Will Elon Musk Change Twitter’s Ban on Advertising for “Weapons”? iStock-936765434
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Will Elon Musk change Twitter’s political policy on banning advertisements for anything they perceive as a weapon? The list is broad and purely political.
Elon Musk has been making headlines with his acquisition of Twitter. Twitter has become famous for taking sides during the 2020 election by banning the New York Post, after it released the bombshell article about the Hunter Biden laptop and Biden family corruption. After the election, they banned sitting President Donald Trump.
Support AmmoLand News
Sign up for the Daily Digest email and protect the 2nd Amendment.
Some surveys have claimed the ban on the news of Biden family corruption allowed President Biden to take the presidency. Some polls show the difference was more than enough to swing the election. Many voters have said they would have voted against Biden if they had known, before the election, what we know now. The information was suppressed and hidden by Twitter and other media outlets.
Elon Musk says he wants Twitter to become a bastion of free speech for everyone, barring only content which is illegal. From Elon Musk on Twitter:
By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
Elon Musk is in the process of purchasing Twitter. He has said he is a free speech absolutist. He has not yet taken control of the company. Control may not be transferred until October of 2022.
The Twitter woke policy prohibition on the advertisement of “weapons” is absolutist and absurd. From Twitter.com:
Twitter prohibits the promotion of weapons and weapon accessories globally.
Examples of weapons and weapon accessories include:
Guns, including airsoft guns, air guns, blow guns, paintball guns, antique guns, replica guns, and imitation guns
Gun parts and accessories, including gun mounts, grips, magazines, and ammunition
Rental of guns (other than from shooting ranges)
Stun guns, taser guns, mace, pepper spray, or other similar self defense weapons
Swords, machetes, and other edged/bladed weapons
Explosives, bombs, and bomb making supplies and/or equipment
Fireworks, flamethrowers, and other pyrotechnic devices
Knives, including butterfly knives, fighting knives, switchblades, disguised knives, and throwing stars
Probably over half the earth’s population understands that weapons have utility, as they have for all of man’s existence. It is an extreme policy to claim that weapons, even toy weapons, collector’s weapons, tools, knives, and self-defense items which are legal in the vast majority of countries, are somehow “bad” and should not be allowed to be advertised.
It is hubris on the part of Twitter of a high order.
Prohibiting the advertisement of weapons, especially to the absurd degree found in current Twitter policy, is taking an extreme side in a political debate.
In the United States, there is the Second Amendment. Twitter’s policy is an implicit statement the Second Amendment is a political error. In 2020 and 2021, the purchase of firearms alone (excluding other items banned by the Twitter policy) hit record levels, with record levels of new gun purchasers.
Elon Musk has shown he understands the utility of weapons, as he has donated the use of Starlink to Ukraine to aid in its defense. He claims to have thwarted efforts by Russia to hack and take down the Starlink system.
If Elon Musk is consistent with his free speech absolutism, the ban on the advertisement of legal weapons will be removed as Twitter policy.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate voted to pass ATV Carry. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate voted to pass ATV Carry. Thanks to the strong support of NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, this important legislation will be enrolled and heads to the Governor’s desk for further consideration this session. Please act now to contact Governor Sununu and respectfully request that he sign House Bill 1636 when it reaches his desk!
CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION!
House Bill 1636: “ATV-Carry” allows the carry of a loaded firearm on an Off-Highway Recreation Vehicle (OHRV) or snowmobile. This legislation also helps to clean up the law from when Permitless Carry was passed and a snowmobile prohibition remained. If you can carry a gun in your vehicle, or on your person, you shouldn’t have to surrender your right to self-defense simply because you’re operating a snowmobile.
Again, please contact Governor Sununu and respectfully request that he sign House Bill 1636 when it reaches his desk!
Stay-tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on issues affecting our Second Amendment rights.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Gun Control in Florida Costs Lives, iStock-884197090
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- At a press conference Friday morning in Williston, Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis predicted the legislature will pass constitutional carry, but he didn’t say when.
“Well, the one thing I wanted the Legislature to do, and I think we will do it – I can’t tell you exactly when – but I’m pretty confident I will be able to sign a constitutional carry into law in the State of Florida,” DeSantis said.
DeSantis said it is just a matter of time, and he took a swipe at Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who oversees Florida’s Concealed Weapon and Firearm Licensing program and is running to replace him as governor.
“We used to be a leader on the Second Amendment – there’s like 25 states that have already done it, and I think if you look now, you have a situation where the official in charge of these permits doesn’t support Second Amendment rights. So why would you want to subcontract your constitutional rights to a public official who rejects the very existence of those rights?” he said. “So, the Legislature will get it done. I can’t tell you if it’ll be next week, six months, but I can tell you that before I am done as governor, we will have a signature on that bill.”
There are several options DeSantis could use to prompt the legislature to consider a constitutional carry bill.
During the special session next month, which will address home insurance issues, he could issue a “communication from the governor” – a formal message to House and Senate leadership, telling them to consider constitutional carry during the special session.
After the special session ends, DeSantis could issue another proclamation calling the legislature back for another special session for the “sole and exclusive purpose” of considering constitutional carry.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
Was Acting Director Richardson “cozying up” to the firearms industry at SHOT Show the reason Bloomberg told Biden they wanted a white man? (ATF HQ/Twitter)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “ATF in turmoil as top black director demoted, Biden pushes second white man for top job,” Washington Secrets documents. “Reports said that acting Director Marvin Richardson, the highest-ranking black man at the agency who had 30 years of experience with ATF, announced Monday that he was being shoved aside by the White House. Biden last week chose a white lawyer to head the sprawling law enforcement agency after his first pick, another white male, bowed out under pressure.”
Stephen Gutowski of The Reloadbroke the story, noting even Bureau insiders were taken by surprise:
“‘The news that he was being replaced came as a shock to most of us within the agency,’ one ATF official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, told The Reload.”
“The move follows a recent New York Times article featuring complaints from gun-control activists which labeled Richardson ‘an industry-friendly subordinate pumping the brakes’ on President Biden’s aggressive gun-control initiatives,” Gutowski notes.
That article is paywalled, but Tickle the Wire gives a glimpse of the elite special interest power brought to bear to demand sweeping Richardson aside:
“‘A.T.F. needs a top-to-bottom overhaul,’ John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group funded by former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, told the Times. ‘That starts with the administration making sure the agency has the resources and leadership it needs to regulate an industry that has consistently prioritized profits over public safety.’”
In other words, because Richardson didn’t move fast enough to impose demanded infringements, he’s gotta go. Feinblatt couches that in terms of inadequate “leadership.”
In other words, Feinblatt just called Richardson incompetent.
What is it about Michael Bloomberg and those he bankrolls insisting that minorities can’t handle full enfranchisement? How else would you characterize someone who wants special rules to apply for their right to keep and bear arms?
And how is that not the very definition of racism?
What’s surprising in all this is how the white “progressive” left gives outrages like these a pass. It’s curious, how their exploitation of phrases like “systemic racism” and accusations of “white supremacy” hurled at political opponents are really just agenda-advancing smears intended to agitate low information followers. In truth, the most profound effect of so many of the “commonsense gun safety laws” they demand, like repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to gun manufacturers, will most impact the ability of the less affluent to afford firearms.
The keyword in “economic discrimination” is “discrimination”, from T. Markus Funk’s essay, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: Melting-Point Case-in-Point”:
“Keeping arms away from blacks had always been an issue; in fact, the first ever mention of blacks in Virginia’s laws was a 1644 provision barring free blacks from owning firearms….
A National Institute of Justice Study found that: The people most likely to be deterred from acquiring a handgun by exceptionally high prices or by the nonavailability of certain kinds of handguns are … poor people who have decided they need a gun to protect themselves against the felons but who find that the cheapest gun in the market costs more than they can afford to pay.”
You’d think with all their talk about “equity,” more angrily outspoken members of the Congressional Black Caucus, representatives like Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee, would be demanding full firearms enfranchisement for their constituents. Ditto for Black Lives Matter.
Instead, crickets.
That they haven’t, that they ignore the lessons of history (including from within their own lifetimes as exemplified by civil rights icons like Robert Hicks and the Deacons for Defense and Justice — and talk about black history that ought to be taught in schools!), shows their priorities are very different from what they say they are. But while it may be unrealistic to expect them to suddenly climb aboard the Second Amendment bandwagon (they are commies, after all), it may be possible to get them to protest the Biden administration’s humiliating dissing of Marvin Richardson to favor pudgy white “yes man” Steve Diddleber…de… Dettelbach.
As observed in that article, it’s not looking good for Republicans to be able to muster enough opposition to prevent his confirmation. Maybe not on their own. So why don’t we gun owners publicly ask the CBC and BLM why they’re standing down for this shabby treatment of one of their own, and dare them to do something about it? After all, Obama appointed B. Todd Jones – what’s the problem with “If you don’t vote for me you ain’t black” Biden?
And no, of course naming Richardson instead of Dumbledore won’t buy anything for gun owners outside of another very public Biden stumble. I’m trying to offer a path to stretch things past the midterms here, when, if things go as everyone is hoping (assuming Republicans don’t blow it), we’ll be able to call in some markers.
In the meantime, if he wants to start a GoFundMe page to file a job discrimination lawsuit, I’m in for 10 bucks. The stories about institutional discrimination I bet that man could tell…
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Left coast lawmakers want to pass a law allowing the state’s attorney general, city or county attorneys, or anyone regardless of whether they suffered harm, to sue the maker or seller of a firearm that was illegally used to inflict harm. IMG iStock-94458239
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- California politicians are abusing their legislative authority to draft political reprisal bills. Left coast lawmakers want to pass a law allowing the state’s attorney general, city or county attorneys, or anyone regardless of whether they suffered harm, to sue the maker or seller of a firearm that was illegally used to inflict harm.
It’s a bill that California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called for and one that Democratic state Sen. Robert Hertzberg was glad to deliver with SB 1327. It specifically targets precursor parts used to build personally-made firearms – or so-called “ghost guns” – and Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) along with .50-caliber rifles, both of which are already banned in California.
Gov. Newsom admitted this legislation was a form of political reprisal. Worse yet, this bill attempts to open the floodgates against the firearm industry simply because he despises the industry that provides the means for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The frustrating part is that Gov. Newsom and his gun control allies in California’s legislature are openly mocking their own voters. They’re using the authority granted to them by voters to abuse the legislative process to score cheap political points with their special-interest gun control donors. They know they can get away with it too. Elected officials operate under qualified immunity that protects them from civil lawsuits.
So when President Joe Biden bellows from The White House Rose Garden about wanting to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars these frivolous lawsuits against firearm businesses for the criminal actions of non-associated third parties, he purposefully misleads the American public. Politicians can’t be sued for the harmful laws they write. But what if they could be sued?
Crime Victims
What if crime victims could sue Gov. Newsom, or even President Biden, for failing to enforce the laws that protect communities?
The question is relevant, especially in California. District Attorney George Gascón has drawn the ire of law enforcement and citizens alike for his soft-on-crime approach to even violent criminal offenders. Convicted gang member Luis Angel Hernandez bragged he was going to have Gascón’s name tattooed to his face for his lenient sentencing policies, after he was charged with shooting and killing a delivery driver in a 2018 armed robbery. Gascón is facing a recall from voters with 300,000 of the required 567,000 signatures with more than two months left before the deadline. A full 98 percent of Los Angeles prosecutors support this recall, according to the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys (LAADDA).
The worst outcome for Gascón is he’s out of a job. But what if victims of crimes could sue Gascón for the damages they suffered because of his inactions?
Firearm Industry
What if business owners or corporations could sue lawmakers for intentionally maligning, harming or enacting laws that do irreparable damage to their ability to conduct business? What if those businesses, like the firearm industry, were Constitutionally-protected and politicians like Gov. Newsom intentionally ignored that to drive those companies out of business?
Gun makers and retailers would have a case against California for the state’s Unsafe Handgun Roster that sets in motion a slow-rolling handgun ban. The law was first enacted in 2001 and required handguns be certified for three specific safety requirements. In 2013, that requirement was updated to include all semiautomatic handguns to have microstamping technology built into any firearm brought to market. That’s winnowed down the number of handguns available for Californians from 967 models when the law was implemented by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris to less than 250 when same models with different paint schemes are taken into account.
Since microstamping is technologically unfeasible, this is a law specifically enacted to deprive firearm businesses their ability to sell a lawfully-made and Constitutionally-protected product. A similar argument could be made for California’s ban on traditional hunting ammunition.
State lawmakers are enacting these laws as a means of reprisal against the firearm industry. They know the requirements for microstamping are unachievable and the ban on hunting ammunition throughout the state is devoid of justifying scientific data. It’s a way of making it increasingly difficult to serve California customers.
Gun Owners
What about gun owners left defenseless against criminal home invaders because of intentionally-discriminatory laws depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms? California lawmakers banned adults under the age of 21 from purchasing any firearm, without meeting strict exceptions. That enacts an age-based gun ban for adults over 18 who are fully-vested in their civil rights – except for their right to lawfully purchase a firearm.
Fredrick Wesley was recently arrested in Stockton, Calif., for a home invasion in which left one adult dead and another wounded. Inside the home were three children, ages 10, 12 and 9, as well as an 18-year-old. California law bars that 18-year-old from purchasing a firearm to protect himself and his family. California lawmakers won’t have to answer to that 18-year-old for denying him the ability to protect his family. They also won’t have to pay for damages inflicted on this family since they are protected by qualified immunity. The same qualified immunity these liberal politicians want to strip away from police officers.
California’s lawmakers aren’t held accountable for wielding their legislative and executive authority, no matter how harmful it is to their own citizens. If they could be dragged into court and made to answer for their specious laws, they might not be so quick to weaponize their authority against the firearm industry and Californians.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
Donald Trump, Jr.–shown at an NRA convention–dismissed reports he was interested in becoming the association’s new CEO. Dave Workman photo
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Donald Trump Jr. launches gun rights group, vows to fight Democratic gun control proposals,” Fox News reports. “The Second Amendment Task Force plans to build its operation around Trump’s high social media visibility and following, as well as his national media appearances.”
“The Second Amendment Task Force is the first advocacy group that Trump has launched and been directly involved with,” the report elaborates. “The group plans to make a push in the upcoming midterm elections this year, especially in the voter registration sphere.”
Except it’s not the first. Remember that “Second Amendment Coalition” his father announced and made him chairman of back in 2016? The one he co-chaired with fired NRA-ILA honcho and bump stock “regulator” Chris Cox? If you don’t recall that group, it’s probably because it didn’t actually do much of anything and the webpage was taken down a half-a-year later.
As for “plans to make a push,” it’s fair to ask for whom. His father’s Mehmet Oz pick comes to mind. Are there any other candidates gun owners may have concerns about?
It’s also fair to ask what that push consists of. The Fox News piece gives us plenty of high-sounding platitudes but specifically, how will the “entirely devoted” Second Amendment Task Force “ensur[e] the Left is never successful in disarming American citizens”?
As an aside, that rhetoric is kind of hyperbolic. Ultimately, isn’t ensuring they never will be something each of us will decide?
“Today, the group is laser-focused on engaging grassroots activists to defend their Constitutional rights,”the Task Force website claims. “Like a special ops team of advocates, the group rapidly mobilizes when Biden nominates personnel who could infringe on the Second Amendment and to oppose executive or legislative action that curbs the rights of gun owners and families.”
What group? Who is on board with this, and might we check their creds?
The only name that is listed under “Our Team” is Trump Jr’s, and while gun owners should appreciate his efforts that “helped sink” the David Chipman nomination to head ATF, many hands were involved with that and, candidly, did more. And if his Task Force truly lives up to its rapid mobilization claim, why have he — and it — been silent to date (this is being written on 4/28) on the new and equally threatening nominee, Steve Dettelbach?
Fleshing out the details of the “group,” its organization and specific efforts it intends to make is important because getting visitors to register and donate seems to be the purpose of the 2A Task Force home page. That being the case, what does it intend to provide gun owners that they can’t already get from established national and state “gun groups”? Considering that those groups are also involved in activities like education/outreach, alerts/grassroots coordination, legislative efforts, and, importantly, mounting legal challenges, what unique return value, besides the occasional supportive tweet, editorial or media appearance by Trump Jr. does this new venture offer that makes it a superior donation priority?
No one can argue that it doesn’t help to have a high-profile personality using his bully pulpit to promote the right to keep and bear arms. One could also argue that attaching one’s famous name to a hot button issue, one that affects millions, yields significant personal and political returns.
It would be greater to see him using his New York City concealed carry permit as a springboard to highlight how unjust and un-American it is to limit such permits to the sell-connected elites and to lead the charge for demanding change. For someone presuming to be a leadership voice for gun owners, it would be not just appropriate, but crucial for Trump Jr. to also explain in principle and detail:
If he agrees his father has been flat-out wrong on bump stocks;
How he differs from his father’s White House positionon where the right to bear arms comes from (see photo, above).
The object here is not to attack him or to start a feud with Dad; it’s to see if the guy who says he wants to lead us knows where he’s going and why.
It’s also to see whose interests funds being solicited to bankroll that leadership really serve and if that’s the most effective way for gun owners to offset attacks against their rights. Note 2A Task Force donations are “Powered through WinRed,” a GOP fundraising platform that has been dominated by Donald Trump-related interests.
They take their cut of the proceeds. We’ve all gotta eat and there’s nothing wrong with that, and in fact, the left (which benefits from its ActBlue counterpart) is trying to shut WinRed down with breathless allegations of irregularities and “politically-motivated investigations” by four “blue state” attorneys general. Like with speech, political opposition is seen as something to be smeared and canceled.
Just to clear something up, because I won’t be surprised to see this piece result in some “Would you rather have Joe Biden?” reactions: I got this task force news sent to me from a few different readers, and what they sent included some enthusiastic posts and videos from commentators with substantial numbers of followers. None of what I had seen dug any deeper and addressed the points this raises, and I believe gun owners ought to be able to evaluate all fundraising appeals against other deserving options before digging into limited personal resources.
If you think Donald Trump Jr’s Second Amendment Task Force is a serious contender for your financial support, feel free to explain why and persuade those of us who may not be convinced yet in the comments, below.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Yesterday, the Oklahoma Senate passed firearm discrimination prevention legislation, House Bill 3144. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Yesterday, the Oklahoma Senate passed firearm discrimination prevention legislation, House Bill 3144. The measure now heads back to the House for a concurrence vote before being sent to the Governor. Please contact your State Representative and ask them to CONCUR on House Bill 3144!
House Bill 3144 provides that a governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for the purchase of goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association and will not discriminate during the term of the contract against a firearm entity or firearm trade association.
Again, please contact your State Representative and ask them to concur on House Bill 3144.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
USA –-(Ammoland.com)- Amazon is having a promotion on MTM products like the MTM AC50C-40 50-Caliber Ammo Can in Black for just $9.99 with FREE shipping and free returns. That is 25%+ OFF! These are great products and are water-resistant, lockable, and stackable. Check prices online here and over here and you see why we like this deal.
AmmoLand readers you know the warning, Amazon deals turn bad quick so get on this fast before they jack the price after we send a ton of people to the page.
MTM AC50C-40 50-Caliber Ammo Can, Black
MTM ammo cans are a great way to store bulk or boxed ammo. Its all plastic design is lighter in weight than the 50 caliber US Military Surplus Ammo Can. Transferring ammo to and from the range, just became a little easier! Ideal for ammo storage.
Molded out of rugged polypropylene plastic, these comfortably handled ammo cans will hold up to some pretty harsh treatment. Utilizing MTM’s tongue and groove O-Ring seal system for a superior water-resistant seal, the 50 cal can is designed to fit the same amount of bulk ammo storage as the original. A heavy-duty dual latching system makes for a better seal and less likely to open accidentally. Double padlock tabs along with molded-in stacking ridges, make these solid containers the perfect solution to so many storage needs.
Daily Deal Disclaimer: The product represented in this AmmoLand News announcement is a short-term money-saving deal we find at third-party retailers unrelated to AmmoLand Inc. Be forewarned that many of these “deals” will sell quickly or potentially expire in a few hours from the initial online publishing time or date. AmmoLand Inc. does not stock inventory or operate a shopping cart. When we find an exciting offer on gun products, we will be passing along those offers to AmmoLand News readers so you can try and save cash. When you leave www.ammoland.com to make purchases please be sure of what you are agreeing to buy and have applied all the appropriate coupon codes (subject to expiration out of our control) or taken the necessary steps to reproduce our highlighted deals in your shopping cart at these third party retailers. AmmoLand Inc (operating as AmmoLand News, at www.ammoland.com) is not responsible for changing prices, inventory availability, or expiration dates, discrepancies, or changes in product descriptions or models or for what you agree to purchase from these affiliate-link promoted websites. AmmoLand Inc can not correct, change, or help you return or warranty products purchased from other businesses online. All we can do is point out a few deals when we find them to help you save $$.
Consider checking our Gun Deals Coupon page and our past featured Daily Gun Deals page for additional savings from your favorite industry partners. Thank you very much for your support and I hope we save you some money by highlighting these sweet daily deals. Enjoy!
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Ever wonder why we are hearing so much about so-called “ghost guns?” Some may argue that the term “ghost guns” is used simply to scare people into supporting gun control. “Ghost guns” is the nomenclature used on people who don’t know any better. The idea of these spooky devices lurking around our streets is enough to send the most irrationally fearful, ill-informed people into hiding. Fear is the strongest human emotion, and the gun-grabbers understand this. For those who harbor beliefs cultivated by the left-wing narrative, fear is typically the dominant motivator. Fear is often used as a political tool to get people to vote for the politician who promises them safety. Look no further than non-elected New York “governor” Hochul and her willingness to release violent criminals from jail while disarming law-abiding New York gun owners. But there’s much more to “ghost guns” than meets the eye.
Not only does the political term “ghost guns” bring with it fear, but it also suggests the idea that guns “should be” registered. You are supposed to believe, that because these guns are untraceable, the government needs to step in and do something. As if, not being able to track guns to private homes is a preposterous notion. Do we ever stop to think about the fact that our Founding Fathers never intended for the government to know who has guns and where they were located?
The 2nd Amendment was written for the purpose of citizens having guns as leverage against the government, should it become tyrannical. It has always been necessary to preserve freedom. Somehow, scaring people with the term “ghost guns” encourages some to overlook the fact that gun ownership has never been any of the government’s business. But that simple fact gets overlooked when terms like “ghost guns” and “gun violence” are used because fear and political domination become much stronger motivators to some. You can read more on the importance of the term “gun violence” in my article, “There’s No Such Thing as Gun Violence.”
According to an article by apnews.com,“Justice Department statistics show that nearly 24,000 ‘ghost guns’ were recovered by law enforcement at crime scenes and reported to the government from 2016 to 2020.”
“Federally licensed firearms dealers must retain key records until they shut down their business or licensed activity and then transfer the records to ATF as they are currently required to do at the end of licensed activity.”
Is the DOJ suggesting that all 24,000 guns found were homemade? Is it curious to anyone that stolen guns, and guns with serial numbers grinded off are also being labeled “ghost guns?” This isn’t just about homemade guns. This is about any gun that can’t be traced back to your personal home address. But wait a minute. I may never want anyone to know about my guns. Isn’t that my right under the 2nd Amendment? When did it become acceptable for people, who don’t want me to own guns, to know what guns I have and the exact location where they can be found?
Let’s assume the American Communists get their way and can enact legislation they would consider a solution to their so-called “ghost gun epidemic.” What would that look like? Is it any coincidence that the “solution” to their manufactured crisis is not stricter penalties on violent people, but rather a tool called “universal background checks” specifically for the purpose of creating a gun registry? You’ve heard them say, “the majority of Americans support universal background checks.” It’s not true but it’s a great way to make you feel like you’re in the minority should you question their motives.
“Ghost guns” are the gateway to “universal background checks.” But let’s go back even further. Do you remember “SWATing” and then the big push for “red flag laws?” SWATing was the act of turning in your neighbor without cause for simply having a gun. SWATing grew legs and became law in some States under the name “Extreme Risk Protection Order,” (a.k.a “red flag laws.”) “Red flag laws” are the vehicle by which guns can be confiscated, without due process. It’s no coincidence that “red flag laws” and “universal background checks” are being pushed simultaneously because in order to confiscate guns, the American Communists would first need to know where they are located. The “ghost gun” narrative is a tool by which support for universal background checks (a.k.a. “gun registry”) legislation would be garnered. Firearms dealers would be legally leveraged to share your personal information with those who want your guns. “Red flag laws” are the vehicle by which those registered guns would be confiscated.
I don’t remember reading in the second amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as long as the Government knows the address where your guns are located.”
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, NRATV, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.
U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor Amanda Suffecool joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan?
You are at home with your young son. It is about 8 in the morning when you hear glass break from the front of your house. That is near your son’s room, so you grab your gun and open your bedroom door to see what is happening.
You see that your son’s door is open and there is a stranger standing in your hallway. You present your firearm and shoot until the man drops. You run to check on your son. He is looking around and wondering what broke his window, but he isn’t injured. You keep your son with you and call 911.
You have to leave your son for a minute to put your gun away and open the front door for the police. EMS takes your attacker to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. You show the police your identification. You give them a brief statement and explain that you don’t know your attacker. The police recover 9 shell casings in your hallway. Your attacker was shot in the chest, neck, and head.
It is just before midnight when your mom calls you. She says a stranger is trying to get into her home. You grab your firearm and drive the few blocks to your mom’s home. You walk up and see a stranger break through your mom’s front door. You follow him and tell him to stop. He keeps going and you shoot him several times. Now he stops, turns, and tries to leave. He falls at the front door.
You check on your mom and she is uninjured. The news stories aren’t clear if she called 911 or if you did. Your mom tells you that the stranger said he was a home healthcare nurse and was performing a checkup. She didn’t let him in and the stranger broke down her door.
You give a brief statement to the police. So does your mom. EMS declares your attacker dead at the scene.
You’re walking out of your apartment at 10pm. You turn to lock your door when two men come up behind you.
Police. Stay where you are. Keep your hands where we can see them.
They are wearing badges around their necks and black ski masks over their faces.
They push you back inside your apartment and draw their guns. They tell you not to move. They demand your money, and they pull zip ties from their pockets. You figure out that these are not the police.
You’re armed with a gun on your hip. You pull your hand free, get a grip on your gun, and shoot the nearest attacker several times. Your closest attacker falls and the second attacker runs out the door. Your girlfriend yells from upstairs. You shout back to call the cops.
You stay inside your apartment. You holster your gun. You give the police a brief statement. Emergency Medical Services transports your attacker to the hospital. The police recover six shell casings on your doorstep. You have to go to the police station where detectives question you and your girlfriend. You’re released to return home.
Your attacker was declared dead with gunshot wounds to his chest, arm, and head. You’re not charged with a crime.
You talked to the reporter who called and you said that things have gotten crazy in Philadelphia and that everyone who can should be armed.
You turn onto your street and see an empty parking place. It is about an hour after sunset. The only places to park your car for the night are on the street and you’re glad you found a spot near your home. You turn off your car, lock it, and start walking down the street to your front door. You see a car stop and back up the street. The car stops and the passenger gets out. The passenger points a gun at you and tells you to give him your keys.
You are a gun owner too. You have your Louisiana carry permit. You’re armed tonight. You throw the car keys toward your car and you run the other way. You run between the cars and duck under a parked car. You present your firearm. You watch the robber move toward your car. He sees you and raises his gun. You shoot first and then run for your front door. Inside, you call 911 and ask for the police.
You give the officers a brief statement. They check your driver’s license and your carry permit. You and the officers look down the street. Your car is still in its parking place and your keys are next to it.
Police arrest your attackers at the local hospital. Your robber is unconscious with a bullet wound in his neck. The police recover two other handguns in the getaway car. One of the guns is listed as stolen.
News reports don’t mention how the three young men, all 17 years old, were charged. In the last year, there have been four carjackings on your street and two more attempted carjackings.
A repeated ploy of the gun control movement is to loudly proclaim law-abiding Second Amendment supporters are using “scare tactics”. IMG iStock 884191010
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- A repeated ploy of the gun control movement is to loudly proclaim law-abiding Second Amendment supporters are using “scare tactics” while opposing proposed gun control.
U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), the “Honey Pot Congressman,” isn’t new to this charade. His record is one of strict gun control support. That includes a failed presidential campaign playing second fiddle to Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke to carry the gun control water.
Rep. Swalwell published an op-ed in Newsweek and deployed the ruse.
“For decades, one of the most tried and true scare tactics by the gun lobby is that the government—specifically Democrats—are coming for your guns,” the Congressman wrote. “These misinformation campaigns have been used for years to scare law-abiding Americans into thinking they are going to be put under government surveillance to confiscate their guns.”
Lies About Lies
The thrust of Rep. Swalwell’s anti-Second Amendment screed is that President Joe Biden isn’t interested in confiscating lawfully-owned firearms.
“Let’s be crystal clear—the Biden administration has no secret plan to take away your guns,” he claimed.
He’s right, though – President Biden’s gun control plans aren’t secret. They’re publicly known and repeated often.
President Biden has on multiple occasions called the lawful firearm industry “the enemy.” A major selling point of his gun control agenda is that he claims he’s, “the only one to have taken on the industry and won.” “I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again,” he’s said.
The president was speaking about his ability to pass a ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), which he incorrectly and pejoratively terms as “assault weapons.” President Biden, in the 1990s, when he was in the U.S. Senate, voted to ban America’s most popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle. He continues to push for a new ban today on commonly-owned firearms. He claims the ban will drive down crime, but data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the “Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)…did not reduce crime rates.” In fact, when the ban expired, violent crime rates continued to drop even as MSR ownership skyrocketed to more than 20 million rifles in circulation.
The president has also repeated his favorite lie that the firearm industry is “the only outfit in the country that is immune,” from liability. This lie has been fact-checked into oblivion, with the media saying, “Gun manufacturers can certainly be sued…Biden is wrong to say gun manufacturers are alone.”
The president lies about his wishes to ban certain lawfully-manufactured and legally-purchased firearms, as well as his wishes to shut down an entire industry that supports the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That would certainly qualify as, “taking away guns.”
Twisting Truth
Rep. Swalwell would ban MSRs as well and he’s not alone. He’d go even further, telling Fox News’s Tucker Carlson he’d implement a forced government buyback scheme of the firearms and even, “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Rep. Swalwell went so far as to absurdly suggest if Americans still refused to give up their firearms to a government confiscation scheme, the U.S. government would use nukes against holdouts.
Rep. Swalwell would make confiscation easier, if he had his way, by requiring a national firearm registry. That’s the only way a universal background check could work, a policy that both Rep. Swalwell and President Biden support. Universal background checks (UBCs) are unenforceable without mandatory registration – which is illegal under the 1986 Gun Control Act and 1993 Brady Act.
In his op-ed, Rep. Swalwell says claims about a national gun registry are “conspiracy theories,” and that, “The simple truth is that a gun registry does not exist and is not even being contemplated to illegally track law-abiding individuals who exercise their Second Amendment rights.” He even twists one of my tweets to suggest the firearm industry agrees with his bogus claims.
It’s true – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) does not currently maintain a searchable national firearm registry. It does, however, keep an Out-of-business Records (OBR) database to trace firearms when they are used in a crime. That collection of records doesn’t allow anyone to run a search for how many and what kind of firearms are owned by any one individual.
About 30 percent of all firearm traces involve searching OBR data. The most recent ATF trace data shows that the average time between when a firearm was originally sold lawfully after a background check and before it was recovered by law enforcement has been close to 10 years as recently as 2017. Searching very old records rarely yields actionable intelligence to law enforcement. That’s why NSSF has long supported requiring ATF to purge records that are older than 20 years to save taxpayer money and to use those dollars to put more agents on the streets to stop crime from occurring in the first place.
Rep. Swalwell knowingly took the tweet out of context in order to lie again about what would be required if a universal background check were to be adopted.
President Biden is clearly doing the bidding of his gun control donors. After repeating his lies about the firearm industry and what his policies would do to law-abiding Americans, there is no doubt that President Biden would indeed go after lawful gun owners and dismantle the industry that provides for the exercise of the Second Amendment. Rep. Swalwell is simply carrying the president’s gun control water because he would do the same exact thing.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
It is just before midnight when your mom calls you. She says a stranger is trying to get into her home. You grab your firearm and drive the few blocks to your mom’s home.
You walk up and see a stranger break through your mom’s front door. You follow him and tell him to stop. He keeps going and you shoot him several times. Now he stops, turns, and tries to leave. The intruder falls at the front door.
You check on your mom and she is uninjured. The news stories aren’t clear if she called 911 or if you did. The stranger said he was a home healthcare nurse and was performing a checkup. Mom didn’t let him in and the stranger broke down her door.
You give a brief statement to the police. So does your mom. EMS declares your attacker dead at the scene.
You are not charged with a crime.
Comments
Let’s start with acknowledging what the good guys did to protect themselves. To start, mom kept her doors and windows locked. She didn’t open her door when a stranger asked to come into her home late at night. Instead, the homeowner recognized an unusual situation and called for help. Her son decided to bring his firearm with him when he went to his mom’s house. Mom got away from the front door and retreated to a safe place. One of the news reports says that mom had a gun in her home but we don’t know if she retrieved it and had it in her hand.
I like that the armed defender stopped shooting when the threat stopped. We don’t know if mom or the son called 911, and we don’t know if mom called 911 for help before her son arrived. They both stayed at the scene and gave a brief report to the police.
There is a lot that the news reports leave out or never think to ask. What would happen if the intruder decided to immediately break the glass near the door and let himself in before mom made the phone call for help? Then, an older woman would have faced a younger man without help being on the way. That is why we want to be armed at home. Yes, you, and yes, even mom, and that is particularly true when she answers the door at midnight.
We hope the son transported his firearm in a holster worn on his body, but the news articles don’t tell us that. One obvious reason to wear a holster is so you have control of your gun and still have a free hand to make a phone call. We probably want to call 911 if we have time.
The news reports didn’t tell us what happened in this case, but we want mom to call 911 right after she calls her son. We want her to either leave the house through the back door or lock herself into her bedroom. If we’re lucky, then the police arrive in time to arrest the bad guy before we get in a gunfight.
We always face the chance of losing a fight no matter how much we train and prepare. We don’t know if the next robber is going to be armed and if he is going to have friends with him. We’d hate it if one of the bad guys got off a random shot that injures mom as she hides behind her bed.
We want to completely avoid that possibility by watching the police enter our home as we’re sitting on the back deck of our neighbor’s house sipping a soft drink.. or maybe something stronger.
Most armed defense happens at and near our home so it is worth thinking about what we should do. Right now when our heart isn’t racing with excitement, we have the luxury of considering how to defend our family. What should we do if the bad guy is standing near our loved one’s bedroom door when we catch up with the bad guy? We probably don’t want to shoot in that case since we could send bullets through the bad guy and on into a loved one’s room.
In this story, suppose the bad guy turns away from mom’s room and heads toward the kitchen. Unless we know that there is another innocent party in the kitchen then we probably don’t want to shoot.I’ve been assuming that mom left all the lights on inside her home and that we can see the bad guy and what is happening. That might not be true given that the robber called just before midnight. There is a lot to think about.
Can we explain why we had to shoot an intruder in the back as he moved away from us? Can we articulate why an unarmed man or woman posed an immediate and unavoidable threat of death or great bodily injury as they were facing away from us and heading away from our family? You are right that it is a different situation if the intruder is headed towards us.
Some state laws impose a duty to retreat. Other states have self-defense laws that allow us to use lethal force when we face an intruder in our home. Please hear me out, but I’d prefer to have more than a legal justification before I press the trigger. I want a moral justification so I know that taking another life was the best thing to do given the very bad circumstances. I bet you do too.
While we’re talking about bad situations, and I want to back up and look at carrying a gun in a holster again. What if the intruder is smaller than we are? I’m a 200 pound man and getting into a hand-to-hand fight with a 110 pound female intruder might be the best option I have. That is hard to do once a gun is in my hands because I want to keep her from grabbing my gun.
To be realistic, I don’t want to go hand-to-hand with anyone since I don’t know how they are armed. I’d really like them to run away. The point being that a smaller and unarmed aggressor might not pose a lethal threat and therefore not justify the use of lethal force in defense. All that is a long winded way to say that holsters give us some nice options that we lose once a gun is in our hands. We can make mistakes by doing too much too soon and by doing too little too late.
The news reporters in Houston gave us a simple description of this armed defense. The best response changes dramatically if we change a few small details. That means we need to have more than a single script in our head as we head to mom’s house or if we are the one answering a knock at the door late at night. There isn’t a single best-practice because what works for me could be horrible for your family in your house. Best practice is a guideline that helps us mold our actions to fit our particular situation. As we already talked about, the physical position of the son to the robber to the mother is critically important.
Take an analytical walk-through of your home at night. Where would the bad guys come in? Do the electronic appliances like the microwave or the TV give off enough light to see an intruder? I’m a big fan of turning on the room lights but some people disagree.
No matter how we do it, we want to see the intruder and identify that he is a threat before we decide to shoot. We’ve had too many stories of the mentally ill neighbor or the drunk relative trying to get into the wrong house. We may be legally justified in shooting them, but I’d go a long way to avoid it. In fact, I’d use lethal force as a last when I had no other way to protect innocent people. Please let that weigh on your heart a while before you decide what you’ll do late at night.
When the police arrive, we want to give them a brief statement of the facts.
I’m the one who called 911. I’m here because mom called for help. I saw a stranger break into her home. I shouted for the stranger to stop. He moved toward my mom and I shot him until he stopped. I checked on my mom and then called you immediately. Here is my identification and my carry permit. I will help you and answer all your questions after I talk to my lawyer.
We might have to defend every word we say in court. We don’t do that for a living so we ask for help from our lawyer. We help the police collect evidence, like we were standing about here so the shell casings are over there. Here is the contact information for my security company and they might have video from the electronic doorbell. We leave the rest of the details for the report that our lawyer helps us prepare. That is how good guys save lives.
-Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve.
About Rob Morse
Rob writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, at Second Call Defense, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.
