Iowa State Senator Celsi is a demoncrap. Need I explain more?


Research on firearms contradicts senator; guns used in defense are a deterrent

State Sen. Claire Celsi’s anti-gun column, published in the Register’s community editions on March 17, is filled with distortion.

Her biggest whopper is that “the rate of suicides in the United States is 10 times higher than any other country on Earth.” In fact, the United States annual suicide rate typically ranks in the 30s.

She claims that the proposition that good guys with guns stop crime is a fantasy. In fact, successful defensive use of guns is more common than their use in crime. The National Academies of Science found: “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence …. Almost all national survey estimates … of annual uses range from about 500,000 to more than 3 million …in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. … Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Celsi misleads by lumping together all firearms deaths, as if accidents, homicides and suicides were the same thing, to write that “rates of death from firearms among ages 14 to 17 are now 22.5% higher than motor vehicle-related death rates.”

In fact, an apples-to-apples comparison shows that the 2018 accidental death rate from firearms among ages 14 to 17 is 0.23 per 100,000, while the accidental death rate for motor vehicles for that group is 6.48 per 100,000. The rate of death for firearms accidents among ages 14 to 17 is actually 96% lower than motor vehicle-related accidental deaths rates.

The unintentional firearms fatality rate, now 0.15 per 100,000, has declined over 94% since records began to be kept in 1903. Fatal gun accidents rank as one of the lowest causes of injury.

While the number of privately owned guns increased 92%, from 185 million guns in 1993 to 357 million in 2013, the firearms homicide rate decreased by 49%. Firearms homicides increased from 2015 to 2017, but decreased in 2018, a trend expected to continue for 2019.

There is an increase in suicides, but the problem is far more complex than the presence of firearms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that, while the number of suicides increased from 1999 to 2014, the percentage of suicides committed with firearms decreased during the same period. Assuming that each of the 24,432 firearm suicides in 2018 involved one firearm per suicide, those 24,332 guns represented less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the 357 million firearms in America.

As for Celsi’s proposition that “good laws will keep us safer,”  economist John Lott found “stricter gun laws are associated with more total deaths from homicides and suicides.”

If someone living in one of those states with strict gun control laws is so far behind the 8-Ball that they’re trying to buy a gun now, well….stupid is not too mild a word to use about them.


No Cops to Save You, but Too Bad You Couldn’t Get a Gun to Protect Yourself

You might not have wanted a gun before, but now you do. You’ve seen the empty shelves in grocery stores. You read in the news that some police departments are taking longer to respond because of the outbreak of the Wuhan virus.

Some police departments are conserving their resources and only responding to critical incidents in progress. The whole situation sounds unbelievable until you read that unarmed shoppers in California were robbed of their groceries. That is why many people decided they suddenly needed a gun for self-protection. Some gun stores reported a five-fold increase in sales.

The Federal National Instant Background Check system reported processing three times the number of applications compared to a year ago.. if you could get a gun at all. Many citizens who wanted to buy a gun ran into our bizarre gun-control scheme and were disarmed. That wasn’t all they learned.

These gun buyers discovered that buying a gun legally wasn’t as easy as they thought. After you’ve passed your state and federal background checks, then the gun buyer must wait an additional ten days if you’re a resident of California. You’ll wait an additional 14 days if you live in Hawaii. In theory, there is only a six month wait to get a permit to purchase a gun in New Jersey, but New Jersey stopped processing applications. There, the good guys are disarmed by gun-control.

Lots of new gun buyers found out that the mainstream media lied to them. They discovered that you can’t buy a gun online. They found out that democrat politicians lied when they said it is easier to buy a gun than to buy a book. These new gun buyers crashed head-first into the 23 thousand firearms regulations we have in the US. That system isn’t easy for anyone.

In theory, these regulations prevent a known criminal from getting a gun. In practice, the bad guys get their guns the same way they get their drugs; the criminals get their guns illegally. These thousands of regulations disarmed the honest citizen who wants to obey the law.

How does disarming the honest citizens make us safer?
Millions of new gun owners and their families are now asking themselves that very question.
The practice and theory of gun-control are wildly different. Gun control laws are not designed to do what the politicians say they do. Gun-control laws are designed to put a politician in front of a camera while he reads a glowing press release. The politician slaps a wonderful sounding title on more regulations that don’t stop crime any better than the last ink-on-paper did. The news media nods with approval and refuses to ask for evidence that this charade really works. The media stays silent because their job depends on being invited to the next press release.

When this political-theater is presented to us in the news, most of us didn’t ask how gun-control was supposed to keep us safe. For millions of us, that changed last week. Today, more of us are asking that question as the recent wave of want-to-be gun owners were disarmed.

Gun-control has never stopped crime. Gun prohibition was designed to stop you from protecting yourself while pretending to make you safe. Now that you’re threatened, you are supposed to go pay a politician for an exemption, or pay so the police will protect you after you were denied the tools of self-defense.

That scheme is tried and true. It is as old as politicians and prohibition. Many citizens didn’t believe that gun-control worked that way until they saw it with their own eyes.

Now they know.. and so do you.

Gunfucius say;
He who already have gun and ammo can laugh in face of imperious dictator


Bay Area Closures Point to National Vulnerability on Guns and Ammo

“Bay Area orders ‘shelter in place,’ only essential businesses open in 6 counties,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday. “Businesses that do not provide ‘essential’ services must send workers home. Among those remaining open are grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants for delivery only and hardware stores.”

What about gun stores?  If we’re talking that which is essential, what is it the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State”? How is that not relevant in this situation that has developed into what we are being told is a national and global state of emergency? We’ve already seen government has been utterly incapable of protecting the populace, and it appears things are only going to get worse and resources more strained. What do we do if civil order collapses, those resources are triaged and most areas are essentially left to fend for themselves?

I sent a copy of the City and County of San Francisco order to a prominent name in the “gun rights” movement with resources to file legal actions and was essentially dismissed when he replied, “since there are no gun stores left in San Francisco it is of no consequence.” I’m not going to name him here because we have enough to tackle without starting another internecine squabble and I suspect he’ll come around. Remember, we’re talking “6 counties” and the Chronicle report notes “the orders…are all similarly worded.”

There are plenty of gun shops in the Bay Area. And they are not specifically deemed “essential,” which means they interpretively fall under the closure order. The thing is, there’s not a lot out there right now to corroborate my opinion coming from either government or “news” sources, so I checked some of the websites and social media accounts for some of the stores listed at the above link.

From U.S. Firearms Company:

“Dear customers, we are CLOSED by order of Santa Clara County due to COVID-19.”

From Reed’s Indoor Range:

“Reed’s will be closed through April 7th. If you have a gun to pick-up, you will receive a call with further information.”

Reed’s also included a link to the Santa Clara County order in their post. See “Section 10.f.” for those businesses declared “essential”:

See anything missing? (Screenshot by D. Codrea)

What this means is, the Bay Area’s anti-gun (in private hands) rulers could be having an eye-rolling feeding frenzy come true and be exploiting the crisis to make sure that citizens who don’t have guns and/or ammunition stay disarmed as it worsens and turns into who knows what?

I put in inquiries to a couple of other places Tuesday night but they have not responded at this writing. I just got off the phone moments ago with one where the clerk confirmed they were affected and who referred me to his manager, who was understandably reluctant to speak to anyone from the media. You can’t blame him, the unfair way these guys are consistently treated. Another store manager, who was not willing to go on the record due to the same reluctance to talk to media, informed me not all stores are closing including his, and that they interpret the order to exclude essential businesses, of which they consider themselves.

That’s the proper and principled attitude to take, but it may not prove to be one that holds up in enforcement actions, especially in the Bay Area, so I called Santa Clara County for clarification. Their rep wouldn’t give me a direct answer and I am now waiting for him to email me a hotline number accessible from out of the area. If this article is posted before I get the information, I will update it when and if I do, but note when he found out what I wanted he couldn’t seem to hang up fast enough (and I subsequently sent them a Facebook message).

And this just in:

But after customers lined up around gun stores in several counties Tuesday — including outside the Bullseye Bishop in San Jose — San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo declared that “gun stores are non-essential.”

While some will no doubt conclude Bay Area constituents are getting just what they voted for, good and hard, we have no real assurances that the same ordered closures will not happen at the national level — especially if we start seeing increased urban violence and Astroturf disarmament zealots, control freak politicians, and the media start screaming.

Case in point, check out what the U.S. Department of Homeland Security considers to be “National Critical Functions”:

“The functions of government and the private sector so vital to the United States that their disruption, corruption, or dysfunction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

Anybody see anything in there about the Constitutional Militia, or the right of the people to keep and bear arms?  Will there ever be a time to activate “the Militia of the several States”? Before it’s too late and some of us just say the hell with it and activate ourselves out of raw survival instinct…?

Of course not—the intent is for the populace to turn to a provide-all government interested primarily in maintaining and increasing its power, even when they clearly don’t know what the hell they’re doing and opposing factions are exploiting the crisis for political advantage. That’s especially troubling considering our supposedly “pro-gun” administration is still of the official opinion, even after being publicly petitioned, that “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”

The marketplace is essential to freedom. Constitutional scholar Edwin Viera Jr. has demonstrated, among other places, in his Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae to the Supreme Court of the United States in Kolbe v. Hogan:

“This reliance on a permanent private market for firearms guaranteed that most militiamen, through their own efforts, could always obtain firearms suitable for both collective and individual self-defense, and forestalled tyranny by precluding rogue public officials from monopolizing the production, distribution, and possession of firearms.”

The president doesn’t shy away from issuing executive actions on guns when they serve his purposes and he is depending on gun owners to be reelected in November. It would be more than appropriate if he ordered Homeland Security to recognize the need of the people to lawfully obtain guns during national emergencies to the point that a disruption in supply “would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

Do it, Mr. President.

Unless it’s all been just words and the Second Amendment is now officially deemed “non-essential.”

Too Much Freedom & My Ability to Say, “NO,” & Instantly Enforce It

How do I explain it?

Contrary to leftist dogma, I don’t carry a concealed pistol in public because I secretly harbor some surreptitious desire to shoot criminals, any more than I keep a fire extinguisher in my home and vehicle because I harbor some consuming desire to put out fires.

I consider these practices, both involving sensible emergency/safety equipment, to represent reasonable and prudent precautions. Ones we all sincerely hope never become necessary.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with what we all laughingly call our “Justice System” knows and understands the legal, financial, and emotional trauma that invariably attends any shooting incident, regardless of participants, circumstances, nor outcome. It is the last thing any rational person, including me, ever wants to become involved in!

Yet, I carry a concealed pistol, so that I can place absolute limits on what people can do to me and those in my charge.

So that I can say “No,” and have that single syllable represent more than just platitudinous rhetoric, more than just a “feel-good” cliche.

As a sovereign American Citizen, I can say, “No,” and be in a position to personally, instantly enforce it, with lethal finality, upon my own summary command and judgment.

Few other civilizations trust citizens with such personal authority.

That is because, in most nations, even most Western nations, the term “citizen” is little more than a cynical euphemism! Most “citizens,” even in the West, are actually “subjects.” Subjects who have no rights, and who may enjoy only those precious few “privileges” casually bestowed upon them by the ruling elite, privileges that can be granted, or withdrawn, at a whim.

Not surprisingly, such “subjects” are routinely, arbitrarily crushed to earth and trampled upon by criminals, criminals from both the public and private sectors.

Not here in the United States!

In this Republic, a “Bill of Privileges” is found nowhere in our Constitution.

Here, we sovereign citizens have rights, and our rights are not benightedly dribbled-out to us by arrogant politicians. We are endowed with them by our Creator! Our Founding Documents say so, in unmistakable terms.

So here, self-defense is the right of every citizen. And, not just with fences, locks, alarms, warning signs, and clever rhetoric.

Our personal right of self-defense extends to lethal force.

This right has teeth, and without it, the rest are illusory.

Accordingly, this right must ever be protected from sleazy neo-Marxists who, occasionally peering-out from behind their ecumenical cadre of heavily-armed bodyguards, profess to worry about us mere citizens having “too much freedom!”

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online

First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer.
Then, people panic bought toilet paper.
Now, food shelves are emptying and  firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home.

What you’ll need to do to buy a gun from us is order it on our online store and select an FFL, a federally licensed firearm dealer, during the online checkout process. We ship the gun to the dealer near you – presuming the firearm and its accessories are legal in your area – and you visit the dealer to fill out the required ATF Form 4473 and undergo the federal and any applicable state background checks. Some states might require a waiting period – sure to be a sore point at a time when people feel the need for a gun to protect themselves NOW. Only then can you take your new firearm home.

We’re not alone in noticing that usually anti-gun people are suddenly very interested in having guns. On Twitter, Robert Evans wrote, “The sheer number of normally anti-gun people who have reached out to me about buying a firearm in the last week is wild.”

And my friends who work at other gun stores have seen a crazy surge in gun buying too, with one noting that their one-day sales total exceeded Black Friday by 25%, and that 75% of buyers were purchasing their first gun. He said, in explanation, “People need to protect their toilet paper.” Another friend noted that the amount of brass cased 9mm they usually sell in a month was gone in the first week, and that everything else would be sold out soon too if things continued at this pace.

We’ve all been told to practice “social distancing” in the coming months. Firearms are, in a way, the ultimate method of enforcing social distancing. I just hope all these new gun owners learn how to safely use their guns – and that they never need them for their intended purpose.

The Art and Science of Stick Fighting: Complete Instructional Guide

‘Sticks and stones may break my bones……..’
And ‘Cane-Fu’ is pretty good too:

“Simplicity is the shortest distance between two points.” ― Bruce Lee, The Tao of Jeet Kune Do

The best of both Eastern and Western stick fighting techniques

The Art and Science of Stick Fighting is a unique, non-style specific, approach to fighting with the short stick. Its curriculum is streamlined and divided into nine logical stages of training that allow the reader to quickly and methodically learn and develop the skills needed for fighting with the stick. Whether you are just starting out, or have been practicing stick fighting for years, there is something for everyone in this book. Also included are systematic workouts and descriptions of how to make and use specific training equipment as you learn and master The Art and Science of Stick Fighting.

The Art and Science of Stick Fighting features
Nine levels of instruction, progressing from easy to expert
Over 700 photos with motion arrows
A “nondenominational” approach to the stick, utilizing the best of Eastern and Western arts
A comprehensive, methodical approach to building stick fighting skills
This book stands apart from other stick fighting training manuals because it emphasizes the dynamics of combat. Many other books focus on forms and twirling. The author draws on thirty years of martial experience, presenting the best of both Eastern and Western traditions.

The Art and Science of Stick Fighting begins with the basics, upon which everything else relies.

A stable stance
Basic footwork
An effective guard
From there you learn different types of strikes and how to practice them in helpful, easy-to-learn patterns. The aim is to grow so comfortable wielding a stick that it is as though the stick has become an extension of your body.
Once the basics are in place, you learn the strategies and tactics of fighting with the stick at long, middle, and close range. By controlling the distance, you control the fight!

Learn important guidelines for sparring, from light contact up to full-contact training.
Learn how to construct your own padded weapons.
Learn effective fighting tips that will rev up your game.
Also included are chapters on advanced techniques; combating short ranged weapons such as a knife to long range weapons like the staff. Even detailed techniques to use when your opponent is armed but you are not!

Whether you already study the stick or are just starting out, if you want to learn how to get an edge , The Art and Science of Stick Fighting is for you!

1st-Time Gun Ownership Reportedly Spikes as Anti-Gunners Realize 2nd Amendment Freedom Is Vital

Leave it to a worldwide existential crisis to align moral values.

As toilet paper and hand sanitizer fly from store shelves, be certain to count something else in, as well: guns. Lots of guns.

According to one report, gun sales have dramatically increased.

And what’s more, so have gun sales to first-time buyers.

“I’ve sold 12 handguns in two hours,” Gabriel Vaughn of Sportman’s Arms in Petaluma, California, told KTVU.

“People that tell me that they don’t like guns, but they’re here to begrudgingly buy one,” Vaughn said. “If it makes somebody feel safe, sure, and they’re legal to own one, then sure.”

Ammunition sales are also spiking. According to Yahoo Finance, sales at Ammo.com are up by 68 percent. Alex Horsman, Ammo.com’s marketing manager, knows why.

“We know certain things impact ammo sales, mostly political events or economic instability when people feel their rights may end up infringed,” Horsman said. “But this is our first experience with a virus leading to such a boost in sales.”

“A lot of our customers like to be prepared. And for many of them, it’s not just face masks and Theraflu. It’s knowing that no matter what happens, they can keep themselves and their families safe.”

Exactly.

Sometimes it takes a crisis that puts everyone at risk for folks to rediscover fundamental moral values — like having the means to protect themselves and others.

These values are so intrinsic to our humanity that they made their way into America’s founding documents, namely the Constitution.

Under uncertain, stressful conditions, plenty of folks come to a conclusion they might not have reached otherwise: It’s best not to take chances.

In other words, firearms are just as essential to a family’s crisis supplies as water, foodstuffs and medicine…………

Why I Bought AR-15s for My Sons

According to the Washington Post, 91% of Trump coverage by the three broadcast networks, which include ABC, is negative.  When a right-wing lunatic massacred people of Mexican descent at an El Paso Walmart in August 2019, the networks blamed the attack on Trump’s “hateful” rhetoric about immigrants.

ABC News promptly produced a story to support the mainstream media’s narrative that violence by Trump-supporters had reached epidemic proportions.  Twisting itself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify the charge, the network scoured the country for instances where bad apples among the 63 million people who voted for Trump perpetrated violence allegedly inspired by him.  After an exhaustive search, ABC News came up with a grand total of 36 violent crimes where Trump’s name was invoked.

Some quick math: 36 bad apples divided by 63 million Trump voters equals 0.0000005.  In other words, ABC News hyped a story about violent acts allegedly perpetrated by zero point zero zero zero zero five percent of Trump’s supporters.  That’s five hundred-thousandths of one percent.  Some epidemic.

If ABC News ever decides to do a connect-the-dots story about Democrat bad apples who commit political violence, here are a few examples they can include:

The deranged 24-year-old who murdered nine people in Dayton, Ohio was an Elizabeth Warren–supporter who had been incited by the Democratic Party to hate Republicans, ICE, and the police.

Having been taught to hate Republicans, a Bernie Sanders–supporter shot and nearly killed GOP rep. Steve Scalise.

After Rep. Scalise was shot, Republican rep. Claudia Tenney received an email that read, “One down, 216 to go.”

Seventy-one-year-old female staffer for California GOP rep. Dana Rohrabacher was knocked unconscious by Trump-hating Democrats during a protest outside Rohrabacher’s office.

The FBI arrested man for threatening to assassinate Republican rep. Martha McSally over her support for Trump.

Trump-hating Democrats threatened the children of ICE contractor’s employees.

Trump-hating Democrats fired multiple shots through the window of a San Antonio ICE office in a targeted attack against the agency that enforces nation’s immigration laws.

Trump-hating Democrats angrily confronted DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a D.C. restaurant.

According to a hidden camera investigation, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC sent paid protesters to incite violence at Trump events.

A Trump-hating Democrat waitress in Chicago spat in Eric Trump’s face.

Peter Fonda: “Trump’s 12-year-old son should be ripped from his mother’s arms and put in a cage with pedophiles.”

A Democrat college professor was arrested for beating Trump-supporters with a U-shaped bike lock.

tweet by a Democrat front group promoted the gruesome murder of ICE agents with step-by-step instructions:

A hate-filled Democrat threatened to kill Trump-supporters at the re-election headquarters of his GOP congressman.

“I’ll f— you up!”: A Democrat instructor assaulted conservative students at anti-Trump campus protest.

Trump-hating Democrats terrified Tucker Carlson’s wife and children at home while he was at work: “Tucker Carlson, we will fight!  We know where you sleep at night!”

A 17-year-old girl was punched in the face by Trump-hating Democrat.

decapitated animal carcass left on the porch of a DHS staffer.

A car with a Trump bumper sticker was spray-painted and its tires slashed.

A pickup truck with Trump stickers was made a total loss after being set on fire.

A minority man was pummeled in the face for wearing a MAGA baseball cap.

A Trump-supporting immigrant from Africa was beaten by Trump-hating Democrats.

A Trump-supporter was knocked unconscious by Democrat protesters.

WATCH: A white Democrat slaps the MAGA hat off the head of a black man.

WATCH: A black Democrat rips the MAGA hat from a 16-year-old’s head and throws a soft drink in his face.

A student carrying a Trump flag was beaten by eight Trump-hating classmates.

An elementary school student was beaten by classmates over voting for Trump in a mock election.

A Trump-hating student yelled, “You support Trump!  You hate Mexicans!” at a female classmate before ripping her victim’s earrings off.

A black man in a MAGA hat was called a “n—–” by Cheesecake Factory employees.

Trump-hating Democrats assaulted two women wearing MAGA hats.

A 19-year-old Democrat threw an 81-year-old man wearing a MAGA hat to the ground.

WATCH: A Black Trump supporter was sucker-punched in the face by a white Democrat.

A hate-filled Democrat was arrested for ramming a truck into a Trump voter registration tent filled with volunteers.

A 34-year-old Democrat was arrested for assaulting a 15-year-old Trump-supporter at a polling site.

A Trump-supporter in New Jersey was attacked with a crowbar.

To whatever extent the journalistically corrupt networks reported any of the above incidents, the coverage was fleeting at best, and not once, to the best of my knowledge, have they ever “connected the dots” of such violent incidents, as ABC News did in its political hit job on Trump.

What has happened to the modern Democratic Party?

Just days after the 2016 election, six members of the Democrat front group Red Guards/Austin were arrested for violent attacks on supporters of President Trump.  The six communist revolutionaries are pictured below in booking photos taken by the Austin Police Department.

A few weeks later, after Trump took office, a nighttime protest by Occupy Oakland, another Democrat front group, called on Trump’s opponents to “Become Ungovernable” by inciting chaos across America.  A tweet by the communist group boasted this: “We won this night.  We will liberate this land.  We will fight fascists.  We will dismantle the state.  This is war.”  And war is exactly what was declared by the Democratic Party’s “resistance” to a lawfully elected president, a war on our constitutional system of electing the country’s leader.  Dating to the time Donald Trump became the GOP nominee, the Democratic Party has given a wink and a nod to Red Guards Austin, Occupy Oakland, and every other communist group in America to violently act out hatred not only against Trump, but his supporters as well.

Here’s why I bought AR-15s for my sons: when Lenin was asked how the Bolsheviks planned to keep the Russian masses from listening to counterrevolutionaries, he replied in so many words, “We must teach our followers to direct unbridled hatred toward our opponents.”  A half-century later, Saul Alinsky taught Lenin’s “teach them to hate” strategy to the post-1960s Democratic Party, which turned it into an art form.

In August 2016, before Trump was even elected, frenzied rank-and-file Democrats in Minnesota put Lenin’s strategy into practice by repeatedly punching an elderly man in the kidney and spitting on other attendees who were forced to walk a gauntlet of political hatred as they left a Trump fundraiser in Minneapolis.  Please take 30 seconds to watch how successful the Democratic Party has been at inciting its followers to direct seething hatred toward Republicans.

To the best of my knowledge, not a single prominent Democrat forcefully condemned the outrageous incident in Minneapolis, or hundreds upon thousands of others like it.  And why would they?  With invaluable help from the Clinton campaign and the DNC, their own “resistance” movement has intentionally incited anti-Trump violence at every turn.

When a political party teaches its followers to hate the other side, things are not likely to end well.  If Trump is re-elected, I fear that the party of Marx, Lenin, Alinsky, and Obama will quietly turn loose its dogs of war in a seditious attempt to destabilize America, to make it “ungovernable” until Democrats regain power.  If that happens, widespread anarchy will follow.  And that’s why I bought my law-abiding sons AR-15s and enough ammunition to defend themselves — and their country — against a possible bloody insurrection incited by a once-honorable party that has betrayed the constitutional republic it swore to protect and defend.

It’s Not Just Food And Hand Sanitizer — Panicked Coronavirus Shoppers Are Stocking Up On Guns And Body Armor

I remember someone opining that since concealable body armor (not the ‘tactical’ plate carriers and IBA gear but the level II stuff that will stop the vast majority of handgun rounds, although the former does have a place in the inventory), was so available these days, that many people ought to take into account that people bent on mayhem will probably be wearing it (think ‘Smite Them Hip and Thigh‘ people) and should also consider getting it themselves depending on where they lived.

Stores across the country selling ballistic body armor, tactical gear, and firearms are seeing a huge increase in sales due to the worsening coronavirus outbreak in the US………

“I think with the way things have escalated quite quickly around the world and in the US in just the last couple of weeks, it’s very hard to tell what’s going to happen next, and I believe it is better to be safe than sorry,” Kevin Lim, the owner of Bulletproof Zone, a tactical gear retailer, told BuzzFeed News. “That’s what our business is about, after all, keeping people safe.”

According to Matt Materazo, the founder of Gladiator Solutions, a ballistic body armor and tactical outfitting store, the coronavirus outbreak has changed the kind of orders his store has received. He said typically the majority of his business has been big bulk orders from the law enforcement and the first responder communities. Now, it’s a lot of small orders.

“We don’t usually get these one, two sales,” he told BuzzFeed News. “They’re not particularly preppers, they’re people who are seeing what’s going on and saying to themselves, ‘where is this going?’”

Materazo wouldn’t share specific sales numbers, but said the increase has been considerable. “I do of course get a certain amount of my business from the prepper community, but the majority of the uptick isn’t coming from the prepper community, it’s the general civilian population,” he said.

The surge in interest around tactical gear due to the outbreak is happening across the country. Many of the stores BuzzFeed News reached out to had posted messages on their websites apologizing for longer-than-normal wait times due to higher-than-usual demand.

Rhode Island Gun Control Bills Stall over Coronavirus Concerns

And another one for ‘every cloud has a silver lining’. Not that it’s going to totally stop them.

Wednesday gun control bill hearings for the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee were cancelled over concerns that a “large crowd” of hearing attendees could contribute to the spread of the Chinese coronavirus.

WPRI reports that Rhode Island’s state’s health director, Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, made a “strong suggestion” the hearings be postponed. In light of the anticipated crowd of citizens, she noted that “the virus can be spread among people [in] close contact — less than six feet apart.”

Alexander-Scott observed, “Cancelling or postponing large events is an important tool to limit the spread in Rhode Island,”

Among the reasons a large crowd was expected at the hearing was the fact that approximately 17 bills dealing with guns were scheduled for consideration.

One of the bills “defines ‘assault weapons’ and bans selling them if they are not registered.” Another bills “defines large-capacity weapons feeding devices and bans them,” too.

Another bill that would have been discussed was designed to prohibit “teachers from being offered an incentive to get firearms licenses,” while yet another would have put new storage requirements and penalties in place for law-abiding gun owners.

The Associated Press reported that the “hearing on gun control measures” will be rescheduled, but provided no time-frame in which the rescheduled hearing might occur.

Coronavirus drives gun sales in San Gabriel Valley area among Asian Americans who fear being attacked

Gun sales in the San Gabriel Valley, a region east of Los Angeles, have soared in recent weeks among Asian Americans who fear being attacked over the outbreak of the coronavirus, according to reports.

Attacks on Asian Americans have been on the rise amid the outbreak of COVID-19. Earlier this month, a video emerged on Facebook of a man on a New York City subway spraying Febreze at an Asian subway straphanger, the New York Post reported. Police are investigated the incident as a hate crime.

And last month, an Asian woman was attacked at a New York City subway station. A man noticed that she was wearing a face mask and called her a “diseased b—-.”

At Arcadia Firearm & Safety, a gun store in San Gabriel Valley, owner David Liu told CBSLA he’s had a surge of sales in recent weeks from Asian American customers who are concerned over the possibility of similar attacks.

In the City of Industry, the store Gun Effects and Cloud Nine Fishing, has also experienced more Asian American customers buying firearms.

“Our staff is not accustomed to this kind of rush,” owner Dennis Lin told KABC. “But this made it really, really crazy.”

Lin said he believes the fear over the coronavirus is exaggerated.

“Just people discriminating,” he said. “We forget, we’re all people. We’re in America, we’re not in China.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Asians make up slightly less than 30 percent of the San Gabriel Valley’s 1.85 million residents.

11 Examples of Bloomberg’s Folly on Defensive Gun Use

Earlier this month, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked how he justified his push for more stringent gun control when he is guarded by an armed security detail.

Bloomberg’s response? He is a wealthy businessman and politician who faces threats that normal Americans do not, so it’s just fine for him to pay others to protect him with guns that he’d put the rest of us in prison for possessing.

The reality is that Bloomberg, as a wealthy white man living in upper-class neighborhoods, is statistically far less likely to be a victim of violent crime than most other Americans.

But you’d never know it from the way he spends hundreds of millions of dollars advocating gun laws that reserve armed protection for the special few.

Every day, many Americans without Bloomberg’s wealth and power rely on the Second Amendment—not private security—to defend themselves against threats to their lives and livelihoods. In fact, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.

Last year, The Daily Signal began a monthly series highlighting just some of the countless times that the right to keep and bear arms made all the difference for ordinary Americans whom Michael Bloomberg wants to disarm. (You can read the stories from January 2020 here.)

February similarly provided ample evidence in favor of an armed citizenry and against Bloomberg’s claim that only the select few can be trusted with guns.

  • Feb. 2, Arlington, Texas:  An armed neighbor came to the rescue of an elderly woman who was being attacked by pit bulls, pulling the dogs off her and shooting one of them when it continued its attack, police said. The woman survived, but suffered serious bite injuries to her head and neck. Other neighbors, alerted by the gunshot, soon arrived to help tend to the woman’s injuries and stop the bleeding.
  • Feb. 4, Spotsylvania County, Virginia:  When a neighbor called for help after discovering a man in the process of burglarizing her car, a good Samaritan and his wife jumped into action, pulling their vehicle in front of the fleeing thief and yelling at him to stop. Police said the thief drew a firearm, but the good Samaritan also was armed and shot him once in the leg. Police charged the man with several offenses, including brandishing a firearm and petit larceny.
  • Feb. 8, St. Mary’s, Ohio:  A woman shot and killed her husband during a domestic dispute in which he physically assaulted her and threatened to stab her with a knife, police said. The woman immediately called 911 and told a dispatcher: “He was beating me. He was going to kill me. He had a knife.” Although police initially took the woman into custody, her arrest photo shows clear injuries to her face and neck consistent with self-defense. A grand jury declined to indict the woman.
  • Feb. 8, West Salem, Ohio:  When a pitchfork-wielding man tried to kick in his door, a homeowner grabbed his handgun and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived. Police discovered that, in addition to the pitchfork, the man had a loaded firearm, drugs, and a wallet belonging to another homeowner in the neighborhood. Police charged the intruder with burglary and said he is a suspect in several other armed offenses in the area.
  • Feb. 12, Yellow Springs, California:  well-known Hollywood stuntwoman and her husband attempted to ambush the stuntwoman’s ex-husband and his new wife outside the ex-husband’s home, police said. The ex-husband got out of his car to get his mail when the stuntwoman and her husband opened fire on the couple with multiple guns. The ex-husband, however, was a concealed carry permit holder and armed. He returned fire, ultimately killing both attackers.
  • Feb. 14, Palm Bay, Florida:  A man used his firearm to defend himself and his girlfriend from the woman’s armed ex-boyfriend, who attacked them in their home on Valentine’s Day. Police said the ex-boyfriend stole a handgun from a friend’s mother, shattered the couple’s glass door, and threatened them with the handgun. The woman hid with her young son in a bedroom as her boyfriend retrieved his own gun and got into a shootout with the ex-boyfriend. Both men were wounded, and the ex-boyfriend fled, police said. They arrested him when he checked himself into a hospital; he faces several felony charges, including attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
  • Feb. 18, Spencer County, Kentucky:  A man returned home in the early afternoon to discover an intruder inside. He confronted the intruder, ultimately shooting and killing him in self-defense.
  • Feb. 22, Allouez, Wisconsin:  A concealed carry permit holder used his firearm to defend himself from a robber without firing a single round, police said. The permit holder was plowing snow when a man approached, held a large knife to his chest, and demanded money. The permit holder said he would get his wallet from his truck. He retrieved his firearm from the door frame, and the would-be robber fled when he saw it.
  • Feb. 24, Elmore County, Alabama: A homeowner used his handgun to defend his wife and young child during a confrontation with an irate neighbor. The neighbor – who had previous confrontations with others in the neighborhood – began banging on the homeowner’s door at 4:55 a.m. When the homeowner answered, police said, the neighbor shouted expletives and tried to rob him. The homeowner, fearing his neighbor was reaching for a gun, shot him several times in self-defense, wounding him.
  • Feb. 27, Chicago:  A concealed carry permit  holder defended herself from a robber who pulled a gun on her and demanded her property. The woman retrieved her own handgun and exchanged fire with the robber as he fled.

Michael Bloomberg is more than wealthy enough to afford to pay armed men to protect him. Most Americans are not so fortunate.

We don’t have former law enforcement officers on hand when the convenience store we’re in gets robbed. We can’t rely on an armed detail to jump to our defense when we’re assaulted. We don’t live in gated communities with 24/7 security.

We have only our Second Amendment rights. And they are worth insisting upon.

Dishonest Comparisons Between the Second Amendment and Government Funded Education

From Twitter, cropped by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Writing in the Atlantic, Aaron Tang, Professor of law at the University of California, creates a profoundly misleading comparison of the Second Amendment with a fabricated entitlement to an education.

Tang attempts to make the case that Second Amendment supporters and proponents of a theory the Constitution guarantees a right to an equally funded state education are rough equivalents.

There are minimal similarities in the arguments: a basic right implies a level of supporting rights. You cannot have effective Second Amendment rights without access to ammunition and a place to train. You cannot have an effective right of the press without the ability to own and operate media. You cannot have religious freedom without preventing the government from closing down churches and stopping private choices of conscience.

Tang claims the argument that the right to vote implies the entitlement to a state-funded education is equivalent to the argument by Second Amendment supporters that the enumerated right to keep and bear arms implies the right to have access to firing ranges. From the article:

So what do the gun activists argue? It’s worth reproducing this argument from their brief verbatim, with emphasis added to a single word: “The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use … after all, the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.” The Second Amendment may say nothing about the right to practice at a shooting range of one’s choosing, in other words, but that right ought to be recognized implicitly because it is important for an express constitutional right to have full meaning.

Now consider the argument advanced by advocates of a constitutional right to basic literacy. Like gun activists and their right to firearms training, educational-equity advocates recognize that the Constitution says nothing explicit about education. But surely a guarantee of basic literacy skills must be implicit in the document in order for its express rights to have meaning. As the Gary B. complaint puts it, “without access to basic literacy skills, citizens cannot engage in knowledgeable and informed voting,” cannot exercise “their right to engage in political speech” under the First Amendment, and cannot enjoy their “constitutionally protected access to the judicial system … including the retention of an attorney and the receipt of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.”

In order to reach this plausible-sounding bit of sophistry, Tang overlooks obvious, blatant differences.

The most obvious and fundamental difference, is no one is claiming the State must pay for Second Amendment training, the creation of ranges, or pay the costs of Second Amendment supporters who use those ranges. The Second Amendment arguments are all about stopping the state from preventing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment arguments are all about limiting the power of the government to interfere with Second Amendment rights.

An equivalent right to education already exists in the First Amendment, with the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to prevent you from becoming educated.

On the other hand, the proponents of education equality are demanding more power for the state. They are demanding the government provide state-run schools. They are demanding the government take from some taxpayers and give money to other taxpayers, to fund what they demand.

They demand an expansion of government power and authority, exactly the opposite of Second Amendment supporters.

You cannot teach students who are unwilling to learn. Access to basic literary skills already exists. If students want to learn, there are numerous, relatively inexpensive means for them to learn. Parental attitudes are far more important than funding.  Some low funded schools produce excellent results and well-educated students. Some high funded schools produce horrible results and poorly educated students. Many students are taught at home, with excellent results.

Government-funded and run ranges are not required to exercise Second Amendment rights. They may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required.

Government-funded and run schools are not required for people to be literate and vote. People were literate and voted long before government-funded and run schools became the norm.

The arguments both use the word “implied”. The arguments have almost no similarity after that.

Federal government funding of schools has far more to do with creating a government-funded propaganda arm for the Democrat party, and funds for the Democrat party via teachers unions, than it has with creating literate citizens.

Government-funded schools may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required. Federally funded government schools are a recent development.

Professor Tang creates the illusion of equivalency of arguments with the assumption that a right to freedom from government interference is equivalent to an entitlement to government largess.

The Second Amendment is the protection of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled the right existed long before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The right to become educated was implicitly protected by the First Amendment.  Voting was almost entirely left to the states, with the franchise gradually being expanded more and more and moreover the intervening centuries.

It is an enormous stretch to compare a right implied by a foundational, fundamental, enumerated right, such as the implied right to transport firearms to a range which welcomes you, outside the jurisdiction of your domicile; to an implied entitlement of a right to vote, to have the state pay for the education which you desire, by taking money from another jurisdiction to pay for the education in your jurisdiction.

He states Second Amendment supporters admit there is no explicit mention in the Constitution of the implied right to training.

Then he states the argument of an implicit entitlement of public education is equivalent. It isn’t. It does not start with an explicit right. It starts with a claim that an entitlement is required to exercise a right.  Exercise of Second Amendment rights does not require an entitlement.

An equivalent for the Second Amendment would be claiming the government must provide everyone with firearms.

There has never been a right to a government-funded education in the United States Constitution.  (Some state Constitutions have a right to education in the text, Arizona is one)

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided food.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided police protection.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided housing.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided firearms.

Some of those things may be desirable. They are not Constitutional rights.

There can not be a legal right to those things, because Constitutional rights limit government. They protect you from what the government would do to you.

To say there are Constitutional rights to economic products is to say the government must control the economy and make sure everyone has equal outcomes. Otherwise, the “right” would not be “equal” under the law.

A right exists, even if you do not exercise it. Everyone has Second Amendment rights, not just gun owners.  Everyone already has the right to seek and obtain an education, protected by the First Amendment, even if they do not exercise that right.

This fundamental misapplication of the word “right’ requires a fundamental transformation of the structure of government. In essence, it requires the economy to be run by the government, with who gets how much determined by bureaucracies or the courts, instead of from a combination of effort, determination, skill, talent, luck, and, yes, government.

Some redistribution has happened, of course. Redistribution has never been a right. It is a combination of charity and forced redistribution of wealth, to use the force of government to take what would not be given.

This is exactly opposite of the theory of the Constitution.

Constitutional rights limit what government can do to you. They do not define what governments must do for you. Limiting what the government can do to you does not take resources from someone else.

To equate the arguments for implied Second Amendment rights, which limit what the government is allowed to do, with implied requirements for the government to pay for an education is fundamentally dishonest.

After setting up the argument, by ignoring the direct, obvious differences between a foundational right restricting government, and a demand for more government to take from some, and give to others, Professor Tang makes this statement:

The identical logical structure that underpins these otherwise distinctive arguments presents a puzzle for the Supreme Court. How can it in good faith accept a theory of implied constitutional rights for gun owners only to reject the same argument for schoolchildren? Yet the consensus among close followers is that this is the most likely outcome: Gun-rights activists believe the Court is primed to deliver them a victory in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, while educational-equity advocates recognize that the Court’s conservative majority is unlikely to rule in their favor.

They should rule differently. The logical structure is not identical. It is fundamentally different.

The information about the difference is well known in legal circles. It is hard to believe Professor Tang does not understand the theory of natural law and the need to limit governmental power, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Constitution.  The federal government is granted significant, but limited powers by the Constitution. The power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is not one of those powers.

He rejects that structure. He works hard to replace it with the Progressive construct of a living Constitution; a Constitution meaning only what the current justices are pressured to have it mean at any given moment.  Attorney General William P. Barr recently gave a superb speech clarifying the differences in the Progressive vision of expansive government versus the founders’ vision of limited government.

The Second Amendment has been infringed in various ways over the history of the United States. Those infringements do not change the foundational right. The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms existed long before the Constitution. The Second Amendment is in place to protect the right, not to create it.

Until 1968, citizens could order anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannons and their ammunition in the mail. Most people, in most places, had easy access to modern firearms, ammunition and ranges.

The Supreme Court is coming out of a long period, during which the words of the Constitution were often ignored, exactly because of the Progressive vision of government Professor Tang is promoting.

An important part of the theory of Progressive governance is the necessity of lying to the population, in order to achieve the objectives the governing elite wishes to enact. This is called “manufacturing consent“.

The United States is in the process of rejecting that theory, and in restoring a Constitutional government of limited powers.

Asian-Americans stock up on guns over fears of coronavirus backlash

‘Roof Koreans’ isn’t just a meme. Those store owners made sure their businesses were protected during the LA riots when the police ran away. That the Asian community still stocks up today shouldn’t be a surprise.

While panicked Americans have been purchasing bundles of toilet paper, water and other supplies because of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, Asian Americans have instead been reportedly stocking up on guns out of a fear of backlash — and justifiably so.

The panic is especially prominent along the liberal coasts.

“[T]here’s an acute fear among Asian-Americans that the virus’s origins in China will spark a violent xenophobic backlash. Along the West Coast, where the worst outbreaks of coronavirus in the United States have occurred, those fears seem to be spurring a surge in gun sales,” The Trace, a far-left outlet, reported Friday.

“People are panicking because they don’t feel secure,” David Liu, the Chinese American owner of Los Angeles’ Arcadia Firearm and Safety, said. “They worry about a riot or maybe that people will start to target the Chinese.”

Constitutional Carry Bills Tracking in 3 States

Proposals to recognize that the Second Amendment is all that’s needed to legally carry a concealed handgun are on the move. In recent weeks, bills in Alabama, Tennessee and Utah have been spooled up to codify permitless concealed carry.

The concept, law of the land in 16 states, retain statewide concealed carry permitting schemes for those looking to take advantage of their reciprocity benefits while traveling. The change is that said permits and licenses are not needed for lawful adult gun owners looking to carry in public within the state.

ALABAMA

On Thursday, the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee approved a permitless carry bill 6-4, moving it to the full Senate for further consideration. Sponsored by state Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, who has backed such measures in the past, the bill is opposed by county sheriffs who fear a drop in permit fees they currently use as a source of revenue.

Notably, the Yellowhammer State’s neighbor to the West, Mississippi, has recognized permitless carry of holstered or bagged handguns for the past several years. Likewise, Alabama already has open carry without a license.

TENNESSEE

Just days after Republican Gov. Bill Lee, flanked by legislative leaders, signaled support of a constitutional carry measure, the state Senate Judiciary Committee passed such a measure on a party-line, 7-2 vote. Senate Bill 2671 is set for further hearings this month and has the support of national pro-gun groups.

The NRA says the bill “ensures that no honest, hard-working Tennessean is left defenseless while waiting for government permission to carry a firearm. This legislation fully recognizes the right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense, giving Tennesseans the freedom to choose the best method of carrying for themselves.”

Joining ranks with urban Democrats and anti-gun groups, the bill is opposed by some firearm instructors in the Volunteer State as it waives requirements for state-approved training before carrying, which is sometimes expensive.

UTAH

In the Beehive State, Utah state Rep. Walt Brooks, R-St. George, this week introduced H.B. 472 which provides that an individual who is 21 years or older and may lawfully possess a firearm, may carry concealed in a public area without a permit. However, it may not get far.

“Being this late in the session, the bill is not going to make it through. My purpose is to get the bill language together for next year’s session,” Brooks told the Deseret News.

Although the state legislature approved a permitless carry bill in 2013, Republican Gov. Gary Hebert scuttled the proposal when it reached his desk and has been reluctant to embrace one since. Critically, Herbert announced last year that he will not seek re-election in 2020, which means a rebooted constitutional carry measure has more luck with his successor, something Brooks seems to be banking on.

States with permitless carry laws include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.