United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of a tragic shooting like the one in Uvalde, Texas, one thing is certain to come” The hateful rhetoric from anti-Second Amendment extremists. It’s been the same old, predictably vicious lie that has come since Columbine (or sooner): Because Second Amendment supporters exercise our First Amendment rights to protect the right to keep and bear arms, we are now child-killing domestic terrorists (or worse).
The owner of the company who made the firearm the shooter used to commit the horrific deeds at Robb Elementary School had been labeled an enabler of the murder of children on social media over ads the company ran. That’s a lie, too.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, of course. It could take a thousand columns to outline all those lies. But Second Amendment supporters need to take the level of rhetoric seriously.
Part of it is simply holding anti-Second Amendment extremists to their own standard. After all, some claimed that Sarah Palin incited Tucson with no more evidence than a symbol laid out on a congressional district in the 2010 midterm elections. That particular blood libel still persists in some quarters.
Crickets made more noise than those same people when someone who intended to carry out a mass shooting at a socially conservative think tank admitted in court that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map” to select his target. But the SPLC never faced any heat for that, certainly nothing near what Palin endured.
And don’t let yourself be gaslit by the likes of Nicolle Wallace, either. The idea that anti-second amendment extremists want to take away guns is not a “frothy delusion” when we actually have people extolling the injustices that England, Australia, and New Zealand inflicted on gun owners for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit.
But at the same time, this rhetoric needs to be taken seriously. These days, we have no idea what sort of permission slip is being signed in someone’s mind because of the words coming from a talking head, a Hollywood celebrity, or even from the White House itself.
Will it be a bank or credit card company CEO deciding to financially deplatform gun-rights groups, gun manufacturers, or FFLs? Will it be an employer who decides to fire someone because they are a member of the NRA? Or could it be something worse? This is a question that is out there these days.
Second Amendment supporters have a very tough row to hoe in beating back attacks on our freedoms. But we should also remember those who smeared us – and protect ourselves by defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level via the ballot box.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- How influential are our elected representatives, and should they be held accountable for the death of innocent life that occurs as a result of their dangerous ideas, rhetoric and policies?
You may remember in 2020, in an attempt to pander to black Americans for their votes, Senator Chris Murphy took an action that may have resulted in making our school kids more vulnerable to attacks on campus. Murphy’s rhetoric and misguided, politically-motivated ideas, along with Joe Biden’s Gun Free School Zones Act may be just enough to perpetuate the loss of innocent lives in our schools.
A group of left-wing race-hustlers and political opportunists which included Senator Chris Murphy (D) Senator Elizabeth Warren (D), Representatives Ayana Presley (D) and Ilhan Omar (D) introduced the “Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act” in 2020. The purpose of the bill was to, “divert federal funding away from supporting the presence of police in schools and toward evidence-based and trauma-informed services that address the needs of marginalized students and improve academic outcomes, and for other purposes.”
According to Forbes, Senator Murphy said in a statement, “Police shouldn’t be in schools.”
He also said, “There are plenty of better ways to ensure that our schools are safe places to learn, and Congress needs to understand how police in schools ends up with the wrong kids getting arrested for minor disciplinary actions and resources being drained from more effective programs.”
On July, 29, 2020 Murphy publicly announced the following:
Of course, he leveraged the black community when he used the false notion of “systemic racism” to push his flawed policy, as often the political left will do, and he talked about how black and Latino kids are disproportionately affected. Nothing new here but the results of such rhetoric and political posturing may have terrible results. As we watch the tragedies of Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas unfold, we can’t help but recognize the possible contribution to these deadly attacks, these Democrats may have made. In the case of Uvalde Texas, parents outside of the school, during the tragic event, were begging police officers to go in and save the children. Wouldn’t it make sense to have Police or armed security on campus should a violent attack occur? Democrats don’t seem to like that idea and Murphy has come out and said it.
Since schools across America are already gun free zones, our school kids are more likely to be the victims of violent attacks. School killings have nearly doubled since Joe Biden introduced his 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act as part of the Crime Control Act and they continue at twice the rate of increase every 10 years because our schools are now soft targets. Why is it that Senator Chris Murphy and other Democrats insist on making our children more vulnerable to horrific acts of violence by banning Police Officers from the premises even after seeing them be attacked time and time again? And, what should we do to stop them from further putting our children in danger?
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.
Advising viewers “Does your neighbor have too big an arsenal? Call the cops,” would seem to qualify. (The View/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” socialist “representative” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “It is an idolatry of violence. And it must end.”
In fact, the ones supporting such laws and guaranteeing more violence are the ones who impose edicts infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So naturally, Ocasio-Cortez is a darling of cognitively dissonant Opposite Day “progressives,” and “thanks” to a perfect storm of societal changes and media messaging, such influence is metastasizing.
A case in point is ABC’s The View, which “ranks No. 1 in households and total viewers among the daytime network talk shows and news programs.” We’re talking “mainstream” here, averaging millions of total viewers with voting-age women providing key demographics.
What The View is mainstreaming, via co-host Whoopi Goldberg, is nothing less than a radical subversion of the Constitution.
Riffing off a new Texas abortion law, Goldberg has this to say about how the law should deal with gun owners:
“Let’s apply his abortion laws to guns by deputizing citizens to sue anyone involved in gun violence. So, you sold an AR-15 at the gun show? See you in court. Does your neighbor have too big an arsenal? Call the cops. Actually, let’s invoke some Supreme Court logic, too. Alito says abortion’s not in the Constitution? Well, neither are AR-15s, so I guess the Constitution doesn’t cover them either. Life is so sacred then stop using guns to abort young lives.”
“And stop voting for Republicans!” co-host Joy Reid interjected to laughter and audience applause in what ought to be considered a violation of both Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission laws, prompting Goldberg to respond:
“No, don’t stop voting for Republicans. Get better Republicans in there, get people who are gonna look and say ‘OK, we don’t have to have AR-15s, why I want to keep my shotgun ‘cause I still hunt.’ OK, you can have your guns, but you can’t have your AR-15. If you’re gonna get all in my business and tell me what my family can and cannot do, neither can you. They’re gonna come for those AR-15s and you better get ready to give them up!”
How “authorities” who balked at confronting one person with an AR-15 will suppress their self-preservation instincts to go after the estimated 10 million currently privately owned throughout the Republic is left unsaid. Also unstated is how the sanctity of life is such a hot-button motivator for Goldberg, whose obsession with abortion is personal:
“Whoopi Goldberg … became pregnant for the first time at age 14 and, by her own account, self-aborted with a coat hanger. The following year, she got pregnant again. ‘I hadn’t been using birth control at that time,’ she wrote. ‘It was the late ’60s; everybody was having sex. You had sex in Central Park; it was that free.’ Planned Parenthood performed her second abortion and supplied her with birth-control pills. She claims that birth-control pills are not ‘strong’ enough for her. ‘Three times I got pregnant with birth control.’ It apparently never occurred to her to try self-control. At age 18, married, Whoopi had a daughter. But she was soon single again and somehow finding herself pregnant again. It’s difficult to count, based on Whoopi’s narrative, but the grand total of abortions she admits to having is six or seven by the age of 25.”
That’s a lot of “her choices” she has forced innocents to pay the price for, and it’s fair to wonder what effect they had on her qualifications to become a leading paid spokesperson for incontinence products. So it’s more than curious that she’s adamant about the government taking choices away from her countrymen, including, apparently, women who have been subjected to what she calls “rape-rape” (presumably, they can always get an abortion?).
The hostility to women being armed is evident in subjective claims made by “common-sense gun safety” groups like Giffords, which promote the out-of-context fear that women living in households with guns are in more danger because of it. They get those numbers by making no attempt to separate the general population of normal Americans from households, where women have made serial poor “choices” in men. You’ll note they never talk numbers for women living in households where one or more family member is active in the NRA or a similar “gun rights” group because they don’t want it widely known that the most heavily armed citizen population on the planet is also the most “law-abiding” and domestically peaceable.
So instead, being Opposite Day “progressives,” they contradict everything they say they believe about equal rights for women and offer paternalistic crap that would get any man saying it canceled for being a damn Neanderthal. Case in point, the January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine quoted (still in office) District of Columbia U.S. House of Representatives Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program:
“Women are virgins when it comes to guns. It should stay that way.”
Several years back, such mentalities were placing great hopes on the Rapex, “a product worn internally by women. The hollow inside is lined with rows of razor-sharp hooks, which are designed to latch on to a rapist’s penis during penetration. They can only be removed by a doctor.”
Its main drawback – you had to actually be raped for it to “work.” And you had to let some maniac pervert with who-knows-what diseases bleed inside you. And be at his mercy, assuming he couldn’t just cut his way out of you. Plus, it’s not like it protects against two other options it doesn’t take much thinking to identify.
A few years later, a team of engineering students from India came up with electric shock-dispensing anti-rape underwear:
“The underwear, called Society Harnessing Equipment (SHE), deploys a 3,800kV charge to anyone touching the outside of the underwear while protecting the wearer with a polymer lining. It can shock an attacker up to 82 times [and] the bra of this underwear set is equipped with GPS tracking device that can notify cops and family members in real-time in the event of an attack.”
As ridiculously dangerous to and victimizing of women as both of these “solutions” are, they still beat advice given until a few years ago by the Illinois State Police:
It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you [sic] throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.) Use your imagination and you can think of others.
And most “importantly”:
If you must fight Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.
The undeniable takeaway from all this is that people discouraging self-defense with a firearm would rather see a woman dead than armed. Or a man. One thing you can say about “progressives” – when it comes to denying rights to those they would control, they’re all about equal opportunity. As for your body your choice? Not when it comes to defending it. (Or, apparently, for Covid mandates).
The other takeaway: Look for most American women (they are majority Democrats, you know) to be swayed by “gun safety” and “choice” arguments, and for the audience for The View to do nothing but increase.
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.
You are at home with your girlfriend. It is 4 in the morning when you hear sounds coming from inside your home. You get out of bed. You grab your gun and go see what is happening. You see a stranger in your house. The intruder is armed. You both shoot at each other. Your attacker is hit in the chest by several of your gunshots. He stops shooting so you stop shooting. He falls down. The second robber runs away.
The news report says that deputies responded to a call of a burglary in progress, so you or your girlfriend may have called the police before the gunfight. You stay at the scene and tell the police what happened. The police pick up the attacker’s firearm.
Your attacker is declared dead at the scene.Police interview both you and your girlfriend. You are not charged with a crime. The police are looking for the second robber.
Comments
Yes, there are gun owners in California. You may not be able to get your carry permit in Los Angeles County but you can own a gun. In fact, California has more gun owners than any other state. These homeowners planned for their defense long before someone tried to rob them at night.
Let’s look at the simple things they did to save themselves. I like that they didn’t ignore the noise in the middle of the night. They might have called 911 early, and that is good. They had a firearm that they could reach quickly. Their gun was stored in such a condition that it was useful as soon as they grabbed it. They recognized an immediate threat of an armed man in their home. They defended themselves and then they stopped shooting when their attacker was no longer a threat.
I like that they stayed at the scene and didn’t chase the second suspect when he ran away. The defenders called for help and then gave statements to the police when they arrived.
There are a number of things we’d like to do if we were in a similar situation. These defenders may have done them but they are not mentioned in the news report.
Let’s back up a few minutes. The news article didn’t mention that the bad guys smashed a window or kicked down a door. We want to make sure that our doors and windows are locked. That does a lot of good and it doesn’t cost much. Most robbers will move to the next house until they find an unlocked door or window. That is wonderful because we win every home invasion that we avoid.
We want to plan our defense before we hear the sound of breaking glass or strangers in our home. Having a plan reminds us about what needs to be done and what we can ignore. Equally important, a self-defense plan might keep us from doing something foolish as we try to invent a plan in the middle of the night while we are barely awake. A plan has to be simple.
If you think someone is in your home then grab your gun. If you are living with someone in the same room then you both want to grab your guns. That means you have a self-defense tool in your hands and that is a great start.
Lock the bedroom door so the bad guy has to break down your door to get to you. Obviously, you need a different plan if you have children to protect, but for now, let’s stay with the story as it was reported.
If there are two of you then you can be move-in parallel. Turn on the lights in your room so you can identify an intruder. Entering a lighted room is also another level of deterrence since the bad guys know that you are awake and that there is no place to hide if they enter your room.
Grab your phone and get behind your bed so you have some furniture between you and the doorway. Now you call 911. Another option is to also grab your keys and set off your car alarm. The two of you are now behind the bed with guns pointed at the doorway and the cops are on the way.
I like this plan because it is now really hard for the intruders to hurt the homeowners. Our goal is that we get to call our insurance agent in the morning about a broken window rather than calling him about an unexpected trip to the hospital.
We don’t want to clear our home. For one thing, we don’t know how many bad guys are in our house. We don’t know where they are and we don’t know how they are armed. In this news story, we know that the bad guy shot at our defenders. That means one of the good guys could have been wounded or killed. Even if we stop all the bad guys but our girlfriend gets shot then we’ve lost the gunfight. We want to plan ahead so we lose as little as possible.
Stay on the phone so you know when the police are outside. Remember those old holsters that you don’t use and now keep in the bottom of your holster box up in the bedroom closet. What about putting a pair of holsters in the nightstand on the side of the bed that is away from the door. Now both of you have a place to put your guns so your hands are empty when the police arrive.
Make sure your hands are empty when the police arrive.
How about both of you being armed with knowledge about what to tell the police. You might say something like this.
I’m the homeowner that called you. This is where I was standing when I saw the intruder with a gun in his hands. I fired as I backed up to get away from him. We called you as soon as we could. I’ll sign a complaint and testify in court. I’ll answer your questions and submit a complete report after I’ve spoken to my attorney.
Make plans today so you have an attorney to call later.
-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.
Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke tried to grab attention by confronting Texas officials at an Uvalde press conference. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Grandstanding politicians and one-sided political reporting in the aftermath of a school shooting outrage are nothing new, and in the wake of the murderous attack at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, examples of both reinforce the notion of a nation divided, no small thanks to media bias.
Here are some troubling examples:
Former Congressman-turned-political-gadfly Beto O’Rourke made a fool of himself during a press event in which he attempted to confront Texas Gov. Greg Abbott—the man O’Rourke has dreams of replacing in November—and was instead escorted out of the building.
News agencies essentially reported half of a story when they told viewers about Senate Republicans opposing a House-passed domestic terrorism bill “which Democrats tied to the issue of guns,” according to an NBC report. Anti-gun Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blamed Republicans for blocking debate on “common sense, strong gun safety amendments.” Missing from the coverage was mention of Schumer’s obstruction of a GOP-backed school safety measure called the Luke and Alex School Safety Act, named in memory of two victims in the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Fla.
NBC headlined its report thusly: “Senate GOP blocks domestic terrorism bill that Democrats have tied to guns.” Only deep in the story is there a mention about Schumer likewise blocking the Republican legislation.
The Los Angeles Times headlined its story, “Senate Republicans block domestic terrorism bill, gun policy debate.” Again, Republicans are portrayed as the obstructionists.
Perennial anti-gun S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) went on the Senate floor to declare, “Some Republicans have suggested arming teachers. Are you kidding? Can you hear yourself? Teachers did not sign up to be soldiers. And guns have no place in our classrooms.”
“States like mine have made good progress on gun safety measures to keep our communities safe,” Murray said.
Murray ignored programs involving volunteer teachers and administrators who have taken or are willing to take special training to prevent and respond to school shootings. Called the FASTER Saves Lives (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response) program, this course was started in Ohio as a cooperative effort with law enforcement.
Murray failed to mention that in her home state of Washington, violent crime—including homicides—has gone up since passage of two anti-gun-rights initiatives bankrolled by the billionaire-backed, Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility.
In 2015, the year following passage of Initiative 594, requiring so-called “universal background checks,” there were 209 murders including 141 involving guns. In 2020, the most recent year for which FBI data is available and two years after passage of Initiative 1639 banning the sale of so-called “semiautomatic assault weapons” to young adults, Washington saw 298 murders, including 177 involving firearms.
CNN reporter Manu Raju pursued Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) down a hallway demanding to know whether Johnson would talk about background check legislation. Apparently Raju was not aware the Robb Elementary killer had legally purchased the gun he used, including passing a background check.
Appearing on MSNBC, far left documentary director Michael Moore suggested repealing the Second Amendment, stating, “Look, I support all gun control legislation. Not sensible gun control. We don’t need the sensible stuff. We need the hardcore stuff that’s going to protect ourselves and our children.”
Whoopie Goldberg threatened to punch someone if any Republican offered “thoughts and prayers” to the families of Uvalde victims. Who’s promoting violence now, and why wasn’t she called out for it?
There are numerous other examples, including various stories talking about “gun safety bills” or “gun reform” measures, demonstrating how the press has adopted the gun prohibition lobby’s lexicon substituting various phrases referring to gun control. It’s been dubbed “camo speak” because such reporting disguises the true nature of the legislation, and is also telling about the media’s own bias.
While most media are presenting a pro-gun-control approach to covering the Uvalde murders, Fox News did provide more balanced coverage, including an interview with Andrew Pollack, father of Florida school attack victim Meadow Pollack, in which he ripped authorities.
“Evidently, they didn’t learn anything,” Pollack observed. “When you focus on just gun control this is what happens. It’s happened again.”
Pollack is on to something, and it is best illustrated by the reflexive focus by politicians and the press on background checks. The best example is a report at ABC News detailing polling results that show “Universal background checks and red flag laws are widely supported by the public.”
But the media is often guilty of not explaining that a mass killer passed a background check, and maybe multiple background checks, before committing a heinous act. The Uvalde killer bought his guns at retail, from a federally licensed firearms dealer, according to several published reports, almost none of which specifically mentions that such transactions must include a background check.
To its credit, the Austin American Statesman report on Texas gun laws that recently changed included this paragraph: “The law did not change where guns are banned in the state, nor did it change background check requirements while purchasing a gun. Firearm purchases through licensed gun dealers require a background check unless the buyer has a license to carry. Gun purchases through private sellers do not require a background check.”
The routine omission of background check facts is nothing new, but not reporting them helps perpetuate a narrative that checks are a solution. For example, media reports on Isla Vista killer Elliot Rodger typically don’t mention that he passed three background checks when he purchased three different handguns in California. Reports also don’t mention he used California-legal magazines limited to 10 rounds, and while he is widely known as a “gunman,” he actually murdered three of his six victims with a knife.
Long story short, pushing background checks as a response to Uvalde or other high-profile mass murders amounts to offering a solution that would not have prevented the crime, because it evidently didn’t prevent the crime.
Another notorious case is that of Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub killer. According to a Wikipedia biography, he “legally purchased a Sig Sauer SIG MCX semi-automatic rifle and a 9mmGlock 17 handgun…from a gun shop in Port St. Lucie two weeks before the shooting.” He was licensed to carry in Florida, which also requires a background check.
Until the media improves its track record on reporting such details—even if it makes grandstanding politicians look foolish—the public can expect more of the same, whether it is intentional or simply a byproduct of lazy reporting.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Armed Defenders Save Family, Save Strangers, and Save Themselves
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– As a counterpoint to the mass murder in a Texas School, where an unopposed murderer killed 21 children and 2 adults in a “gun free” school. A career criminal with an AR15 opened fire on an unrelated birthday party in Charleston, West Virginia. He was killed by a woman armed with a pistol before he hit any of the children and adults at the party. From the BBC:
A US woman has fatally shot a man who opened fire on a crowd of people with a semi-automatic rifle in Charleston, West Virginia.
Dennis Butler, a 37-year-old with an extensive criminal history, was killed after he targeted a group of around 40 people attending a birthday party.
Police spokesman Tony Hazelett said the woman’s quick reaction saved lives and may have prevented a mass shooting.
It comes amid a national debate over guns after a school shooting in Texas.
Butler had driven by the area earlier on Wednesday evening when he was warned to slow down because children were playing.
He returned armed with an AR-15-type rifle and opened fire from his vehicle on the birthday-graduation party outside the apartment complex in the city.
Mr Hazelett told a news conference that the woman who fired back did not have any law enforcement background. She has not been identified.
“She’s just a member of the community who was carrying her weapon lawfully,” he said. “And instead of running from the threat she engaged with the threat and saved several lives.”
The woman remained at the scene after the shooting, and is co-operating with investigators.
While the investigation remains in the early stages in West Virginia, there is much less to investigate than in Texas. The attempted murderer is dead. He has a long criminal history. From wchstv.com:
Court records indicate as a convicted felon Butler was not entitled to own any guns. He was also wanted by deputies on a misdemeanor charge of transferring and receiving stolen goods from earlier this year. Kanawha magistrate court records show some 20 arrests for local charges.
Butler was a convicted felon and a frequent flyer at the Kanawha County Judicial Annex when it came to getting arrested. Often, those charges were dismissed when witnesses failed to show up.
In 2016, Butler faced unlawful and malicious wounding charges after a woman was shot in Charleston’s East Side. A felon with a firearm charge was linked by court documents to family and child neglect and abuse convictions in Pennsylvania.
The woman who shot and killed Butler is known and is cooperating with the police. There were numerous witnesses who are reported to have given testimony.
We do not know how many shots Butler was able to fire before he was stopped. Butler was shot multiple times, so the woman apparently fired rapidly and accurately. The assault started and was stopped very quickly, a little before 10:45 in the evening. More details are likely to be released in the days to come.
Early reports are often inaccurate.
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.
An I Voted sticker on an IWI X95 bullpup carbine in 5.56mm with an Elcan SpectreDR 1.5-6x optic on top. IMG Jim Grant
Your Neighborhood – -(AmmoLand.com)- Second Amendment supporters are often frustrated with the Republican Party. They wonder just how it gets the way it is. It’s understandable frustration – like seeing a pro-Second Amendment candidate win a primary and then to have allegations of one sort or another hit.
However, it is possible to turn a party around. One way is through the “precinct strategy” espoused by Dan Schultz. This approach, which plays very well into the grassroots work that Second Amendment supporters have excelled at for decades, is one that should have been adopted long ago by gun-rights organizations across the board.
As a primary voter, you have a say in which candidate moves forward to the general election, but you’re often left with the choice of who decides to run. That is a good way to have to choose between Dr. Oz on the one hand, and McCormick on the other. In essence, primary voters are choosing the best of the options.
On the other hand, being on the precinct committee puts you in a position to help influence who runs. As a precinct committeeman, you can recruit candidates to run. That’s a good way to reduce the chances of developing the next generation of candidates for higher office. If you’re sick of being stuck with a bad statewide candidate, joining a precinct committee is a good way to go about addressing the problem at the source.
The fact is, once you are in the precinct committee, you now have a more direct pipeline to party leaders and elected officials. You can raise concerns about what is going on with regards to our Second Amendment rights – and you have a say in who the local, state, and national party leaders are. You also help determine the platform that the party runs on.
It’s a chance to make that difference. If enough Second Amendment supporters get involved at the precinct committee level, we would have much less anxiety about the party selling out because we would be electing said party leaders. These same precinct committee types could also have more influence in who is recruited to run for office and can be gatekeepers.
I also cannot commend one modification to Schultz’s strategy made by the Virginia Project, which is to “flood the system with normals,” enough. This will serve two purposes: First, showing them what is going on and empowering them to get involved is a good thing. Second, it will ensure that we do not end up in a bubble and sound unreasonable or become incompetent.
If Second Amendment supporters want to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level via the ballot box, the precinct strategy is one of the best options to do so.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Concord, New Hampshire –-(Ammoland.com)- The New Hampshire Arms Collectors Club held their first public gun show in two years at the Everett Arena in Concord, New Hampshire this past Saturday.
It was a one-day, 200-table gun show. Set up was on Friday. The public was invited to come to the show Saturday from 9-5. On Thursday members of the club put up highway signs advertising the gun show.
That Thursday, an anti-gun activist, went around to the signs breaking the law by vandalizing them with red spray paint writing the word “MURDERS” on the signs. This was reported to the police and the story was picked up by WMUR which is the local news station. WMUR ran the story on TV multiple times that Friday, one day before the gun show’s opening day.
2000+ “Murderers”
This gave the gun show thousands of dollars in free publicity. The next day, the line to get in the show in the morning wrapped around the building. Many people attending said they came just to support the club because they were infuriated by the story. Many said it was the news story that made them aware and/or reminded them of the gun show.
There was a record turnout of two thousand attendees! It was an unbelievable financial success for the club.
Unknown Anti-Gun Activist, Image Concord, New Hampshire Police
Pictures appeared on social media of the person who allegedly vandalized the signs. The police are investigating. If you have any information please submit tips to the Concord, New Hampshire Police Department. The club is deciding whether to criminally prosecute whoever did this, or instead, to treat them to dinner.
About Evan Nappen
Known as “America’s Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Host of the praised “Gun Lawyer” Podcast, author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, weapons history, and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades, it’s no wonder he’s become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry, and national media outlets. Called on regularly by radio, television, and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news, Evan has appeared on countless shows including Fox, CNN, Court TV, WOR-New York. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America.
Fairfax, VA –-(Ammoland.com)- An article for Smithsonian magazine (Matt Jancer, Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West), reviews the ordinances of Tombstone, Arizona, and other frontier towns in the 1880s, observing that the gun control laws of the time were imposed at the local level and that bearing arms was a “heavily regulated business.”
The notorious Gunfight at the O.K Corral arose, it seems, because “Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, [was] having a gun control problem.”
Tombstone (with a population that hovered around 3,500) had enacted Ordinance No. 9, effective April 1881, to prohibit carrying any deadly weapon within city limits “without first obtaining a permit in writing.” Later that year, lawman Earp’s brothers had charged one Isaac (“Ike”) Clanton with violating the ordinance in the context of escalating animosity between Clanton, the Earps, and Holliday. Clanton’s rifle was seized, and a judge fined him $25 and another $2.50 in court costs. The sheriff later intervened to disarm Clanton’s associates, but after several demands failed to convince them to surrender their firearms. Soon after, the Earp-Holliday group converged on the Clanton-McLaurys, with Wyatt Earp allegedly declaring, “I want your guns.” A contemporary newspaper called what followed “one of the crimson days in the annals of Tombstone, a day when blood flowed as water, and human life was held as a shuttlecock.”
Tombstone of the 1880s is a peculiar model for those who today agitate for greater local authority to restrict or ban firearms.
Ike Clanton survived to file first-degree murder charges against the Earps and Holliday, claiming they had acted with criminal haste in precipitating the confrontation to kill their personal enemies. The court ruling in the preliminary hearing dismissed the charges but determined that Virgil Earp, “as chief of police” who relied on the assistance of his brother and Holliday to arrest and disarm the Clantons and McLaurys, “committed an injudicious and censurable act… and … acted incautiously and without due circumspection;” however, this was not criminally culpable given the state of affairs “incident to a frontier country,” “the supposed prevalence of bad, desperate and reckless men,” and the specific threats that had been made against the Earps.
The ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective. As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had “demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”
More significantly, modern jurisprudence on the Second Amendment confirms that, subject to limited exceptions, the right of responsible citizens to carry common firearms beyond the home, “even in populated areas, even without special need, falls within the Amendment’s coverage, indeed within its core.” The ruling, Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017), arose out of a challenge to the District of Columbia’s concealed carry law, which restricted licenses to applicants who could satisfy a “good reason” requirement, as defined in the law (living or working in a high-crime area, for example, did not qualify). The District justified this scheme by claiming that the Second Amendment did not protect carrying in densely-populated or urban areas like Washington, D.C.
As outlined in briefs filed by the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, numerous local governments, like Tombstone, had historically imposed similar bans and restrictions on public carrying in urban areas (“Even in Tombstone, Arizona, people ‘could not lawfully bring their firearms past city limits. In fact, the famed shootout at Tombstone’s O.K. Corral was sparked in part by Wyatt Earp pistol-whipping Tom McLaury for violating Tombstone’s gun control laws…”). Allegedly, these laws “unmistakably show that large swaths of the American public considered public-carry prohibitions to be permissible in populated areas and consonant with the right to bear arms.”
This reliance is misplaced.
A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”
The United States Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, had previously discounted arguments that local government handgun bans could be sustained due to violent crime rates in some cities and because of the scope of the laws was limited to an urban area. Such local experimentation with firearm regulations could not come at the cost of inroads on fundamental constitutional rights.
Faced with yet another attempt to impose what was essentially a local ban, the court in Wrenn condemned the District’s “good reason” law as incompatible with Second Amendment protections. The Amendment is “not hemmed in by longstanding bans on carrying in densely populated areas. Its protections today don’t give out inside the Beltway.”
Much has changed since Tombstone’s heyday as a saloon-intensive, gambling boomtown and that “crimson day” at the O.K. Corral. Virgil Earp’s successors in law enforcement, the sheriffs, and lawmen of the western states, now agree that restrictive gun carry laws do nothing to stem criminal violence while depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights to self-defense.
“[I]nstead of leading to a ‘Wild West’ atmosphere or blood running in the streets, licensed concealed carry by law-abiding citizens helps reduce crime, and assists police officers.”
About:
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
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On the day that a mentally deranged man murdered 21 people at an elementary school in Texas, Rasmussen released a poll showing what Americans think of gun control.
The anti-gun left always tells us that an overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control. But what do the actual statistics say?
The poll shows that 50% of Americans do not believe gun control works.
Breaking these numbers down even further, we see that only 40% of likely voters think stricter gun control would prevent tragedies like the murders in Buffalo. Ten percent are not sure if any type of gun law would make a difference.
The poll also showed the majority of Republican and independent voters do not believe more gun laws are the answer.
63% of Democrats believe that gun control would somehow stop despicable people from carrying out evil.
One of these Democrats is President Joe Biden, who blamed gun rights organizations for the attack on Robb Elementary School.
Failed Politician Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke used the opportunity to interrupt a press conference. O’Rourke, who once said he was coming for your AR15, was escorted out of the press conference by security and caused the Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin to call him a “sick son of a b****.”
Gun grabbers will exploit every tragedy to shape public opinion. They know they are losing the public relations battle. Gun ownership in the United States has exploded.
This poll shows that most Americans know gun control doesn’t work.
Riding Shotgun With Charlie
Riding Shotgun With Charlie isn’t about firearms. It is about having an intimate conversation with 2 people talking. You’re the fly on the rearview mirror. Many passengers are involved in the firearm community, but not all of them.
This is a more intimate conversation than a phone, radio, or Skype interview. You get to see the passengers. And you’ll see where the road and the conversation take you! www.ridingshotgunwithcharlie.com, Facebook
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- We saw two young men kill innocent people this last month. We’ve seen mass murder before. Determined men and women studied the murder of innocent victims. It isn’t easy to look death in the face but it is dangerous to look away and pretend it couldn’t happen again. Any responsible adult should be haunted by what we could have done and yet chose not to do. These are a few of the lessons we learned from mass murders in the US and around the world.
We learned that time is critical. The mass murderer will kill several people during the first minute. Then, the attack slows down as victims run for cover and become harder to kill. The exception is if the murderer can trap his victims where he is unopposed and can kill at will.
The sooner we stop him the better. Every second counts.
It takes too long for the police to arrive. The first responders are those individuals in the building who are armed and trained to respond to a lethal threat. It doesn’t matter if it is a school, a church, or an office building, no one can order these volunteers to leave their office or classroom but most of them will go to help. They decided to move toward the sound of gunfire. They probably reached that decision as they were working through a training exercise on a weekend. There are no sure outcomes, but they could not let the children and colleagues in the next classroom be murdered while they sat still. They made that choice long before they heard the sounds of gunfire and alarms.
When they hear an attack, the responders remind their students where to hide. The responders grab a medical kit and go. Their door is already locked and they hear the door lock behind them as they step into the hallway.
The first responders see a stranger with a gun in his hand shooting down the hallway and then shooting into a classroom. The first responders present, aim, and fire until the stranger is down. Other responders come around the corner. They secure the attacker’s firearm.
The attacker is down but the emergency isn’t over. There is lots of work to do. Responders begin to summon help and to treat the injured. Many school staff converge on the wounded and work to stop the bleeding. They move the injured toward the Emergency Medical Services who are already on their way. The scene is strangely like the practice drills except the blood, the tears, and the crying are real this time.
Trauma Care Training
The police will be there in about 5 minutes. The first law enforcement units to arrive form into a team and move into the building. The rule is to grab someone and go inside. Some of the arriving officers have trained with the school staff before. They know the layout of the school and where the identified attacker is located. They know that the first attacker is down.
The police and EMTs sweep through the school. The police are looking for other attackers. Emergency Medical Services move right behind them and take over treatment and transportation of the injured as the police advance.
Injured victims who can walk are directed toward the arriving EMS units outside. Some of the wounded are carried toward the parking lot so they can be transported while the rest of the building is still being searched and secured.
That is what best practice looks like. I can only tell you what the practice drills feel like because I’ve never felt the real thing. Even the practice exercises tear at your heart. That is why everyone trains so hard so that the real thing never happens.
Law enforcement and emergency medical organizations change slowly, but we’ve known best practice for decades. If your school, your church, your law enforcement, and your emergency medical services are not training this way then you need to know why. You need to ask them about their safety plan.
Who decided to ignore best practice? If your schools, church, and office don’t train like this then they are betting the lives of innocent people that a murderer will strike somewhere else. Who decided that their life wasn’t worth saving? You have the right to ask and to expect an answer.
If the school principal doesn’t have the right answers then replace the school principal. If the school board doesn’t have the right answers then replace the school board. Consider moving your children to another school. Ask the Sheriff and chief of police also, and replace the Sheriff and the Mayor if you have to. People don’t like to change but asking questions today lets us save lives tomorrow.
We prize our liberties and our rights we will maintain.
The Iowa Great seal shows a citizen soldier with a musket. In spite of the sentiments on the seal, Iowa is one of only six states where the state constitution does not contain an explicit protection for the right to keep and bear arms. The seal was adopted in 1847. At the time, the right to bear arms was relatively uncontroversial. In the famous Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Tanney said this, speaking of the rights slaves would have if they were considered to be people:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
In the last decade, there have been several attempts to add a state constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms in Iowa. A Republican representative explained the requirement for the amendment this way:
“We have found that liberal judges are willing to just take away your right to keep and bear arms, the individual right. This is an attempt to do everything we can to make that harder to do,” said Sen. Julian Garrett, R-Indianola.
Here is the text of the proposed amendment:
Right to keep and bear arms. Sec. 1A.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
The path to passing a constitutional amendment in Iowa is long and difficult. Both houses of the legislature must pass the measure with majority votes. Then an election for the legislature must take place. Then both houses must pass the measure, with majority votes, a second time. Then the measure will be put on the ballot for the next election. If a majority of the voters approve it, it will become part of the Iowa Constitution.
Part of the process was for the Secretary of State to publish the proposed amendment after the first passage through the legislature, within a particular time frame. After the amendment passed both houses of the legislature the first time, in 2018, the Secretary of State forgot to publish it. This set back the effort to pass the Amendment for two years.
Since that time, the legislature removed the power of the Secretary of State to, essentially, veto a Constitutional amendment by forgetting to publish it. The amendment was passed again in 2021. In addition, Iowa joined the Constitutional Carry club on April 2, 2021.
The right to keep and bear arms amendment will be on the ballot in Iowa, for November 8, 2022. From ballotpedia:
A “yes” vote supports adding a right to own and bear firearms to the Iowa Constitution and require strict scrutiny for any alleged violations of the right brought before a court.
A “no” vote opposes adding a right to own and bear firearms to the Iowa Constitution and require strict scrutiny for any alleged violations of the right brought before a court.
The amendment has an excellent chance of being passed by the voters. No right to keep and bear arms (rkba) amendment has been rejected by voters in the United States. Voters have strengthened RKBA amendments in several other states in the past decades. Wisconsin Constitution’s Section 25 was passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote. Kansas passed an amendment in 2010 with 88% of the vote. Louisiana passed a similar amendment in 2012 with 74% of the vote. Alabama passed a similar amendment in 2014 with 72% of the vote. Missouri passed a strengthened rkba amendment in 2014 with 61% of the vote.
With the Biden administration pushing hard to infringe on RKBA rights nationally, it is likely Iowa voters will follow the motto on their state seal, and vote to maintain their rights.
The other five states which do not have the explicit protection of the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution are California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. No surprise there.
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.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- New York City’s handgun licensing rules are bloated and absurd as written and adopted, and are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory in their application. This engenders abuse of discretion. Even worse, the City’s handgun licensing scheme has, in recent years, invited outright criminal corruption in those NYPD officers whose job it is to administer the licensing process.
Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-author of this article, co-founder of the Arbalest quarrel, and a decorated veteran police officer with the NYPD, pointed all this out when queried about the present licensing scheme in a 2016 CNN Money article, titled, “Only in New York: Bribing cops for a gun license.”
The reporter, Aaron Smith, wrote in pertinent part:
“Buying a gun in America can be an expensive ordeal. Or it can be cheap and easy. It depends on where you live.
Bribing cops for gun licenses could only happen in a place like New York. In most other parts of the United States, licenses are not even required for handguns.
‘New York City, as a major city in the U.S., is one of the most restrictive cities in the country concerning gun licensing laws,’ said retired police officer Stephen D’Andrilli, a former NYPD cop who is now a consultant for clients seeking handgun licenses.
The licensing system is meant to filter out dangerous applicants, like those with a history of domestic violence. But D’Andrilli, who extolls the ‘utmost importance’ of the Second Amendment through his website the Arbalest Quarrel, said the restrictive laws of New York have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.
‘What they’re doing is they’re creating a privilege for having a gun and licensing it and they’re creating this prohibition style system where people are paying someone off to get a gun,’ he said.”
The CNN report wasn’t the only piece on NYPD corruption in the License Division. The Daily News published, on April 25, 2016, an article by a New York attorney and former NYPD Trial Commissioner, Arnold Kriss. The article is titled, “Massive questions behind the blue wall: We need an independent commission to probe NYPD.” Arnold Kriss said,
“For the first time in over 60 years, top NYPD officials are accused of taking money and gifts for favors. Where this will go when the ship-jumping begins and the brass and others start talking to federal prosecutors — non-stop — is anyone’s guess.
This is potentially department-shattering stuff.”
And, one year to the day after the Daily News article came out, WSJ came out with its story on License Division corruption in an article titled, “Former NYPD Officers Face Federal Bribery Charges”:
“Three ex-officers and a former Brooklyn prosecutor are accused of swapping gun licenses for cash, prostitutes, guns and more.
In the scheme, so-called expediters, or individuals who charge clients to help them get gun-license approvals, bribed officers in the NYPD’s gun licensing division, according to prosecutors. These officers then approved or expedited more than 100 gun licenses, including for people with criminal histories, prosecutors said.”
Outright criminal conduct in the NYPD License Division may have been cleaned up, yet serious problems attendant to the awarding of concealed handgun carry licenses in New York remain. These core problems can only be resolved through a massive restructuring and transformation of the entire concealed handgun NYPD licensing structure in the City.
The task ahead is immensely difficult if not well-nigh impossible because the problems that beset the NYPD License Division are inextricably entwined in New York’s historical landscape. New York City’s present Mayor Eric Adams, isn’t the man to take on the task, as he hasn’t the will to do so. In fact, his sympathies rest with leaving matters just as they are.
Even as the City continues a slow burn, Eric Adams’ message doesn’t change when it comes to the issue of guns, for he continues to conflate criminal violence with something called “gun violence”. Back on January 24, 2022, the Mayor said, as reported by Fox News,
“‘We are in the middle of a crisis with guns,’ said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the weekend.
‘You carry a gun in our city, there is no apology to you,’ Adams added.
New York state and city have some of the most strict gun laws in the country, prohibiting most people in the state to openly carry, but Democratic leaders point to guns coming in from other states as a culprit behind the skyrocketing shootings.”
One should take note that Adams doesn’t draw a distinction between guns as carried by average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens for self-defense, and the lunatics and criminals who injure or kill innocent people, regardless of the means employed by these lunatics and criminals. Arming the citizen is not on his radar.
From Mayor Adams’ perspective, the armed responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen is as much a threat to the well-being of the City as are the lunatics and psychopaths who prey upon them.
The problem is that New York City is far removed from being a tranquil, idyllic paradise. It is a hell-scape. Everyone knows it. Certainly, the Mayor does. But he refuses even to consider the fact that arming tens of thousands of innocent people, who wish to take responsibility for their own life and well-being, as is their fundamental right, might succeed in securing for New Yorkers a truly safe environment that, to date, has stubbornly eluded and resisted remedying.
Support AmmoLand News
Sign up for the Daily Digest email and protect the 2nd Amendment.
The Mayor surely desires to reduce the plague of incessant violent crime that has gripped the City for years. Or does he? Is it just gross incompetence, or is it a cultivated habit and predilection against guns that prevent him from trying something new, trying a new tactic that accounts for his failure to get a handle on violent crime that has a vise-grip on the City?
Or is it something more alarming and disturbing that prevents him from relaxing the draconian standards that, to date, preclude the mass of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens from securing, for him or herself, a concealed handgun carry license, enabling the citizen to lawfully purchase a handgun in New York, thereby providing the citizen with the means—the only truly effective means—by which that citizen can protect him or herself against violent, irrational, unprovoked, and random, predatory attack?
Is Eric Adams not unlike the Chicago Mayor, Laurie Lightfoot, and myriad others, who, operating at the behest of creatures like George Soros, see the need for and who tolerate or who even encourage a complete breakdown of America’s institutions and societal law and order so that a new global order can take root of which the remains of the United States and eventually supplant all western nation-states?
And, to that end, is it not the armed citizen rather than the armed and crazed criminal or lunatic that these Deep State Cabal actors perceive as the true problem, the real issue—the constant thorn in the side?
Is it not the armed citizen of the United States—the one inconsonant stumbling block to the creation of a neo-feudal world empire that these Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist “elites” loathe and fear most?
How can the forces that crush whole nations and their populations ever hope to supplant the independent sovereign western nation-state construct with the global “Open Society” if the one critically important prize—the United States—remains heavily armed, aloof; impenetrable; defiant to the end?
How can the Obstructors and Destructors achieve their goal—merging and submerging all western nation-states into one murky, formless blob, devoid of geographical boundaries; bereft of a defined culture, history, heritage, system of laws, and ethos if Americans, alone, of all western peoples, stubbornly refuse to acquiesce to domination and subjugation?
Clearly, the goal of a one-world western neo-feudal empire will ever be incomplete if Americans adamantly refuse to forsake their natural, God-given unalienable rights of free expression, free association, and armed self-defense against predatory man and Government.
Even now, the forces that crush are employing every conceivable means, psychologically, institutionally, governmentally, to erode and eventually eradicate Americans’ sense of an absolute right to self-determination, personal selfhood, and personal autonomy—in other words, the right to be left alone.
“The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564 (1928), dissenting opinion, Justice Louis Brandeis.
Keep in mind these words were written almost 100 years ago. Yet, they are as relevant and impactful today as they were when they were first evinced. The natural law rights bestowed upon man by the Divine Creator are eternal, immutable, inalienable, and absolute. Nothing that the Globalist and Marxist Atheists and Satanists do or say can diminish the transcendent Truth and Power of the Natural Law Rights of Man, etched in stone in our Nation’s Bill of Rights.
Americans would do well to take Justice Brandeis’ words as a warning.
About The Arbalest Quarrel:
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.
