Guilt-Trip Gun Control Advocacy Won’t Work, So Knock It Off

Over the years, I’ve seen a lot of calls for gun control from a lot of different sources. You’ve seen a lot, too, I suspect, and you’re not necessarily someone who has to seek them out to any degree. You can imagine how many I’ve seen.

A lot of them just sort of repeat what’s been said before. In fairness, we do the same thing, too. After all, it’s the same issue and nothing has really changed about where anyone stands.

But one thing has really gotten under my skin over the years, and that’s what I call “guilt-trip gun control advocacy.”

That’s when someone tries to make you feel terrible for not supporting gun control. They’re focusing on emotions, either your own or the emotional struggles of others, all to make you feel like you should have to support gun control.

It looks like this:

The news ticker denotes yet another shooting and fire, this time at a Latter-day Saint church in Michigan. This tragic incident occurred only weeks after the massacre at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, a tragedy whose shock had barely begun to fade from public memory.

Each headline was a fresh rupture in our collective psyche, each one a new entry in the ever-lengthening register of loss. I felt the same fatigue—the hollow, tightening ache of resignation. How many times can we say “not again” before the words’ meaning dissipates?

America has a peculiar way of justifying sin and bearing her scars. Our country’s response to violence is not just inadequate; it is complicit. We have constructed a body politic that tolerates, even sanctifies, these acts through legislative inertia and a distorted interpretation of constitutional rights.

The sacred text of our republic has become a shield for the status quo, with lawmakers and justices hiding behind its language to justify inaction. Leaders at every level offer only platitudes, as if thoughts and prayers could bind wounds that legislation refuses to heal.

Our nation’s dysfunction runs deeper than any one event or single perpetrator. Behind the headlines are the haunted: families who will never again feel whole, first responders who carry silent burdens, and clergy who must find words when language feels useless.

And behind them, a vast community of the traumatized—students, parents, teachers, neighbors—bound together not by choice but by the grim lottery of proximity. This is not the mark of a healthy society. It is the sign of a nation adrift, its soul eroded by violence and its conscience dulled by repetition.

Yes, we’re complicit in mass murder simply because we aren’t willing to give up our rights, even when many of these killers are people who should have been caught by some existing law and weren’t.

How dare anyone try to claim that I’m complicit, that I’m responsible, simply because I recognize the failures of gun control in the past? I’ve been one of those who will never feel whole again, because a dear friend was gunned down by a maniac who was pissed that he couldn’t sit in a coffee shop anymore after being a pain for the last time.

How dare anyone say that to our own Ryan Petty, who lost his lovely daughter Aliana in the Parkland shooting, or RedState’s Jenn Van Laar, who lost a friend in a shooting in Thousand Oaks?

We lost, and we recognized that gun control wasn’t the answer, but now we’re told everything that followed was really our fault because we didn’t bend the knee and give up our rights?

No.

This guilt-trip gun control push isn’t working. It’s never going to work. People don’t get told they’re complicit, that they’re responsible for mass murders, then just go, “Oh, well, OK. I’ll change all my views about everything.” They get angry and dig in even harder, which is fantastic for our side.

The writer of this screed, Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, describes himself as a “spiritual entrepreneur,” which sounds more like someone who uses faith to grift, if you ask me, but I’m not sure he understands that trying to guilt-trip someone isn’t really a great strategy.

Knock it off. You’re just making us mad and making yourself look like an absolute dipstick.

Surprised By Leftwing Radical Rhetoric? Look Closer at the Climate Movement

Millions of Americans were horrified when Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood. Then came an even bigger shock: large numbers of people celebrated his death and danced on his grave.

Sickening as it is, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The left has long harbored—or at least tolerated—an anti-human streak, and nowhere is it more visible than in its radical environmental wing.

Leftwing misanthropy rears its ugly head when it comes to issues like abortion, euthanasia, and criticizing the traditional family. But radical environmentalism carries the same core belief: human beings are the problem. If we just had fewer human beings doing less, the idea goes, the world would be a better place.

Radical environmentalists preach the gospel of demographic decline, arguing that having fewer children cuts carbon more than a lifetime of bike riding and composting. Some environmentalists made the not-so-subtle point that thanks to the death and lockdowns of COVID-19, “nature is healing.” One recent study found that environmental activists, consumed by their mission, often tend to “manipulate and deceive others” and demonstrate “callousness” and “lack of empathy.” When saving the planet is the goal, who has time for people’s feelings?

The logic is clear: humans are the problem. Not the behavior of industry or the pace of innovation—but people themselves.

Of course, that doesn’t mean environmental activists have their fingers on a trigger. Thinking the world would be better off with fewer people doesn’t make one a killer. But a movement that treats human beings as the enemy breeds a mindset where life itself can be dismissed, devalued, or even cheered when lost.

How do you get so many people celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk? You get it in a movement that finds an environmental bright side to a deadly pandemic, that sees people as problems to be overcome, and that holds up abortion as a win for the earth. To too many, life becomes unwelcome when, in their opinion, that life starts causing more harm than good.

The result of this line of thinking brought to its logical conclusion is the despicable display recently put on by prominent University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Mann.

Despite being one of the most prominent climate “experts” with a perch in the lofty heights of the Ivy League, Mann callously wrote after Kirk’s assassination that “the white on white violence has gotten out of hand” and retweeted a post calling Kirk “the head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.”

Mann has long blurred the line between science and politics. In fact, his fierce partisanship has actually been a significant obstacle to common-sense bipartisan action. Yet few conservatives noticed his tirades because most ignore the climate issue entirely. It took Mann mocking the murder of a free speech activist for the general public to finally wake up to his radicalism.

Yet Mann isn’t just morally reckless; he’s factually wrong. A review of 1,500 climate policies found that his preferred approach of top-down government regulation fails, while free market solutions actually reduce carbon emissions. President Trump’s pro-energy policies and embrace of cleaner natural gas helped cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years in his first term. President Trump is also laser-focused on holding China accountable for its economic practices. China is the world’s foremost polluter, yet this appears to be an “inconvenient truth” for environmentalists on the Left.

Sadly, the activists on the environmental left seem immune to the facts. Or, maybe, they just haven’t heard them.

Radical environmentalists like Michael Mann are organizing, teaching, and shaping the next generation in ways that are anti-human, anti-freedom, and anti-Western. Thus far, they’ve done so unopposed. But conservatives can’t continue to cede this battlefield.

If we want to effectively combat leftwing misanthropy, we must engage in the climate debate—and we must offer a hopeful counterpoint to the left’s dark narratives, wherever they take hold.

No matter what many of the left seem to believe, people aren’t the problem. In fact, if Charlie Kirk’s life proved anything, it’s that even one person can change the world for the better.

Chris Johnson is President and Co-Founder of the American Energy Leadership Institute, a conservative energy policy research and advocacy organization working to ensure America leads and dominates the 21st century.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man about socialism and he eats his neighbors fish for ever, while envying his neighbor for catching fish successfully and regulating his neighbor so he can’t catch as many fish for both of them. – Alice Smith

New Hampshire Bill Strengthening Second Amendment Rights on Public Property Advances.

A bill reaffirming that the New Hampshire Legislature, not state agencies or local governments, holds sole authority to regulate weapons on public property narrowly cleared a House committee this week.

House Bill 609, sponsored by Rep. Samuel Farrington (R-Rochester), seeks to close what he calls loopholes in the state’s existing firearms preemption law after learning the New Hampshire Department of Transportation barred its employees from carrying firearms on the job.

“The intent here is to emphasize that the Legislature’s preemption is the last word on the subject,” Farrington told the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

Expanding Preemption

New Hampshire’s current preemption law, signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Craig Benson, already reserves regulation of firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies to the Legislature. In 2011, Gov. John Lynch expanded that statute to include knives.

Farrington’s proposal would extend those protections even further—covering stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray, and other self-defense tools. It also bars any state, county, or municipal agency from creating or enforcing its own weapons rules that conflict with state law.

Partisan Divide

The House panel approved the measure 9–7 along strict party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. Critics argued the legislation could handcuff local authorities from setting policies for large public events, such as the New Hampshire Air Show at Pease Air National Guard Base in Newington.

“This is of a very broad, sweeping nature,” said Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth). “It would override the practices of a lot of communities and further restrict local control.”

Supporters countered that Pease’s ban on firearms wouldn’t be affected, since it sits on federal property.

200 Years Ago, the Erie Canal Opened and America Was Never the Same

It was derisively called “Clinton’s Big Ditch.” after the New York governor who pushed through the financing and drove the impossible idea of building a 363-mile canal connecting the Great Lakes with New York City.

DeWitt Clinton tried to get financing from Congress for his project, which Thomas Jefferson called “madness.” However, President James Madison believed that using federal dollars for a state project was unconstitutional and refused to sign the bill authorizing congressional funds.

America’s longest canal up to that point was 27 miles. Clinton was proposing the construction of a canal 13 times larger, much of it through wilderness, using Irish immigrant labor and, most astonishingly, without any trained engineers.

The original engineers were largely self-taught locals who designed and constructed the canal despite having never seen one before. According to History.com, they included “a few inexperienced surveyors and at least one local math teacher. ” The two chief engineers were Benjamin Wright and James Geddes, “lawyers by trade who learned how to survey by prosecuting land disputes.”

Only in America.

Construction began in 1817. Eventually, 9,000 strong backs, working with shovels, picks, and axes, dug the 363 miles of canal with 18 aqueducts and 83 locks to compensate for elevation changes en route.

The canal opened the Midwest to the East Coast, and the payoff was immediate.

The Conversation:

 Within a few years, shipping rates from Lake Erie to New York City fell from US$100 per ton to under $9. Annual freight on the canal eclipsed trade along the Mississippi River within a few decades, amounting to $200 million – which would be more than $8 billion today.

Commerce drove industry and immigration, enriching the canal towns of New York – transforming villages like Syracuse and Utica into cities. From 1825-1835, Rochester was the fastest-growing urban center in America.

By the 1830s, politicians had stopped ridiculing America’s growing canal system. It was making too much money. The hefty $7 million investment in building the Erie Canal had been fully recouped in toll fees alone.

The Erie Canal not only transformed America, but, by allowing for the export of massive amounts of Midwestern farm products to Europe, American farmers drove a large number of small farmers in Europe out of business. Many of them made their way to America.

Historian Daniel Walker Howe wrote in his book, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, “The small capitalist farmers of North America hacked away at the economic base of the ruling landed classes in Europe more destructively than all the revolutionaries on the continent.”

The Erie Canal’s success set off a canal-building boom. Most were failures, but several were hugely successful, like the Ohio and Erie Canal and the Champlain Canal. Abraham Lincoln, like most politicians in the Midwest, was a big supporter of canals. Canals represented connections. Until the age of the railroad, canals were the only means of getting farm products from the prairie to larger markets.

Washington Post:

By lessening the commercial and political isolation of prairie farmers, the canal helped to populate the prairies by connecting them with Eastern markets. And by linking Americans living west of the Appalachian mountains to the Hudson River, it created New York City as a financial center. One day in 1824, Howe writes, there were 324 ships in New York harbor. One day in 1836, there were 1,241. Through the city’s port, America exported grain and revolution.

In 1986, New York’s U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, speaking in Buffalo, speculated that America’s 19th-century tsunami of immigration was “in considerable proportion” a result of “the huge wave of agricultural exports that began to reach Europe once the railroads reached our Middle West.”

The Erie Canal was hugely disruptive. Sleepy New York villages and towns like Syracuse and Rochester became major metropolitan centers. The flood of wealth injected into the nation by the Erie Canal proved to be very unsettling. It set off a religious revival that included the Second Great Awakening, a reaction to the economic dynamism and social reform movements of the 19th century.

In two decades, more freight was moving down the Erie Canal than was being floated down the Mississippi River from the Midwest to New Orleans. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Erie Canal created modern America, but it’s hard to imagine America today without it.

Actor June Lockhart dies at 100

“Lassie” and “Lost in Space” star June Lockhart died of natural causes in her Southern California home this week, her family said Saturday. She was 100.

Lockhart played the mother roles in the two popular TV series, but she also won what is now called a Tony Award early in her career in the Broadway production “For Love or Money.”

She died at her home in Santa Monica, California, on Thursday with her daughter June Elizabeth and granddaughter Christianna by her side, the family said in a statement.

In “Lassie,” Lockhart played Ruth Martin, and in “Lost in Space” she played Maureen Robinson. She also played Dr. Janet Craig in “Petticoat Junction.”

Lockhart was long a proponent of the space agency NASA and its mission, and she appeared with pioneering moon-walking astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin

Why Armed Women Are Safer: What Gun Control Activists Won’t Admit

I recently read an email from Moms Demand Action that led with a chilling statistic: more than 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in the United States.

As someone who has spent the last several years teaching other women how to properly and safely use firearms, that number is heartbreaking. Every one of those stories is tragic. But what troubles me is how that statistic is being used to convince women that their safety depends on being disarmed, which is the opposite of empowerment.

Domestic violence is a horrific reality. I’ve looked into the eyes of women who’ve lived through it. Many of the women who come to my classes aren’t “gun people.” Some have never touched a firearm before. But they show up because they know that calling for help isn’t always enough when danger is already present inside the home.

As a matter of fact, I am a survivor of domestic violence. So, I hope that anyone who doubts my opinions or convictions on my personal right to keep and bear arms hears this message with absolute clarity.

The world is full of unexpected threats, not in the woods, but in our homes. Not strangers in dark alleys, but people we know.

Moms Demand Action claims that women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun. What they leave out is that a woman who is trained and prepared to defend herself with a firearm is far less likely to be a victim in the first place.

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I wanted nothing more than to own a handgun. However, my anti-gun home state had other things in mind, and I was legally prohibited from pursuing my concealed carry weapons permit as a means of self-protection, a tool that may have prevented my assault.

According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 90 percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against women are men. In terms of domestic violence, statistics show that at least 85 percent of domestic violence victims are women.

Domestic violence is a choice that abusers make, regardless of laws and prohibitions. Abusers choose to abuse. Guns don’t cause abuse. Abuse starts in the heart. Taking firearms away from law-abiding women doesn’t make violent men less dangerous; it only makes their targets less capable of fighting back.

I have no doubt that many members of groups like Moms Demand Action mean well. They use the language like “gun safety” and “preventing domestic violence.” But the leaders of that movement and the billionaires who fund them are making women less safe by restricting our ability to choose the most effective means of protection.

Almost every woman knows someone who has been a victim of abuse, if not having been one herself. Guns are not the cause of abuse. Abusers are. The tool doesn’t create the intent; it’s the intent that seeks out the tool.

Instead of promoting disarmament and dependency, we should be promoting empowerment. Gun owners already lead the way in safety training and responsible ownership. The statistics bear this out. With hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S., children under the age of five are far more likely to die from drowning, poisoning, suffocation, or auto accidents than from firearms.

Here’s what else they don’t tell you. The vast majority of defensive gun use never even makes the news. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention un the Obama administration has acknowledged that Americans use firearms defensively up to 3 million times every year. Most of those cases end without a shot being fired, because the presence of a gun stops the crime before it starts.

This October, during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I don’t want to see another campaign that paints women as helpless and firearms as the enemy. I want to see one that teaches women how to be their own first responders.

Because the real crisis isn’t that too many women own guns, it’s that too many women are told not to.

At Empowered 2A, a project of Gun Owners of America, we believe America needs more firearms education and training, not more fear. We need more women at the range learning safety, confidence, and accuracy, not more laws that make them criminals for wanting to live how they choose. And we need policymakers who trust women to make their own choices about their own defense.

Not every woman will make the same choices I have. Some will choose a firearm, others won’t. That choice should be hers alone, not that of Washington politicians who are surrounded by some of the best-armed security on the planet, with a billion-dollar annual price tag.

If Moms Demand Action truly wants to save women’s lives, they should start by trusting women with the same tools police officers rely on to protect themselves. Because our lives are no less valuable.

And to the women involved in Moms Demand Action, I’d ask you to consider what you’re asking the government to do. You are asking your own government to take away your best means of self-protection and trade our essential liberty for the false promise of safety.

This October, I will wear purple for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in hopes that more women stand up and defend themselves rather than be disarmed waiting for help that isn’t coming. I will also carry responsibly. Not because I want to use my firearm, but because I never want to need it and not have the choice.

Florida judge strikes down under-21 concealed carry ban as unconstitutional

Siding with a 19-year-old man who was spotted with a gun in his waistband, a Broward County circuit judge Friday ruled that a state law barring people under age 21 from carrying concealed weapons violates Second Amendment rights.

Judge cites lack of historical precedent for age restriction 

Judge Frank Ledee issued a nine-page ruling that said Florida’s “prohibition on the concealed carry of firearms by eighteen-to-twenty year olds strips a class of legal adults of their ability to exercise the very right the Constitution guarantees.”

Ledee cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years that required analyzing the “historical tradition” of firearm regulation when determining whether laws violate the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Every moment of peace mankind has ever known was bought with blood. This is not Heaven, it’s Earth. And it’s built specifically for trial and tribulation. Peace demands its protectors. Forget that, and the wolves return. – ‘Infantry Dort’.