Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

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.

Well, he’s nothing but a stooge, grandstanding again.

Murphy Tries to Re-Impose (and Hike) NFA Taxes After Congress Zeroed Them Out

We’ve been reporting on a rider inserted in the House Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill that would force Washington, D.C. to recognize valid concealed carry permits from all U.S. states and territories (as well as end the District’s “no guns allowed” policy for public transportation, but pro-gun Republicans aren’t the only ones trying to use the appropriations process to change gun laws.

Murphy’s trying to insert a rider into the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill with language to undo the NFA reform included in the OBBB and instead raise the transfer tax on NFA items from $200 to $4,709 for each transfer.

As Brady indicates, the nearly $5,000 that Murphy wants to impose essentially indexes the original $200 transfer tax imposed in 1934 to the rate of inflation over the past 90 years. Still, that’s much higher than what we’ve heard proposed from other anti-gun Democrats in Congress, who’ve talked about tripling the $200 tax once they have hte numbers to do so.

And therein lies the problem for Murphy. He can propose any kind of tax increase he wants, but he basically has zero chance of seeing his proposal included in the MCVARA appropriations bill (which has already passed the House). The Republican majority that voted to zero out transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” a couple of weeks ago isn’t going to turn around and vote in favor of dramatically hiking the taxes instead.

Murphy’s offered a couple of other amendments to the appropriations bill as well.

Amendment 2972 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a quarterly report on “the number of veterans who should have been reported to the national instant criminal background check system… if such reporting by the Secretary was permitted, and of those veterans, the number of suicides by firearm that occurred in the previous quarter”.

That amendment is a response to another rider that would extend the VA’s prohibition on submitting the names of those veterans who’ve had a fiduciary appointed to handle their affairs to NICS.

A temporary provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 and its extensions (including the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025) prohibited the VA from making these NICS reports without a judicial finding. That provision, though, is set to expire on September 30 unless Congress includes similar language in this year’s appropriations bill.

And Congress has included that language. Section 412 of the MCVARA bill states:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5502 of title 38, United States Code, in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under such title, to report a person who is deemed mentally incapacitated, mentally incompetent, or to be experiencing an extended loss of consciousness as a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.

Murphy’s also offered an amendment that would simply strike that language from the appropriations bill so that veterans who’ve had a fiduciary appointed to help manage their financial affairs to be deemed a prohibited person without a judicial finding of dangerousness.

I doubt those amendments are going to fare any better than Murphy’s attempt to jack up NFA taxes by more than 2,000 percent, but gun owners should still be in contact with their Senators to encourage their opposition; both to these amendments and any others that would negatively impact our Second Amendment rights that might be introduced by anti-2A senators.

Pro Forma Kabuki Theater

Democrat Senator Pushes for $4,700 Tax Stamps

A leading anti-gun firebrand on Capitol Hill this week introduced a measure that would skyrocket the federal tax on NFA items, like suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who has signed on to just about every wandering gun ban and restriction that has come through Congress in the past two decades, on Tuesday suggested new tax rates on NFA items.

His proposed amendment to a Republican military spending bill would set the typical $200 making and transfer tax on most items to $4,709 and move the $5 tax on AOWs to $55.

“If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country,” said Murphy in a press conference last month on the eve of potential NFA reform in the Republican reconciliation bill, H.R.1, better known as President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While H.R.1 did not include “mass legalization” of suppressors (they have never been illegal, just taxed since 1934), it did drop the tax rate to $0, effective in January 2026.

National gun control groups quickly welcomed Murphy’s move, with Brady saying, “Thank you, Chris Murphy, for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

The likelihood of Murphy’s proposal sticking to the spending bill and making it into law is slim in the Republican-controlled Senate. Still, it signals one of the priorities that Dems will pursue when the polarity of Congress switches.

The Misogyny of the Anti-Gun Movement

A couple of days ago my colleague Tom Knighton wrote about some examples of misogyny in Second Amendment spaces, but the issue is perhaps even more pronounced among gun control advocates.

As Paige Pearson writes at the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s blog, many gun control groups have institutionalized their opposition to women exercising their Second Amendment rights… and they have become more vocal as more women are becoming gun owners.

The Smoking Gun is Everytown for Gun Safety’s media arm that describes itself as “the online resource committed to exposing the gun industry’s” role “in our gun violence epidemic.” Apparently that includes exposing the evils of marketing and advertising in a manner that attracts 50 percent of your possible customer base.

Enter Greg Lickenbrock, who spoke with three marketing and sociology professors from Oregon State University about their observations in advertising towards American women from firearm manufacturers and retailers.

“The fact that we now see women in these ads, and portraying different ‘characters,’ demonstrates the industry’s efforts to increase ownership among women,” Dr. Brett Burkhardt said.

“After a few years of experimenting with sexualized ads that didn’t correlate with increased sales to women, the industry now seems to have landed on an advertising idea that works: showing women as competent and serious gun owners,” added Dr. Michelle Barnhardt.

Dr. Aimee Dinnin Huff offered her thoughts as well. “There isn’t yet an established female American gun owner identity or image that consumers can latch onto. Many ads still rely on gendered assumptions rather than a nuanced understanding of the different types of relationships women have with firearms,” she said.

Dr. Burkhardt added another thought, stating, “These new and more common depictions of women and firearms are examples of how the industry is seeking to naturalize women’s gun ownership.”

Why shouldn’t gun ownership be considered natural for women? Or, to put it another way, why do anti-gunners want to denormalize half the population exercising a fundamental constitutional right?

To be fair, groups like Everytown are just as opposed to guys owning guns as they are with women exercising their 2A rights. But the anti-gunners can’t stand the fact that more women are choosing to purchase a firearm; whether for self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, or just because it’s fun to spend time at the range. And they absolutely hate that the firearms industry has recognized that a growing number of women are making up their customer base.

Media still widely misrepresents American gun owners as old, white guys but recent trends in firearm purchasing couldn’t put this caricature to rest any better. Over the past five years, the surge of new first-time buyers has made the gun-owning community the most diverse population of gun owners ever. That’s a good thing – as the Second Amendment is for everyone. And that includes women.

Women are featured more prominently today in advertising because more women are buying firearms for any number of reasons – all good ones – and the industry is listening to them. Women’s nights at neighborhood shooting ranges, women-only firearm training classes and even friend groups choosing to go to the range together are all increasingly more popular activities as women choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights in any safe way they choose.

Marketing has changed over the last few decades to follow the customer. For Lickenbrock and others, that means seeing a lot more women with guns. And that’s a good thing.

I certainly think so, and if you’re reading this I’m relatively sure you’re in agreement with Pearson too. The gun control lobby, on the other hand, isn’t just going to clutch its collective pearls. They too will be targeting women with anti-gun messaging and campaigns designed to discourage them from keeping and bearing arms; portraying it as something that’s far too dangerous for ladies to engage in… and ignoring stories about women saving their own lives thanks to their decision to become a gun owner.

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

Hey. How’ve you been?

It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.

That’s a shame.

I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.

Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:

1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.

2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.

3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.

4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.

5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.

6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.

7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”

8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.

9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.

10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.

11. Trump got elected in 2024.

12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.

We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”

Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?

What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.

Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:

HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?

Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.

Sincerely,

The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives

The Bombshell Tulsi Gabbard Just Dropped on the Russian Collusion Hoax Should Terrify Every American

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released an earth-shattering report detailing how federal agencies under the Obama administration manipulated intelligence findings to concoct and promote the Russiagate hoax.

This, along with earlier revelations about how intelligence agencies pushed the false narrative about President Donald Trump and Russia, shows just how deep the scheme ran.

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, multiple internal assessments concluded that the Russian government was not trying to influence the outcome of the race, according to a memo that Gabbard released. Multiple intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion.

On August 31, 2016, “a DHS official tells former DNI James Clapper that there was ‘no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.’”

Nevertheless, the FBI allegedly asked the agencies to water down their assessments to avoid coming to solid conclusions. On September 2, the Bureau asked that a whistleblower’s report be “softened” and acknowledged that they were “uncomfortable” with implying “definitive information that Russia does intend to disrupt our elections.”

Later, an official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) insisted that the next Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) should affirm that the Kremlin “probably is not trying…to influence the elction by using cyber means.” Several IC officials concurred.

These assessments resulted in the September 12 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which noted that “foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks on election infrastructure.”

After Trump won the 2016 election, intelligence officials reaffirmed that Russian cyber operations had not influenced the outcome. However, the assessment was abruptly suppressed. In December, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office started compiling a new Presidential Daily Briefing that also confirmed that Russia did not sway the results of the race.

However, Gabbard’s memo notes that the FBI “inexplicably withdraws from coordinating on the product” and expressed plans to draft a dissent. Later in the day, a senior PDB official kills the PDB ‘based on some new guidance.’” The original briefing, noting that Russia did not affect the election, was never published.

Continue reading “”

When It Comes To Islam, Are We In The West Too Stupid To Survive?
By Richard C. Crandall

I question whether we will survive as a nation or are even worth saving. If nothing else, our refusal to recognize Islam for what it is seems to presage our demise.

Putting aside the damage leftism does to American culture, we are also at risk from Islam, about which we still remain appallingly ignorant 24 years after 9/11. Instead, we have adopted the myth of “Moderate Muslims.” Before elaborating on Moderate Muslims, we must ask, “What other groups get to use the prefix “moderate?” During WWII, were there moderate Nazi members of Congress who claimed to only believe in the “good” parts of Mein Kampf, such as free health care. Were there moderate members of the KKK who only went out occasionally lynching, burning, and raping? And where are the moderate wife beaters who avoid hitting the face and who don’t leave visible bruising?

Moderate Muslims adopt a cafeteria approach to Islam, ignoring those they dislike or that play badly in the West, all while clinging to the core message: A worldwide caliphate, free of all other faiths, except those that are useful to their Islamic overlords.

Continue reading “”