Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

This commie group, along with the Socialist Rifle Association and ANTIFA are the domestic enemies we need to ‘Find and Fix’ for when it comes time to TCOB, so work on your local intelligence operations

John Brown Gun Club Invokes Kirk Assassin’s Message on Campus Flier

The John Brown Gun Club is a leftist gun organization that is, basically, an armed militia. The existence of such an organization, even if they disagree with me on countless issues, isn’t troubling in and of itself. People have a right to keep and bear arms, and they have a right to associate with whoever they wish. That includes a gun club with some sketchy ideology.

What’s not cool is making threatening moves, statements, or anything else.

Whether it’s criminal or not might be another matter, but what the group just did crosses at least some lines with me. You can’t just invoke a message from an assassin and not invoke serious concern.

Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, the left has been scrambling to control the narrative, insisting that political violence is a uniquely right-wing problem. But the disturbing reality is that the most recent eruptions of extremism are coming from their side of the aisle, thanks to rhetoric that Democratic leaders and their ideological allies still openly encourage.

This week’s incident at Georgetown University is a stark example. Students at one of the nation’s elite campuses discovered bright red flyers plastered across bulletin boards, distributed by the John Brown Gun Club, a self-described far-left militia with a history of violent activity.

These weren’t harmless announcements about progressive bake sales or climate marches. The flyers featured the chilling words, “Hey fascist! Catch!” the exact phrase investigators say Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk during a Turning Point USA event in Utah, scrawled on a shell casing. Even more disturbing, the flyer boasted that the group is “the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die,” before urging students to scan a QR code to join its cause and “make a real change” through aggressive activism instead of “ceremonial resistance.”

This rightly alarmed conservatives on campus. “So obviously I read this immediately as a threat, not only for me but for everyone on this campus,” Shae McInnis, a Georgetown sophomore and College Republicans treasurer, told Fox News Digital. And who can blame him?

The flyer’s message was unmistakable: violence is not only permissible but worth celebrating if you belong to the wrong political camp. We’ve been saying all along that when Democrats use rhetoric dehumanizing people on the right, it makes people on the left feel morally obligated to use violence against them.

Now, the problem here is what constitutes “aggressive activism.”

If it’s marches and protests every day of the week, that might be annoying, but it’s protected speech. The inclusion of the phrase “Hey fascist! Catch!” suggests something very different.

That’s not activism. That’s crossing a line.

No, it might not be an overt threat–or, at least, not enough of one for a DA to consider prosecuting anyone–but the message is clear. They not only approve of what Tyler Robinson actually did, but also want folks to believe they’re willing to emulate it. That is a threat, no matter how you slice it.

I’ve long stated I’ll stand with almost anyone who will defend gun rights. That includes John Brown Gun Club members.

Or, more accurately, it did.

I want nothing at all to do with people who use these kinds of threats to try and affect political change. I don’t want to be associated, even at a distance, with an organization that seeks to recruit people with methods like this. Especially since they either need to deliver on the promises of that particular kind of “aggressive activism” or those who signed on for it will go it alone, only now they’ll have others who think that’s a good idea.

At a time when we need to ramp down the tensions, this isn’t going to come to a good end.

As almost always, the expense of the process was the punishment.

Second Amendment Foundation declares ‘vindication’ as Attorney General ends investigation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced this week that it has reached an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. This concludes a three-year investigation that found no misconduct by SAF or its personnel.

As part of the settlement, SAF will withdraw its federal civil rights lawsuit against the Attorney General’s Office, former Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other named defendants. This agreement includes the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) canceling its request for public records from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In return, the AG’s Consumer Protection will end its investigation into SAF and the other parties involved.

Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated the agreement represents a “vindication of our position that SAF, its partners and personnel did nothing wrong.”

Gottlieb says Ferguson’s investigation was political retaliation, not justice.
Gottlieb expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation initiated by Bob Ferguson, describing it as an effort to “discredit our work on behalf of gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

“Ferguson’s witch hunt wasted three years of our time and cost us thousands of man hours and more than $200,000. We’re convinced this happened because he is a devoted anti-gun rights politician and we are a national organization whose mission is to protect and defend the Second Amendment,” he added.

All of SAF’s sister companies were targeted as well, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Merril Mail Marketing, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, and Liberty Park Press, where Gottlieb currently serves as publisher.

Gottlieb expressed relief that the ordeal is over, though he added, “we’re not happy that Ferguson is not held responsible for the damage he did. It is our sincere hope that no future attorney general in Washington state will conduct a politically motivated attack under color of law against any non-profit organization with which he or she has a fundamental philosophical disagreement.”

As parts of the agreement, the Washington State Attorney General has decided not to pursue any legal action stemming from the investigation.

This outcome comes as no surprise to Gottlieb, “since they couldn’t find any wrongdoing.”

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Every Democrat that opens their mouth and says a single thing about free speech needs to watch a video montage of themselves being complete and total hypocrites.
I would like to point out that the last person in that montage is a sitting United States Supreme Court justice, who does not understand that the first amendment is supposed to hamstring the government from restricting the free speech rights of American citizens. – Insurrection Barbie

 

 

If you don’t yet understand the problem:

Well, I had murderous minded Leftists figured out a long time ago.

Nic Carter

My less online conservative friends have abruptly awakened this week to the reality that their political opponents are not mere sparring partners in a congenial game of democracy but would celebrate their deaths and those of everyone they love.
That’s why “it feels like something is different now.” They have realized the left is playing for keeps and sees them as subhuman monsters. Watching otherwise pleasant leftist friends or family or colleagues celebrating Kirk’s death on main with their real names attached. It’ll change you.

Nick Freitas

I am told that as a state representative this is the moment where I’m supposed to express my heartfelt condolences and then stand in solidarity with those on the other side of the aisle as we condemn political violence and stand unified as one people.

But we aren’t “one people” are we?

The truth is we haven’t been for some time now, and there is really no point in pretending anymore, if there ever was.

We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.

I convinced myself for a long time that whenever the left called me a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a fascist, a “threat to democracy” for even the most innocent of disagreements, that it was simply hyperbolic rhetoric done for effect.

And now the “effect” is a widow and two orphaned children, because the left couldn’t bear the thought of a peaceful man debating them and winning.

I don’t think they realize it yet, but murdering Charlie is going to be remembered as the day where we finally woke up to what this fight really is.

It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.

Charlie tried to win that fight through argumentation, through discussion, through peaceful resolution of differences.

And the other side murdered him.

Not because he was “extreme” or “inciting violence” or any other hyperbolic slur they hurled at him. They murdered him because he was effective. Because he was unafraid. Because he inspired others and made them feel like they had a voice, that they were not alone. And he did it at the very institutions which have fomented so much hatred toward conservatives.

I don’t want to “stand in solidarity” with the other side of the aisle. I want to defeat you. I want to defeat the godless ideology that kills babies in the womb, sterilizes confused children, turns our cities into cesspools of degeneracy and lawlessness…and that murdered Charlie Kirk.

Social media is aflame right now with leftist celebration of Charlie’s death.

I wonder if any among them understand what has just happened. If there is a Yamamoto somewhere in their midst warning, that all they have done is awoken a sleeping giant.

I doubt it. I think they gave up such introspection and self-awareness long ago.

I don’t know exactly what will happen next. I just know that it won’t be the same as what has happened in the past.

There will be thoughts and prayers…Charlie would have wanted prayers. Not for himself but for those left behind and for the country that he loved.

But then there will be a reckoning.

My Christian faith requires me to love my enemies and pray for those who curse me. It does not require me to stand idly by in the midst of savagery and barbarism…quite the opposite.

So every time I feel tired, every time I feel discouraged or overwhelmed, I am going to watch the video of a good man being murdered in Utah…I will force myself to watch it…and then I will return to the work of destroying the evil ideology responsible for that and so much more.

Rest with God Charlie, your fight is over.

Ours is just beginning.

*cough* Declaration of Independence *cough*

Image

This moron is the type of domestic enemy we swear oaths to defend the nation against. And he’s a Senator.
Since he doesn’t agree with the quotation, even though he may reside in the U.S. and even have been born here, he is not an American since these are some of the fundamental first principles the nation was founded on.

The Irony of Attacking Prayer in Wake of Minneapolis Shooting

People offer thoughts and prayers after any tragedy. It’s the first thing they do, mostly because doing more requires more time and organization. And, in most cases, people understand that. They understand it perfectly well, and no one bats an eye.

After the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, though, we got a reminder that it’s only acceptable in the wake of some tragedies.

See, while some have mocked “thoughts and prayers” for some time, it got particularly ugly in the aftermath.

As if the slaughter of children amid screams and shattered stained glass wasn’t cause enough for grief, American opinion makers were convulsed once again this week in a debate over the role of prayer in the wake of a mass shooting, this time at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis.

Those who support some legal restrictions on guns, often Democrats, say that Republican politicians who appeal to prayer are trying to distract from their own inaction on such things as red flag laws or stricter background checks on gun purchases.

“Don’t just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told a news conference after the shooting, in which an assailant killed two Annunciation students and wounded 18 other people attending Mass.

Of course, it’s not like Frey didn’t catch criticism for his comments.

Critics, especially on the right, chided the Democratic mayor.

“It is shocking to me that so many left wing politicians attack the idea of prayer in response to a tragedy,” Republican Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, posted on X. “Literally no one thinks prayer is a substitute for action. We pray because our hearts are broken and we believe that God is listening.”

The problem here isn’t that Democrats have a problem with thoughts and prayers specifically–oh, many do, but that’s not what this is about–it’s that they have a problem that our thoughts and prayers won’t force us to embrace their so-called solutions.

The preferred policies of many anti-gun lawmakers, mostly Democrats, tend to be soft on criminals and hard on law-abiding citizens. They’ve resulted in orders of magnitude more deaths than from all the mass shootings in this country’s history combined, but those aren’t relevant in their mind. Those are just good policies, and shame on you for bringing them up in the wake of some awful tragedy.

But they’ll politicize anything and everything when they get a chance, including the fact that pro-gun folks offer their thoughts and their prayers in the aftermath.

Look, my prayers are for the comfort of those who lost people they care about in the attack, because I’ve been there and I know it hurts. I offer prayers for those injured to heal quickly and completely. I offer prayers that those who were there can find peace in the wake of something indescribable.

And I’m not going to stop because some jackwagon thinks that my refusing to give up my rights because some other jackwagon did something terrible is something that should shame me into silence.

It won’t.

They think that our refusal to embrace the things they claim are solutions is some admission that we don’t care about anything, but where the hell was Frey telling us how the red flag law Minnesota passed failed to stop this horrific incident? Where was the admission that the killer sought out a gun-free zone where he could kill the innocent? Where was his acknowledgement of gun control’s complete and utter failure here?

There’s an irony here in people like Frey attacking prayer in the wake of a shooting that took place while the victims were literally praying. It’s a sick irony, but it’s still irony.

Especially since his policies failed, but he’s mad that we pray for the fallen but won’t back those same policies.

Minneapolis Mayor Who Attacked Prayer Now Moves To The Next Amendment Of The Bill Of Rights

Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey attacked gun ownership and the Second Amendment during an MSNBC appearance on Wednesday in which he doubled down on dismissing prayer.

Frey’s initial comments criticizing those who prayed came during a Wednesday morning press conference after an active shooter opened fire during an all-school mass held by the Annunciation Catholic School on Wednesday morning, killing two children and wounding at least 17 other people. Frey praised “other countries” that passed sweeping gun control after shootings while appearing on “The Briefing with Jen Psaki.”

“We have more guns in America than people. Say that again. We have more guns in America than people. Why? Why is it so easy to get a gun? Why is it so easy to get a whole heap ton of guns? Why is it that you can buy a gun virtually every month if you wanted to? What good is that?” Frey ranted to host Jen Psaki. “We’re not talking about your father’s hunting rifle. We’re talking about people that have gotten guns that seemingly — in this case, legally — that obviously have a whole ton of mental health issues.”

WATCH:

“You’re not right in the head if you’re going to a church to shoot it up. You’re not right in the head. But the fact that you have guns, in fact, many, many guns, why is that okay?” Frey continued. “You know, this has gone down in other countries and they say, ‘You know what, we’re not going to allow this anymore. We don’t want this to happen anymore. We’re going to do something about it.’”

Australia carried out a mandatory “buy back” of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns after a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur. Canada passed legislation banning over 1,500 types of firearms in the wake of an April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that killed 23 people.

Other Democrats, including Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also called for gun laws, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” in the wake of the shooting. Frey’s comments drew praise from Klobuchar and CNN host Dana Bash during a Wednesday afternoon segment on the network, during which Klobuchar called for the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“Assault weapons” is a euphemism that gun-control advocates use to gain support for banning certain semi-automatic firearms with features that provide a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation.

“What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released),” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in a fact sheet. The NSSF estimated that over 24 million “modern sporting rifles,” which include the AR-15, are “in circulation” in a July 2022 release.

It’s nice when they plainly state what they want and sign their names, providing positive identification, unlike some cowardly newspaper ‘editorial staff’. This is merely another of the supercilious domestic enemies of the Constitution that believe they should have the power to tell others how to live their lives and exercise their inherent rights.
They aren’t ‘good men’™. They’re wanna-be tyrants.

We Must End the Insanity of Firearms Policies in This Land of the Terrified and Home of the Fearful.


Warren J. Blumenfeld

So, after suffering the effects of yet another mass shooting in our country, this time at a Catholic school in Minnesota where a gunman shot 17 people, mostly children, killing some, I ask again, “Why is the United States the only place among our peer nations to allow virtually unrestricted sales and ownership of firearms.”

In fact, there are more firearms in the United States than there are residents: with an estimated 120.5 firearms per every 100 people. In a distant second place is the Falkland Islands with 62.1, and in third place is Yemen with 52.8 per every 100 residents.

After each incident of individual and mass shootings, we hear the obligatory “We send my thoughts and prayers to the survivors and to the loved ones of those who have died” coming from politicians and other officials. Well, I hate to break it to you, but “thoughts and prayers” simply aren’t cutting it! They aren’t helping to reduce the chances of another incident tomorrow or next week or next year.

Each time I hear of another incident of gun violence in a long and tragic chain, I think back to the very first thing that caught my eye as I entered the grounds of the Ames, Iowa Republican Party Presidential Straw Poll in the summer of 2011. Three young children, I would guess between the ages of 4 -7, sporting day-glow orange baseball caps with “NRA” imprinted atop, and round stickers on their small T-shirts announcing, “GUNS SAVE LIVES.”

But, really, do these “guns save lives”? Do laws expanding gun possession, concealed or not, actually “save lives”?

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun-related deaths have reached epidemic proportions in our country by snuffing out the lives of upwards of 47,000 people and wounding many more in 2023 alone. Based on an analysis of the CDC data, the firearms reform organization, Brady United, reported an average of 117 deaths per day in 2023.

Each year, gun violence affects over 100,000 people in some way. Many of the guns used in these killings reach military level weapons power, guns which currently remain legal.

Of the increasing number of individual and mass murders in the United States since 1982, most of the shooters obtained their weapons legally. Demographically, the shooters in all but a very few cases involved males, usually white, with an average age of 35 years.

Should any limits be placed on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

We seem somehow only to spout the second clause in that sentence while forgetting the first, especially the term “well-regulated”!

I propose that we reevaluate the political Right’s obsession with the so-called “freedom” to bear arms because it is not only “criminals who kill people” as Second Amendment advocates claim. Therefore,

  • We must ban and criminalize the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons!
  • We must close loopholes such as buying a weapon at a gun show!
  • We must pass “Red Flag” laws in every state and, more importantly, on the federal level!
  • We must ban the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet because some people are still doing this legally!
  • We must increase the waiting period and make background checks more rigorous and effective!
  • We must raise the age for gun ownership!
  • We must pass laws to ensure safe gun storage requirements!
  • We must pass stronger laws to address gun trafficking!
  • We must limit the number of firearms any individual can own!
  • We must limit the number of bullets any firearm clip can hold!
  • We must ban and criminalize the purchase and possession of armor piercing bullets, and also hollow-tip bullets!
  • We must address gun violence as a public health issue!
  • We must address the serious mental health concerns of all people with sufficient resources and treatment!
  • We must provide “active shooter” training in all business, schools, and other social institutions!
  • We must make the abolition of gun silencers permanent!
  • We must eliminate the manufacture and sales of all “rapid-fire” devices!
  • We must repeal “shoot first” or “stand your ground” laws!
  • We must close the “Charleston loophole” in which, under federal law, a gun purchase can proceed by default after a three-day background check period even if that check has not been completed!
  • We must mandate that local law enforcement be alerted after any loss or theft of a firearm!
  • We must criminalize the production of 3-D manufactured firearms of all varieties!
  • We must repeal the immunity granted to firearms manufacturers!
  • We must mandate the compensation of innocent victims of gun violence!
  • We must alert local law enforcement whenever any person fails a background check!
  • We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons and “open carry” especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars, restaurants, and political rallies!
  • We must interface all databases monitoring firearm ownership to assess the firearm-owning population more accurately and effectively!

To be perfectly honest, however, I want the Second Amendment repealed! It is an Amendment for goodness sake. It is not some sort of divinely-inspired mandate from a superior being well beyond our comprehension. It was created, rather, by our intelligent but flawed “founding fathers” who probably did not want totally unlimited and unrestricted rights to bear arms.

While wise men most who crafted what many consider today as a brilliant and enduring blueprint for a new nation, they were products of their times with their individual human shortcomings and biases.

Just coming off a war of independence against one of the world’s great colonial powers, it was reasonable to expect leaders to ensure people the capability of defending themselves against any potentially tyrannical government. In this regard, they established the Second Amendment in its Bill of Rights granting people “the right to bear arms.”

Since then, firearms, and the culture supporting it, has been encoded into the very DNA of U.S.-American identity and what it means to be “an American.” But what may have been “reasonable” in the 18th century, without substantial reform, ranks as unreasonable today.

Even if they did advocate for unrestricted firearms ownership, these are the same men who enslaved other human beings, committed genocide against and expelled native peoples, withheld enfranchisement from women, engaged in and killed one another in duels, and so on.

Actually, I’m really surprised that the gun-toting political right hasn’t advocated for the return of lethal dueling matches. Maybe that’s next on their agenda. (Go see the Broadway show “Hamilton” to see how that turned out!)

But what was the actual, often hidden or forgotten reason for the founders to include the Second Amendment as they conceived it in the Bill of Rights?

In her book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, author Carol Anderson discovered the overarching racial discrepancies in the handling of gun ownership in the U.S. dating to the founding of the country and to the Second Amendment.

The language of the amendment, Anderson argues, was shaped to ensure that owners of those they enslaved would be able rapidly to repel acts of resistance and rebellious uprisings. She says the right to bear arms, presumably guaranteed to all citizens but not to enslaved Africans, has been repeatedly denied to Black people.

As we all know, in the current political climate, the chances for comprehensive common sense gun reform measures in the United States is only a pipe dream as long as the political Right controls Congress and state legislatures. If the lobbyists for firearms manufacturers had not bought and paid for our legislators and members of the Executive branch, we would have seen effective laws passed years ago resulting in countless lives saved.

Nevertheless, this utter insanity in our system of firearms laws must end. Enough is enough is enough is enough already! Actually, it is far past that time.

Stop and Smell the Commie: The Normie’s Guide to Recognizing Marxism Before it Kills Us All.

The Trump economy continues to improve, and crime is falling. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met to begin the process of winding down the war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump has also begun turning Washington back into a peaceful city where residents can walk to the Dairy Queen without fear of stray lead perforation.

FACT-O-RAMA! Washington, D.C., is so violent (how violent is it?!) Abe Pollin, the owner of the Washington Bullets basketball team, changed the team’s name to the Wizards. I guess it was easier than arresting the gun-toting yobbos who were perforating people for decades.

The entire nation should be, like me, enjoying a daytime cocktail (a Manhattan with orange bitters, risque!), and enjoying life, oui? Not quite.

Sure, your typical flag-waving, liberty-loving Americans are having a hoot, but the more successful Trump — and America — become, the louder those meat-dodging, septum-pierced, blue-haired apparatchiks seem to screech. Why is that? Because they are filthy communist prags who want to bring down the greatest nation in the history of mankind, which happens to be the United States of America.

You are probably already doing what you can to preserve our republic, but we are going to need more of our normie neighbors and family to join our crusade. But many of them wouldn’t know a Marxist if they/them put on a drag show for their five-year-old. That’s where I come in.

I am writing this article so we can get our politically sleepy friends into the biffo that I firmly believe will decide whether or not our kids will spend their future weekends enjoying BBQed steaks or state-sanctioned cricketloaf.

The first thing to know is this: communists and Islam hate Western civilization. The two have combined to establish a one-government, New World Order. A major part of this plan involves gavaging billions of invaders into the West. If you think I’m being a tinfoil whackadoodle, check out what the World Economic Forum (WEF) “predicts” for 2030:

Continue reading “”

Drug Cartels Are Proxy Armies, So Use the Militaryby Austin Bay
August 13, 2025

Sometime after 2002, Communist China began subtly transforming organized Latin American drug trafficking syndicates. The gangs, the biggest with the hired guns, money and political connections to rate as cartels, continued their usual felony and smuggling operations but added an additional line of operation: hybrid warfare entities, shape-shifting cousins to Iranian proxy armies and classic guerrilla cadres.

The goal of this Chinese-induced transformation: waging plausibly deniable disintegrative and chemical and anarchic war against America on America’s own soil.

Chemical war? Killer drugs are chemicals.

Disintegrative warfare. The term appears in chapter 13 of a book called “World System History: The Social Science of Long-Term Change.” In a disintegrative war, a “unitary belligerent becomes increasingly fragmented by secessions.”

Or, instead of classic territorial secession, social and economic fragmentation spawned and accelerated by corrupt local and state political machines, violent crime encouraged by George Soros-backed district attorneys who put murderers and rapists back on the street, and deadly drugs and more violent criminals crossing open borders

The date 2002 is ballpark. “Unrestricted Warfare,” written by Chinese strategists Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, mulls weaponizing almost everything human beings do or want to do. But by 2011, China’s strategic intent was evident and the cartel connectivity was emerging.

According to several sources, fentanyl’s so-called “second wave” hit the U.S. in 2007 — fentanyl cut with heroin. In 2013, overdoses from synthetic opioids like fentanyl increased dramatically.

Communist China was and remains the world’s primary source of fentanyl. Beijing either ships it directly to the U.S. or smuggles it via Mexico. It’s a two for one — making money while destroying America.

In 2017, the National Interest called China’s drug strategy vis-a-vis the U.S. the “Reverse Opium War.” From 1839-1842, China’s Qing dynasty went to war with Britain to stop the Brits from selling opium in China. The drug threatened Chinese social cohesion. China became a failed state.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, heavens, Washington, D.C. Flailing U.S. cities are the battlegrounds in China’s drug war. Illegal drug use and violent crime kill Americans and destroy social cohesion.

President Donald Trump, however, has formulated policies and operations to address the disintegrative crises.

Washington is a mess — and Trump has a test case. He has the legal authority to secure D.C. So he’s ordered operations. Federal and local law enforcement, backed by a federalized National Guard, will cut D.C.’s murder rate — one small step toward reintegration. Federal prosecutors will prosecute the lawbreakers.

As for adding the military the so-called civil “drug war”? Military capabilities have played secondary but significant roles in the anti-drug war since President Richard Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs” in 1971. The Pentagon has provided the DEA, FBI and other civilian law enforcement with electronic intercept, intelligence and logistics.

Make it make sense: Gun grabbers come out against fighting crime

A gun control nonprofit that wants to disarm Americans has come out against President Donald Trump’s Washington, D.C., crime crackdown.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, known these days as Brady: United Against Gun Violence, issued a lengthy statement on Monday condemning Trump’s ongoing D.C. crime crackdown.

The statement began by describing the one-day Jan. 6 riot as “the worst outbreak of mass violence in recent District memory.”

Recall that only one person died during the riot: Rioter Ashli Babbitt. Meanwhile, 99 people have been murdered in D.C. this year alone.

The statement continued by using possibly falsified crime data to claim violent crime in D.C. “has fallen precipitously since 2023 and were at a 30-year low the day the president returned to the Oval Office.”

Hilariously, the statement attributed this alleged low to the Biden administration’s otherwise widely panned policy decisions.

According to the White House, the reality is that “D.C.’s murder rate is roughly three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-run Havana, Cuba.”

The statement from Brady president Kris Brown concluded with her suggesting that Trump’s federal police are the ones “endanger[ing]” D.C. residents, not the hordes of violent criminals running the streets.

“We cannot allow the president to suggest that federalized police is an appropriate response to any and all challenges; or that federalized police do not further endanger the public, especially Black and Brown communities who live and work in or visit D.C.,” it read.

So, in other words, the same people who want to disarm Americans, thus making them prey to criminals, also want to effectively disarm the police, making residents even more prey to criminals. It makes no sense, especially when you factor in how the locals actually feel.

Last year, dozens of business groups with offices in D.C. penned a letter to Mayor Muriel Bowser expressing “deep concern about the alarming increase in violent crime across our city.”

 

“D.C. is quickly becoming a national outlier in rising crime, and the trends are alarming,” the letter read. “Our organizations are primarily based in the downtown business district, where there have been horrifying acts of violence.”

“Innocent people in neighborhoods across the city have been targeted in robberies, carjackings, and seemingly random acts of violence,” the letter continued.

D.C. Police Union Chairman Gregg Pemberton has also raised concerns about the city’s violent crime epidemic.

“We stand with the President in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory,” he said in a statement. “Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits.”

He reiterated this during an appearance this week on Fox News’ “America Reports“:

 

As for Brady, last year it also came out against self-defense, arguing that guns “are rarely used successfully in self-defense.” The stunning claim prompted a fact-check from Breitbart.

“Academic work by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck shows that, at a minimum, guns are used to protect life and property at least 760,000 times a year,” the fact-check reads.

Sen. Murphy’s Crushing NFA Tax Proposal is Really a Preview

The firearm industry and gun owners just got a preview of what’s in store should antigun politicians again be able to force through punitive gun control measures.

It’s a daunting – if not egregious – example of just how much contempt some elected officials have for Second Amendment rights.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slipped in a proposed amendment to a Defense spending bill that would skyrocket the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax to $4,709. That proposal comes just weeks after Congress reduced the tax to $0 from the previous $200 requirement that was in place since 1934.

Gun control advocates like Sen. Murphy don’t just recoil at the idea of lawful gun ownership. Politicians like him, bought and paid for by billionaire gun control benefactors, absolutely loathe the Second Amendment. And they’re willing to make gun owners pay the price. Literally.

Sen. Murphy slipped his proposed amendment into the U.S. House of Representatives spending bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. That bill, H.R. 3944, is being considered in the U.S. Senate. That’s where Sen. Murphy proposed Senate Amendment 2973, which states, “There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $4,709 for each firearm transferred.” That’s specific to the tax allowed by the 1934 NFA, so it would apply to tax stamps for suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns and the $5 tax on “Any Other Weapon” would increase to $55 from the current $5 tax.

That’s a 4,709 percent increase from what gun owners are expecting to pay now, and a 2,254.5 percent increase from what gun owners were paying when the $200 tax was in effect. Sen. Murphy didn’t feel the need to punish gun owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights when they were paying the $200 tax. It’s only now that the tax is lifted is he reacting to his frustrations that he couldn’t prevent the changes in the One, Big Beautiful Bill.

More importantly, Sen. Murphy is revealing what he – and his antigun partners – will do if they are in a position to force through unfettered gun control policies. Sen. Murphy would punish law-abiding gun owners, and the firearm industry that serves them, with burdensome policies that would price out everyday Americans from lawful firearm ownership.

If Sen. Murphy were to get his way, Second Amendment rights would become a right in name only. It would “only” be for the elite few who could afford the punitive tax. It would be “only” for those the government deems are affluent enough to afford it and it would “only” be a right that would be accessible until the next time gun control elites raise the price and the bar once again.

States Already Doing It
Critics who scoff at this notion that government officials bent on denying Second Amendment rights would twist the law to make lawful firearm ownership unaffordable aren’t just in a squeeze attempting to explaining Sen. Murphy’s proposal to levy nearly $5,000 each and every time a law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a suppressor, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun. Those critics know they can’t explain away the fact that there are antigun legislatures in the states that are already doing this.

Currently, California adds an 11 percent excise tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition. Colorado passed legislation to add a 6.5 percent excise tax on firearm and ammunition sales. Several other state legislatures – including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Washington have proposed similar “sin taxes” on law-abiding citizens seeking to lawfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.

Firearm and ammunition manufacturers already pay a 11 and 10 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, which funds wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, public land access, construction of public recreational marksmanship ranges and hunter education in all 50 states. This “user-pays” system has generated over $29 billion, when adjusted for inflation, for conservation through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax since its inception in 1937. The industry asked Congress to have this excise tax used for conservation as wildlife populations at the time were struggling. The Pittman-Robertson excise tax enhances the exercise of the Second Amendment rights and enables passing on the American heritage of hunting and recreational sports shooting to the next generation.

In contrast, Sen. Murphy’s $1,000 tax, like one previously proposed by U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), is unconstitutional because they are transparently intended to suppress the exercise of a constitutional right. Imagine a $1,000 tax on purchasing a book that certain politicians don’t want you to read.

Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), along with U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), introduced federal legislation to keep antigun politicians from pricing lawful gun ownership out of reach for Americans through “sin taxes.” They introduced the NSSF-supported Unfair Gun Taxes Act as H.R. 2442 and S. 1169, respectively.

The bicameral legislation would prohibit states from implementing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund gun control programs.

Pass HPA & SHORT Act
There’s yet another way Congress can prevent Sen. Murphy from running rampant over Second Amendment rights by jacking up taxes. Congress can take up and pass the Hearing Protect Action (HPA), introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 404 by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) and in the Senate by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) as S. 364 and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act as H.R. 2395 by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and S. 1162 by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Those bills remain an NSSF priority.

HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA) and make them accessible for purchase in the same manner as a firearm. That means no more tax stamp requirement (which is currently $0, but which couldn’t be raised to $4,709 by a future antigun Congress in a reconciliation package), fingerprint and photo submissions, redundant background checks, notification to the chief law enforcement officer and, importantly, no registration with the federal government. Suppressors would be available for purchase at retail with a simple Form 4473 and FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification the same way actual firearms are purchased and transferred. Suppressors would be on display right next to choke tubes.

The SHORT Act would do the same for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons” that are regulated by the NFA.

The hurdle remains high. It takes 60 votes to clear the filibuster in the Senate. Right now, only 53 senators could be counted on to protect Second Amendment rights. If Sen. Murphy is willing to punish law-abiding American gun owners with thousands of dollars in punitive taxes to put Second Amendment rights beyond their financial means, he assuredly would block HPA or SHORT Act in the Senate. That’s why gun owners must not risk their rights and #GUNVOTE in elections.