Most Americans have lived in a household with a gun

Image

A new YouGov survey on gun ownership asked Americans about their personal experiences with guns and their opinions on gun violence in the U.S. Americans who live in rural areas are especially likely to have personal experiences with guns, to be gun owners, and to believe that the average American can be trusted with guns.

54% of Americans have ever owned a gun or lived in a household with someone who owned a gun. White Americans (62%) are more likely than Hispanic Americans (41%) or Black Americans (37%) to have ever owned a gun or lived with someone who owned a gun. Republicans (63%) are more likely than Independents (56%) or Democrats (43%) to have ever owned a gun or lived with someone who owned one.

23% of Americans say they currently own a gun and 13% say they don’t own one themselves, but someone in their household does. White Americans (27%) are more likely than Black Americans and Hispanic Americans (both 12%) to own a gun. Republicans (31%) are more likely than Independents (21%) and Democrats (15%) to own one.

People who live in rural areas (35%) are more likely than people who live in towns (24%), suburbs (23%), or cities (14%) to own a gun.

37% of Americans think that all (3%) or most (34%) households in their community have guns. 32% think some of the households in their area have guns, 11% think only a few do, and 2% think none of them do.

About two-thirds of people who live in a rural area (68%) believe all (10%) or most (58%) households in the community where they live have guns. Fewer than half of Americans living in towns (35%), suburbs (28%), or cities (27%) estimate that all or most households in their community have guns.

Continue reading “”

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.
– Donald James

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stays Judge Theodore D. Chuang’s –  US District Court in Maryland –  decision that Musk and others can’t work with USAID.

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, the Court orders that the district court’s preliminary injunction dated March 18, 2025, as clarified by its order dated March 20, 2025, be stayed and hereby is stayed pending the resolution of this appeal.

Entered at the direction of Judge Quattlebaum with the concurrence of Judge Niemeyer. Judge Gregory filed a separate opinion concurring in the result

House Bill Seeks to Remove SBRs from National Firearms Act

Short-barrel rifles, or SBRs, are probably the most accessible NFA items out there. Yeah, you have to jump through the regulatory hoops for an NFA item in general, but once you do, you can just slap a new AR upper on your rifle or replace a pistol brace with a stock (back when that was an option) and you’re ready to roll.

But they really shouldn’t be on the NFA at all.

I get why they’re there. Short-barreled weapons like sawed-off shotguns might have been pretty common for gangsters and others to use back in the day, but the law didn’t stop people from using a hacksaw on Granpa’s old 12-gauge. Even so, they aren’t all that commonly used for violent crime these days, and I have doubts about how common they were back in the pre-NFA era.

So yeah, it’s stupid.

Now, a bill has been introduced to change that.

 Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) is reintroducing the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act on Thursday to remove onerous restrictions on short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and other firearms.

The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code if 1986 and remove these firearms from the National Firearms Act (NFA) classification. If passed, it would rescind the extra restrictions and taxes imposed on those who own these weapons.

Sen. Marshall argued that “’Shall not be infringed is crystal clear – and the Biden-era abuses of the Constitutionally protected rights of gun owners across the country need to be undone.”

The SHORT Act takes a step toward rolling back nonsensical regulations that the National Firearms Act has placed upon gun owners. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers to pass this legislation and join me in fully restoring and protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights.

Marshall and other lawmakers first introduced the measure in 2023.

The SHORT Act will remove language treating certain types of shotguns as “destructive devices” while doing away with the $5 transfer tax for “any firearm classified as any other weapon.”

The bill also seeks to negate state-level prohibitions on these weapons and even includes language that would override licensing requirements, saying, “any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon … shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement.”

So, yeah, kinda big.

Now, the question is whether this will go anywhere.

I’m a little more optimistic than I might have been a few days ago, thanks to the National Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act advancing, but I do have my doubts about this making it to President Donald Trump’s desk.

It would have to go through the Senate, and as things currently stand there, I suspect this would never get a vote thanks to the filibuster. As I’ve said before, it kept a lot of bad gun laws from getting passed, but now it’s going to keep some good ones from getting passed, too.

But who knows, I may well be wrong. It’s happened before and will happen again, so why not on this?

The truth is that SBRs are demonized as somehow particularly dangerous weapons, mostly because they’re viewed as more concealable, but the fact that things like AR-pistols aren’t used in nearly as many crimes as some might like to believe kind of negates this argument, especially since the AR-style firearms are kind of like an adult Mr. Potatohead in that you can mix, match, and customize all you want, without needing a gunsmith to make many of the modifications.

If someone wants an illegal SBR, they can get one. You’re not stopping them.

But, as per usual with gun control, it does stop the law-abiding gun owner who might like a smaller, more compact and lightweight firearm for home defense purposes or just because they think it’s neat.

I’m praying this one passes. It should because there’s no reason for these guns to be NFA items, even if I thought there were validity to the NFA as a whole. I don’t, so that just gives me another reason to see these removed.

It’s amazing how small minded individuals consistently fall back on a person not answering the way they want them to answer. Sen. Rubio answered the question up front & told them to post this so WE the People know where he stands on Hamas.
– Robin Lee White

Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 3-27-2025

Edit: The Antonyuk cert petition was rescheduled after this article was published. That was not on my Bingo card, but I hope it is a good sign.

One of the two cases in which the gun-rights community seems to be the most interested, the case challenging a ban on “large capacity” magazines, has a new wrinkle. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The timing was interesting. The decision was published last Thursday, the day before the interlocutory magazine ban cert petition out of Rhode Island was scheduled for its ninth SCOTUS conference, in which the justices vote on which cert petitions they will grant.

We will never know for certain whether that 9th CCA opinion played a deciding role, but the petition was once again relisted. Tomorrow is the tenth time the cert petition was scheduled for a conference; it was rescheduled twice. On its heels is a cert petition seeking review of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld the District’s “large capacity” magazine ban.

Last year, SCOTUS made it clear that it isn’t going to grant any Second Amendment interlocutory petitions, and so it is surprising that the petition out of Rhode Island has survived this long. This is particularly true in light of Supreme Court Rule 10, which says the Supreme Court rarely grants petitions that don’t involve a split between the Federal circuits or a split with a state court of last resort on a Federal question. Given that these magazine bans are only in Federal circuits where there is no doubt the appellate courts will uphold the bans, there will not be a circuit split.

That said, SCOTUS Rule 10 does say that SCOTUS can grant cert petitions that present questions of national importance. It remains to be seen whether or not there are four justices who think magazine bans present a question of national importance.

The second petition involves “assault rifles.” It has been listed for conference nine times and rescheduled once. It is out of Maryland (the Fourth Circuit). The petition seeks review of a final judgment, so no interlocutory appeal problem there. However, it suffers from the same SCOTUS Rule 10 obstacle as the “large capacity” magazine bans. These “assault rifle” bans are found in Federal circuits where there is no possibility of one being overturned, and thus no possibility of a Rule 10 split for the justices to resolve.

If there is anything we learned from the oral argument in the bumpstock case, it is that the justices know very little about firearms.

Both the magazine ban (Ocean State Tactical) and the rifle ban cert petitions (Snope) are scheduled for tomorrow’s conference. Another extremely important petition (Antonyuk) out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is among the petitions scheduled for the conference.

Antonyuk presents the following two questions in its petition. 1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning as applied to the states is 1791, rather than 1868; and 2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices could have answered the first question in NYSRPA v. Bruen, but did not. I see no reason why they would ever grant a petition to answer that question. Suppose they did and held that 1791 is the proper historical time period; that would entail that nearly every gun law violates the Second Amendment. That will never happen. As for the second question, the justices certainly do not want to put themselves in the position of deciding what constitutes “good moral character.” And again, there is that pesky Rule 10 obstacle to granting cert and deciding the case on its merits.

There are three more Second Amendment cert petitions and a motion for reconsideration scheduled for tomorrow’s conference. If it were up to me, SCOTUS would not be allowed to pick and choose which appeals it will decide. One hundred years ago, Congress gave SCOTUS that power after the justices promised to decide five hundred cases each term. SCOTUS never came anywhere near that number.

Congress can change that, but voters are easily distracted by shiny objects. Earlier this week, the issue was whether poor people should be allowed to buy soda pop with their food stamps. Okay! The object does not have to be shiny. Voters are easily distracted and have the attention span of a trout.

Here are the cases scheduled for tomorrow’s conference. Click on the case number, and you will be taken to the SCOTUS docket for that case, should you wish to take a deep dive into the case. As always, if a waiver was filed (or no response was filed) and the petition goes into conference without a justice requesting a response, then the petition was never voted on. The petition was placed on the SCOTUS deadlist and will appear as “Petition Denied” on next week’s Orders list. A “GVR” is a Grant, Vacate, and Remand, which, for all intents and purposes, sends the case back to the lower courts for a do-over. In the past two terms, I can only recall one petition where the Feds asked for a GVR, which was denied. I chalk that up to a clerical error.

Continue reading “”

I think this indicates DOGE cut off another bunch of grifters money supply

National Gun-Control Group Lays Off Most Staff

March For Our Lives is slashing its employees and appointing a new leader.

The gun-control group announced it would cut ties with 13 of its 16 full-time staffers last week. It also named a new executive director. Jaclyn Corin, a 24-year-old Parkland survivor and group co-founder, will take the reins as the organization attempts to navigate bumpy terrain in the wake of the 2024 election.

“We are facing financial challenges as an organization, not unlike many nonprofit advocacy organizations in this time,” Corin told The 19th. “I am sure things would look differently with a different outcome of the election, but these are the systems and circumstances in which we have to make adjustments based on the financial situation we find ourselves in. It is incredibly unfortunate that these cuts have to happen.”

Continue reading “”

Tim Walz Figures Out What’s Wrong with the Democrats

Imagine hitting yourself over the head with a mallet and giving yourself a terrific headache, and then saying, “Wow, I’ve got such a headache! I know what will fix it! I’ll hit myself on the head with this mallet!” That’s the state of the Democrat Party these days, and particularly of failed second banana Tim Walz, who recommended in a recent speech not that Democrats reject the woke idiocy that has led them straight into a ditch, but that they embrace even more of it. Why, Tim, you’re an absolute genius! That’ll fix everything!

Walz, the unmanly man’s idea of a man’s man, was captured on a video that started circulating widely on Thursday repeating the familiar Democrat mantra: “… that our strength is our diversity! We’ve been talking about this for years, as a country of immigrants. And we let them define the issue on immigration!”

That’s true, Timmy: Democrats have indeed been relentlessly repeating the phrase “Diversity is Our Strength” for years on end, with all the fervor of those who recognize the truth in Goebbels’ adage that a big lie, repeated often enough, starts to be believed.

In reality, a society that worships diversity is on its way to fragmentation and dissolution. On this as with so many issues, the left has deliberately confused the issue. If you say you don’t believe that diversity is our strength, you’ll be accused of being a racist, a white supremacist, a neo-Nazi who wants to eliminate all minorities. Theodore Roosevelt enunciated  the truth:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.

This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul.

Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country.

The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic.

He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.

Theodore Roosevelt
Address to the Knights of Columbus
New York City- October 12th, 1915

The Balkanization (a word that in itself testifies to the dangers of the idolatry of diversity) of the U.S. appears to be just what the far left wants, as it will justify their destruction of constitutional freedoms and use of authoritarian measures to keep order. If Walz wanted the Democrats to recapture the American electorate, he could at least show some glancing awareness of the reasons why so many Americans oppose open borders and mass migration. Instead, he just repeated the same old mantra.

Walz continued: “We let them define the issue on DNI — DEI. And we let them define what woke is. We got ourselves in this mess because we weren’t bold enough to stand up and say, ‘You’re damn right we’re proud of these policies. We’re gonna put ‘em in, and we’re gonna execute ‘em.” Gee, I don’t know, Tim. Many things can be said about the ill-starred Harris/Walz campaign, but no one can honestly say that it was timid or reticent about its support for DEI and mass migration, despite paying some disingenuous lip service to the idea of controlling the border.

Electing the Harris/Walz ticket, the New York Times opined in Aug. 2024, “It’s a chance to bolster a bedrock liberal belief: that diversity benefits society overall.” The Times added that “Republicans have slammed Harris as a D.E.I. candidate, tossing around the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion to insinuate that she didn’t earn her place. But overwhelmingly, one of the reasons Democrats are excited about her is that she’s highly qualified and also happens to be a woman of color. They recognize that she represents all that is good about D.E.I., that it isn’t about the granting of privilege but the dismantling of it.”

And now Tim Walz is saying that the Democrats weren’t insistent enough about their being in favor of wokeness, DEI, and mass migration?
The American electorate knew that very well, Timbo, and rejected it in massive numbers.
Yet Walz and his fellow Democrat apparatchiks appear determined to pick up the same old mallet and hit themselves over the head with it again. Why not, Tim? Maybe it’ll cure your headache this time!

Rubio says at least 300 foreign students’ visas have been revoked.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have had their visas revoked amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, a far higher number than was previously known.

“Maybe more, it might be more than 300 at this point,” Rubio said at a press conference in Guyana when asked to confirm Axios reporting on the topic.

“We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa,” he added, saying he hopes it’s even more than the 300 estimate.

“I hope at some point we run out because we have gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.”

Axios was the first to report that 300 foreign students’ visas had been revoked and that administration officials are looking to block some colleges that have too many “pro-Hamas” foreign students from admitting any international individuals.

The Hill has reached out to the State Department for comment.

Multiple high-profile cases have come out of Columbia University, Tufts and the University of Alabama as the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian foreign students escalates.

Marco Rubio on Rumeysa Ozturk, the Turkish student who was detained:

“We revoked her visa. It’s an F-1 visa, I believe. We revoked it, and here’s why—I’ve said it everywhere, and I’ll say it again.

Let me be abundantly clear: If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you’re coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos—we’re not giving you that visa.

If you lie, get the visa, and then engage in that kind of behavior once you’re here, we’re going to revoke it. And once your visa is revoked, you’re no longer legally in the United States. Like every country, we have the right to remove you. It’s that simple.

It’s crazy—stupid, even—for any country to let people in who say, ‘I’m going to your universities to riot, take over libraries, and harass people.’ I don’t care what movement you’re with. Why would any country allow that?

We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree—not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses. If you use your visa to do that, we’ll take it away. And I encourage every country to do the same.

Every country has the right to decide who enters as a visitor. If you invite me to your house for dinner and I start putting mud on your couch and spray-painting your kitchen, you’re going to kick me out. We’ll do the same if you come to the U.S. and cause a ruckus.

We don’t want that here. Go do it in your own country—but not in ours.”

DOJ Announces Second Amendment Investigation into LA County

California is pretty hostile toward guns, and that’s largely driven by the large urban areas like San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, Oakland–because I had to hit names that didn’t start with “S” eventually–and, of course, Los Angeles.

In fact, these regions have taken the hostility toward the Second Amendment to new heights with ridiculous fees for concealed carry that put it out of reach for many law-abiding citizens.

That’s wrong, and we all know it.

Unfortunately, the only way we’ve seen to deal with it is for private parties to file expensive lawsuits.

Well, now the Department of Justice is getting involved.

Protecting the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans is a high priority for this Administration.

As part of a broader review of restrictive firearms-related laws in California and other States, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division today announced an investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to determine whether it is engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights.

A recent federal court decision found that “the law and facts [we]re clearly in … favor” of two private plaintiffs who challenged the lengthy eighteen-month delays that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had imposed when processing their concealed handgun license applications. And the Civil Rights Division has reason to believe that those two plaintiffs are not the only residents of Los Angeles County experiencing similarly long delays that are unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of the people of Los Angeles.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment is not “a second-class right.” And over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual constitutional right and has taken multiple opportunities to strengthen Second Amendment protections for ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Some States and localities, however, have resisted this recent pro-Second Amendment caselaw. And California has been a particularly egregious offender. In response to recent Supreme Court caselaw, California enacted new legislation to further restrict the ability of ordinary, law-abiding Californians to keep and bear arms.

And many California localities appear to be imposing additional burdens beyond those required by California state law, including by subjecting ordinary, law-abiding Californians to expensive fees and lengthy weight times associated with applications for concealed handgun licenses.

“This Department of Justice will not stand idly by while States and localities infringe on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental constitutional rights.”

Attorney General Bondi hopes that states and localities will voluntarily embrace their duty to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. But if necessary, today’s announcement will be the first of many similar investigations, lawsuits, or other actions involving other localities in California, the State of California itself, and any other states or localities that insist on unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of their ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Now, I’ve heard a lot of people recently complain that part of the problem with the Trump administration is [insert state law here], and I kind of shrugged. Those are state laws, not federal. There’s not much Trump could really do about it.

And he really can’t. He can’t make those laws go away with the stroke of a pen.

But this right here is something he can do. It’s something that the Department of Justice needs to do a lot more, too, because while Los Angeles County is pretty bad, they’re from the only bad actor.

Luckily, Bondi apparently plans on going after them, too.

Look, Bruen found that states could, in fact, require permits. They didn’t have to all go to constitutional carry, which sucks but it is what it is. That’s fine. We can live with it. We’ve all dealt with it before.

But when you’re requiring permits and you make it impossible for many to get them, you end up with the same situation that led to Bruen in the first place. Then, it was “may issue” laws that required “good cause” for a permit to be issued. Now, it’s just about having enough money, then waiting indefinitely until the issuing agency gets around to issuing the permit.

It’s ridiculous.

Now, the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice–one which has largely ignored this particular civil right historically–is now stepping in.

Will this be enough for the Second Amendment advocates who are displeased with what they’ve seen from the Trump administration so far? I’d say probably not. I like what we’ve seen, and this is probably the most pro-Second Amendment stuff we’ve seen from an administration in my lifetime, but there are still a lot of laws on the books that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Unless those are also targeted, as well as seeing a lot more pro-gun moves from pro-gun elected officials in Washington, I doubt they’re going to be happy.

Already, some are asking where the actions against these other issuing agencies are, and not without at least some cause.

Still, this is another move in the right direction, and we didn’t lose our rights overnight. We won’t get them back that quickly, either. But there has to be more than this in the long run for anyone to be really satisfied.

Smart move. All those nomination of sitting Representatives was worrysome.

White House Withdraws Stefanik U.N. Ambassador Nomination to Protect GOP’s Tight Congressional Majority.

The Trump administration is withdrawing its nomination of Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) to serve as the next Ambassador to the United Nations to help protect the slim Republican majority in the House.

“With a very tight Majority, I don’t want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise’s seat. The people love Elise and, with her, we have nothing to worry about come Election Day. There are others that can do a good job at the United Nations. Therefore, Elise will stay in Congress, rejoin the House Leadership Team, and continue to fight for our amazing American People,” President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social.

“I look forward to the day when Elise is able to join my Administration in the future. She is absolutely FANTASTIC. Thank you Elise!”

President Trump nominated Stefanik for the position in November shortly after his decisive election victory, rewarding one of his strongest allies in the House and a leading advocate against antisemitism on college campuses.

A strong supporter of Israel, Stefanik was expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate as it attempts to push through Trump’s nominees as quickly as possible. Her confirmation hearing was set to take place in early April after House Republicans passed several pieces of legislation with her vote.

Stefanik currently represents New York’s 21st congressional district, a safely Republican seat she won in 2024 with 62 percent of the vote. New York would have held a special election for her seat upon her resignation and confirmation. Republicans have become wary about special elections to state and federal offices because of high turnout and enthusiasm from Democratic voters compared to the lower participation rates among the increasingly diverse and working-class GOP electorate.

“It is well known Republicans have a razor-thin House majority, and Elise’s agreement to withdraw her nomination will allow us to keep one of the toughest, most resolute members of our Conference in place to help drive forward President Trump’s America First policies,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) posted on X.

Continue reading “”

It’s still not enough

White House Repeals Unscientific HHS Advisory On Gun Violence.

Democrats and anti-Second Amendment stooges are up in arms about your right to bear them once again, as the Trump administration has repealed former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun tract, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website. The move is part of an avalanche of actions building up in response to the President’s February 7 Executive Order, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” claiming to seek the identification and elimination of ongoing infringements upon American gun rights. With weaponization of the federal bureaucracy against law-abiding gun owners being a staple of the former Biden-Harris administration, it is hopeful to see a refocusing of those efforts onto the actual criminals themselves under President Trump.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” the White House responded to the Guardian’s question about the removal of webpages.

The NRA predicted under heavy scrutiny that the appointment of Murthy as U.S. surgeon general during the second Obama-Biden administration would lead to further politicizing of his anti-gun agenda, a position Murthy lied about under oath to Senators at his first confirmation hearing, saying he would not use his platform as a bully pulpit for gun control, and would instead focus on the obesity epidemic. During his initial term as surgeon general, Murthy’s failure to effectively address that epidemic led to his being reappointed by the Biden administration, where failing upwards is practically in the job description.

With a reinvigorated sense of tenure and those promises under oath in his rearview mirror, the good doctor did what he did best, pretending to have special insight into the causes of firearm-related crime, much like his calls for gun control when he headed the advocacy group Doctors for America. In July 2024, he published his 40-page manifesto, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, even promoting it through media appearances like the perjurous little rock star he is.

“[T]he advisory has nothing to do with treating gunshot wounds, dealing with potential lead exposure from handling firearms or ammunition, hearing loss from exposure to muzzle reports, or any other medical issue pertaining to guns. Instead, it is simply a taxpayer-funded tract that promotes the same tired slate of oppressive gun control laws that Murthy’s fellow firearm prohibitionists have wanted for decades. It also seeks to provide cover for the disastrous crime-control failures of Murthy’s Democrat party by insisting that firearm assaults and homicides are akin to a disease or contagion rather than crimes committed by predators (most with lengthy records) who too often act with impunity,” according to analysis of the document by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

Of course, the tired effort of anti-Second Amendment groups and grifters has done nothing to reduce firearm-related deaths in the United States, but that has never really been the goal in the first place. Any literate person can pick up a book on the history of governments disarming citizens to find a clear pattern of subjugation and worse following the successful confiscation of the means to defend liberty.

The revocation of this anti-Second Amendment propaganda masquerading as science is part of a series of actions that have taken place in the last week by the Trump administration and the Department of Justice that will hopefully move necessary pieces into place, further defending and more tangibly restoring American gun rights. Yes, I will remain skeptical and cautiously optimistic until something happens that feels less punitive towards the previous administration and more substantive to my life as someone who owns and purchases guns. In the meantime, I will drink from the cup of leftist tears as the meltdowns continue and pray that I’ve been wrong about America’s tipping point and our ability to restore the founding values that made this country great in the first place.