Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Why? Simple. It’s because like all goobermint, they’re scared to death that the peons may one day get fed up enough with the blatant and open corruption (See – among other’s -Nancy Pelosi’s impossible stock portfolio performance) and decide to take care of business, along with the clear understanding that, while Mao was a murderous dictator, he was very correct when he said that political power grew from the barrel of a gun and that the party should control the guns.

Why Does SCOTUS Hear So Few Second Amendment Cases?
The right to keep and bear arms occupies a curious place in American legal history.

The Second Amendment occupies a curious place in American legal history. It has been sitting right there in the Bill of Rights since those amendments were first added to the Constitution in 1791. Yet it was not until the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the U.S. Supreme Court got around to recognizing what many legal scholars had been saying all along: Namely, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right, nor a state’s right.

Two years after Heller, in 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, the Court additionally held that the individual right to keep and bear arms that applied against the federal enclave of D.C. also applied against state and local governments.

But then the Supreme Court sort of went quiet for a while. The next truly major Second Amendment case did not arrive until 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which extended the logic of Heller and McDonald to recognize “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

The recent news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new Second Amendment dispute later this term raises the interesting question of why it takes the Court so long to hear so few of these kinds of cases. What gives?

For a persuasive explanation of the Supreme Court’s pre-Heller silence on the Second Amendment, I recommend reading a 1989 Yale Law Journal article titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” written by the liberal law professor Sanford Levinson. “I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar,” Levinson wrote, “is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, and perhaps even ‘winning’ interpretations would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.” In this telling, legal elites basically understood that if the Second Amendment was ever taken seriously, then some (or even many) gun control laws would necessarily fall. So they just declined to take the amendment seriously.

But if that explains some or all of the pre-Heller period, what explains the more recent era? One explanation may be found in an oft-quoted passage from Justice Antonin Scalia’s Heller decision. “Nothing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I recall several Second Amendment advocates grumbling to me at the time that this passage by Scalia was both unnecessary to the outcome of the case and potentially quite injurious to the broader gun rights cause. Those advocates feared that the gun control side would immediately grab hold of the “sensitive places” exception and run with it, leading to more regulations on guns instead of less.

And the federal courts would, of course, have to deal with Scalia’s language, too. In fact, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, invoked that very language by Scalia in a notable concurrence filed in the Bruen case. “Properly interpreted,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations.”

Why did Kavanaugh feel compelled to emphasize that particular point in a separate concurrence that managed to garner the support of only the chief justice? I speculated at the time that Kavanaugh “may be signaling to the lower courts that, in his view, many such gun control regulations are presumptively constitutional, and lower court judges should therefore act accordingly.”

In other words, Kavanaugh and Roberts might be less hawkish on gun rights than some of their colleagues. And there might be a small but growing fissure among the Court’s “conservative bloc” over just how broadly the Second Amendment should be interpreted and enforced. That fissure, if it exists, might also explain why the post-Heller Court has not exactly been in a hurry to take up new gun rights cases.

We’ll learn more when the Supreme Court takes up this latest gun rights case, Wolford v. Lopez, in earnest later this term. For now, we’re still left to ponder the Second Amendment’s curious position.

Everytown Misfires in Attack on Defensive Gun Uses

When Everytown for Gun Safety announced it was holding online gun “training” classes, many anti-gun activists and volunteers with the organization were sharply critical of the move, declaring it was akin to the group normalizing gun ownership instead of advocating for a gun-free future.

Of course, the so-called training has proved to be mostly anti-gun talking points, but if the group’s anti-2A critics have any doubts that Everytown is still as opposed to our right to keep and bear arms as ever they just have to look at the organization’s latest report for reassurance.

Titled “Disarming Fear: Debunking Myths of Defensive Gun Use”, Everytown’s report starts with several incidents that they allege were reported as defensive gun uses even though there were elements of each incident that were immediately known that undercut any self-defense claim. One incident highlighted by Everytown, for example, was the shooting of teenager Ralph Yarl in Kansas City after he knocked on the wrong door of a home when he went to pick up his little brothers from a friend’s house. While Andrew Lester Lester told police that he believed that Yarl was trying to break in to his home and was “scared to death” of Yarl’s size, it only took prosecutors four days to file charges against him.

Everytown asserts that legitimate defensive gun uses are “exceedingly rare,” and that they are “often deployed against unarmed perpetrators, and often accompanied by underappreciated personal and social risks, including loss of life and property.”

How rare? Everytown says it used National Crime Victimization Survey data and came up with a figure of about 69,000 DGUs every year between 2019 and 2023. That’s far below the estimates of 1 million or more DGUs from researchers like Gary Kleck and William English, but even so, that’s about three times the number of homicides in the United States. If DGU’s are “rare”, then murders involving firearms are even more rare, which undercuts Everytown’s entire ideology.

Everytown also takes issue with using a gun to defend yourself against someone who doesn’t have a firearm.

In the majority of these uses, suspected perpetrators are unarmed. In fact, 58 percent of perpetrators are not armed with any weapon. In eight out of 10 DGUs, the suspected perpetrator is not armed with a gun.

So what? An unarmed individual can still pose a threat to life and limb. Just look at the recent DGU in Los Angeles where a 79-year-old Vietnam veteran shot and killed a man who had thrown him to the ground and broke both his legs and continued to assault him while he was writhing in pain. Does Everytown believe George Karkoc should be charged for acting in self-defense since his attacker wasn’t armed with any kind of weapon?

If not, it sure looks like they at least believe Karkoc would have been better off without a gun.

Crime victims who responded with a gun were less likely to get away from the offender than those who responded without one (7 percent with a gun compared to 18 percent without) and less likely to avoid injury (39 percent compared to 44 percent).

So… in either case the vast majority of individuals who were the victim of a violent crime were unable to get away from their attacker, and the difference in the injury rate is honestly negligible. If that’s true, then I would definitely prefer to be armed if someone decides to invade my home, carjack my vehicle, or assault me on the street.

Everytown also notes that violent crime is trending down across the United States, but as FPC’s Rob Romano notes, they still claim that an armed society is a more dangerous place.


Giffords has also recently complained about the number of justifiable homicides, which makes me wonder if this going to be a new talking point for the gun control lobby. “Too many people are defending themselves from violent attackers” doesn’t sound like a great argument to me, but maybe their focus groups are telling them differently.

Everytown’s conclusion, of course, is that you’re better off not owning a gun at all. I’d say the gun control group gave us 69,000 reasons to disregard that advice. In reality the number of defensive gun uses is likely much higher than what the anti-gun org is wililng to admit, but even using their numbers hundreds of people are protecting themselves with firearms each and every day across the United States; proof positive that DGUs aren’t uncommon or unnecessary.

Veterans Day 2025: Giffords Pushes More Gun Control for Veterans

On Veterans Day 2025 Gabby Giffords’ gun control group, Giffords, is pushing more gun control for veterans who avail themselves of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services.

Giffords posted to X:

Since 2006, veterans have died by suicide nearly 20 times more often than soldiers have been killed at war. Veterans deserve more than empty words. They deserve leaders who work to protect them.

But many in Congress are stopping the VA from flagging when a veteran is at a heightened risk of harming themselves or others, and therefore shouldn’t have access to a gun.

Giffords is complaining about the efforts Republicans have undertaken to end the VA’s decades-long habit of blocking veterans’ gun rights by reporting said veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for actions as benign as needing help handling finances.

Through the years, Breitbart News has warned of the situation wherein veterans who use a fiduciary to handle their finances face the threat of being reported by the VA and subsequently prohibited from gun purchases. The need for help in balancing finances — even for a time — is equated with mental health problems, and gun rights are revoked.

Moreover, on February 21, 2016, Breitbart News reported that combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who needed treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were increasingly hesitant to pursue treatment because they feared a PTSD diagnosis would be used to deny their gun rights under the Obama administration.

A combat vet confined to a wheelchair spoke to Breitbart News anonymously at the time, saying, “I was diagnosed with PTSD. What’s being done to be sure my guns aren’t taken away?” He said he lived with the added anxiety of questioning his every trip to the doctor, fearing that he was one visit away from having his gun rights snuffed out.

Earlier this year, Rep. Eli Crane (R)–a former U.S. Navy SEAL–told Breitbart News that Democrats who support the status quo on bureaucrats being able to strip away gun rights often claim they do so in order to help reduce suicide among veterans, particularly combat veterans. But Crane rejected this line of thinking, saying, “When it comes to suicide, a lot of these individuals, a lot of veterans….who are struggling with PTSD and have some of these issues, one of [their] biggest issues is fear and trauma because [they] thought [they] might lose [their] life in battle against other people with guns.”

He suggested that taking away their guns now only serves to increase the feeling of defenselessness, thereby increasing feelings of fear and fueling the very suicides which Democrats claim they are trying to stop.

Yet on this Veterans Day, Giffords is urging more gun control for veterans.

The Armed Awakening of America’s Radical Left
When moral outrage meets live ammunition.

Unless you live under a rock — or teach gender studies — you won’t be surprised to find that people with strong left-leaning political attitudes score far higher on traits like neuroticism and psychopathy than many of their conservative counterparts. These psychological signatures — emotional volatility, heightened threat sensitivity, and explosive aggression — are more pronounced the further left you go. Add to that the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, the attempts on Donald Trump’s life, and a surge in gun purchases by self-styled progressive activists, and the picture turns even darker.

The same movement that once mocked the Second Amendment is now shopping for suppressors.

The same movement that once mocked the Second Amendment is now shopping for suppressors. From trans shooters to queer collectives and “rainbow rifle clubs,” the left’s new hobby isn’t mindfulness and manifesting — it’s marksmanship. Conservatives tend to buy guns to defend their families; leftists now seem to buy them to prove they can. The mood has shifted, from preachy to predatory.

It wasn’t always like this. During the George Floyd riots of 2020, the radical left burned cities and, yes, cracked a few skulls along the way. Innocent shopkeepers were beaten, officers ambushed, and neighborhoods torched. Yet for all the carnage, most of the movement’s foot soldiers weren’t locked and loaded. They fought with fists, bricks, and stupid slogans. But times have changed. What began as “defund the police” has metastasized into “arm the resistance. The irony writes itself: the same people who argued that no one should own a firearm now brag about their “community arsenals.”

The pandemic made everything worse — politics, paranoia, and people. Isolation fermented into delusion. Online echo chambers turned into pressure cookers. Every disagreement became a moral emergency, every rival a fascist. Locked indoors and glued to screens, millions mistook outrage for purpose. Those who once feared guns now fear obscurity. For a movement built on emotion, weaponry has become the new therapy — something cold, mechanical, and finally under their control.

But something more dangerous is happening right now: ideology is mutating into insurgency.

The post-Floyd left has convinced itself it’s fighting for survival. To question its dogmas is to threaten its existence. That’s why dissent within the ranks is punished with medieval brutality. But something more dangerous is happening right now: ideology is mutating into insurgency. The left has discovered that it likes the smell of gunpowder.

And why not? The rhetoric has been primed for years. “Punch a Nazi.” “Burn it down.” “No justice, no peace.” It was only a matter of time before soundbites became strategies. While conservatives debate calibers and carry laws, progressives are turning their causes into armed crusades. The so-called “John Brown Gun Club” trains members to prepare for civil conflict. What was once fringe is now fashionable.

Again, to be very clear, the modern left is not just angry — it’s unwell. Anxiety and depression rates among self-described progressives have skyrocketed, especially among the young. To those on the far left, Trump and his supporters aren’t political opponents but existential threats. They are embodiments of evil to be eradicated, not engaged. When politics becomes pathology, violence stops feeling like a crime and starts feeling like self-defense.

For decades, the right was caricatured as paranoid doomsday preppers. Now it’s the left that’s preparing for the apocalypse. Once, revolution was an aesthetic — Che Guevara shirts and campus protests. Now it’s a lifestyle brand with tactical vests.

Meanwhile, conservatives — those caricatured as the violent barbarians — are mostly watching this unfold with disbelief. They’ve always known that guns aren’t inherently evil; intent is. What terrifies them isn’t the weaponry but the warped conviction behind it. A man protecting his family is predictable; a lunatic avenging an ideology is not.

We are entering uncharted territory. The United States has seen political assassinations, riots, and radical groups before — but never with this cultural reach. The internet ensures that every grievance finds both a trigger and a target. Fury is now networked, outrage algorithmic. And unlike the extremists of old, today’s radicals don’t hide in compounds. They scroll beside you, shop beside you, share your workspace, and sleep next door.

You can’t mix apocalyptic language with live ammunition and expect harmony. A society can survive hypocrisy. It cannot survive hysteria with high-capacity magazines. Every revolution begins with the belief that violence will heal what politics can’t. It never does. It only creates new tyrants with a taste for blood.

Perhaps, in some dark corner of their minds, the new progressives believe they’re the heroes in history’s next great moral war. They forget that history has a habit of eating its heroes. It also has an excellent memory. It remembers every bullet, every boast, every cause that mistook fury for faith. And it will remember who called it justice when they started killing the innocent.

Bloombutt may never go broke, but at least making him use his own cash instead of ours is better.

After Trump Cuts BSCA Funds to Anti-Gun Orgs, Bloomberg’s Everytown Steps in to Fill the Void.

Washington’s swamp never runs out of ways to waste your money. But this time, for once, a major artery of anti-gun spending has been cut off — and gun owners have reason to breathe a little easier.

The Trump Administration has officially ended millions in federal grants created under John Cornyn’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — a law that gun owners across the country warned from day one would become a backdoor gun-control slush fund.

The cuts hit the so-called Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative, a DOJ program Cornyn helped create with Biden in 2022. CVIPI’s stated mission sounds harmless enough — “supporting community-based solutions to reduce gun violence.” But in practice, it became a pipeline of taxpayer cash flowing straight into organizations that push red flag gun confiscation, “ghost gun” bans, and gun tracing programs that amount to backdoor registration.

The CVIPI Problem

When Cornyn and his Democrat allies rammed through the BSCA, they sold it to gun owners as “fundamentally important to the country.” In reality, it pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Washington bureaucracies and “community-based organizations” with political ties to the gun control lobby, much like a domestic USAID-style money laundering scheme.

These were the same groups working hand-in-hand with anti-gun legislators in blue states to advance red flag laws, promote so-called “untraceable gun” bans, and build databases of firearm ownership under the guise of “tracing.” In other words, the federal government was bankrolling the civilian disarmament industrial complex.

That’s why Texas Gun Rights fought Cornyn’s BSCA from day one. We warned that once the money started flowing, it would end up in the pockets of the same radical organizations that hate the Second Amendment. And we were right.

Cui Bono?

Recipients of Cornyn’s CVIPI funds included groups openly advocating for gun-control frameworks. Organizations like Youth ALIVE! and others in California publicly promote red flag laws and tracing mandates. Others, like Cure Violence Global and Chicago CRED, work hand-in-hand with state officials to support “public health” approaches to gun ownership that treat the Second Amendment as a disease.

Now, the Trump Administration has finally put an end to this taxpayer-funded nonsense, slashing off millions that were funneled into these anti-gun operations.

Enter Everytown, Bloomberg’s Cash Machine

Of course, billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety couldn’t stand to see their allies lose funding. Within weeks of the cuts, Everytown announced they were funneling over $2 million into “community organizations” that lost their CVIPI money.

Let that sink in. The same organization that’s spent years lobbying for gun bans, “red flag” confiscation laws, and national gun registration is now handpicking and financing the exact same groups that had been feasting on your tax dollars.

So when the DOJ says CVIPI is about “violence prevention,” it’s worth asking: if Bloomberg’s Everytown is funding the same recipients, what kind of “prevention” are we really talking about?

Why It Matters

Gun owners know what “red flag” laws mean — confiscation without due process. We know what “ghost gun” bans mean — criminalizing home-built firearms and hobbyists. And we know what “gun tracing” means — a federal backdoor registry waiting to happen.

All of it is unconstitutional. All of it is dangerous. And all of it was made possible by John Cornyn’s partnership with Joe Biden on the BSCA. The same BSCA that gave the ATF its “engaged in the business” rule — a sweeping new power that treats ordinary Americans as gun dealers, forcing them into a de facto universal gun registration scheme.

Fighting Back

Thankfully, there are fighters ready to undo Cornyn’s damage. Congressman Wesley Hunt has announced plans to file legislation repealing every shred of gun control from the BSCA. And Attorney General Ken Paxton is in the trenches suing the ATF to shut down its unconstitutional “engaged in the business” rule.

That rule never passed Congress. It was enabled by the BSCA, and it’s being wielded to destroy the private sale of firearms in America. Meanwhile, Cornyn is dodging the cameras and pretending none of this ever happened, as if Texans have forgotten that he gave Biden his biggest gun control win in 30 years.

We haven’t.

The No-Compromise Truth

This is why Texas Gun Rights exists — not to please politicians, but to hold them accountable when they betray gun owners. We don’t compromise with gun control. We expose it, dismantle it, and fight it tooth and nail. Whether it comes from Biden, Bloomberg, or a “Republican” senator from Texas — the result is the same: our freedoms are under attack.

And we’ll never stop fighting to defend them. Because at the end of the day, you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your safety or your rights to satisfy the swamp. Not in Texas. Not anywhere.

 

Chris McNutt is president of Texas Gun Rights.

 Alleged yuppie jihadis, 19, from Montclair, NJ, plotted Boston bombing-style attack, planned to join ISIS: feds

Two upper-crust student athletes from tony Montclair, New Jersey, are accused of participating in an ISIS-inspired terror ring — with one of the suspects allegedly plotting a Boston bombing-style attack, the feds said Wednesday.

Tomas Kaan Jimenez-Guzel and Milo Sedarat, both 19, were arrested on Tuesday, with both teens living in $1 million-plus Victorian houses in the manicured New York City suburb.

The accused yuppie jihadis both grew up in privilege before allegedly turning to ISIS.

Milo Sedarat holding up a red, white, and black Air Jordan sneaker.
Tomas Kaan Jimenez-Guzal and Milo Sedarat (above), both 19, were arrested Tuesday and charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group.

Jimenez-Guzel’s mother, Meral Guzel, serves as head of the United Nation’s Women’s Entrepreneurship program, and Sedarat’s father, Roger Sedarat, is an award-winning Iranian American poet and a professor at Queens College in New York City.

Guzel has been with the UN for more than a decade working on women empowerment projects, according to her LinkedIn account, with the mother previously working in the finance sector.

Roger Sedarat, who teaches poetry and literary translation for Queens College’s MFA program, is best known for his works celebrating the written history of his father’s native Iran and Persian poetry.

Neither parent could be reached for comment on Wednesday.

Continue reading “”

No, she didn’t ‘forget’. She’s always served Somalia.

The Congresswoman Who Forgot Which Flag She Serves.

Representative Ilhan Omar didn’t misspeak when she recently took the stage in Minneapolis and called Somalia “our home” and its president “our president.” Omar again revealed what many Americans have long suspected: Her allegiance lies elsewhere.

Her unguarded confession was no mere slip of the tongue. What else would make President Donald Trump waste no time in his Truth Social response: “She should go back!”

As if on cue, the same pundits who’ve spent years gaslighting the public over open borders and identity politics clutched their pearls because of the vapors they caught.

The larger point is that Trump’s typical bluntness hit a nerve because it wasn’t just political; it was moral.

He said out loud what millions had been thinking.

A Pattern, Not a Moment

Long before she took the oath of office, Omar had been caught in a pattern of behavior that showed this wasn’t an isolated episode. She described 9/11 as “some people did something,” and labeled U.S. troops as occupiers rather than liberators. The disdain she’s had for the country giving her refuge and power has been out in front for the entirety of her career.

All we hear in her voice is resentment, not gratitude or loyalty. When her lips move, we don’t hear from an immigrant who’s proud to have escaped a failed state, but from a blackguard who resents the nation that saved her.

Liberty wasn’t Omar’s goal when fleeing tyranny. When she fled dysfunction, she felt she earned the right to lecture Americans about their allegic sins and shortcomings.

Continue reading “”

Trump Cuts Off Tax Money Pipeline to Gun Control Groups

There’s little that is as upsetting as seeing your tax dollars spent on something you are morally opposed to with every fiber of your being. It’s especially upsetting when that something is an attack on one of our basic civil liberties that’s expressly protected by the United States Constitution.

However, as we found out earlier this year, our tax money was ending up in the bank accounts of various gun control groups, thus we were being forced to fund the effort to strip us of our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Much of that funding was cut off already, but not all of it.

As the NRA-ILA notes, though, President Trump has cut off even more.

The loss of funding resulted in a lawsuit against the Trump administration brought by five non-profit entities, lead by the progressive Vera Institute of Justice, alleging the cuts were unconstitutional, illegal, and arbitrary and capricious. In July, an Obama-appointed judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia denied injunctive relief and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to show the court had jurisdiction over their arbitrary and capricious claim and failed “to demonstrate a violation of any constitutional right or protection.”

The other shoe on these grants has just dropped.

The Trump administration has reportedly retooled the eligibility criteria and focus for these grants going forward. Eligibility to apply for an estimated $34 million in grant money has changed to exclude community-based organizations and non-profit applicants.

The focus is more explicitly on “supporting law enforcement efforts to reduce violent crime and improv[ing] police-community relations” through law enforcement officer and related personnel hiring, equipment purchases that specifically support violence prevention and intervention, youth violence intervention programs, and generally by “increasing the capacity of local government, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system to coordinate comprehensive crime reduction strategies.”…

A look through the archived list of past federal grant recipients (FY 2022 and FY 2023) shows that many of the previous CVIPI grantees have also been funded by Everytown Support Fund’s Community Safety Fund. A very cursory examination of the archived list also reveals a few grant recipients with clear anti-Second Amendment, pro-gun control elements.

Let’s understand that no matter what a program accomplishes with regard to reducing violent crime, if they don’t support gun control, Everytown isn’t backing them. I don’t care what they might claim in that regard; that’s just the simple truth. They’re an anti-Second Amendment organization, and they only support their fellow travelers.

But by changing the criteria like they did, the DOJ has cut off funding that might not explicitly go toward gun control, but would free up other revenue for those purposes. Something else I don’t care about is the claim that the money wasn’t for anti-gun activities, because money is fungible and a dollar in is a dollar in. They only promise not to use X amount for anti-gun efforts.

While gun control organizations are trying to frame this as killing efforts to prevent so-called gun violence, the reality is that there’s little evidence these efforts did a damn thing. Plus, if Everytown and its buddies are that bothered, they’re free to issue their own grants. I’m sure Michael Bloomberg has a spare $34 million lying around.

Why should we, the American people, be on the hook for something that doesn’t seem to do much?

Enemies of the People

In 1993, I stood in front of someone and swore my oath of enlistment. I’d joined the United States Navy and vowed then and there to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

During my time in Uncle Sam’s Yacht Club, I was never called upon to defend against foreign enemies. However, now that I’m in civilian life, I keep finding myself needing to defend us from domestic enemies.

We call them the Democratic Party, unfortunately.

In recent weeks, the insanity has reached a fevered pace. We’ve got everything from former presidents calling for the regulation of what people say to some reality TV personality from Bravo threatening literally everyone who isn’t as rabidly leftist as she is. We’ve got a sizeable chunk of the Democrats’ base threatening to loot if they don’t get their free food money they did nothing to deserve from the government, even.

This follows weeks of celebration of the assassination of Charlie Kirk and generations of pushing to restrict our ability to resist a tyrannical government.

And yet, they try to present themselves as the people who can be trusted with the reins of power?

Let’s not even get into their own calls for “lowering the temperature” on rhetoric after Kirk was killed, which weren’t even directed toward their own side, but toward us.

These are not people interested in being our countrymen and women. They see us as scum that they must purge from society through whatever means available to them or, at a minimum, who must be suppressed into silence.

What else was cancel culture but an attempt to make everyone too afraid to say what they really wanted to say?

Now, it’s violence. They want us scared, not for our livelihoods this time, but for our very lives.

Reality stars on C-tier cable networks are more than willing to talk big on “going after” anyone who thinks violence isn’t the answer without any pushback from others on the Left, likely because they agree with her.

I don’t want to see violence from either side. I’d rather we battle things out with ideas and words than bullets and bombs.

But I won’t pretend that the people who want me dead are anything but my enemies. More than that, considering the direction the Democratic Party is going, even their own base is likely to be viewed as enemies at some point or another, simply because they’re not willing to completely destroy the country from within.

They are the enemies of not just conservatives or libertarians. They’re the enemies of the American people.

Simply put, we need to not just defeat them in elections, but we need to dismantle the entire governmental infrastructure they want control of so that they can put the screws to hardworking Americans who simply want to be left alone in peace. Take it apart, and they’re powerless no matter what they want to do.

Don’t, and they’ll just keep building it up until no one can stop it from destroying the greatest nation in history.

It doesn’t seem like a hard choice now, does it?

Printer Panic: Everytown 3D Gun Summit Targets Technological Advancement

Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety hosted a 3D Printed Firearms Summit in New York City with the goal being to “build cross-sector collaboration and chart actionable strategies to stem the tide of 3D-printed firearm (3DPF) related violence.”  The gathering of gloom is seemingly a leftover from the Biden-Harris administration, which convened similar confabs of gun control absolutists. One positive note is that these kinds of anti-gun “summits” must now be funded with Everytown’s own money rather than by taxpayers through Biden’s defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Media hype ahead of the summit warned, “We’re at the start of a new public safety crisis and there is no time to waste,” and “3D-printed firearms are the new frontier in the fight against gun violence.” Everytown is apparently measuring this crisis by “recovery data from twenty U.S. cities submitted exclusively to Everytown” according to their Facebook post. Exclusive crime-related data given just to Everytown may raise its own kinds of red-flags to consider.

While 3D printing is a newer and developing technology, homemade firearms, or PMFs — privately made firearms — are not. Since the birth of our nation, citizens have enjoyed the right to create their own privately made firearms. A review of the basic facts on PMFs would have made for a helpful presentation at the summit.

As far as federal law is concerned, individuals can legally make firearms for personal use without a license as long as the person isn’t prohibited from possession of firearms, the firearm is detectable, and the firearm isn’t made or sold for profit. Firearms and related items that are illegal under federal and/or state law, however, are still illegal. Items that are already regulated by federal and/or state law are still regulated.

Firearms continue to be heavily regulated regardless of how they are manufactured. Articles referring to 3D printed firearms are a mishmash of terms interchanging 3D printed firearms with “ghost guns” and undetectable firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, to name just a few, continue to govern firearms produced by 3D printing.

The mere absence of a serial number does not make a gun undetectable and if 3D printers were capable of producing undetectable firearms, such guns would already be illegal to manufacture and possess anywhere in the country.

Continue reading “”

Self-Proclaimed ‘Human Rights Defenders’ Attack Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Self-defense is a human right. In fact, I’d argue it’s the most fundamental of all our inherent rights. Without that right to protect our lives, what does it matter if we have the right to think or say what’s on our mind, or to worship (or not) as we choose?

So, anytime I see a self-described human rights activist talking about the right to keep and bear arms, I’m always curious to see if they’ll actually embrace the human right of self-defense, or pretend that it doesn’t exist.

Sadly, it seems that the group Mindbridge Center falls into the latter category. In a new post at Psychology today, the self-described human rights defenders argue that only by denormalizing gun ownership and adopting laws that make it harder, if not impossible, for people to defend themselves, can we build a safer America.

While many Americans believe gun ownership is widespread and normalized, the truth is more nuanced. Only about 30 percent of Americans own a gun, and among men, 60 percent do not own a firearm (Pew Research Center, 2024). Yet, public perception often overestimates gun prevalence due to cultural portrayals and media emphasis.

If 1-in-3 people engage in a particular activity, I’d say that’s a pretty normal activity, wouldn’t you? More importantly, the Mindbridge Center itself says on its website that human rights defenders are those “advocating for minoritized groups such as racial minorities, Indigenous people, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or the disabled community.”

So here’s my question to Mindbridge; if advocating for minoritized groups is defending human rights, and “only” 30% of Americans own guns, then why isn’t advocating for gun owners a defense of human rights?

And a followup: if members of these minoritized groups face threats of physical violence because of who they are, do the folks at Mindbridge really believe that they’re better off disarmed and defenseless? Shouldn’t they have the ability to protect themselves from those who would do them harm? Don’t they have the right to protect their lives?

The most obvious answer is that the folks at Mindbridge don’t think so. After all, it’s clear they want to denormalize and stigmatize gun owners. As they write in their call to action::

You don’t need to be a policymaker to help shift the culture. Start by challenging the myths: Most men don’t own guns, and most Americans support regulations like background checks. Share this truth in conversations, on social media, and in community spaces. Campaigns that highlight these facts, such as billboards or digital media stating “60% of American men don’t own a gun,” can help redefine what responsible citizenship looks like.

Got that? For Mindbridge, being a “responsible citizen” means not owning a gun. Which brings up another question: why bother pushing for things like “universal” background checks if they think that gun ownership itself is a problem?

The fundamental premise of their mindset is that, unless “both structural change and cultural transformation” surrounding gun ownership takes place, it’s impossible to “build a safer future.” That ignores the fact that violent crime is dropping at record levels at the moment, and 2025 is on pace for the lowest homicide rate in more than 60 years.

We are building a safer future (and a safer present as well), and we’re doing so while robustly exercising our right to bear arms… as well as our human right to self-defense.

I’ve got a phone number for them: 1-800-CRY-BABY

Giffords: Increase in Defensive Gun Uses ‘Must Be Stopped’

When I covered the WSJ’s hit piece on Stand Your Ground laws on Wednesday, I wondered if the reporters had any behind-the-scenes help from gun control activists.

It’s not proof of anything, but since the story appeared online only one gun control group has promoted the story on X or Bluesky.

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder.

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute.

There are only 11 states that impose a general duty to retreat before acting in self-defense. The vast majority of states don’t require you to present your back as a target to your attacker while you try to run away; instead, they allow you to act in self-defense so long as you have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Stand Your Ground laws also aren’t really a new thing. Florida’s statute, for instance, has been in place for two decades. If the law automatically led to more unjustified shootings being deemed justifiable homicides by the courts, we would have expected to see that phenomenon occur long before 2020, but there’s no evidence that’s the case.

We saw a huge spike in violent crime in 2020, along with a big spike in new gun owners. That’s the most likely reason for an increase in justifiable homicides since then; with more crimes being committed and more people carrying for self-defense, there are more occasions when legally armed citizens will use a firearm to defend themselves. That doesn’t mean, however, that people are getting away with murder just because they tell police that they were in fear for their lives. Every time a life is taken a police investigation is going to take place, and charges may very well be filed even when there’s evidence of self-defense.

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Take this recent case from Stand Your Ground-Wyoming. Back on June 24 of this year a man named Kevin Hefley was shot and killed. It wasn’t until this week that the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office and the local D.A. officially deemed the shooting justified, with the sheriff’s office declaring it had “meticulously” investigated the case over the past several months despite what appears to be pretty clear evidence that the armed citizen had reason to believe his life was in danger.

Deputies responded at 4:22 p.m. that afternoon to a “disturbance” involving a shooting, says the sheriff’s office’s statement.

Earlier that day, Christine Hefley moved horses from the property she and Kevin shared to Patrick Gross’s property, “upsetting Kevin,” the statement says.

The two men had a recent history of conflict.

The sheriff’s office reports that on the morning of the shooting, Kevin Kefley threatened Gross via text message, saying, “I shoulda kicked your ass right in your own home.”

Later while Gross was parked in his own driveway, Kevin Hefley drove rapidly towards him, reportedly.

“Just prior to being rammed by Hefley, Gross shot Hefley’s radiator in an attempt to stop the vehicle,” says the statement, adding that later crash reconstruction indicated that Kevin Hefley hit Gross’s truck at 60 mph, “constituting the threat of deadly force.”

Kevin Hefley got out of his vehicle, approached Gross who was in hiw own truck, and punched him multiple times.

During the altercation, Gross shot Kevin Hefley, the statement says.

Though shot, Kevin Hefley kept attacking Gross while clinging to the driver’s door of Gross’s truck as Gross tried to drive away, the sheriff’s office reports.

Kevin Hefley kept attacking until he died of his injuries, the statement adds.

The sheriff’s office says investigators examined the scene “meticulously,” built advanced crash reconstruction analysis and analyzed evidence from phones and social media.

Kevin Hefley’s blood alcohol content was 0.143%, nearly twice the legal limit to drive, says the statement.

The statement says the Laramie County District Attorney’s Office has concluded that Gross acted in self-defense.

This is an example of the “legally sanctioned killings” that Giffords says must be stopped, which begs the question: would they have uttered a word if Hefley had managed to kill Gross by ramming into his truck at 60 mph, or by beating him to death afterwards?

Of course not. No gun would have been used, so there would be no reason for the gun control group to offer any kind of comment. It’s defensive gun uses like Gross’s they think must be stopped, not the actions of violent criminals that lead lawful gun owners to act in self-defense. I guess that shouldn’t be surprising coming from a group whose founder is working for a future with “no more guns,” but it’s a position that puts Giffords at odds with both the Constitution and common sense.

17 Anti-Gun AGs Side With Hawaii On Purchase Permits, Inspection Requirement

A coalition of anti-gun attorneys general from 17 states has filed an amicus brief with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of two restrictive Hawaii laws being challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit revolves around two provisions of Hawaii’s permitting regime— a 30-day time limit to purchase a firearm after receiving a permit and a requirement that police inspect legally purchased firearms within five days.

The brief argues that not only do the laws directly violate the Second Amendment, but they also lack historical support and impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In March, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the two provisions, but the state government appealed to the full 9th Circuit.

However, the brief from the 17 anti-gun AGs urges the 9th Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down the provisions. The brief claims that states’ interests in implementing “appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances” is more important than the protections afforded by the Second Amendment.

Heading up the AGs’ efforts is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the most anti-gun attorney generals in the country.

Do tell…..

Sharyl Attkisson: Mexican government bought US guns used in cartel crimes

For years, escalating violence and bloodshed in Mexico was blamed on U.S. gun smuggling and lax firearm laws. American-made weapons litter Mexican crime scenes.

But what if the truth is far different? A former federal agent is flipping the script with a jaw-dropping twist: Many of the U.S. guns used in cartel crimes were bought by Mexico’s own government.

Deadly shootouts and clashes with police are a daily reality among Mexico’s killer cartels. As a result, Mexico’s gun homicide rate is two to three times worse than the U.S., with over 21,700 gun murders in 2022. It’s a flashpoint in the debate over firearms and crime and who’s to blame. Mexico and gun control advocates have long blamed smuggling and America’s loose gun laws.

That’s the story John Dodson says he was told throughout his 15 years as a special agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The narrative was, “We are to blame. Our civilian firearms market, our right to bear arms, is to blame for the violence in Mexico and along the southwest border,” Dodson said.

But that narrative, he says, has been upended by the surprising truth: “The vast majority of crime guns recovered in Mexico are purchased directly by the Mexican government,” he said.

Tracing data confirms it. Most of the U.S. firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes weren’t trafficked or smuggled. The Mexican government legally purchased them.  Exact numbers are hard to come by, but a 2023 State Department report confirms the U.S. approved $147.7 million in small– arms sales to Mexico from companies like Sig Sauer and Glock. Still more weapons are supplied through U.S. Foreign Military Sales.

“When we first started telling the Mexicans, ‘You have to do something to stop the drug trafficking coming north of the border,’ the Mexican authorities needed resources and funds to do that,” Dodson said. “So we started funding these operations … providing them with hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase equipment — much of that firearms.”

He says he queried ATF’s gun-tracing network. And he saw that most of the U.S. guns turning up at cartel crime scenes were originally sold to the Mexican government. Dodson said he was “flabbergasted.”

We reviewed data from 2016 to 2023. It confirms the Mexican government was the top buyer of U.S. guns later traced to crime scenes in Mexico. One document shows the Mexican military, listed as “dealer,” purchased more than 2,000 from 2016 through 2021.

A 2023 document sources a year’s worth of U.S. guns from Mexican crime scenes, with 779 of them originally bought by the Mexican government. No other source is anywhere close.

The State Department, which oversees foreign weapons sales, declined our interview request and wouldn’t answer any of our questions. We also couldn’t get any information from the Justice Department or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The State Department has told Congress that its priority is national security.

“From what I know,” Dodson said, “the amount of those firearms that are ending up being diverted to the black market — I would cease and desist all transactions with the Mexican government when it comes to firearms.”

Newsom Signs Glock Ban Bill Into Law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been calling himself a Second Amendment supporter for several months now, but if anyone had any doubts about his lack of sincerity those can now be put to rest. On Friday afternoon the governor signed AB 1127 into law, which will outlaw the sale of Glock handguns in the state starting in January.

In addition to AB 1127, Newsom also signed legislation that will require sales of gun barrels to go through an FFL and a background check, as well as AB 1078, which replaces California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law (which is already on hold thanks to a lawsuit) with a “3-in-30” law. The bill, however, states that California will return to its previous one-gun-a-month scheme if it’s ultimately upheld by the courts.

As you can imagine, gun control activists are thrilled to see California become the first state in the nation to outlaw the sale of some of the most popular pistols in the country, and they’ll be making a major push for other blue states to adopt similar bans in the months ahead. From Everytown for Gun Safety:

“We applaud Governor Newsom and state lawmakers for putting California at the forefront of the fight against DIY machine guns, which are just as scary as they sound,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “It speaks volumes about the gun industry’s fixation on profits that only a new law can force it to take the most basic steps to prevent mass carnage.”

“Governor Newsom, state lawmakers, and California volunteers continue to prove that the days of putting gun industry profits over our lives are long gone,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. “DIY machine guns should never have had a pathway onto our streets, and today, we’re taking a big step to get them out of our communities. Our movement will keep fighting to hold reckless gun manufacturers accountable — because they shouldn’t get to profit off our tragedies.”

AB 1127 theoretically allows for Glock to change the design of its Gen 3 model to block the installation of illegal switches, but even if the company could take that step CalDOJ would view the redesigned pistol as a new firearm subject to the state’s handgun roster, and it would be rejected due to a lack of a magazine disconnect feature. That’s the reason why newer Glock models haven’t been approved for sale in California, though the Gen 3 was previously grandfathered in to the roster.

The NRA is already vowing to sue Newsom over the ban.

My guess is most of the other national Second Amendment groups will soon be filing suit as well, and we’ll probably see a coalition or two combining forces to take on the new laws.

So far there’s been no word from Glock on the new legislation, which is part of a broader effort to prohibit the sale of the popular handguns. The cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle are also suing the company, claiming the gunmaker is willfully allowing the illegal conversion of their pistols into full-auto machine guns through the installation of illegal switches. New York also has a similar Glock ban bill pending in the legislature, and now that Newsom has signed AB 1127 into law that could start moving as well.

The gun control lobby can’t ban handguns outright, so their new strategy is to go after the most popular pistols on a piecemeal basis. In the short term, Glock sales will likely skyrocket in California, but unless AB 1127 is stayed via an injunction those sales will come to a screeching halt once the new law takes full effect.