Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Josh Hawley
🚨🚨 NEW WHISTLEBLOWER allegations – this time about the latest attempt on Trump’s life. Whistleblower alleges Secret Service apparently failed to account for “known vulnerabilities” at Trump’s golf course. Shooter was able to lie in wait for 12 hours. What is the explanation?

So what else is new?

Harris Might Own A Gun, But She Doesn’t Represent Gun Owners

Vice President Kamala Harris shocked a lot of people when she said she owned a gun during the debate last week.

Well, in the most technical sense, sure.

However, that doesn’t absolve her from her many anti-gun sins, so to speak.

ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis referenced the vice president’s flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, which amount to confiscation, during one question that was more about changing policy positions generally than it was about the Second Amendment specifically.

Near the end of the debate, Davis asked, “You wanted mandatory buybacks for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t,” Davis said before asking Harris why so many of her policy positions had changed, according to The Reload.

Vice President Harris didn’t address the question and was only forced to respond later to a criticism by former President Donald Trump warning voters that if elected, the vice president would have “a plan to confiscate everyone’s gun.” She jumped in with a comment that caught viewers’ attention.

“And then this business about taking everyone’s guns away, Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Vice President Harris stated. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”

The vice president’s remark about being a gun owner drew attention. She practically never mentions being a gun owner in all her calls for more gun control and the only reference before is a glancing mention in a 2019 CNN interview. Not surprisingly, Second Amendment supporters were skeptical of her statement.

“So now Harris owns a gun? Ha, I’d love to know what kind/caliber and how often she trains with it,” competitive shooter, GunsOut TV founder and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton posted on X.

Now, the truth is that there were previous reports of Harris owning a gun. As a former prosecutor in a city like San Francisco, it’s not overly surprising that she’d have a gun. A lot of prosecutors do, and for what should be pretty obvious reasons. It’s not like there isn’t some potential of such people to be targets, after all.

But there are gun owners and gun owners.

See, no nation has a complete and total gun ban. There’s always a way for some people to have a firearm and Kamala Harris is one of those people who will be able to get a gun no matter what the laws are.

What she’s advocating for are laws that will inhibit regular people, the actual gun owners, from having them. Both she and her running mate might own guns, but they’d gladly see us relegated to revolvers and pump-action shotguns for protecting our family while the criminals are running around with semi-autos and those converted to full-auto.

As for her response to Trump, she might not be taking everyone’s guns, but she most definitely wants to take some of them from us. I don’t care what she says, I’m not buying that suddenly she figures a mandatory buyback is a bad idea. At best, she knows it’s never going to happen so she won’t push for it anymore. It’ll come back the moment she thinks she can get away with it and we all know it.

I think the best way to view it is that Kamala Harris isn’t really a gun owner so much as someone who owns a gun.

The latter group figure they’re the exception, that they can be trusted with one but aren’t so sure about everyone else, so they should be restricted. The former recognizes that in order to protect their right to keep and bear arms, everyone else’s needs to be protected as well.

There’s no world I can imagine where anyone remotely like the Kamala Harris we’ve all seen would fall into that camp.

I agree

Harris-Walz campaign recruiting military veterans to influence social media
Veterans are being bribed to betray their oath.

The next time you see a social media post from a military veteran who claims to support banning certain firearms or any other infringement of our civil rights, realize they may be getting paid to violate their oath.

An email obtained last week by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project revealed that the “precision micro-influencer” marketing firm People First is hiring veterans to serve as paid social media influencers for the Harris-Walz campaign.

It is not hard to understand why the progressive firm wants to hire former military members. Veterans have credibility — especially when the topic is guns. Whenever the gun-ban industry convinces a vet to call for an AR ban or violate their oath in some other way, they always tout it as a win. This is why Tim Walz is so celebrated by Giffords, Brady and Everytown. Before his stolen valor was revealed, Walz cultivated the false impression that he spent most of his military career knee-deep in grenade pins.

People First has a long history of supporting the war against guns and Second Amendment Rights. They know what they’re doing, and they’re very good, unfortunately. Now, the New York City-based firm wants to recruit veterans living in seven key battleground states, but then explains in its recruitment email that they are open to hire anyone with a “compelling story,” regardless of where they live.

Paid Social Media Opportunity for Veterans!

Phil McKnight

Hi there!

My name is Phil, and I am an Organizer at People First. I am reaching out to share an exciting partnership around veterans!

Veterans, you know better than anyone that our allegiance to this country is pledged toward the Constitution and the values that are enshrined within it – not to any particular man or woman.

We need your help explaining which values you believe our elected leaders should uphold as we approach the upcoming November election. This campaign is also open to family members of those currently or previously enlisted in any of the six US military branches.

Join this campaign now if you are located in any key battleground states:

Arizona
Georgia
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
North Carolina

Not from one of these states? No problem. Anyone who has a compelling story to share should apply now too.

If you are interested in participating in this opportunity, please let me know as soon as possible so we can get you started on the next steps.

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Best,

Phil—

Phil McKnight

Digital Relationship Organizer

People First Marketing

CreatorNetwork.cc is a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) platform designed specifically for People First Marketing. Our platform helps businesses and marketers to connect and collaborate with content creators in a more efficient and effective way.

The process is relatively simple. The influencer submits draft content, which is then edited and approved.  The influencer then posts it on their social media platforms, and they’re paid 10-15 days later. As a result, People First has made oath breaking easy and, unfortunately, profitable.

McKnight did not respond to emails seeking his comments for this story.

Censorship, gun control

People First founder and CEO Curtis Hougland rose to prominence fighting against what he told Vanity Fair magazine in 2019 was “hate speech and online extremism.”

“Democrats want to focus on facts and figures. The other side plays into fears and taps into emotions, and they show it to you. It’s all about emotional resonance,” Hougland told the magazine.

Hougland was behind the passage of Nevada’s Question 1 in 2016, which expanded background checks and ended most private gun sales.

“Across the geographic footprint of Nevada, the company credentialed and recruited 287 influencers, many of them doctors and nurses, and told them to create their own version of a messaging brief, provided to them with a company dashboard,” Vanity Fair reported.

Today, People First is working dozens of campaigns and advocacy programs, Hougland says on his LinkedIn page.

“We can source online advocates by district, religion, party, ethnicity, age, and affinity,” he wrote. “We’re 82 days away from Election Day! Enough time to execute a local or national campaign and impact elections and ballot initiatives.”

Takeaways

When you raise your right hand and swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, you don’t get to pick and choose the amendments you’re willing to support and defend. The oath has no expiration date. It doesn’t end upon retirement or ETS. Walz forgot that, sadly. Same-same for any vet who responds to People First’s siren song.

If you really want to thank a veteran for their service, hire them. They will be the best employee on your payroll, but not this. What People First is doing to our veterans is reprehensible. They’re bribing them into betraying their oaths. Rather than direct deposit, People First should pay their influencers with 30 pieces of silver.

Kirby: ‘No use in responding’ to a ‘handful of vets’ on Biden’s botched Afghan withdrawal
‘Obviously no use in responding. A “handful” of vets indeed and all of one stripe,’ Kirby said in a ‘reply all’ email chain

On the anniversary of 9/11, White House National Security Council communications adviser John Kirby dismissed the concerns of military veterans critical of the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, writing in response to a Fox News Digital press inquiry that there’s “no use” weighing in on the veterans’ views.

“Obviously no use in responding. A ‘handful’ of vets indeed and all of one stripe,” Kirby said in a “reply all” email chain Wednesday afternoon that appeared to be intended for White House staffers, but which also included Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital had reached out to the White House earlier Wednesday afternoon regarding critical comments from four veterans, including Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who blasted Kirby for his Monday press conference that they said provided “cover” for the Biden administration’s 2021 withdrawal.

Included in that initial reachout were quotes from the four veterans, and Fox News Digital asked the White House if it had any comment to include on the vets’ blistering criticisms of Kirby and the White House’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal. The email chain was forwarded to White House staffers on the National Security Council, before Kirby replied to all on the chain that there’s “no use in responding.”

Kirby’s message was sent in error, with him following up with a Fox News Digital reporter, “Clearly, I didn’t realize you were on the chain.” Kirby sent the email while traveling with President Biden on the anniversary of 9/11.

The veterans quoted in the email lambasted Kirby for “deflecting” from the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, following House Republicans releasing a scathing report this week following the anniversary of the botched withdrawal.

“The bottom line is that the Biden-Harris administration chose politics over strategy, and Kirby, who I wouldn’t trust to guard my grocery list, is now trying to cover for them,” Mills, an Army veteran, said in comments to Fox News Digital.

Continue reading “”

You can’t stop the signal when the horse is already out of the barn

Law enforcement leans on 3D-printer industry to help thwart machine gun conversion devices
Justice Department officials are turning to the 3D-printing industry to help stop the proliferation of tiny pieces of plastic transforming semi-automatic weapons into illegal homemade machine guns on streets across America

WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials are turning to the 3D-printing industry to help stop the proliferation of tiny pieces of plastic transforming weapons into illegal homemade machine guns on streets across America.

The rising threat of what are known as machine gun conversion devices requires “immediate and sustained attention,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said Friday. That means finding ways to stop criminals from exploiting technology to make the devices in the first place, she said.

“Law enforcement cannot do this alone,” Monaco said during a gathering in Washington of federal law enforcement officials, members of the 3D-printing industry and academia. “We need to engage software developers, technology experts and leaders in the 3-D-printing industry to identify solutions in this fight.”

Devices that convert firearms to fully automatic weapons have spread “like wildfire” due to advancements in 3D-printing technology, according to Steve Dettelbach, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. His agency reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021.

“More and more of these devices were being sold over the internet and on social media, and more and more they were actually just being printed by inexpensive 3D printers in homes and garages everywhere,” Dettelbach said.

The pieces of plastic or metal are considered illegal machine guns under federal law but are so small they run the risk of being undetected by law enforcement. Guns with conversion devices have been used in several mass shootings, including one that left four dead at a sweet sixteen party in Alabama last year.

The devices “can transform a street corner into a combat zone, devastating entire communities,” Monaco said.

Monaco on Friday also announced several other efforts designed to crack down on the devices, including a national training initiative for law enforcement and prosecutors. The deputy attorney general is also launching a committee designed to help spot trends and gather intelligence.

Tim Walz: Anti-Israel protesters ‘speaking out for all the right reasons’.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate failed to mention Hamas or the six murdered hostages in his response to a local radio station

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, told a Michigan NPR affiliate on Thursday that anti-Israel protesters in Michigan “are speaking out for all the right reasons.”

“I think those folks who are speaking out loudly in Michigan are speaking out for all the right reasons. It’s a humanitarian crisis. It can’t stand the way it is, and we need to find a way that people can live together in this,” Walz said in an interview with WCMU, a public radio station serving central and northern Michigan.

Walz has said little about the war in Gaza since Harris tapped him to be her running mate in August. His remarks in the WCMU interview, after a reporter asked how a Harris-Walz administration would handle the Israel-Hamas war, offered a look at his thinking on the topic. 

“I think first and foremost, what we saw on October 7 was a horrific act of violence against the people of Israel. They have certainly, and the vice president said it, l’ve said it, have the right to defend themselves, and the United States will always stand by that,” Walz began. 

In his answer, Walz did not mention Hamas. Nor did he refer to the six hostages, including U.S. citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who were murdered over the weekend. 

“We can’t allow what’s happened in Gaza to happen,” Walz continued. “The Palestinian people have every right to life and liberty themselves. We need to continue, I think, to put the leverage on to make sure we move towards a two-state solution.”

Then, Walz clarified where, in his view, the U.S. should exert leverage: on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I think we’re at a critical point right now. We need the Netanyahu government to start moving in that direction,” said Walz. “We’ve said it and continue to say it, getting a cease-fire with the return of the hostages, and then moving towards a sustainable, two-state solution is the only way forward.”

Over the past year, Walz has attempted to appease both pro-Israel Democrats and more progressive Democrats who have become staunchly critical of Israel after Oct. 7. He drew scrutiny last month for having previously appeared at events with a Muslim cleric who has shared antisemitic and pro-Hamas content.

Kostas Moros

A lot of people foolishly believe that the gun control movement’s motivation is a misguided but good faith desire to stop criminal violence.

While that’s true of some people who have been personally affected by gun-related crime, for the party leaders and financiers of the left, it’s not really true. If stopping crime were the big concern, they wouldn’t embrace so many policies that quickly release violent criminals back into society.

Criminal violence isn’t the real target, the fact that broad gun ownership is a check on the erosion of other liberties is. What is happening in the UK and Brazil right now is much harder to do in the US. Millions being armed is a major deterrent to it.

Everything the modern American Democrat party does makes sense when you realize the goal is to turn us into docile and harmless western Europeans.

Harris-led office, ATF stonewalling probe into ‘collusion’ with anti-gun group lawsuit: House Oversight chair
Both the White House and ATF have turned down multiple House Oversight inquiries into charges of ‘collusion’ with Chicago’s lawsuit against Glock

Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on what she characterizes as a record of a tough former prosecutor. But a White House office she has “overseen” may have focused less on gun crimes and more on targeting a legal gun manufacturer.

The House Oversight and Accountability Committee says the Biden-Harris administration is stonewalling an investigation into potential “collusion” with a gun control group founded by billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to boost Chicago’s lawsuit against Glock Inc.

Since June, neither the White House nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, better known as the ATF, has responded to multiple inquiries from the committee.

The ATF missed its most recent deadline to respond to the committee on Wednesday, Aug. 28.

“The American people should be very concerned that, rather than prosecuting criminals, the Biden-Harris White House is colluding with anti-Second Amendment groups, and rather than responding to serious congressional requests with transparency, the White House is choosing to not comply with our request,” Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital.

The committee has been investigating the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s communications with the Everytown for Gun Safety regarding a lawsuit by the city of Chicago against Glock, a firearms manufacturer.

Continue reading “”

It’s nice we even have video for PID of an actual threat to the U.S.

Do We Need a ‘New Constitution’ to Protect Democracy™? Berkeley Professor Weighs in

Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley Law School dean and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” is not a fan of the United States Constitution, which obviously makes him an ideal academic to teach the next generation of lawyers how to practice law.

Via Los Angeles Times (emphasis added):

No matter the outcome of the November elections, it is urgent that there be a widespread recognition that American democracy is in danger and that reforms are essential. No form of government lasts forever, and it would be foolhardy to believe that the United States cannot fall prey to the forces that have ended democracies in many other countries.

Although the causes are complex, many of today’s problems can be traced back to choices made in drafting the Constitution, choices that are increasingly haunting us. After 200 years, it is time to begin thinking of drafting a new Constitution to create a more effective, more democratic government.

Signs abound that American democracy is in serious trouble. Confidence in the institutions of American government is at an all-time low. The Pew Research Center has been tracking public trust in government since 1958. It has gone from a high-water mark of 77% in 1964 to our contemporary 20%.* A poll in September 2023 indicated that only 4% of U.S. adults said the American political system worked “extremely or very well.” A recent Gallup poll had only 16% of Americans expressing approval for how Congress is performing its job.

Especially individuals in their 20s and 30s are losing faith in democracy. A Brookings Institution study found that 29% of “young Americans say that democracy is not always preferable to other political forms.”

*These people never ask fundamental questions like: why is trust in government at an all-time low? Nothing is different about this guy’s analysis; he simply chalks it up to some vague failings of “democracy” without legitimizing the mistrust, which isn’t fit to be printed in the self-anointed guardians of Democracy™ like the Los Angeles Times.

**Here I feel compelled to offer the obligatory but necessary caveat that we don’t actually have a pure democracy. In generic terms, “democracy” means rule by the people. In practice, pure democracy is merely mob rule, which is not and has never been a foundation of Western civilization excepts for brief stints of upheaval like the French Revolution — and we saw how that story ended.


Continuing:

There is an alternative to a spate of separate amendments: starting fresh by passing a new Constitution. It does not take much reflection to see the absurdity of using a document written for a small, poor and relatively inconsequential nation in the late 18th century to govern a large country of immense wealth in the technological world of the 21st century.

It may seem strange and frightening to suggest thinking of a new Constitution at a time of great partisan division. But that existed in 1787; in many of the states, the Constitution was just barely ratified.

This brings back up ‘The Great Replacement Theory‘, but it appears to me to change the ‘why’ from mere political power to an actual hate of the normal average American who can’t be fooled all the time and can never be considered a reliable toady.

The Anti-Children Crusade

Depending on which sources you choose to believe, on or around the year 1212 A.D. there was a “crusade” made up largely of children. Supposedly it was a peace-minded movement to travel to the Holy Land and convert the Muslims there to Christianity. No, it didn’t work. Indeed, a great many of the participants were captured and sold into slavery. Others died of exhaustion before they got anywhere near the Holy Land.

Well, today there’s an ongoing “crusade” of another kind: an anti-children crusade. Those active in it will do just about anything to discourage live births, especially the births of white children. I’ve compiled a book of essays that touch on the subject. Also, Pascal and I write about it here now and then. It’s part of the reason for the decline of birth rates in Europe and North America.

The crusade against children has several parts. My fiction colleague Hans Schantz delineated some of its aspects here, in a passage from his novel The Hidden Truth. There are others beyond those Hans touches on, though. One emerged recently, from an unusual source:

     There’s a new U.S. surgeon general’s warning: Parenting can be harmful to your mental health.
     An advisory issued Wednesday by Dr. Vivek Murthy, the nation’s doctor, said parents in particular are under dangerous levels of stress.
     The report cites the American Psychological Association, saying nearly half of parents report overwhelming stress most days, compared with 26% of other adults. They’re lonelier, too, according to cited data from health insurer Cigna. In a 2021 survey, 65% of parents said they were lonely, compared with 55% of those without kids.

How about that, Gentle Reader! Taking responsibility for the life of a helpless human being comes with stress! Who could have guessed that before the Surgeon-General told us?

(By the way, how do we define “overwhelming stress?” Is there a metric of some sort? The number of antidepressants taken per week, perhaps? Or must we wait for the sufferers to commit suicide before we can confidently diagnose it?)

The stresses that impinge upon a household with minor children to care for are real enough. Yet our grandparents coped with them rather well. Generations before them did even better. That suggests that some, at least, of the stresses are of recent vintage. Rather than explore the matter in detail here and now, I’ll simply say “more anon” and proceed with my main point: the convergence of disincentives and discouragements against the bearing of children, which are most visible in First-World nations.

     A healthy fraction of those discouragements are deliberate. The people behind them don’t want white Americans to have children. White Americans – the people who built this country, and are still overwhelmingly responsible for keeping it going – are being out-reproduced by just about every other identifiable demographic. I leave the consequences to your imagination.

Who would find such a trend desirable, and why? Why does Vivek Murthy, “the nation’s doctor,” find it appropriate to add his voice to it? Anyone? Bueller?

More anon.

Gun Owners for Harris Highlight Lie of ‘Second Amendment Democrats’

“We can prevent gun violence while also supporting the Second Amendment,” a Giffords-sponsored “sportsmen’s” effort lies. “Gun Owners for Safety unites hunters, sport shooters, and collectors who want commonsense gun laws.”

Giffords, of course, along with all the other major gun prohibitionist groups, has endorsed Kamala Harris, who will sign whatever anti-gun legislation the Democrats succeed in passing and go for what they can’t through executive action. And then she’ll reshape the Supreme Court. That’s some “commonsense support.”

It’s never hard to find “Fudds” who are enthusiastic about voting for citizen disarmament pushing politicians and throwing fellow gun owners under the bus. A prime example is Harris’ Vice President pick, Tim Walz, once “A” rated and endorsed by the NRA. But while low information voters are being gaslit into thinking the Second Amendment can be ‘respected’ while it’s being eviscerated, a striking inequity is being revealed.

There is no parallel “pro-Second Amendment Democrat” movement happening. That’s because there’s no such thing as one.

Where are Second Amendment Democrats for Trump?

Experience shows they prioritize other issues above the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they really don’t understand it to be a right at all. This was unequivocally proven years ago, when I conversed with the head of the Second Amendment Democrats.

After all kinds of weasel-wording and Molon Labe-ing, he finally could not deny the one truth that ultimately defines them:

Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

I don’t know (or care) whatever happened to them, but do note there is a Facebook group that goes by that name, a group you can join with all of 19 members that doesn’t look like it’s been active for years. They offer further confirmation that there’s no such thing as what they claim to be:

Hello everyone. Who do we all think will be best on the 2nd Amendment of the current field? My guess is Bernie Sanders, though I suppose Amy Klobuchar has represented the most constituents with guns.

I agree that Bernie is the best bet. Not sure if Buttegeig would prioritize gun control like Booker or Warren.

Personally I feel like Buttigieg is the best candidate for president and to run against Trump, but not sure how I feel about any of their stances on gun control. There are so many issues.

It’s not my top priority either…

Obviously.

It’s not for the Giffords Fudds, either:

David Codrea’s take on the overeducated moron.

Gun Prohibitionist’s Ultimatum Warrants Appropriate Gun Owner Response

“I would personally suggest the gun control groups develop a BATNA to help induce more good-faith negotiating,” Tom H. Hastings, Director of the Peace and Nonviolence Studies, Conflict Resolution graduate program at Portland State University and Secretary for the Oregon Peace Studies Consortium writes in the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal.

“BATNA?” Hastings asks rhetorically (“Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement”).  “It simply means that, if you are trying to negotiate with anyone, it’s important to not only think about ‘what if these negotiations fail,’ but to let the others know what you will be forced to do in that case.”

What does Hastings believe he’s “negotiating,” with whom, and what will he feel compelled to do if his demands aren’t met?

“My choice of BATNA would be, ‘Look gun rights people, we want to negotiate common sense regulations with you,” Hastings explains. “However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to overcome the will of the people by challenging those commonsense measures in court, with your lawsuits, and it’s all based on the Second Amendment.”

“So we have a best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” Hastings imagines. “Our BATNA is that we are going to stop all other gun control work and focus all our resources on a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment.”

No carrot, just the stick? Give us everything we demand or we’re going to take even more? Hastings’ use of the term “negotiating” invokes nothing so much as Inigo Montoya’s famous “You keep using that word” line from The Princess Bride.

Here’s a counter-BATNA, Mr. Hastings: No. Your move.

I can’t speak for all gun owners the way you presume to speak for all gun-grabbers, but for, say three percent of them (which would still be millions of us), the only response you’ll get is “We will not disarm.”

We’re not interested in negotiating our rights that you and your fellow travelers have no claim to. Come and take them.

We’re not going to surrender the most egalitarian power-sharing arrangement ever devised by men a lot smarter than you so that useful idiots can ensure the state has an unchallengeable monopoly of violence. Besides, we know from experience that no concession will ever be enough (that’s why they call them “totalitarians”), and we know from nature that if you throw a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals, rather than go away sated they will be emboldened to move in closer.

It’s not like your idea is anything new or original. Google “Repeal Second Amendment,” and you’ll see no shortage of egghead dolts who, like you, believe they’re smart but haven’t thought things through about what demanding the same unconditional surrender from an armed populace will result in. The latest rumblings that come to mind are from California Governor Gavin Newsom going full Orwell with his offensive and absurd 28th Amendment.

I see you were proposing the same subversive, reality-denying nonsense back in 2022, when you even showed you were aware of the potential of “Civil War 2.0. With approximately 400 million guns floating around U.S. society and an armed MAGA-driven polarization met by an increasingly armed leftist radical wing, along with evermore virulent rhetoric and escalating numbers walking around open-carrying war weaponry in public…”

To give yourself some semblance of gravitas, you begin your piece by citing Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who like you, called for repeal of the Second Amendment. But here’s the thing: Never meant to be an easy task, even if you could get the numbers needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution, repealing 2A would still not remove the right to arms. As the Heller majority noted when citing an earlier decision:

“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”

And it shall not be—some of us will see to that.

So now it’s back to you, Mr. Hastings. Your silly and offensive BATNA is rejected, we’re not interested. Now do your worst. But do one other thing first: If they ever do pass your sick little fantasy, flesh out how you think those enforcing it (certainly not you or your fellow gun-grabbers by proxy!) are going to make it all happen. And since there hasn’t been much original thought offered from your side so far, don’t forget to threaten using F-15s and nukes!

With “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day. So it figures an aging, grinning academic wearing a stupid peace symbol earring is proposing unleashing the bloody horrors of civil war on the people of the Republic, and doing it in the name of non-violence and democracy.

Imagine What President Kamala Harris Could Do to Guns If She Has Price Control Power

Vice President Kamala Harris rolled out the first of her policy positions and they seem eerily familiar. The Democratic nominee for president wants to attack runaway rising food prices by inserting government to set the prices grocery stores could charge at the checkout counter. That’s not what happens in a free-market society. That’s what happened in the Soviet Union and other failed communist and socialist states, like Cuba and Venezuela.

But what does that mean for gun sales? It could mean everything. If Vice President Harris were to get Congress to go along with her big government price controlling schemes, it’s not a stretch that she could use those same authorities to demand that firearm prices are artificially high and beyond the reach for all but the ultra-rich.

It would be a policy of “If you like your Second Amendment, you can keep your Second Amendment…if you can afford it.”

And recall that we recently discussed the growing trend of courts ruling you don’t have a Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. Would a Second Amendment challenge to government price fixing succeed?

Continue reading “”