Petro Opposes Right to Carry Guns in Colombia

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro spoke yesterday during a Cabinet meeting about the ongoing debate over the right to carry guns among civilians. Petro repeated what he has previously stated on other occasions, expressing his support for keeping weapons solely in the hands of public security forces and not in civilian possession.

This is a recurring debate during election periods in Colombia, a country where violence is cyclical and the notion of self-defense resurfaces in political campaigns. While the conservative opposition makes legal gun ownership one of its key banners, the ruling party maintains that the state should monopolize the use of force, arguing that arming the population only fuels the cycle of violence.

Petro calls for a gun-free civilian population

During a Cabinet meeting held Yesterday, Tuesday, Aug. 19, Petro weighed in on the debate over the right to carry guns in Colombia. The President stressed the need to move toward a country where civilians are unarmed. In his remarks, he pointed out that Colombia must remain consistent with the principle that weapons should be monopolized by the state and not by private citizens.

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.

America Must Never Apologize for Dropping the Bombs on Japan.

This week marks the 80th anniversary of President Harry Truman’s fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively, Aug. 6 and 9, 1945). To date, those two bombings represent the only instances in which nuclear weapons have been deployed in war. At least 150,000 Japanese perished — a majority of them civilians. But the bombings were successful in achieving their intended effect: Japan announced its formal surrender to the Allies six days after the second bombing, thus finally bringing the bloodiest conflict in human history to an end.

For decades, ethical opposition to Truman’s decision has mostly come from left-wing critics. That seems to be changing. Last year, Tucker Carlson claimed that nuclear weapons were created by “demonic” forces and asserted that the United States was “evil” for dropping the bomb on Japan. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also posted a highly peculiar video in June that, while falling short of apologizing for the bombs, did pointedly warn of “warmongers” who are bringing the world to the brink of “nuclear holocaust.”

This is misguided. Looking back eight decades later, Truman’s decision deserves not condemnation but a tragic and grudging gratitude. It was the right decision, and America must never apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Critics often portray Truman’s decision as an act of monstrous brutality — a flex of raw military might by a sadistic and trigger-happy superpower. But such characterizations, drenched in presentist moral narcissism, do a grave disservice to the reality on the ground and the countless lives Truman undoubtedly saved. They are also a grave disservice to the memory of all those killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Carlson and his fellow ultra-pacifists should visit Pearl Harbor and stand over the sunken USS Arizona, the final resting place of more than 900 sailors and marines. One can still see and smell the oil leaking from the ships, all these decades later; it is an extraordinary experience.

Shocking sensory intakes aside, the sober reality is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter how morbid and macabre, were strategically and morally correct.

When Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs, he faced a truly appalling alternative: a full-scale land invasion of Japan. Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, had projected American and Japanese casualties potentially reaching as high as a million lives each. The Imperial Japanese, steeped in a kamikaze warrior ethos, had proven time and again — at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and elsewhere — that they would fight to the last man, woman and child. Schoolchildren were being trained to attack American troops with sharpened bamboo sticks. Fighting to the death was not mere speculation; it was core Imperial Japanese doctrine.

The under-discussed truth is that Imperial Japan was just as ruthless and barbaric as its Nazi German wartime ally. And the atomic bombs — absolutely horrific though they were — finally shocked Japan into surrender. They punctured Japan’s carefully curated myth of divine invincibility and left Tokyo’s bellicose leadership with no doubt that continued resistance could only mean utter annihilation.

More than 100,000 Americans had already been killed in the Pacific theater, and those who had survived were overjoyed by Truman’s decision: They knew they would live and return home to their wives and children.

Truman’s decision also affirmed a deeper American nationalistic sentiment: that from an American perspective, the safety and security of American lives must necessarily be prioritized over foreign lives. Truman did not see any moral virtue in sacrificing our soldiers on the altar of an abstract globalism or a relativistic humanitarianism. His first obligation as commander in chief was to protect American lives by securing a final, unconditional end to the war. In this, he succeeded — resoundingly.

Critics often claim Japan was already on the brink of surrender. They point to back-channel diplomacy and note the Soviet declaration of war the day prior to the bombing of Nagasaki. But Truman didn’t have the benefit of postwar memoirs or archival research. He had bloodied maps, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, grieving families, and military intelligence suggesting the Japanese military would never accept unconditional surrender without a shock so great it shattered their will to fight.

This, too, reflects a clarity that modern Western leaders often lack: the resolve to act decisively, to bear the weight of terrible decisions in pursuit of peace and justice. Truman’s choice was not only militarily sound but morally defensible. The bombings were not, as many armchair critics have argued over the decades, a cheap form of ethical utilitarianism; Truman’s decision to bomb was simply reflective of how real war-and-peace decisions must be made in the heat of the moment, when the stakes are the highest.

It is fashionable now to question the morality of Truman’s decision from the safety of the present. But it is an act of historical myopia to pretend that the atomic bombings were gratuitous or overly callous. They were not. They were the tragic price of a brutal victory and the necessary cost of hard-fought peace.

War, we know, is hell. Indeed, that is a very good reason to avoid starting wars in the first place. But once upon a time, Western societies understood that once a horrific war has been initiated, there can be no substitute for absolute victory. That lesson has long been forgotten. It is past time to learn it once again.

Canada Has Proven the Ineffectiveness of Oppressive National-Level Gun Control Laws.

high profile mass shooting happened in a heavily gun controlled state so, predictably, the civilian disarmament industrial complex has once again jumped onto the argument that we need far more federal-level gun rights restrictions. One of the countries they love to use as an exemplar for gun control Nirvana they seek is Canada.

For the last decade under Justin Trudeau, Canada ratcheted up their gun control laws. This went against what he had promised back in 2010, when he said he would never confiscate guns but that lie really isn’t surprising. We see that with purple and red state Democrats on this side of the border who engage in a sort of gun control taqiyya. They promise not to ban guns like the AR-15 during their campaigns, then support bans after the election (see: Conor LambJason Kander, and many others).

Under Trudeau, Canada did all of the following, which would make America’s gun control industry swoon if it happned here:

  • Passed new legislation which extended background checks from five years to a lifetime
  • Implemented a point-of-sale registration by business
  • Required authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms to locations other than the range (e.g. gunsmiths, gun shows, etc.) through strengthened transportation requirements
  • Prohibited 1,500 models of “assault-style” weapons, the public was offered a grace period to turn them in
  • National freeze on the sale of new handguns
  • Banned another 400 guns by make and model just recently

So, with all of this new gun control, homicides must have surely fallen through the floor, right? After all, that’s the whole point of passing more gun control laws isn’t it?

Nope.

Continue reading “”

After breaking the ceasefire, Iran has a way to go before reaching #5.


The Trump Doctrine (aka the Businessman’s Way of War).

As the dust and smoke settle over Iran’s devastated nuclear weapons program, President Donald Trump’s method of waging war is coming into focus. We had hints of what I call the “Trump Doctrine” in his first term as he annihilated ISIS in Syria, but the two-decade war in Afghanistan that he had inherited initially obscured what has now become a coherent doctrine.

In his second term, the freedom of navigation attacks against Yemen’s Houthis were once again a hint of Trump’s way of war, but Saturday’s attack on Iran—and the events leading up to it—tell us much about the deliberate and precise manner in which Trump seeks to conduct American wars.

Similar to (but different from) the famous “Powell Doctrine” promulgated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell (more on that later), the Trump Doctrine is the doctrine of a businessman serving his stockholders. Explained another way, the Trump Doctrine is the “Businessman’s Way of War.”

To preview succinctly, the Trump Doctrine consists of a series of business-like, iterative steps for all uses of American military force, and it performs as follows:

1. Identify America’s national interest.

2. Bargain with the prospective enemy.

3. If/when negotiations fail, conceal & misdirect.

4. Strike with precision and overwhelming force.

5. Achieve submission.

6. Bargain again (from a position of complete strength) with the defeated enemy.

I’ll now examine each of these escalating steps in detail. Continue reading “”

Well, we just plastered three Iranian nuclear sites, including the one – FORDOW – built under a mountain.

I’ve lived almost all my life in ‘interesting times’, and I’ve really prefer the opposite.

We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

Mexico Parrots Democrat Lawfare Despite SCOTUS PLCAA Rejection

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that anti-Second Amendment groups run by the Democrat party have been working closely with Mexican officials to attack American gun rights and subvert the U.S. Constitution. This collusion with a foreign government recently set the stage for the Supreme Court’s rejection of our southern neighbor’s $10 billion lawsuit which aimed to cripple the American firearms industry by seeking an outrageous judgement against Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gun manufacturers. But Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, ever willing to blame her own country’s abject failure and corruption on others, another strategy on loan from Democrat cohorts, has decided to push forward with an almost identical lawsuit, this time targeting gun dealers and distributors in Arizona.

Nobody knows more about abusing the U.S. judicial system than Democrats, and all the big names came out to bat for Mexico in its failed Supreme Court challenge of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law enacted in 2005 providing firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers broad immunity from civil lawsuits arising from criminal or unlawful misuse of their products. In both cases, the Mexican government, aka the legal arm of the narco-terrorist drug cartels, claims its damages stem from the illegal trafficking of firearms by the same cartels they work with and take bribes from under their normal course of business.

Continue reading “”

“Moments ago, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival”
– Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

IAF launches major strike on Iran and its nuclear program; PM: A decisive point in our history

Iran has been secretly advancing a plan for the “technological advancement of all parts of the development of a nuclear weapon,” the Israeli military says, after launching strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Reported to have been killed, so far:

Mohammad Bagherim, Chief of the Iranian military
Gholam Ali Rashid, Deputy Chief of the Iranian military
Hossein Salami, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Ali Shamkhani, reported to be Supreme Leader Khamenei’s right hand man
Mohammad Tehranchi, President, Azad University, theoretical physicist.
Fereydoon Abbasi, former head, Atomic Energy Organization & MP.

Strikes reported on:

The D2O (heavy water) manufacturing facility in Arak.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps HQ in Tehran
The Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan

Austrian School Shooting Shatters Gun Control Myths

School shootings aren’t the boogieman many make them out to be, as I noted just a couple of hours ago, but they’re far more common here than elsewhere.

However, they’re not “uniquely American” as some have said, and what happened in Graz, Austria yesterday kind of illustrates that point pretty well, as I noted on Tuesday morning.

I’m not the only one who noticed this, of course. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms noticed it too, and they sent out a press release talking about it.

Tuesday’s tragic school shooting in Graz, Austria not only refutes long standing arguments by the U.S. gun prohibition lobby that such crimes only happen in this country, but also destroys other contentions made by American anti-gunners, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

The attack, at the BORG Dreierschützengasse high school, claimed at least nine lives, and the alleged killer apparently took his own life, according to published reports. Details about the shooting, revealed by the BBC, place traditional gun control arguments in serious doubt, said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“What we have ascertained from various reports,” Gottlieb stated, “is that the alleged shooter used two legally-obtained firearms, and gun ownership in Austria requires registration. Purchases involve a three-day waiting period, and handguns may be purchased only by people over age 21 who hold firearms licenses.

“This tells us that the gun prohibition lobby is absolutely wrong when it argues that waiting periods and gun registration will prevent such tragedies,” the veteran gun rights advocate observed. “The 21-year-old suspect reportedly used a handgun and a shotgun, and he had a firearms license, so the notion that a licensing requirement will deter such attacks is also now thoroughly debunked.”

A report from the BBC also explained that in Austria, anyone wanting to own a firearm must first provide a reason for the purchase, which can be “sports shooting or self-defense.” Gottlieb noted that in the U.S., with its Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms, citizens do not need to provide a reason for exercising a constitutionally protected right, especially after the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen ruling.

“What we do know,” Gottlieb said, “is that restrictions on gun ownership in Austria did not prevent this attack, and that calling for such restrictions on gun ownership in America as a means of stopping tragedies here amounts to a promise gun grabbers have no intention of keeping, and know they cannot guarantee. What they do know, but will never acknowledge, is that their efforts are designed to discourage gun ownership, with the ultimate goal of eliminating it altogether.”

Now, I’ve had people try to point out that Austria has pretty liberal gun laws as European nations go, and that’s true. They have permit requirements, but they’re “shall issue” to anyone who qualifies, and they have concealed carry on a “shall issue” basis, which means Austria respected gun rights better than New York in some ways.

But they still have more extensive gun control laws than we have here, and much stricter than would likely be tolerated by the courts should anyone try to put them in place in the United States.

And they didn’t work.

It’s also not like we haven’t seen this in other places with even more restrictive gun control laws. We’ve seen far too many, unfortunately, and it’s a sign that there’s something wrong with society as a whole, not with the gun laws that may or may not be put in place.

Graz is a city I’ve wanted to visit for a long time. There’s an armory there with a lot of medieval armor there and since one of my passions is medieval armor, it’s something I desperately want to see. I actually feel better about going some day, knowing there is lawful concealed carry, even if I’m not allowed to be armed.

I feel much better, though, here in the United States, knowing I can deal with threats personally.

Mass shootings happen everywhere in the world. Anyone who calls them “uniquely American” is lying to you. They want you afraid, thinking that it’s only us.

Graz will fall out of the news cycle here very quickly, in part because they want you to forget it ever happened before the next tragedy strikes.

The truth, though, is that it’s not the guns.

This was a no-brainer. But why it even got past the District Court level before getting thrown out is the problem.


SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC., ET AL. v. ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

Here, the Government of Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. The basic theory of its suit is that the defendants failed to exercise “reasonable care” to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico…..

Held: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful
sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.

Goobermints still want to gatekeep the means to confront and deal with tyranny


Poland Sets Gun Ownership Record, Argentina Drops Minimum Age: Another reminder that the right to keep and bear arms is a universal right.

The number of residents in Poland applying for a permit to own a firearm set a record in 2024 at nearly 46,000. The previous highwater mark, set in 2023, was roughly 41,000. The total number of guns owned by civilians in the nation now stands at 930,100, a figure that is twice what it was in 2017.

Requirements to own a gun in Poland are stringent and include passing an exam, acquiring a certificate of health from a doctor and another from a psychologist. With a few exceptions, all applicants must be at least 21 years old, have a clean criminal record and not be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Issued permits fall into distinct categories that identify the gun’s intended use, including possession for self-defense, training, hunting, etc.

Between medical checks, courses that offer the exams and the sometimes-required sporting-club membership, it is expensive. The government’s fee for applying for a Polish gun-ownership permit is the bargain in the time-consuming process, 242 zltoys (about $65 U.S.), according to a summary from Hartmann Tresore—a highly renowned Polish manufacturer that began offering gun safes in 1983.

Poland relaxed its firearm ownership laws in 2011, although permit applications trickled in until 2022—the year Russia invaded Ukraine. Since that conflict began the nation also made gun safety and marksmanship education mandatory in its school systems.

Elsewhere

Patricia Bulrich, Argentina’s Minister of Security, used X (formerly Twitter) to post an update to that nation’s gun laws in December. She wrote, “From now on, those over 18 can be legitimate gun owners. This measure, promoted by the National Government, updates an outdated 1975 law and respects the 2015 Civil Code reform, which set the age of majority at 18. At 16, they have the right to vote. At 18, they can go to war, start a family, or join a security force. And, incredible as it may seem, at any age they can choose a sex change that will affect them for life. So, why can’t they be legitimate users or bearers of a gun at 18? For years, no one dared to make this decision. We didn’t hesitate. While we disarm narco-terrorist gangs and organized crime, we celebrate the fact that good citizens can access weapons as legitimate users. Empty speeches are a thing of the past. In this government, we are making the right of Argentines to protect themselves and live in freedom a reality.”

Prior to the announcement the minimum age for an Argentinian to own a gun was 21. The change, however, did not remove the nation’s other stringent requirements to secure a permit, which are similar to those in Poland.

South African Government Releases Terrifyingly Chilling Statement on Fleeing White Afrikaners

The case of around 50 white Afrikaner refugees from South Africa has turned the political discourse upside down. After years of never finding a migrant they didn’t approve of, Democrats and their press allies are suddenly greatly offended that President Donald Trump would dare grant asylum to a statistically insignificant number of people.

On CNN, former Obama campaign official and current analyst Ashley Allison went on a racist rant, proclaiming they should go back to “Germany” if they don’t like the “law of the land” of being persecuted financially and physically. Notably, Afrikaners, who migrated to South Africa some 400 years ago, aren’t from Germany, nor would Allison ever suggest that about any other racial group in any other country.

But while the left was busy taking the bait and going out on a limb by claiming that granting refugee status wasn’t justified, South Africa’s government came right out and said the quiet part out loud.

Here’s the key line.

What the instigators of this falsehood seek is not safety, but impunity from transformation. They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality, and accountability for historic privilege.

Reading that sent a chill down my spine. These are people whose ancestors have been in South Africa for nearly half a millennium. They are as much South Africans as black Americans are Americans, which is to say, fully. To claim they are fleeing “transformation” while citing “justice” and “accountability for historic privilege” is terrifyingly Orwellian. Everyone knows exactly what that means, which is the continued ethnic cleansing that has been endorsed by South Africa’s ruling party.

At this point, the United States should not even consider reopening diplomatic ties with South Africa (the ambassador to the U.S. was expelled in March). The Trump administration should likewise pressure Europe into speaking out or face consequences. They have sat idly by, ignoring the forcible seizure of land and extra-judicial killings committed under the guise of punishing “historic privilege” simply because it’s been coming from an African government.

If this were Russia, they’d all be denouncing it, and everyone knows it. The color of someone’s skin should not dictate whether they are treated fairly as refugees, and assuming that just because someone is white, they couldn’t possibly be facing persecution is grotesque.

Make no mistake. This is what “equity” initiatives inevitably lead to, whether they are carried out in South Africa or Western nations. It’s never enough for everyone to ensure everyone has equal rights. Eventually, you end up with the seizure of money and property to pay for “reparations” and worse, punishing people for things their ancestors did hundreds of years in the past. The next time someone questions the dangers of DEI and why the right has fought so hard against it, just point to South Africa and what’s happening to the Afrikaners.