Americans Prefer Communities With Guns
Gun bans aren’t gaining traction.

With so many laws on the books regulating gun ownership and enforcing myriad gun control measures, it’s more than a bit surprising that Americans prefer law-abiding citizens be allowed to have firearms in their neighborhoods. This includes those who identify as Democrats. A new survey conducted by Napolitan News Service reveals 53% of voters “prefer to live in a community where people are allowed to own guns, while 38% say they would prefer to live where guns are outlawed.” This includes 76% of those who self-identify as Republican and 63% of Democrats.

By an almost 2-1 margin, men say they want to live in an area where their friends and neighbors are allowed to own guns. Women, however, appear to have mixed feelings, with 44% saying they prefer to have firearms outlawed. Forty-three percent of women want to live in a location where guns are allowed.

When asked about gun violence and so-called “mass shootings,” 56% of those polled would rather have the laws already on the books enforced over passing new legislation. Concerning matters of race, it’s clear that blacks and Hispanics are more concerned about “mass shootings.” Only 3% of whites said it was “very likely” that a close family member might be killed in a random shooting, but 11% of blacks and 9% of Hispanics felt more personally threatened.

Sending Thoughts and Prayers

After the recent killing of innocent schoolchildren in Minnesota, controversy erupted over the frequently used phrase “sending thoughts and prayers” to the families of those tragically killed. This poll reveals that only 26% of voters were bothered by this phraseology; 71% said those comments were not offensive.

Perhaps less shocking is that 77% of elites, that is, people with a postgraduate education who make more than $150,000 annually and live in highly populated urban areas, “favor banning private ownership of guns.”

Twenty-two states currently have constitutional carry laws. These gun-friendly states follow the Second Amendment more closely by permitting citizens to have the legal right to both open and concealed carry without having to get a license. These locations tend to be more rural, while urban areas – where much of the gun violence occurs – are more likely to restrict gun ownership.

The most gun-friendly states in the United States include Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, with Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri coming in the second tier.

Guns in the Hands of Law-Abiding Citizens

Recently, it was revealed that FBI statistics “massively undercounted defensive gun use for years,” according to Liberty Nation News. Author Graham Noble zeroed in on a report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) that showed “massive errors” in FBI data during Joe Biden’s administration. “If your agenda is to turn public opinion against gun ownership and spread the fear of gun violence, the last thing you want is people knowing guns can be, and often are, used to deter or prevent crime,” Noble astutely noted.

Conveniently leaving out the many times guns were used to stop crime in order to advance a political agenda is diabolical. The CPRC counted 561 active shootings in which 202 armed civilian interventions were reported. But the FBI recorded only 374 “active” shootings in which 14 armed civilians intervened. A spread that wide cannot be attributed to a simple error.

The fact is that more people surveyed feel safer in communities where law-abiding citizens have their firearms at the ready. And it shows that, instinctively, Americans know that guns in the hands of a good guy are the best defense during an active crime involving handguns.

If you don’t yet understand the problem:

Grassroots Legislative Update—September 15, 2025

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New—Trump Administration DOJ: The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to vacate a prior conviction for possession of a “large-capacity magazine,” arguing the DC ban violates the Second Amendment; State Legislatures: California: Three bills moving towards final passage; Illinois: Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs SB8; North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept. 22.

Trump Administration DOJ

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to vacate a prior conviction for possession of a “large-capacity magazine,” arguing the DC ban violates the Second Amendment. Jeanine Pirro, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, submitted this motion, which requests that the conviction of Tyrie Benson under DC’s large-capacity magazine ban (DC Code 7-2506.01) be overturned. The motion openly states the DOJ now considers the law unconstitutional and will no longer prosecute violations of the statute.

Case Background

Tyrie Benson was charged in November 2022 with several offenses, including carrying an unlicensed pistol, possessing a large-capacity ammunition feeding device, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. After a bench trial before Judge Lynn Liebovitz in April 2023, Benson was convicted on all counts. Benson appealed, arguing that the large-capacity magazine ban violated his Second Amendment rights. Initially, the Biden administration opposed this argument and defended the conviction, but the case remained undecided.

DOJ’s Motion and Rationale

The Trump DOJ’s reversal is articulated in the motion, which states that a complete ban on large-capacity magazines cannot survive constitutional scrutiny in light of Second Amendment protections. The government asserts that such magazines are fundamental to armed self-defense and, by extension, qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment. The motion further notes that bans analogous to those struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller—which prohibited entire categories of firearms—are similarly unconstitutional if they target items in common use. The DOJ acknowledges that tens of millions of such magazines exist in the United States, making it impossible for the government to prove they are “dangerous and unusual,” the test set forth in Heller for regulating arms.

Legal and Policy Implications

This shift by the DOJ is an indication that the Trump administration is “cleaning up” anti-Second Amendment policies, likely signaling a new approach in other cases, including those pending before federal appellate courts. The government’s stance means it will not prosecute anyone under the DC large-capacity magazine law moving forward. Mark W. Smith suggests this precedent could influence the outcome of similar cases nationwide, such as those in the Seventh Circuit or potentially at the Supreme Court should certiorari be granted.

State Legislature

The following states are still in SESSION:

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

California: On Sept. 9:  AB 1078 passed the Senate concurring with the Assembly amendments with all Republicans voting NO: AB 1127, amended in the Senate and awaiting third reading: and AB 1263, passed in the Senate and ordered to the Assembly.

Illinois: Earlier this month, Governor JB Pritzker signed SB8 into law, which mandates new mandatory firearm storage requirements for all gun owners. The legislation requires individuals to securely store all firearms in their homes, vehicles, buildings, or other structures. Previously, firearms were required to be stored to prevent children under the age of 14 from accessing them. SB8 raises this threshold to 18 and adds that prohibited persons and individuals deemed “at risk” must be prohibited from accessing any firearms.

Critics argue that this legislation unfairly punishes responsible gun owners by imposing broad and burdensome storage mandates. They point out that SB8 does little to address criminal misuse of firearms. Furthermore, law-abiding citizens face civil fines of up to $10,000 simply for how they store their personal property within their homes or vehicles.

North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept. 22.

Gun Control Disconnect: Media Overlooks, Misunderstands 2nd Amendment

By Dave Workman

ANALYSIS—Amid various reports on gun control published in the aftermath of the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting in Minneapolis in late August and last week’s assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, emerging from the reportage are some possibly uncomfortable facts.

Reports such as one from the Minnesota Reformer’s Madison McVan acknowledge how it “it’s not clear” whether any of Minnesota’s “stricter-than-average gun laws” would have prevented the fatal church shooting.

Likewise, writing at The Free Press, Deputy Managing Editor Joe Nocera acknowledges, “To be sure, no workable gun law would have prevented Kirk’s assassination. His alleged killer showed no signs of mental instability; the gun he used was a bolt-action rifle, owned by millions of Americans; and he was old enough to simply walk in a store and buy it.”

A look back in history underscores the apparent reality disconnect about existing law and mass shootings.

Continue reading “”

I don’t know. Was Bondi doing a ‘4D Chess’ move?

“Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed.”

Said Sonia Sotomayor, quoted in “Sotomayor rebukes calls to ‘criminalize free speech’ in apparent swipe at Pam Bondi/The justice, in public remarks, didn’t name the attorney general, who has come under fire for comments to target people over ‘hate speech'” (Politico).

And so ends the decades long push — by the left — to criminalize hate speech. Thanks, Justice Sotomayor!

No, It Wasn’t Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.

Inevitably, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some observers looked at the problem of a radicalized young man who drove hundreds of miles to plan and carry out the murder of somebody whose political views he abhorred and concluded that the problem is the tool used by the assassin. A few of those observers even gloat that Kirk was shot after defending the right to keep and bear arms when he discussed the tradeoffs inherent in balancing the benefits and dangers of liberty.

Much political discourse was already stupid, but too many people want to make it even stupider.

After Kirk’s assassination, amidst widespread mourning over his death as well as despicable celebrations of the conservative activist’s murder, came a spate of malicious chuckling over the nature of the crime. Charlie Kirk, you see, was shot with a rifle, and he’d once called shooting deaths the price of keeping the Second Amendment. How ironic!

Except that’s really not what Kirk said.

I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk, but this wasn’t one. His comment about the Second Amendment and deaths was part of a larger discussion about the dangers inherent in liberty. He emphasized that you can’t have the good parts of being free without also suffering the negative consequences.

Asked at an April 5, 2023, Turning Point USA event about the Second Amendment, Kirk answered:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government….Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price—50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.”

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am—I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal,” he added.

Kirk might also have mentioned that free speech is also dangerous. Unfettered speech is important to the function of a free and open society. But protecting speech risks the popularization of vicious, totalitarian ideas like those of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. It runs the danger of the radicalization of lost souls who encounter bad ideas, embrace them, engrave “Hey fascist! Catch!” lyrics from the antifascist song “Bella Ciao” and gaming memes on rifle cartridges, and then murder their political opponents.

Undoubtedly, the same people would have found that equally ironic.

And Kirk’s larger point is true across the board. Any freedom that allows us to live to our fullest, any restriction on state intervention into our lives, can be abused by the worst among us. Evil people are shielded by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as are good people. We give up such protections at our peril in hopes of rooting out evil.

What peril? Kirk touched on this in his 2023 talk when he said, “the Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and noted that “governments tend to get tyrannical.”

Yes, freedom can be abused by bad people. But if we can’t trust everybody to use freedom wisely, why would we trust people in government to wisely administer a more restrictive regime by which they get to disarm the public, censor speech, invade homes at will, and more? Those who seek coercive power over others by working in government are at least as prone to abuse their position as is anybody else.

There are tradeoffs not just in liberty, but in restricting liberty. Given that we have a natural right to be free, and that Kirk was correct to say that all governments tend towards tyranny, we’re better off trusting in more freedom, rather than less. That’s a recognition that there are no risk-free options.

The Call for Gun Control Gets Even Dumber

But the focus on Kirk’s death by gunshot gets even stupider. The conservative activist was reportedly killed with a single round from a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. The Mauser 98 was originally designed in the 19th century for military use but has long since been largely supplanted in that role by semi-automatic and then select-fire weapons, most using less-powerful cartridges (yes, the most common cartridges used in AR- and AK-type weapons are generally less-powerful than other cartridges used for hunting).

But the old design remains ideal for hunting large game animals. It is accurate if properly zeroed, has a longer effective range than many modern military weapons, and cartridges such as the .30-06 are likely to cleanly drop an animal with a single shot. That’s why many of the old rifles were adapted, sometimes with modifications, for hunting. Modern bolt-action hunting rifles used for stalking deer, boar, elk, and the like are variations on designs that go back to the Mauser 98 and similar rifles.

That is, the hunting rifle allegedly used to murder Charlie Kirk is an example of the only type of firearm gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban or restrict. No major law advocated in recent years, such as magazine capacity limits or bans on semi-automatic weapons, would have affected it.

Blame Culture?

Some observers are upset that the left—the radical fringe of it, anyway—is blamed for Kirk’s murder when Tyler Robinson’s family is conservative, Mormon, culturally traditional, and comfortable with firearms. But the Robinson family didn’t shoot Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson committed this crime after he adopted views very different from those of his family, embraced the use of violence against political foes, and inscribed antifascist slogans on his ammunition before taking a fatal shot.

If we’re going to delve into culture wars, we could mention the unfortunate use of speech in the social media cesspool. That’s where Robinson was seemingly radicalized, where people celebrated Kirk’s death, and where a few even called for more targets. But that’s part of the tradeoffs of liberty.

If we’re all to be free, and we should be, some will use freedom in repulsive ways. We should punish those who push action to criminal extremes. But all liberty can be misused. And not only are the risks of liberty worth the dangers, they’re also far less perilous than granting governments enhanced powers that they’ll inevitably abuse.

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

So many of you continue to inflame Charlie Kirk’s death by celebrating it. I know why you celebrate it: you genuinely believe Charlie (and the rest of us) are fascist racists who want transgender people in death camps and young women in real “Handmaid” costumes.

YOU GENUINELY BELIEVE THIS.

And that, my fellow Americans, is the problem.

I want to solve that problem. I know it is highly unlikely that any of you will listen, but I will try to help you see reality anyway:

1. Opposing official policies that pass judgment on individuals based solely on their skin color is not “racist.” In fact, it’s actually anti-racist.

2. Opposing abortion means we want to save human lives, not that we want you in a red dress and a hood living out some S&M cosplay that you secretly crave.

3. Self-defense is an inherent human right. Guns are the great equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from stronger predators. That is the main reason we support gun rights: to preserve life, not to end it.

4. We want less government and more personal liberty. That is the complete antithesis of “fascism.”

5. We believe the same thing all mankind has believed for millennia until about ten minutes ago: there are only two genders, and God made us man and woman. We don’t challenge your adult right to mutilate yourselves with the wrong hormones and surgery; we just are not willing to agree that you are ACTUALLY the wrong sex. Our belief is held in good faith, peacefully, and nobody wants to lock you up for wearing a dress.

Democrats, you need not agree with our positions. You simply need to understand that calling us “Nazis” for holding these positions is a sort of defamation that has zero basis in fact or logic. You have been brainwashed into believing our positions are somehow objectively evil. Until you recognize that we hold our beliefs in good faith, and that people of good faith can hold differing positions without hating each other, this violence will get worse.

Because that violence is all coming from your side, fueled by your defamatory rhetoric.

When you stop lying, you will stop giving fuel to the violent crazies on your side.

So stop lying.

For your own sakes, and the sake of this nation. Haven’t you figured out yet that you have pushed us too far?

Sincerely,
CP

JD Vance delivers a State of the Union worthy speech to the nation on the Charlie Kirk Show
He calls out the mainstream media for lying about Charlie Kirk after death and says that unification can begin only after there is a reckoning of truth.

Rusty Shackleford

I’m going to put it bluntly.

They thought they wanted this. They thought they could keep pushing and they would break us. They thought they had the upper hand.

They pushed too far and they have taken us to the point of no return.

Now, they are realizing they didn’t want this. They are realizing we wont be broken. They are realizing they don’t have the upper hand.

The ball has been returned to our court, and we’re better at the game than they are. The game that they wrote the rules for.

So good luck ever getting the ball back again.

We’re done playing fair.

Welcome to the new version of the game.

Our game.