. By 1765, William Blackstone, whose writings helped define the English common-law legal system, wrote that “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Not one Founder mentioned anything about “hunting” or “skeet shooting” during the debates over the drafting of the Constitution.

The founding generation believed that firearms should be used to guarantee the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution — whether they were in the government or not. Thankfully, there is no need of insurrection now. But the presence of armed citizenry is always a good bulwark against tyranny. Just in case.

And a musket simply won’t do.

There are people who believe that Christians should be anti-gun.
Some who call themselves Christian believe that.
Many more though, don’t.

Christians with guns as American as apple pie

JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS — Imagine if you will a place where kids as young as 3 years old are taught to handle a firearm — where women with increasing frequency are trained to defend self and family with guns — where middle-schoolers and high-schoolers alike are both competent and competitive at ready-aim-and-firing — and where going to church on Sunday is as natural as hitting the shooting range on Monday.

Twilight zone?

Nope. That’s the AGFF/Jacksonville Shooting Sports Complex in Jacksonville, Arkansas. That’s the scene of small-town, beyond-the-D.C.-bubble-Beltway America, where God, guns and flag-waving patriotism is part and parcel of the normal growing experience.

Where Christians who shoot are as American as apple pie.

“In my opinion, it’s our right as a Christian, as a non-Christian,” said Jerry Hill, the manager of the Jacksonville shooting range — which is actually operated and funded under the local Parks & Recreation Department, rather than privately owned and maintained.

Gasp, go the liberals.

What would Jesus say, scold the leftists.

But this just shows how different the thinking and mindsets between Outside City dwellers and Inside City dwellers — between the largely Democrat-dominated cities and the largely Republican-dominated suburban and country settings.

“He is the ultimate peacemaker, but he also lost his temper … and tore everything apart,” Hill said, in reference to the Bible passage about Jesus turning out the money-changers in the temple.

In other words: Jesus approves of righteous anger and self-defense. Being Christian doesn’t mean being a docile victim. Continue reading “”

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, our list contains 2,772 attacks and at least 5,764 shooters outside the United States and 62 attacks and 66 shooters within our country. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.13% of the mass public shooters, 1.77% of their murders, and 2.19% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. Out of the 101 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 66th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 56th in the murder rate.

Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the US, the US’s share of these attacks has declined over time. There has been a much bigger increase over time in the number of mass shootings in the rest of the world compared to the US.

Is Biden Coming For Your Guns? To Quote Beto, ‘Hell Yes’ — It’s Right There On His Website.

All the focus has been on Biden’s mask use, his ridiculous rhetoric, his personal attacks on Trump, and his various Bidenisms. What we should REALLY Be looking at is his platform.

He can duck and weave in debates and townhalls all he wants, but his platform is there for all to read.

Mark Levin calls it their Manifesto. We have referenced that previously.

He picked as his running mate the furthest left Senator of the bunch, whose record is literally further left than Bernie Sanders. But we’re all supposed to blindly accept that Joe is a ‘moderate’.

He was part of legislation pushing a gun ban before, and it should surprise nobody that the guy who pledged to put Beto ‘Hell Yes we’ll take your AR-15s” O’Rourke in charge of gun policy is pushing gun confiscation.

Of course, the kind of legislation he is pushing does nothing to target the places where gun crime is a real problem… places like the mean streets of Chicago for instance.

That doesn’t stop him from demagoguing the issue. From his website:

It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies. Biden will:

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.

Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will:

  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. 
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
  • Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.

We notice it doesn’t say what will happen to someone who says that they do NOT want to participate in a government buyback. Continue reading “”

What with the way most smart people won’t even talk with pollsters,  I’d say the numbers are higher.

22% of Gun-Owning Households Have Added A Gun Since Anti-Police Protests Began

Over one-fifth of Americans who have a gun in their household have added one since the Black Lives Matter anti-police protests began in late May and feel safer because they’ve done so.

Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults say they or someone in their household owns a gun, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey.(To see survey question wording, click here.)

Of these Americans, 22% say they or someone in their household has purchased a gun since the violent anti-police protests began.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of adults who live in gun-owning households say they feel more safe with a gun in the house, although that’s down from 61% in February 2018. Only seven percent (7%) feel less safe. Thirty-eight percent (38%) think the presence of the gun has no impact on their personal safety. Continue reading “”

Riots of 2020 have given the Second Amendment a boost.

This year’s riots, sparked by the death of George Floyd and continued in the names of several others, have destroyed billions of dollars in property, cost numerous people their lives and businesses and jobs, and promoted what will probably be a decade or more of de-urbanization. But whatever else happens, they will have accomplished an important social change. Thanks to these riots, the case for the Second Amendment and the personal right to own weapons is growing steadily stronger, as is the legal case for private gun ownership.

That’s the thesis of a new paper by George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein, who also serves as the director of GMU’s Liberty and Law Center. “The Right to Armed Self Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication,” notes that the experience of this year’s riots undercuts the classic argument against an individual right to arms. While gun-control proponents have for decades argued that individual gun ownership is unnecessary in the modern era, where we have police forces to control crime, that hasn’t worked out very well this year for people in numerous urban centers around America.

Violence spreading in cities in 2020
Bernstein offers an extensive review of happenings in cities ranging from Seattle to Louisville, Portland to Chicago and New York and Raleigh, and many other cities. In case after case, police were told to stand down, in order to avoid provoking violence. And in each case, the result was more violence, more property destruction, and more damage to businesses and jobs, while political leaders stood by. Continue reading “”

Self Defense, an Unalienable Right in a Time of Peril: Protected and Preserved by the Second Amendment

For Americans frightened for their own and their family’s safety, the Covid-19 pandemic; lockdown in March 2020; release of convicted offenders; protests against the police morphing into weeks of violence and calls to defund them; and a presidential candidate promising to seize their guns has led to record-setting applications for firearms.

This essay explores the constitutional background of the right to armed self-defense then tests the arguments against it: 1) it’s unnecessary, the police will protect you and 2) guns in your hands pose a danger to public safety. But can the police protect us and do they have a legal duty to do so? To answer the questions the success of restraining orders for vulnerable individuals and violent crime statistics during an era of increased public carry are examined. The essay concludes with the experience of England, where the very right to self-defense has been effectually removed.

“The Future of the Second Amendment in a Time of Lawless Violence.”

Joseph Blocher and Reva Siegel have focused attention on an underappreciated dimension of the debate about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They reject a narrow concept of “public safety” that evaluates regulations “without full consideration of what is encompassed in that concept—freedom from intimidation, for example, not just physical pain.” At this level of generality, I agree. But I do not agree that an appropriately broad conception should widen the discretion of legislatures to impose restrictions on firearms.

The questions that Blocher and Siegel raise are especially important during this time of politically inspired riots and flaccid government responses to mob violence. The most practically important Second Amendment issue that is ripe for Supreme Court resolution concerns the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms in public. The Constitution’s text and history offer little direct guidance, and the Justices will inevitably have to decide how to resolve the conflict of interests that occur when governments seek to promote public safety by depriving individuals of the means to protect themselves.

In performing this obligation, the Court should give no weight to fears of an armed citizenry, which frequently inspire useless or counterproductive infringement on individual liberty. Nor should regulations enjoy a presumption of constitutionality merely because they may promote a net reduction in deaths and physical injuries. The deepest principles on which our legal and constitutional institutions rest, which are reflected in the Second Amendment, are at odds with this kind of narrow cost-benefit calculation.

The right to keep and bear arms, and to use them when appropriate, is a vital element of the liberal order that our Founders handed down to us. They understood that those who hold political power will always be tempted to reduce the freedom of those they rule, and that many of the ruled will be tempted to trade their liberty for promises of security. Those temptations are apt to be especially alluring when widespread criminal violence threatens both liberty and security. They may be even more alluring when such violence takes the form of sustained and repeated mob violence that reflects a serious breakdown of the social fabric.

The causes of these temptations are sown in the nature of man. Our Constitution, including the Second Amendment, is a device designed to frustrate the domineering tendencies of the politically ambitious. The Second Amendment also plays an important role in fostering the kind of civic virtue that resists the cowardly urge to trade liberty for an illusion of safety. Armed citizens take responsibility for their own security, thereby exhibiting and cultivating the self-reliance and vigorous spirit that is ultimately indispensable for genuine self-government.

Our rulers include the judges charged with protecting our Second Amendment rights, and they are subject to the same temptations as other government officials. As they develop the nascent jurisprudence of this recently rediscovered constitutional provision, they have an opportunity to show that they understand how a robust right to keep and bear arms serves both individual freedom and civic virtue. If they fail to do that, they will help the nation take significant step toward the soft despotism to which Tocqueville feared we would succumb.

Modern-Day Militias Rise in Virginia

Militia groups in Virginia will tell you that a militia is not really something you have to join—if you’re between 16 and 55 and able-bodied, you already belong. 

Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution says that a well-regulated militia is “composed of the body of the people, trained to arms” and represents the “proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”

“I’m a member of the militia, as are you,” said Nelson County resident Paul Cangialosi. “It exists, we’re in it, and my position is that we have an obligation to be well-prepared. We have neglected that for well over 100 years, so now we’re trying to put it back together.” 

Cangialosi volunteers on his own and in conjunction with the Virginia Militia Alliance (VMA) to help stand up local militias across the state, and there’s no shortage of interest. The VMA, whose motto is “Revive, Reestablish, Restore,” counts more than two dozen militia groups in central and southwest Virginia that have formed in just the past year, and hopes to eventually support one in every county in the Commonwealth.

Unsurprisingly, the ascendant movement has generated a lot of questions from neighbors and observers about its methods and aims. Continue reading “”

Gun Control Absent From Presidential Debate

With last night’s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, it seemed likely that gun control would be a topic of discussion. After all, it was a driving issue during the Democratic primary, one at least two candidates decided to make a focal point of their campaigns. It was a recurring theme during Democratic debates as well.

However, now, things are different. It seems that everyone is trying to pretend that gun control was never a topic to begin with, from the gun control groups and now, even the presidential campaigns.

Oh, guns weren’t absent. It seems that gun violence was a major topic of debate. Especially in places like Chicago.

With the surge in violence we’re seeing all over the nation, that’s hardly surprising. It’s an alarming development in a year of alarming developments, to say the least. Yet this one, at least, feels like something people can turn to politicians to solve, so they have.

But absent from any mention of the debates? Gun control.

This issue that seemed poised to shape at least part of the presidential election has largely fizzled out. Oh, Biden still wants gun control and we know that if he’s elected, we’ll likely see it, but no one wants to talk about it, apparently.

Why?

Following the shooting in Marjory Stoneman-Douglas Highschool in Parkland, gun control was all anyone could seemingly talk about. It made gun control fashionable.

What’s more, gun control didn’t fade into the background like it normally does following a mass shooting. The media made it a point to push people like David Hogg in our faces to keep gun control in the foreground. It couldn’t die if the media kept focusing on it.

Then COVID-19 hit.

At that point, the media had more important things to talk about. Further, millions upon millions of Americans went out and bought guns. After all, a deadly pandemic was here. People were going to die and it wasn’t out of the realm of possibility for there to be some real problems with our supply chain. In fact, there was, and no one had any reason to believe it couldn’t get worse. What happens when people can’t get food?

For times like that, you need a gun.
Continue reading “”

It’s almost like they know it’s a losing argument, so they have to obfuscate it? Strange.

Gun Control Group Opts for Healthcare Push in Swing States

Michael Bloomberg-founded Everytown for Gun Safety is opting to push healthcare instead of new gun laws in swing states as the November election approaches.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Everytown launched an ad campaign in Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Minnesota, and there is zero mention of gun control. Instead, the ads make allegations that Republicans want to take away healthcare.

The NRA’s Amy Hunter responded to Everytown’s decision to forego a gun control push, saying, “This Bloomberg-funded organization knows Americans don’t want gun control and are less likely to vote for candidates who promise to impose it. That is why they have to engage in tactics like this — and also bribe felons to vote — to get their gun-control candidates elected. They hope these tactics will fool swing state voters but we hope voters will see right through their deception.”

On September 21, 2020, Breitbart News reported there was a 139 percent increase in ammunition sales nationwide during the first six months of 2020, when compared to the same time period in 2019. Those ammo sales were coupled with a 95 percent increase in gun sales, as compared to the same time frame in 2019.

Moreover, there was an 80 percent surge in gun sales in seven swing states. Those seven states include the five in which Bloomberg’s Everytown is forgoing a gun control push.

They clutch that necklace and have a case of the vapors over that .50 cal rifle, then completely disregard the guy in the pick-up holding an M60 machinegun right behind it.
You don’t find those at your local gun store, so the stupidity of the people making this piece of propaganda is readily evident.

Ohio lawmakers pass bill making gun stores an ‘essential business’ even amid a pandemic

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX/WTTE) — The Ohio Senate recently passed a bill that would ban the closure of licensed firearms dealers, even during a pandemic. Gun store owners are now behind the legislation and hope it reaches the governor’s desk. However, other groups against the bill now worry about the bill saying it could do more harm than good.

Eric Delbert, the owner of LEPD Firearms, says in the eight years he’s been running the store gun sales have never been higher.

“At the height of COVID and at the beginning of the civil unrest, we went from selling 10 firearms in a day just in a day just some days selling over 100,” said Delbert.

Governors of several states excluded licensed firearms dealers from the list of “essential” businesses. Recently, passed Senate Bill 360, backed by Republican Senate President Larry Obhof, would ban any public official from closing down gun stores, even during a pandemic……..

#1, Gun violence is an issue no one can avoid any longer.
This is why I carry a gun!
#2, Would Lanza have ever come up with this disgusting, perverse courage to walk into that school if he didn’t have an AR-15?
Murphy is attributing an ability to the rifle to have influenced Lanza. This is the old medieval superstition of The Deodand, where a thing, an inanimate object has moral responsibility and the capacity to exert mental and physical control over people.

As we see, there are people who today still believe in crap-for-brains BS, or think they can pander to those who do.

Sen. Chris Murphy: Gun Violence Is An Issue ‘No One Can Avoid Any Longer’

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy spoke with Boston Public Radio on Friday about his new book that examines what he says is the American failure to address gun violence. Murphy was elected to the U.S. Senate a month before the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, when 20 children between the ages of 6 and 7, and six adults, were shot dead by Adam Lanza.

“This easy access to weapons of mass destruction is probably the simplest and most accurate explanation of the mass shooting epidemic,” Murphy said. “Would Adam Lanza have ever come up with this disgusting, perverse courage to walk into that school if he didn’t have an AR-15?”……………….