IT ALWAYS GOES BACK TO MARX, SOMEHOW…

Leftists will get impatient or roll their eyes when they hear someone like Jordan Peterson describe postmodernist “critical theory,” critical race theory, or any aspect of identity politics (especially the phenomenon of “gender fluidity”) as “cultural Marxism.”  And yet. . .

Michael Anton drew my attention to a passage in the transcript of Leo Strauss’s seminar on Marx that he taught at the University of Chicago in 1960 (emphasis added):

Partly basing himself on Adam Smith, Marx makes this suggestion: the inequality of capacities which is empirically undeniable is the effect rather than the cause of the division of labor. So the inequality of capacities, in other words, is a social product, not a natural datum. Great inequality of capacities is certainly the effect of the division of labor. The division of labor in its turn leads rather to the impoverishment of the activities of the individual. 

All this would seem to lead to the conclusion that with the abolition of the division of labor, eventually there will be equality of capacities. But does not the inequality have natural roots? 

Yet what is the historical process except the conquest of nature, and therefore also to some extent of human nature? But to what extent is the historical process a conquest of human nature and therefore a conquest also of natural inequality? Marx is unable to give a principle here, and that is a revenge for his contempt about the question of the essence of man; because if the essence of man remains so wholly indeterminate, how can you then have any principle here?

Comment: this preceding paragraph expresses exactly the premises behind Kamala Harris’s seemingly incoherent recent statement that demonstrates the Marxist roots of her thought: “So equity, as a concept, says: Recognize that everyone has the same capacity, but in order for them to have equal opportunity to reach that capacity, we must pay attention to this issue of equity if we are to expect and allow people to compete on equal footing.”

To continue with Strauss:

Let us read the clearest passage of Marx on the natural root of the division of labor: “With the development of property the division of labor develops. The division of labor was originally nothing except the division of labor in the sexual act.” Period.

In other words—that is of course an absolutely fantastic assertion, because if you want to be realistic you would have to say that this division of labor is not limited to the sexual act; it has to do with procreation as a whole. You know that men do not become pregnant but women do. 

But this wholly unreasonable limitation to the sexual act instead of taking the whole, procreation, is characteristic of the whole procedure.

 Now if you think this through, what is the conclusion? If the division of labor is rooted ultimately in the bisexuality of man—that is the primary form—and the division of labor is to be overcome, let’s get rid of the bisexuality. Yet don’t laugh. I mean, it is silly but it is a very serious problem, and there is of course—and you know, I’m not speaking of Mr. or Mrs. Jorgensen* in particular [laughter], but I’m concerned with the—people have given some thought throughout the ages to the question of producing human beings in test tubes. You know, the homunculus problem.

Well, that is a practically absurd suggestion; that is clear. But we are concerned now—what is the principle which allows us to say that is absurd and not merely some vague knowledge of what we can do and cannot do?

* NB, from the footnotes: “Christine Jorgenson underwent sex-reassignment surgery in 1951. Jorgenson, previously known as George William Jorgenson, Jr., became a celebrity after a front-page story in the (New York) Daily News in December 1952 told her story (“Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty”).

On other words, Strauss more than 60 years ago anticipates one way in which the wholesale madness of Marxism would go retail in our time, and why sooner or later it had to express itself through direct hostility toward the essentially differences between men and women.

BLUF

Which brings us back to the Constitution, now as shredded and torn and lying on the floor of the Senate, as Caesar on the Ides of March. The easiest and most direct way to restore our American Republic (not “our democracy”) is to restore the Constitution in all of its salient particulars, including the restoration of the Ninth and Tenth amendments……

What’s in our future? Civil War? Partition? Amicable divorce? In the meantime, let me leave you with this, from my debut novel, the controversial Exchange Alley, written after my return from Moscow in 1991 and published in 1997 but set in the period just before the end of the Soviet Union:

There is an unmistakable odor about socialist countries that pervades every public place. It is a strong animal smell, composed in equal parts of sweat and unwashed clothes, Russian cigarettes, cheap perfume, piss, disinfectant, and leaded gasoline; in the heyday of Communism, every socialist country smelled the same. But in the mother church of Marxism-Leninism, the reek was stronger, sharper, more pervasive. It was the ur-stench of the Soviet system, the stink of a dying animal and with each passing year it got stronger and more difficult for foreigners, even fellow travelers in the west, to ignore.

Smell that here at home now? I thought you might.

What’s the Constitution Among Friends?

Thus spake the great George Washington Plunkitt, of Tammany Hall fame, and it makes a fitting epitaph for the noble experiment in self-government that is, or was, the United States of America. Last week, we discussed the now-explicit anti-constitutionalism and anti-Americanism of the modern Left, and their desire to see it on the ash heap of history, now that it’s served its purpose (like John Hurt in Alien) as their incubator and victim. From at least the time of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats have despised the Constitution—which they think let them down in the battle over slavery—and have sought to kill it by the death of a thousand cuts, some of which have been delivered by the Supreme Court, some by legislation, and some by sheer inanition.

It’s time now to begin going into detail about what can be done and what can’t. The good news is, there are solutions, or rather, one simple one. The bad news is, it will never be implemented, because the century-long browbeating of the American public via the political establishment and their handmaidens in the news media makes that effectively impossible.

Continue reading “”

Electric cars only? Howzabout

New York Senator Pushes Bill Mandating Speed Limiters for All Cars.

Per capita roadway fatalities have seen dramatic increases over the last two years and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has suggested that 2022 might actually end up being the deadliest year it has ever recorded in regard to the total body count. So there are a lot of people in politics that have concerned themselves with getting those numbers down. Unfortunately, the solutions are often to leverage more of the technology that data is starting to show might have gotten us into this predicament in the first place.

Manhattan State Senator Brad Hoylman (D-NY) introduced just such a bill on August 12th, one that would effectively require all new vehicles to incorporate some form of speed-limiting technology by 2024 and direct the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish new rules for all transportation over 3,000 pounds. Considering that even teensy hatchbacks like the Mini Cooper already clock in dangerously close to that threshold, such a law would impact just about everything with four wheels that’s bigger than a Mazda MX-5 or Nissan Kicks.

The bill ( S9528) stipulates that modern vehicles provide “direct visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users from the drivers [sic] position.” This is being done in an effort to curb pedestrian fatalities that have been on the rise in most major cities. But there’s a lack of clarity in terms of how that would be implemented. Studies have shown that full-sized, flat-faced pickups and SUVs often have a blind spot just ahead of the front bumper – meaning they’d either have to be redesigned or implement some kind of camera system that would display the area to the driver. But the same could be said of the zones directly beside and behind almost every vehicle, presumably requiring an array of cameras and screens.

Vehicles sold in New York State would also need to have the latest advanced driving aids – things like lane keeping, automatic emergency braking, and blind spot monitoring – to pass muster after 2024. That’s in addition to the speed-limiting technologies that are at the forefront of the bill. New York City has actually been piloting an “Intelligent Speed Assistance” (ISA) program that uses a vehicle’s GPS and software capable of reading road signs to electronically limit its speed based on its present location. It sounds like a novel concept but it’s actually not. The European Union is actually requiring all new vehicles to have some form of ISA after July 2024.

However, Hoylman’s proposals have some strong headwinds to confront. Americans generally don’t like anything that curtails their freedoms and New York doesn’t actually have any formal jurisdiction over what everyone else drives. However, Hoylman has suggested that NY could become a trendsetter similar to how Californian legislation has fundamentally influenced national emission laws. Hell, it wasn’t more than a few years ago when select automakers were lining up to proclaim that they would be shunning federal standards set by the Trump administration in favor of whatever limits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) said would be permissible.

“We think that, if New York goes first, we could push the marketplace and have an effect across the country,” he told Streetsblog in an interview, adding that the present “patchwork” where only some cars have the latest technology was unacceptable.

But adding such systems could add thousands to the base price of many automobiles during a period where vehicles have already grown prohibitively expensive. Your author is also unconvinced this will move the needle on pedestrian fatalities when there’s mounting evidence that a lot of the technology that’s in modern cars actually encourages distracted driving. That, combined with the fact that cars have been getting heavier, certainly hasn’t given foot traffic the edge at intersections. Meanwhile, I have my own theory that accident rates frequently seem to track with economic strife in a manner that mimics crime rates. Substance abuse is also way up in the United States and has undoubtedly played a factor in the elevated fatalities witnessed since 2020.

Blindly regulating more tech in cars could end up being counterproductive if those systems rely on a distracting interface or consumers decide it’s just too invasive to live with – which it probably will be. A lot of these urban initiatives designed to fundamentally change how we travel have backfired already, frankly. Senator Hoylman even seemed conscious that NYC had failed with Vision Zero – an earlier safety program brimming with buzz terms like sustainability, equity, mobility, and stakeholders – that lowered the citywide speed limit while adding more bike lanes, traffic cameras, and automated tolls.

“The impetus of the bill is the failure of the promise of Vision Zero,” Hoylman said, adding that NYC endured 273 traffic deaths last year. That represents a noteworthy increase since Vision Zero was introduced in 2014, despite reduced fatalities being the program’s main goal.

Hoylman’s staff said that they are presently seeking an Assembly sponsor for the bill and would be holding hearings on it when the legislature comes back into session in January.

WHAT FIREARM RETAILERS AND RANGES CAN DO FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH THIS SEPTEMBER

Participating can help save a life!

The majority of firearm-related deaths annually are suicides, not homicides or accidents. Understanding this, the firearm industry can play a role in reducing the rate of suicide by helping to educate employees and firearm owners and their families about mental health, suicide prevention and how to recognize and respond when a person is going through a difficult time.

We all have mental health just as we all have physical health; both need to be cared for. Delivering this and other messages to gun owners is where we all come in. Industry and NSSF serve as trusted messengers to overcome barriers when providing education to gun owners—education developed in collaboration with our partners, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs.

Firearm retailers and shooting ranges can help deliver this education during Suicide Prevention Month (September) and also year-round by engaging in one or more of these strategies:

  • USE the AFSP-NSSF Suicide Prevention Toolkit materials at your business. The toolkit is free to order and contains a poster, counter cards, window clings, a brochure for customers and a postvention brochure providing guidance in case your business experiences a suicide.
  • EDUCATE your staff about warning signs, risk factors and intervention techniques by having them watch the SHOT University e-learning module, developed by NSSF and AFSP.
  • PROMOTE discounts and sales of secure firearm storage devices. Storage devices put “time and space” between a person with suicidal thoughts and a method of self-harm.
  • PROMOTE training courses on responsible firearm use and ownership.
  • HOST an AFSP “Talk Saves Lives” presentation at your business or help sponsor one in your community. Talk Saves Lives provides an overview of how individuals can help prevent suicide. NSSF contributed to the content of Talk Saves Lives to ensure it’s respectful of gun owners. Your state’s AFSP chapter can arrange a presentation.
  • HOST a QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) course at your business or help sponsor one in your community. QPR provides training to individuals so they can help a person in crisis; it can save lives.
  • RUN the VA’s “Space Between Time and Trigger” video ads on your website or social media page. The ads come in 15-, 30- and 60-second versions. The videos can be accessed at Keepitsecure.net.
  • MAKE customers aware of the FirearmLifePlan.org. The website, which NSSF advised on, offers tools to help people think about the disposition of firearms later in life and protects families from the burden of making difficult decisions without guidance.
  • PARTNER with local law enforcement to promote NSSF’s Project ChildSafe program in your community to remind gun owners to securely store firearms when not in use and educate children about gun safety.
  • PROMOTE NSSF’s Parents Guide to Understanding Youth Mental Health and Preventing Unauthorized Access to Firearms—a response to rising youth suicide rates and firearm misuse.

Learn more about these resources and programs by clicking the URL in their descriptions above or reach out to NSSF at membership@nssf.org for assistance.

5 Things You Might Not Know About the Bill to Ban “Assault Weapons”

The arguably unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is a lot worse than most people are aware. That’s because the measure is nearly 14,000 words long, and most of it is based on sheer ignorance, so digging through the entire document to see what is hidden inside is actually disheartening.

Here’s a brief look at five things in H.R. 1808 that you might not have been aware were included in the legislation.

The criteria used for banning rifles are ignorant and nonsensical. The measure purports to ban “military-style” weapons, although all of the guns banned by the bill fire only one round with a single pull of the trigger like all semi-automatics. Our military, as well as most militaries of the rest of the world, equip their soldiers with rifles capable of fully-automatic fire. And the alleged “military” features that can cause your gun to be banned include the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, along with one of the following: a pistol grip (certainly not uniquely military), a forward grip (doesn’t make it any more “deadly”), an adjustable stock (why is it bad to be able to make your gun fit you correctly?), a grenade launcher (which is actually an NFA item, subject to strict controls, as are any explosive grenades one may want to use with the launcher), a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel (so much for hearing protection).

The measure also bans many firearms by name, not just criteria. It bans all AK-type rifles and lists 28 specific models by name. It also covers “AR types,” and went on to list dozens of different rifles by name or manufacturer that would be banned. When you consider several entries that include all of a company’s semi-automatic rifles, like “Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Rifles” and “Stag Arms AR Rifles,” the list grows to literally hundreds. Also banned by the measure are a long list of semi-automatic rifles that are not ARs, including the Beretta CX4 Storm, Ruger Mini-14 and more than 60 other models. Lastly, it bans all AK and AR pistols.

The legislation bans many pistols and shotguns, too. It bans “any semiautomatic pistol that has an ammunition feeding device that is not a fixed ammunition feeding device” and has one of the following: A threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a barrel shroud, the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip, a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm, a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded, or a buffer tube, stabilizing brace or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip, and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a firearm to be fired from the shoulder. It also bans any semi-automatic shotgun that “has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device or a fixed ammunition feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds,” along with any one of the following: a folding, telescoping or detachable stock, a pistol grip or bird’s head grip, a forward grip or a grenade launcher. It even bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder; a type of shotgun that is fairly rare, and even more rarely, if ever, used to commit violent crime.

The legislation also bans common, standard-capacity magazines. It specifically bans what it calls “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and defines the term as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” This important portion of the measure has been largely unreported by those in the so-called “mainstream” media.

The authors of the bill knew that much of it is unconstitutional—especially since more than 24 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by American citizens—but pushed the measure through anyway. Proof of that prior knowledge can be found in one section toward the end of the bill that features this clumsy disclaimer: “If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Of course, the measure also contains a lot of other egregious provisions that would likely shock most law-abiding gun owners. You can read it for yourself here.

Ruger Launches LC Carbine in 5.7

IDEAL FOR THE RANGE, BACKPACKING, SMALL GAME, OR ANYWHERE A VERSATILE AND RELIABLE CARBINE IS APPRECIATED.

  • Weighing under 6 lbs., the lightweight and compact Ruger® LC Carbine™ utilizes the same steel magazines and familiar ergonomic controls as the Ruger-5.7™ pistol.
  • Unique bolt-over-barrel design with the magazine in the grip allows for excellent balance and pointability.
  •  Folding stock and collapsible sights are ideal for compact storage (on models so equipped).
  • The reversible folding stock, with adjustable length of pull, is compatible with both AR-pattern and Picatinny rail-mounted aftermarket accessory stocks (on models so equipped).
  • Features a 16.25″ fluted, nitride-treated steel barrel for strength, accuracy, and longevity.
  • 1/2″-28 TPI threaded barrel with thread protector allows for the attachment of popular muzzle accessories including muzzle brakes, flash hiders and caliber-appropriate suppressors (on models so equipped).
  • Impressive ergonomics with ambidextrous manual safety, reversible charging handle, ergonomic bolt release and extended magazine release latch.
  • Utilizes Ruger’s safe, reliable and proven Secure Action™ fire-control system that combines a protected internal hammer with a bladed-safety trigger. The trigger has a short, smooth pull, clean break and positive reset.
  • CNC-milled handguard that is Type III hard-coat anodized aluminum for maximum durability, with M-LOK® accessory attachment slots. Multiple QD sling sockets allow for maximum versatility.
  • Ruger® Rapid Deploy folding sights are adjustable for windage and elevation and the full length Picatinny rail allows for optic mounting.
  • Safety features include: 1911-style ambidextrous manual safety; an integrated trigger safety; lightweight firing pin; neutrally balanced sear with significant engagement and strong spring tension; and hammer catch to help prevent the hammer from contacting the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled.
  • Also includes: one Ruger-5.7™ steel pistol magazine, ambidextrous magazine button, M-LOK® QD sling socket and hex wrenches for disassembly.

Features listed above are available on all standard models, but may not appear on Distributor Exclusive models. See individual spec sheets for model specific features.

She Can Shoot: The Rise of Female Gun Ownership
Women are one of the fastest-growing demographics in the firearms industry

Robyn Sandoval is seeing a sea change at the gun range: The executive director of A Girl and A Gun (AGAG) Women’s Shooting League is noticing that women are showing up to shoot more than ever before. “Every week, basically, we’re approached by a new instructor or range that wants to have a women-focused training program in their area,” Sandoval told Discourse.

Her experience is part of a great ongoing transformation in the gun world. Over the past two years, more than 5 million women bought a gun for the first time. That’s about 37% of the 13.8 million new gun owners that the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s dealer surveys identified over that time period. That makes women, alongside minority gun owners, one of the fastest-growing demographics in the firearms industry.

Why Women Are Buying Guns
In just over a decade, A Girl and A Gun has grown to include more than 200 chapters at 300 ranges across the country. And that growth only accelerated as America entered a period of unprecedented gun sales beginning in 2020. It’s no coincidence that period coincided with unprecedented chaos, Sandoval said.

“With the riots and the pandemic, most everything was kind of still fear-based…they’re afraid that they wouldn’t have access to protection,” she said. “That first responders wouldn’t be able to respond. Or they’d be targeted for violence.”

Breaking down barriers. A Girl and a Gun Executive Director Robyn Sandoval: “We’ve broken through a lot of barriers so that people recognize that the everyday moms and women of all walks of life are welcome at the range.”

A 2021 AGAG survey shared with Discourse shows that 45% of its membership were new shooters. The top reason those new shooters gave for buying a gun was concern over rioting and civil unrest. 59% of the new shooters listed a fear of physical safety or new gun bans as a reason they decided to buy.

But those weren’t the only reasons women gave as they began to seek out training and competition. One reason was simply the realization that something like AGAG was available to them.

“Many of them have just learned that training is an option for them,” Sandoval said. “That’s something we’re seeing more and more is that a lot of women thought that you had to be an operator or have law enforcement experience, or that civilian courses were not available to them, or nobody in their social circle had taken them before. Now, at A Girl and A Gun, we’ve broken through a lot of barriers so that people recognize that the everyday moms and women of all walks of life are welcome at the range.”

That may be surprising to many people, but not Sarah Hauptman. She has been involved with gun-rights activism in Minnesota for years and recently started helping to run the holster company Phlster, which her husband founded in 2011. There’s a big difference between when she first started shooting and today, she said: Women are increasingly a fixture at gun ranges.

A path for women. Phlster owner Sarah Hauptman: “When your friends shoot, and you see female faces shooting, and you see people who look like you, it’s a lot more accessible.”

“It used to be you’d go to a shooting class, and you’d be the only girl there,” Hauptman told Discourse. “Now, more often than not, there’s several.”

That kind of representation matters, Hauptman said: It’s created a kind of snowball effect. “When your friends shoot, and you see female faces shooting, and you see people who look like you, it’s a lot more accessible,“ she said. “You don’t have to swim against the current to get into it. There’s a path for you.”

Hauptman said breaking down the barriers to entry also leads many women to embrace what she sees as the empowering nature of gun ownership. Hauptman herself did not grow up with firearms. She only became interested later in life after she and her mother decided to try out shooting and had a proverbial blast. “The fun got me into it and kept me into it,” she said.

But after the fun factor brought her to gun ownership, it was its practical utility that made her want to stay. And it even made her want to advocate for others to get involved.

“You kind of realize, ‘Oh, this actually gives me a lot of capability, and it is a kind of equalizer,’” she said. “Once you realize that you can control that power and make it part of your life and add to your ability with it, you’re not giving that back. You’re not letting anyone take it from you either.”

Hauptman said that’s why more women are turning toward firearms to provide for the safety of their homes—households for which they are more often primarily responsible. “I think more women are taking responsibility for their own self-protection,” she said. “More women are living alone. Whether they’re single moms or whether they’re just single women, more women are solely responsible for their own self-defense.”

That’s borne out in AGAG’s data too, which shows 37% of its members are single. “More women than ever before are actually becoming the first gun owner in their home, as opposed to it being more male-driven in the past,” Sandoval said.

Less Pink, More Practicality
The gun industry has taken note of the increasing prominence of female shooters. Sandoval said the market has evolved for the better in recent years. Gun companies are now doing much more than just making superficial appeals to female shooters.

Ten years ago, it was a “pink it and shrink it” mentality when it came to product development. But now, there are really thoughtful products that women want to use, that are developed for women, that fit women’s hands better, that fit their bodies better, that give them more options for concealed carry. It used to be where women’s choices in concealed carry were pretty limited to really small guns, and now, most women, regardless of their size, can carry a full-size, even decked out with lights and optics.

Sandoval singled out Glock’s introduction of slimline models, such as the Glock 43 a few years ago, and Walther’s recent release of the PDP F-Series as examples of major industry players emphasizing designs that appeal to women. While those guns are also popular with men, their design took the unique needs of women into consideration. Sandoval said Walther consulted with AGAG on the design of the PDP F-Series, and the company’s process included measuring the hands of a thousand women to better tweak the layout of the pistol’s trigger and controls.

Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said those kinds of considerations are becoming more and more common in the industry. “Designs of handguns for personal protection are incorporating features long sought by women, including smaller frames, lighter springs, redesigned magazines for easier loading, and shotgun and rifle stocks designed to more readily fit the needs for women with length of pull,” he told Discourse. “The AR-15, due to its easy adaptability and customization, has been a rifle that can easily fit the needs of women gun owners by simple and small adjustments.”

Sandoval also praised the latest innovations in concealed-carry options made with women shooters in mind, including those from Hauptman’s company and its competitor Dene Adams. “The Phlster Enigma has been a game changer in the industry,” Sandoval said. “That’s rocked the training world. Dene Adams also has really great products. I love that [Dene Adams products] have Kydex holsters in them to make everything safer. There’s a lot of activewear and concealment wear out there that don’t have the safety controls in place that instructors want to see.” She said the Kydex inserts help cover the trigger of the firearm to stop the trigger from being pulled unintentionally.

Both Sandoval and Hauptman emphasized that certain gun features that appeal to women, like the thinner grip of the Glock 43 or the Enigma’s beltless holster system, for example, are just as appealing to many men. In fact, while the Enigma has quickly earned a sort of cult status among female concealed carriers, it is even more popular with men.

“Our product is 100% gender neutral,” Hauptman said. “It works on basic physical principles that can be applied to any body type. The reason that it’s popular among women is because women are just less likely to wear belts.”

She said Phlster’s goal is to make it easier for everybody to carry regardless of their gender. However, women have long been underserved in the gun-carry market. So being able to more directly address their needs has helped the company gain an enthusiastic following.

“More women are successfully carrying, and they’re not giving up,” Hauptman said. “They’re not saying, ‘I can’t get it to conceal, so I can’t carry.’ And they’re not saying, ‘I can’t get comfortable, so I can’t carry.’ And they’re not saying, ‘I don’t feel safe.’”

Instead, they’re more easily surmounting the barriers that traditionally kept women from owning firearms. Hauptman hopes that brings more of them into the gun-owning community, and, ultimately, into gun-rights activism. “If we can make it easy for people to carry and have a stake, then those people have a much higher chance of going on to become advocates and preserving the Second Amendment for everyone,” she said.

Polling has consistently shown women are more supportive of gun restrictions than men. Women have also traditionally lagged behind men in gun ownership. As more women become gun owners, though, they may be affected by another long-term polling trend where gun owners are less supportive of gun restrictions. If more women become gun owners, and they become less supportive of gun-control laws, it could have a significant impact on gun laws at every level across the country. These trends are definitely worth watching in the years ahead.

The future of female gun ownership is bright—and it will likely continue to shine, Hauptman maintains. “I don’t know if as many women at their core will ever be as interested in shooting as men,” she said. “But I think the snowball effect is probably going to continue for a while.”

Riverside gunfight leaves would-be burglar dead, resident wounded

A resident fatally shot a suspect who was apparently trying to break into a Riverside apartment early Wednesday, police said.

The incident was reported around 1:40 a.m. in the 5900 block of Sycamore Canyon Boulevard.

The victim alerted police to a burglary in progress, then called back to indicate gunshots had been exchanged.

Responding Riverside police officers found the resident suffering from a gunshot wound to the leg. He was taken to a hospital with an injury that was not life-threatening.

As officers searched the area of the apartment complex, they found a car that had crashed into other vehicles and a man inside suffering from a gunshot wound. The man, believed to be one of the suspects involved in the burglary call, was taken to a hospital where he later died.

He was later identified by police as 20-year-old Denzeal Young of Moreno Valley.

Officers continued to search the area with bloodhounds and did not find any other suspects.

They do believe, however, that at least one other person was involved. One neighbor told KTLA he heard the gunshots and the crash and later saw three people get out of the suspect vehicle, two of them running away.

“We don’t believe that the suspects actually made entry, they may have been attempting to get inside and then this exchange of gunfire occurred,” Officer Ryan Railsback said Wednesday. “We don’t know if this is a targeted victim, or if this is just something random.”

Railsback added that the victim is cooperating with authorities during the investigation.

The victim’s girlfriend went to the scene of the shooting Wednesday afternoon to see the damage that was done to the apartment.

“I’m just happy he’s OK,” Jazmine told reporters.

She said she hasn’t had a chance to speak to him because he is still in the hospital. “He’s going to be OK,” Jazmine added.

The Declaration of Independence is Unconstitutional

While there is plenty of talk and rhetoric proclaiming all that is “Constitutional” or “Unconstitutional”, when we examine and recognize that document which more than any other represents the soul of America, we find that document is: The Declaration of Independence.

With the simple preface, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, the novel idea of constructing government solely as best servant to the People and their God given privileges was born.

Because of the Declaration, and specifically this prefatory clause, the United States has developed a whole philosophy of thought called “American Exceptionalism”.

This philosophy is what makes us special, different from any other nation on earth, and dare I say… Better!

To the chagrin, of our current Commander in Chief, better is not better at all.  In fact, better, a.k.a. American Exceptionalism, in the mind of our exalted leader, is arrogance.

To think, that we individuals might strive for excellence, driven by nothing other than our own will and the Providential opportunity with which we are presented is obscene to those like Obama who embrace a Statist ideology.

At his core, the Statist is a parasite who requires a subjugated public to advance himself.  Unlike the rugged individualist who advances by grit and determination, the Statist assembles his power through propaganda that pits those rugged individualists in society who have achieved, against the sloth groups who have been convinced that achievement is an accidental occurrence falling upon those who have been “lucky”.

Out of this thinking is bred a whole line of thought that has undermined our Founders vision for America and has convinced our populace that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document which must be tempered by the populist mood of the age.

And of what character is this mood which is now arbiter and driver of public policy in America?

Schizophrenic, ignorant, sanctimonious, and dishonest are adjectives which come to mind.

It would seem, if we could apply contemporary American views and compare them to the theme of the foundational clause upon which our whole government has been built we ought to be able to find a congruence of understanding.

Let’s try:

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

These truths are unarguable, anyone from any walk of life, regardless of background, social or economic class, educated or uneducated would agree on undeniable fundamental truths.  What are fundamental truths?  Do all our inhabitants agree about them?

that all men are created equal,

declaring us all subject to the same unarguable truths, the same rule, and the same law.  No individual or group would be afforded any more or any less in the eyes of our law; ergo, it is not by accident that Lady Justice adorns a blindfold when ascertaining weights on a balance scale.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

That separation of Church and State thing kind of falls apart right here.  Unalienable meaning that they cannot be taken away, and that we are endowed by our Creator—God, specifying exactly who endowed us with our Rights.  It is not a stretch to infer government’s only role here is to protect what God has provided.  Do all American’s believe this?  Is this the contemporary understanding of “Constitutional”?

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While the Founders were content to allow us to use our imagination in interpreting what unalienable rights we were endowed with, they wrote down a couple to make sure we got onto the right track.  Our most important rights were listed, and it is not by accident that Life was put first.

The order of rights was listed in a prioritized manner exalting Life the supreme right, and should any Right conflict with another, the latter would yield to the former.

If a mother felt pregnancy was in some way threatening to her Liberty, her baby’s right to Life was, in the scheme of things, of such priority that mom’s Liberty could be impinged for the duration of the child’s term.  Using the word “was” instead of “is” might seem offensive, however, in today’s culture, do we respect this distinction?  Is abortion today viewed as greater right than is Life?

Has Roe vs. Wade established a women’s right to end her pregnancy at any point before a child’s birth, for any reason?  Have we not heard Senators and Representatives state that the “right to choose” is a Constitutional right?

Politicians love to invoke all that is “Constitutional” or “Unconstitutional” in support of their views or positions, but if we cannot even agree on the most fundamental right from our most fundamental document, how on earth can we intellectually interpret whether or not Arizona can or cannot ask someone who has broken a law if he/she is in this country legally or not?

Today the United States recognizes Constitutionality of the Constitution, based not at all upon the words of the document, but upon the urges and inclinations of those who have seized power by appealing to the largest voting bloc.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right which cannot be readily overturned, and in the contemporary interpretation, our Declaration of Independence is…

Unconstitutional.

I’d rather have Sheriff Jim, and/or Clint Smith along for the ride, and us all armed with Colt’s Single Action Army revolvers (and I’ve seen how well both can use one) than the entire Uvalde police department armed with whatever.

Is Mindset or Gear More Important?
Keeping your head in the game is better for your safety than buying the latest gear.

As a group, defensive shooters seem to be extremely gear-oriented. Listening to gun shop talk and reading posts on the internet, one gets the impression that a lot of folks fear they won’t survive unless they have just the right gun, the proper ammo and the latest in accessories. Well, here are a few things that I think are more important than your choice of guns and gear when it comes to personal defense.

Awareness is a critical personal defense skill. We can educate ourselves by studying news reports of criminal activity in our area and obtain a better understanding of what and who the local crooks are targeting. Also, don’t forget the Armed Citizen page in your NRA magazine for case studies of actual criminal encounters.

In addition, we continually strive to be more alert to what is going on around us. The earlier that we alert to possible criminal activity, the more options we have for dealing with it. By honing our awareness, we minimize the chances that we will be surprised by a criminal attack.

Another important defensive skill is perfecting our ability to function under stress. Stress is compounded when we are surprised or faced with a threat that is totally unexpected. The more that we can understand what could happen, the more we can reduce the pressure that stress puts on our bodies and our ability to function. Once we understand what could happen, then we also need to develop plans to deal with the criminal attack. Prior understanding and prior planning will reduce stress and allow us to function more effectively.

Finally, we need to understand and set a goal to master the basic skills of marksmanship. Sight picture, proper grip, trigger press, and other functions are critical parts of marksmanship regardless of whether we are shooting at paper or shooting to live. And, truly mastering those skills allow us to do well with just about whatever defensive firearm may be available to us. How many of us have been in classes where a student is just not shooting well and, of course, blames it on the particular firearm that he is using? Then, along comes the range master, who takes the student’s gun and shoots a perfect score.

So I suppose we’ll all continue to drool over the latest guns and gear as they become available because that’s just what gun enthusiasts do. But you should just realize and remember that the most important defensive tool available to us is the one between our ears.

BLUF
Joe Biden himself justified such evil tactics on Thursday when he called the modern Trump-influenced Republican Party and all its supporters “semi-fascists,” thus giving his most radical supporters justification for committing all kinds of violence.

But don’t worry. The Democrats and the left care about you. They would never harm you. You are safe. No need to care if some evil Republican gets shot for no reason. They probably deserve it for getting in the way of the Democratic Party’s righteous agenda.

Today’s blacklisted American: Blacklisting is not enough, leftists now aim to get conservatives killed by police

They’re coming for you next: Twice in the past two days Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has been swatted, with the police coming to her house armed and ready to fire because they had received a false report saying that a shooting had occurred there and that the situation was dangerous.

Two police officers rushed to Greene’s home in Rome, Ga., in response to a call they received at 2:53 a.m. The call, according to the Rome Police Department, was about “a male possibly shooting his family members and then himself.”

MSN reported that “the suspect, who called through an internet chat that appeared to be a suicide crisis line, falsely told police responders that a man ‘came out as trans-gender and claimed they shot the family’ at Greene’s address, the report said.” The caller gave his name as Wayne Greene and told police on the call: “If anyone tried to stop me from shooting myself, I will shoot them.” He also warned cops that “they would be waiting for us.”

At the house, there was, of course, no Wayne Greene. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene once again met the police officers at the front door, as she did in the early hours of Wednesday morning. They told her about the call and, according to the Rome Police Department, “confirmed this was a second false report.” The report added that the call can’t be traced, “due to the person(s) using a VPN.”

Called swatting, such false reports are expressly designed to harass the victim, and even get them killed should the police over-react and fire at the house out of fear of the non-existent gunman.

That this happened twice in two nights strongly suggests the caller truly wants this murder to happen. The caller even admitted to as much in a later recorded call to the police, in which the caller also admitted the motive was for political reasons. Greene’s political positions were unacceptable, and thus she must be removed:

Continue reading “”