RFK, Jr.:
“How did the Democratic party choose a candidate that has never done an interview or debate during the entire election cycle? We know the answer. They did it by weaponizing the government agencies. They did it by abandoning democracy. They did it by suing the opposition and by disenfranchising American voters.”

Dan Bongino:
“When a lifelong Democrat, from an iconic Democrat family, who tried to run as a Democrat, and who’s running mate was a Democrat, warns you about the dangers of voting for the Democrat in this election, you should probably listen.”

The Misinformation Antidote: Protect Yourself, Your Country, and Your Planet

The constant barrage of conflicting truths from various factions contributes to soaring levels of anxiety and depression. Enter “The Misinformation Antidote,” a groundbreaking book that unveils the solution to this pervasive problem.

The book’s positive impact extends beyond its primary mission of combating misinformation. A beneficial side effect emerges—an unveiling of a reality that is more captivating, positive, and diverse than commonly understood. Contrary to the gloomy narratives, the world isn’t as dire as portrayed. As misinformation is neutralized, people from diverse backgrounds can come together to solve previously deemed intractable problems. The antidote creates an environment where individuals prosper and lead enjoyable lives collectively.

In essence, “The Misinformation Antidote” is more than just a book; it’s a guide to navigating the turbulent sea of information, offering a transformative experience that empowers individuals to reshape their perspectives. By embracing this antidote, readers not only fortify themselves against the harmful effects of misinformation but also discover a newfound appreciation for the richness and potential of the world around them. It’s a beacon of hope in a world often clouded by conflicting narratives and a roadmap towards a more informed, positive, and united future.

Author Offers Unique Insights on Fascism, Second Amendment, and More

Continue reading “”

Another Life Saved: Sometimes Kids And Guns Do Mix

A Florida man is alive today thanks to a quick-thinking youth who used a firearm to put an end to an attack on his uncle.

The incident occurred in Cape Coral, Florida, located in Lee County on the Gulf of Mexico. The ninth most populous city in the state, Cape Coral was rated as one of the Safest Cities in America by WalletHub in 2023.

Still, the city of about 200,000 has some bad guys, which often requires good guys to keep them in line. Such was the case on August 13 when, according to reports, 55-year-old Norbert Mess Jr. got in a physical altercation with his girlfriend.

According to police, the fight occurred at the woman’s home, where her juvenile son was also located. Police haven’t released his name because he is under 18 years old.

The woman called her brother for help, and he went to the home to try and diffuse the situation a bit. But when the brother arrived, Mess, who was waiting outside with brass knuckles and a solid wooden rod, began beating up the brother, who was also the boy’s uncle.

According to officers at the scene, the boy ran into the house, grabbed a gun, came back out and pointed it at Mess in an attempt to discourage him from continuing the attack. Undeterred, Mess continued to beat on the boy’s uncle.

That’s when the young boy fired at least eight shots, killing his uncle’s attacker and putting an end to the bad situation.

“At that point, the son was in fear for his uncle’s life,” police said. “All parties involved cooperated with the investigation and detectives determined that the son shot Norbert Mess in self-defense to protect his mother and uncle from serious bodily injury or death. No charges will be filed.”

According to media reports, police are continuing to investigate and gather evidence in the attack.

Because of the domestic nature of the case, officers have not revealed the son’s age. But regardless of how old he was, his quick thinking and ability to access a gun saved the life of his uncle and possibly also his mother.

When Academics Tell The Truth

We’ve seen the state of gun research in this country. It’s an absolute laughingstock, or it would be if there was an ounce of intellectual integrity anywhere in the science community.

Social science research is always going to be a little bit wonky, in part because experiments are difficult to impossible to conduct. However, that just makes it that much more important to get what research options that remain open to you right. Yet with gun research, not only does that not happen, but those who screw it up are celebrated.

Meanwhile, one researcher got a finding that his field disagreed with and he’s being crucified.

For example, William English, an assistant professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, has been subpoenaed, attacked in The New York Times and accused of all sorts of breaches of professional conduct because he had the temerity to administer a huge survey on defensive gun use that was honest.

They are persecuting English in order to, as he put it in The Wall Street Journal, “warn off other academics thinking of doing similar research, and to influence courts where states are losing on the merits.”

English supervised the 2021 National Firearms Survey. Data from this survey of 54,000 American adults estimated that citizens use their guns defensively about 1.67 million times annually; indeed, the survey found that “in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired.”

To gun-control activists in politics and the media, this finding had to be marginalized. They don’t want people to know that law-abiding Americans need their freedom.

English said that the “attorneys general of Illinois and Washington started issuing subpoenas” for his “documents and communications.” Meanwhile, members of the media contacted him “armed with politicized talking points identical to those used by the state attorneys general in their subpoenas.”

That is legitimately troubling.

I’ve seen some of the attacks against English, ironically coming from people whose “research” wouldn’t have been deemed acceptable for a middle school science project, and they’re ugly. They claim there are issues with his methodology, and that his research was flawed from the start.

This is funny considering this:

The media, however, could not find any actual problems with the research. English’s survey questions had been peer reviewed. He used a professional survey firm that is also “used by researchers at such institutions as Stanford, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

“My survey results are hard to refute because they line up with other independent surveys from Pew and Gallup at the national level,” said English.

In other words, he did everything the way his field demanded and came up with an answer they didn’t approve of, but rather than self-censor like so many others, he published them.

And for that, he’s being attacked by the anti-gun political establishment, the anti-gun media, and his colleagues who share the same sentiment.

It’s like they say, if you’re taking flak, you must be over the target.

English has most definitely been over the target because the truth is an enemy of the anti-gun agenda. We know criminals get guns from illegal sources, and those illegal sources obtain them through some degree of theft. Either they steal them personally or get them from someone who does. That doesn’t make it in the news reports despite that coming directly from the ATF. That’s the truth, but it undermines gun control, so it doesn’t get the headlines that some ridiculous study that claims hunting leads to shootings.

In showing what he did, English broke the cardinal rule of gun research: Thou Must Advance Gun Control

SAF SCORES VICTORY IN CALIFORNIA NON-RESIDENT CARRY CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, in a challenge of California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry, won a victory when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, a 2022 Joe Biden appointee, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The state has 21 days to file a response, and within 30 days plaintiffs must “meet and confer” with the state and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department “to submit a proposed order entering the preliminary injunction consistent with the specific findings” made by the court order.

SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and seven private citizens. The LA County Sheriff’s Office is the main defendant, along with Attorney General Rob Bonta and the La Verne Police Department.

In her decision, Judge Garnett observed, “the State bears the burden of showing whether California’s residency requirements for a CCW license is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” A few pages later, she notes, “the State has not carried its burden at this stage to show that the limitation of CCW licenses to California residents is part of a historical tradition of this Nation.”

“Americans do not leave their Second Amendment right to bear arms at the California border,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California is behind the curve in recognizing that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment since SAF’s Supreme Court victory in the 2010 McDonald ruling.”

“The writing is clearly on the wall,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “when Judge Garnett noted the Court already found that we are likely to succeed on the merits of our argument that California’s residency requirement for CCW applications is unconstitutional. We are confident our challenge will continue to prevail.”

FED. COURT DENIES REHEARING IN CASE AGAINST MINN. YOUNG ADULT CARRY BAN

BELLEVUE, WA – The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a rehearing in a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case which found Minnesota’s ban on carry permits for young adults ages 18-20 is unconstitutional.

The case is known as Worth v. Harrington, and it was filed in June 2021. Joining SAF in this case are the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, Austin Dye, Axel
Anderson and Kristin Worth, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson of Bemidji, Minn., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

In its order, the Eighth Circuit also denied a request for an en banc panel hearing. U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Menendez, a 2021 Joe Biden appointee, ruled in March 2023 that Minnesota’s permitting age restriction is unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which upheld Judge Menendez decision.

“Clearly, Judge Menendez made the right call in the first place,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As we contended all along, the right of the people mentioned in the Second Amendment was not limited to those over a certain age. Certainly young adults fall within the definition of ‘the people’ ever since they’ve been allowed to vote, and generations before that when they were considered part of the militia, and have been accepted into the military.”

“We expected to prevail at trial and again at the appeals court level,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are gratified by the Eight Circuit’s decision, and now we will see whether Minnesota submits a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. For the time being, we have notched another victory in our ongoing effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

Intruder shot after kicking in Pittston homeowner’s door

One person was shot and wounded Monday after he allegedly kicked in a homeowner’s door in Pittston[Maine], police say.

State police received a 911 call from 31 Palmer Road at 8:46 p.m., according to a news release.

“The homeowner reported his door was kicked in, and he had shot the intruder,” police stated in the release.

The release later continued: “The male intruder was transported to the Maine Medical Center in Portland, is undergoing medical procedures, and is expected to live.”

The State Police Major Crimes Unit is investigating, and police said there is no threat to the public.

More details were expected to be released later.

Imagine What President Kamala Harris Could Do to Guns If She Has Price Control Power

Vice President Kamala Harris rolled out the first of her policy positions and they seem eerily familiar. The Democratic nominee for president wants to attack runaway rising food prices by inserting government to set the prices grocery stores could charge at the checkout counter. That’s not what happens in a free-market society. That’s what happened in the Soviet Union and other failed communist and socialist states, like Cuba and Venezuela.

But what does that mean for gun sales? It could mean everything. If Vice President Harris were to get Congress to go along with her big government price controlling schemes, it’s not a stretch that she could use those same authorities to demand that firearm prices are artificially high and beyond the reach for all but the ultra-rich.

It would be a policy of “If you like your Second Amendment, you can keep your Second Amendment…if you can afford it.”

And recall that we recently discussed the growing trend of courts ruling you don’t have a Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. Would a Second Amendment challenge to government price fixing succeed?

Continue reading “”

SAF PETITIONS SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI IN MARYLAND RIFLE BAN

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in its continuing challenge of a ban on modern semiautomatic rifles in the state of Maryland, arguing that high court review is necessary to ensure the Second Amendment is “not truncated into a limited right.”

SAF is joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Firearms Policy
Coalition, and a private citizen, David Snope. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at DiGuiseppe Law Firm in Southport, N.C. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh.

The petition was filed after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that modern semiautomatic
rifles — commonly misidentified as “assault weapons” — are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are “too similar” to a fully-automatic military rifle known as the M16. SAF and its partners contend this reasoning “is becoming a commonplace misapplication” of Supreme Court precedents established by the 2008 Heller ruling, 2010 McDonald decision and 2022 Bruen ruling.

“The Fourth Circuit, as well as other federal courts, are attempting to flip the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling on its head,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They are essentially arguing the arms protected by the Second Amendment are limited only to certain state-approved firearms, which would make it no right at all, but a government-regulated privilege. This is the third time we have petitioned the high court in this case.”

“Certiorari is required in this case,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “to correct an increasingly
widespread misunderstanding of the Supreme Court precedent, and the Second Amendment, itself. The specific type of firearm in question is commonly owned across the country, placing it well within the scope of the Second Amendment.”

If they’re pushing such disconnected message, perhaps it’s because their brains (what they have of them) are disconnected from reality

If Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Price Controls?

Democrats are pushing a jarringly disconnected economic message.

Biden “recovered all those millions of jobs that [Donald] Trump watched slip away,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) declared. Biden “rebuilt the economy” after the pandemic put it “flat on its back,” intoned Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.), a longtime Biden stan.

Biden himself put the cherry on top. “We’ve had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever,” the president said. “We gone from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world,” he claimed, pointing to job creation figures, economic growth, higher wages, and “inflation down, way down, and continuing to go down.”

If so, someone should probably tell Vice President Kamala Harris about all that.

Just four days ago, Harris outlined plans for gigantic government interventions in the economy, including price controls. In what was billed as the first major policy speech of her hastily assembled campaign, Harris promised to implement the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries” and to take other actions to empower the federal government to “bring down costs.”
(There’s been some debate in the days since her speech about whether it is fair to say Harris has called for price controls, but economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that “any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ is effectively a price control system. It doesn’t matter if you call it ‘anti-gouging,’ ‘fair pricing,’ or ‘consumer protection’—the effect is the same. When bureaucrats, not markets, determine acceptable prices, we’re dealing with price controls.”)

Continue reading “”