Why Did it Have to be … Guns?

L. Neil Smith –

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician — or political philosophy — is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.

If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude — toward your ownership and use of weapons — conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend — the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights — do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil — like “Constitutionalist” — when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician — or political philosophy — is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun — but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school — or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway — Prussian, maybe — and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man — and you’re not — what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

On the other hand — or the other party — should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue — health care, international trade — all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn’t true, is it?

Gov Sanders rejects demand from legal group to undo Christmas closure: ‘I will do no such thing’
The Freedom From Religion Foundation took issue with Sanders’ Christmas message

 Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is firing back at a legal group who took issue with her recent move to close state offices on Friday, December 26 to celebrate Christmas and give employees more time with their families.

After issuing a proclamation closing state offices for Christmas, Sanders received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a group focused on the separation of church and state, calling for her to reverse the move and claiming it was unconstitutional.

In a response letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, Sanders told FFRF she “will do no such thing.”

12.19.25-freedom-from-religion-foundation-response-letter

Senator Mike Lee’s idea, noted back in February gathers notice.

Avast, Me Hearties! Lawmakers Want Congress to Issue ‘Letters of Marque’ to Go After Cartel Drug Boats

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wants to revive an ancient and honorable custom: grant Congress the authority to issue Letters of Marque that would allow U.S. citizens and others to legally interdict drug boats and other cartel-owned ships and property, to be sold off. At least some of the proceeds would go to the “privateers.”

The idea of giving Letters of Marque to employ private citizens to police the oceans isn’t new. As recently as Sept. 11, 2001, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced a bill to grant Letters of Marque that would have legally allowed American citizens to go after Osama Bin Laden and his assets.

During the Revolutionary War, the U.S. didn’t have much of a Navy. It was up to privateers operating with Letters of Marque, raiding British shipping and occasionally attacking British warships, to show the flag and gain much-needed hard currency for the American cause.

Reviving the custom would not be welcomed by our allies or enemies.

“Cartels have replaced corsairs in the modern era, but we can still give private American citizens and their businesses a stake in the fight against these murderous foreign criminals,” Lee, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said. “The Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act will revive this historic practice to defend our shores and seize cartel assets.”

“Corsairs” were pirates operating near the Barbary Coast in North Africa in the early 19th century. They routinely stopped American ships, stole the cargo, and held Americans for ransom.

Congress can issue Letters of Marque, having been vested with the power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It gives Congress the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

The Declaration of Paris in 1856 supposedly abolished “privateering” and Letters of Marque. It was signed by almost all the major seafaring powers except the United States. Does this mean the U.S. can hire privateers anyway?

There’s nothing in American law that would forbid the practice. While the U.S. could theoretically issue a letter, doing so would likely be seen as a violation of customary international law. “Customary” international law refers to the fact that, because the U.S. hasn’t issued any Letters of Marque for more than 200 years, we have tacitly acknowledged the legality of the law and are a de facto signatory to it.

China has a long history of engaging in irregular coercive activities, including harassing neighboring countries’ oil and gas exploration, fishing fleets, and replenishment of military installations.

Other nations might treat American privateers as pirates rather than lawful combatants, meaning they wouldn’t have the legal protections typically given to military prisoners of war. That’s only one headache Donald Trump would have if Congress went ahead and authorized the issuing of the letters.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
What am I getting at? If you look at what Pete Hegseth has actually done, it was long overdue, and he’s doing it very well. And the criticism against him has two themes: It’s entirely political, and it’s not symmetric. Everything they said about Pete Hegseth in a negative context could have been applied to both the Obama and Biden administration, and much more egregiously.

Hegseth Did What Biden Called ‘Impossible.’

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. A lot of officials in the Trump Cabinet are under a lot of criticism, as we’d expect, from the Left. But one has, I think, both got more criticism and more unfair criticism than any other Cabinet member. And that’s Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war—the newly renamed Department of Defense.

Let’s just review a little bit of his record because it does not justify the level of invective that the Left, and even some people on the Right in Congress and the Republican Party, have unfairly attacked him.

We were told during the Biden administration that the recruitment for the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and even in one case, I think one year, the Marines, was off some 40,000 to 50,000 recruits. And the Pentagon’s reaction under Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was, as we heard this echoed by a lot of the four-star admirals and generals, well, people are out of shape. They’re in gangs. They take drugs. They are wanted by private enterprise.

We have to compete with all of the excuses other than the real cause. The real cause was, as Pete Hegseth said when he came in, that people felt that the military was not emphasizing combat, battlefield efficacy. It was turning into a social justice “program.”

The subtext of Pete Hegseth’s point was that there was a particular demographic, white males from rural and often southern locales. They had died at twice their numbers in the demographic in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they weren’t joining.

Some of them were not joining because of the 8,500, maybe 8,000-8,500, that had natural immunity from prior COVID-19 infections. And yet, they did not want this experimental mRNA vaccine, and they were drummed out en masse. The majority of those fit this demographic.

The others felt that under the DEI obsessions with race and sexual orientation and gender, that people would be recruited, retained, promoted on criteria other than battlefield efficacy. So, they just stayed away from what they felt was a hostile environment. Didn’t help when then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin told the nation before Congress that they were going to invest white supremacy following the death of George Floyd.

That’s over with. There is a record number of Army recruits. The military has met all of its recruiting. That is equivalent to the dramatic revolution on the southern border. Nobody thought we could close the border. We did. Nobody thought we could get recruitment back. Pete Hegseth did.

Continue reading “”

Nope. Not going to agree to anything that will keep the NFRTR registration. If they want to tax sales of NFA firearms for medicare funding, do it like they do with Pittman-Robertson funding for wildlife restoration, an excise tax at the point of sale.

Health Care for Gun Rights? Bill Would Reverse Silencer Tax for Medicare Funds

A coalition of Democrat legislators is backing a move to rewind last summer’s repeal of the NFA tax on suppressors, short-barrel rifles, and similar items to fund their own health-care initiative.

These sponsors are backing the so-called Medicare Investment and Gun Violence Prevention Act, which would repeal the hard-fought removal of NFA taxes established by Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. The scheme would then reinstitute the tax and direct the funds to pay for Medicare costs.

Current backers include Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and a host of blue-state senators like Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). They claim the re-removal of Americans’ gun rights would scrounge up some $1.7 billion in taxes over the next decade.

“This legislation is a 2-for-1 response to Republicans driving up health care costs and letting guns invade our communities,” claimed Sen. Alsobrooks. “When Republicans snuck in tax cuts to the Big Ugly Bill on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles, they made their position clear: guns matter more than Americans’ lives. At a time when health care costs are skyrocketing, and just days after yet another tragic school shooting, now is the time to act. Our bill will repeal the unnecessary tax cuts on deadly weapons and use the money saved for Americans’ health care, which has been decimated by Republicans.”

Of course, it is not “money saved,” as Sen. Alsobrooks claims. It is money taken, via a defunct tax mechanism, from Americans exercising their constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. Ironically, it also attacks proven hearing safety devices like suppressors in the name of better health care.

The move to snatch back gun rights via NFA taxes is backed by a host of anti-gun interest groups, ranging from Newtown Action Alliance and Brady to Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence.

While the plot is an extreme long shot in the currently Republican-controlled House and Senate, many Democrats are eagerly looking to next year’s midterm elections. At the moment, it is hard to take the barely 2.5-page bill seriously, but 2026 is just around the corner.

A good ‘edged tool’ can be of use for many different things.

Person attacked outside Bally’s Casino, stabbed attacker in self-defense

The Second Amendment was not written in isolation. It sits on the same foundation as every other right.
You do not get free speech if the state decides who may speak.
You do not get due process if the state decides who is dangerous.
You do not get bodily autonomy if the state decides what is “reasonable.”
When one amendment is treated as optional, the rest follow.

History is clear.

Governments do not restrain themselves. They are restrained when they hit resistance. The Constitution is a package deal. You either defend all of it, or you lose it piece by piece. Rights do not exist because the government allows them. Rights exist because the people already had them.
– John “TIG” Tiegen Semper Fi

Now, if they’d stop their schizophrenic support for similar federal laws.

Justice Department Sues the District of Columbia for the Unconstitutional Ban of Semi-Automatic Firearms
Monday, December 22, 2025

Today, the Justice Department sued the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), alleging that the District government and MPD unconstitutionally ban the AR-15 and many other firearms protected under the Second Amendment. The District’s gun laws require anyone seeking to own a gun to register it with D.C. Metro Police. However, the D.C. Code provides a broad registration ban on numerous firearms — an unconstitutional incursion into the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes. MPD’s current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms.

Continue reading “”

Democrats really do want you dead

Among the most obvious and glaring indicators of the political divide is the issue of self-defense. Normal Americans—largely but not exclusively Republicans—are in harmony with America’s Founders who understood self-defense is a natural, unalienable, God-given individual right which forms the basis of the Second Amendment. If every American doesn’t have a right to self-defense, a right government does not grant and cannot revoke, what other right matters? If one’s continuing existence depends on size, strength and aggression, we’re degenerating to another dark age.

The police can’t protect anyone and can’t be sued when they don’t.

Because Normal Americans understand the Second Amendment and why the Founders wrote it, they’re comfortable with citizens keeping and bearing arms. They understand that right isn’t limited to handguns, nor does it have anything to do with target shooting, hunting or militia membership. They know the primary reason for the Second Amendment is to allow Normal Americans to deter tyranny, and if necessary, to defeat a totalitarian government.

That, even more than the historic record, the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions, makes Democrat heads explode, because they intend to become that totalitarian government. That’s why they’re always trying to disarm Normal Americans.

Those with anti-liberty/gun intentions tend to be, though not exclusively, Democrats. They don’t recognize unalienable rights and call those who believe fundamental rights come not from government but from God, “Christian Nationalists,” which is not a complementary label. Their faith is in themselves and the one-party state they labor to create. They reject the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution because both protect individual rights and limit the powers of government, the powers they want to exclusively, eternally wield.

Individuals have rights; governments have powers.

The Bondi Beach massacre and the Brown University attack starkly reveal the differences in these philosophies and their consequences. When an attack happens, the police will virtually never be there in time. Attackers will have considerable time to kill. If citizens are universally disarmed by law or are obeying “gun-free zone” signs, they’ll be unable to fight back. Australia is essentially a gun-free zone; so is Brown University.

The police would love to be able to stop a shooter, but even if they’re present, which was reportedly the case at Bondi Beach, they may do nothing which gave the killers a free-fire zone for from 10-20 minutes. At Uvalde, some 300 officers allowed a 70+ minute free fire zone. At Brown, they had no role in stopping the attack.

In any attack, someone must call the police. A dispatcher must assimilate the information and dispatch the call. Officers must race to the scene–if any are available. In some places, the nearest officer might be an hour away. When they arrive, they must orient themselves and close with the attacker or attackers without getting killed before they can do any good. And in all that time, unarmed innocents are dying. Or even worse, as happened at Bondi Beach, the police, who are rushing into a dangerously ambiguous situation, might shoot an innocent.

Normal Americans given this indisputable set of facts want willing citizens to go armed. They trust their fellow citizens with motor vehicles, which are far more deadly than guns. They’re willing to extend that trust to guns as well. Do away with gun-free zones, to be sure, but to deter attacks, and to limit damage when they occur, the only sane, effective solution is allowing honest Americans the means to save their own lives and the lives of others. If they’re present when an attack occurs, they know precisely who the good and bad guys are and they’re able to quickly end the attack.

Democrats see things very differently. Just as officials in Australia and Rhode Island did in the immediate aftermath of those attacks, American Democrats reflexively want to disarm Americans. Despite the failure of near-absolute gun-banning laws and regulations, they demand even more, and more punitive, anti-liberty/gun laws.

Normal Americans want everyone, Democrats included, to have the ability to defend their lives, the lives of those they love and even strangers. Democrats want everyone, except their publicly funded security, disarmed. Normal Americans want mass murderers dead and fellow Americans alive. Democrats want mass murders to have free-fire zones and want Normal Americans dead.

What other result can their disarmament policies bring?

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran

Can the Dark Ages Return?

Western civilization arose in the 8th century B.C. Greece. Some 1,500 city-states emerged from a murky, illiterate 400-year-old Dark Age. That chaos followed the utter collapse of the palatial culture of Mycenaean Greece.

But what re-emerged were constitutional government, rationalism, liberty, freedom of expression, self-critique, and free markets – what we know now as the foundation of a unique Western civilization.

The Roman Republic inherited and enhanced the Greek model.

For a millennium, the Republic and subsequent Empire spread Western culture, eventually to be inseparable from Christianity.

From the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and from the Rhine and Danube to the Sahara, there were a million square miles of safety, prosperity, progress, and science – until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD.

What followed was a second European Dark Age, roughly from 500 to 1000 AD.

Populations declined. Cities eroded. Roman roads, aqueducts, and laws crumbled.

In place of the old Roman provinces arose tribal chieftains and fiefdoms.

Whereas once Roman law had protected even rural people in remote areas, during the Dark Ages, walls and stone were the only means of keeping safe.

Finally, at the end of the 11th century, the old values and know-how of the complex world of Graeco-Roman civilization gradually re-emerged.

The slow rebirth was later energized by the humanists and scientists of the Renaissance, Reformation, and eventually the 200-year European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Contemporary Americans do not believe that our current civilization could self-destruct a third time in the West, followed by an impoverished and brutal Dark Age.

But what caused these prior returns to tribalism and loss of science, technology, and the rule of law?

Historians cite several causes of societal collapse – and today they are hauntingly familiar.

Like people, societies age. Complacency sets in.

The hard work and sacrifice that built the West also creates wealth and leisure. Such affluence is taken for granted by later generations. What created success is eventually ignored – or even mocked.

Expenditures and consumption outpace income, production, and investment.

Child-rearing, traditional values, strong defense, love of country, religiosity, meritocracy, and empirical education fade away.

The middle class of autonomous citizens disappear. Society bifurcates between a few lords and many peasants.

Tribalism – the pre-civilizational bonds based on race, religion, or shared appearance – re-emerge.

National government fragments into regional and ethnic enclaves.

Borders disappear. Mass migrations are unchecked. The age-old bane of antisemitism reappears.

The currency inflates, losing its value and confidence. General crassness in behavior, speech, dress, and ethics replaces prior norms.

Transportation, communications, and infrastructure all decline.

The end is near when the necessary medicine is seen as worse than the disease.

Such was life around 450 AD in Western Europe.

The contemporary West might raise similar red flags.

Fertility has dived well below 2.0 in almost every Western country.

Public debt is nearing unsustainable levels. The dollar and euro have lost much of their purchasing power.

It is more common in universities to damn than honor the gifts of the Western intellectual past.

Yet, the reading and analytical skills of average Westerners, and Americans in particular, steadily decline.

Can the general population even operate or comprehend the ever-more sophisticated machines and infrastructure that an elite group of engineers and scientists create?

The citizen loses confidence in an often corrupt elite, who neither will protect their nation’s borders nor spend sufficient money on collective defense.

The cures are scorned.

Do we dare address spiraling deficits, unsustainable debt, and corrupt bureaucracies and entitlements?

Even mention of reform is smeared as “greedy,” “racist,” “cruel,” or even “fascist” and “Nazi.”

In our times, relativism replaces absolute values in the eerie replay of the latter Roman Empire.

Critical legal theory claims crimes are not really crimes.

Critical race theory postulates that all of society is guilty of insidious bias, demanding reparations in cash and preferences in admission and hiring.

Salad-bowl tribalism replaces assimilation, acculturation, and integration of the old melting pot.

Despite a far wealthier, far more leisured, and far more scientific contemporary America, was it safer to walk in New York or take the subway in 1960 than now?

Are high school students better at math now or 70 years ago?

Are movies and television more entertaining and ennobling in 1940 or now?

Are nuclear, two-parent families the norm currently or in 1955?

We are blessed to live longer and healthier lives than ever – even as the larger society around us seems to teeter.

Yet, the West historically is uniquely self-introspective and self-critical.

Reform and Renaissance historically are more common than descents back into the Dark Ages.

But the medicine for decline requires unity, honesty, courage, and action – virtues now in short supply on social media, amid popular culture, and among the political class.