Murphy and Colbert Say What Anti-Gunners Really Want

Did @ChrisMurphyCT & Stephen Colbert say the quiet part out loud?

We’re not surprised. It’s pretty clear anti-gunners aren’t just coming for AR15s—they want basic hunting rifles too.

They want to talk about a “line in the sand,” but we’re past ours. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. pic.twitter.com/WmM6NmHaaH

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 26, 2025

In a revealing moment, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and late-night host Stephen Colbert exposed gun control advocates’ evolving strategy during Murphy’s September 24, 2025 appearance on The Late Show. Their discussion, occurring just hours after a tragic shooting at a Dallas ICE facility, highlighted what Gun Owners of America called “saying the quiet part out loud” – the real intention to target not just handguns, but America’s traditional hunting rifles and shotguns.

On September 24, 2025, Joshua Jahn used an 8mm bolt-action rifle – a World War II-era German Mauser legally purchased just a month prior – to attack a Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility, killing one detainee and wounding two others before taking his own life. Investigators found ammunition marked “ANTI-ICE” and notes indicating Jahn’s goal was to “terrorize federal agents,” writing: “Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, ‘is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof?’”

Despite the assailant’s use of a bolt-action hunting rifle similar to those owned by millions of American hunters, Murphy and Colbert used the tragedy to advocate for broader restrictions on what Colbert termed as “long guns.”

During their televised conversation, Murphy stated:

We are obviously amidst a moment with an increase in political violence and it just shouldn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter whether the radicalization comes from the right or the left or some non-ideological place in the deep, dark recesses of the internet. This president, our entire political process, could make a decision to draw a line in the sand.

Colbert then responded:

There really hasn’t been much movement to reign in the access to the long guns and many of the weapons that are used in these killings. But I mean, hopefully maybe there could be a political sea change in the United States.

Gun Owners of America immediately seized on this exchange, posting:  

We’re not surprised. It’s pretty clear anti-gunners aren’t just coming for AR15s—they want basic hunting rifles too. They want to talk about a ‘line in the sand,’ but we’re past ours. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

This apparent pivot represents the latest chapter in a nearly century-long campaign that began with explicit calls for handgun prohibition. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 originally targeted the registration and regulation of all handguns in America. As AmmoLand’s Dean Weingarten observed: 

The original target of the NFA of 1934 was to register and regulate the ownership of all handguns. Short barreled rifles and shotguns were included to prevent circumventing the regulation of handguns by cutting down rifles and shotguns.

Only successful lobbying by the NRA stripped handguns from the final legislation, leaving machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns regulated. Weingarten added that the NRA “did not contest that part of the law because silencers, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns were less commonly owned.” The organizational DNA of modern gun control traces directly to the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), founded in 1974 and eventually becoming today’s Brady United Against Gun Violence.

NCCH’s early literature called for:

Strict federal laws that will effectively restrict the possession of handguns to only the police, the military, licensed security guards, licensed pistol clubs, and registered collectors.

Founder Nelson T. “Pete” Shields III laid out their long-term strategy in a 1976 New Yorker interview:

The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.

Shields estimated this would take seven to ten years to achieve “total control of handguns in the United States.” He outlined the overall process behind eventually banning handguns: “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition…totally illegal.”

The strategic shift from handguns to long guns is indicative of an undeniable feature of American gun culture: handgun ownership has become thoroughly normalized in American society. According to 2021 National Firearms Survey data, handguns account for 171 million of the 415 million civilian-owned firearms. Demonizing and trying to outright ban handguns faces the reality of mass acceptance.

This normalization has forced gun control advocates to seek new targets. Long guns – rifles and shotguns owned by millions of Americans for hunting, sport shooting, and home defense – represent the next frontier in their incremental strategy. The focus on “assault weapons” over the past three decades was merely the opening salvo.

The Murphy-Colbert exchange reveals this evolution. By discussing “long guns and many of the weapons that are used in these killings” in the context of a shooting involving a traditional hunting rifle, they exposed the movement’s intention to expand beyond semi-automatic rifles to include bolt-action, lever-action, and single-shot firearms.

GOA’s response highlights the need for Second Amendment advocates to recognize this strategic pivot. Historically, regulation of “problematic” firearms expands to broader categories of ownership. The 1934 NFA led to the 1938 Act, and then the 1968 Gun Control Act—all points on a slippery slope of Second Amendment infringements.

The Murphy-Colbert exchange reminds us that the movement’s goal remains unchanged from Pete Shields’ vision of “total control.” Only the tactical approach, shifting from prohibition to incremental restriction and now from handguns to long guns, has changed with the times. Second Amendment supporters must stay vigilant. Handgun normalization forced gun controllers to seek new targets; sustained resistance and advocacy will be just as critical to protect the rights of millions of gun owners. 

What Murphy and Colbert revealed is that the endgame has never changed, only the order of battle in the war against the Second Amendment.

---

Venezuela Hands Out Guns to Civilians — But Don’t Call It the Second Amendment ~ VIDEOS

The 2nd Amendment: America’s Timeless Equalizer for the Weak & Vulnerable

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/p0trQ9D
via IFTTT

Trump Rescinds Export Restrictions on Guns Imposed by Biden Regime

On September 30, 2025, the BIS, under the second Trump administration, issued a final rule that effectively rescinded all the firearms export changes made by the Biden administration.

The second Trump administration has reversed the burdensome restrictions on the export of firearms and accessories imposed by the Biden administration in April 2024.

During the first Trump administration, the regulatory burden on the export of firearms and accessories was significantly reduced. Much of this was done by transferring the application for export process from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of State to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The BIS issued regulations to comply with the change.

On April 30, 2024, during the Biden administration, the BIS published an interim final rule. The interim final rule required new export license requirements on firearms, ammunition, and components. These restrictions were estimated to cost American manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales.

On September 30, 2025, the BIS in the second Trump administration issued a final rule that restored the regulatory scheme to that of the first Trump administration, effectively rescinding all the firearms export changes made by the Biden administration. The only change that was not rescinded was the change made in the administrative numbering system.

---

From the Federal Register:

On April 30, 2024, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published an interim final rule (Firearms IFR) that imposed new export license requirements for firearms and related ammunition and components. American firearms manufacturers estimated that these regulatory restrictions would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars per year in lost sales. BIS, informed by public comments on the Firearms IFR, has determined that the Firearms IFR should be rescinded in its entirety—with the only exception being to maintain new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs). This final rule also amends the EAR by removing the Congressional notification requirement for certain semi-automatic firearms license applications. By restoring export controls on firearms to the state they were in at the end of the first Trump Administration, BIS is advancing the Administration’s commitment to reducing regulatory burdens on industry and law-abiding firearms owners.

---

The EAR mentioned above refers to the Export Administration Regulations. The EAR regulations are voluminous. They include considerable detail, which is designed to prevent confusion about what is covered and what is not. The export regulations are complicated by the attempt to prevent exports of advanced military technology to countries and entities hostile to the United States.

The United States and the world are still in the first year of the second Trump administration. These changes only affect the exportation of firearms, ammunition, and components. They do not affect the importation of firearms and ammunition. From a business and financial viewpoint, the impact on exports is much more significant than the impact on imports, especially imports of small numbers of firearms for individual use.

Import regulations make it extremely difficult for individuals, who are not on active duty in the United States military, to import firearms made after 1898. This is true even for individuals who are importing used firearms for their own use. This correspondent would love to see a reasonable exception for individuals to import up to 10 post-1898 firearms per year per individual.

Much of the rest of the world is making it harder and harder for individuals to own firearms. Many Americans, traveling in foreign countries, have opportunities to purchase desirable and historical firearms. For most individuals, the regulatory burdens placed on importation of firearms and ammunition are practically insurmountable. This is, understandably, a lower priority for the Trump administration than rescinding burdensome regulations restricting the exportation of billions of dollars of products made by American manufacturers. Perhaps the Trump administration can add it to the “to do” list.

---

PSA Dagger Compact 9mm Pistol REVIEW | 1,500 Rounds Later

The Left Blames Their Violence on Others and Guns

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/iG0TxqU
via IFTTT

Mark W. Smith Highlights Supreme Court Strategy at GRPC 2025

Mark W Smith with the Defender of Gun Rights of the Year for 2025 award, presented to him at GRPC 2025 in Salt Lake City.

The 40th Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC), was held at the Salt Lake City Marriott on September 26-28, 2025. Registration on site started on Friday, with a reception Friday night starting at 7 p.m. These receptions are always interesting. Attendees are able to hobnob with movers and shakers among Second Amendment supporters.

On Friday, before the GRPC registration, media was invited to attend a separate but related event, the AMM*Con, a Second Amendment Media Workshop. The AMM*Con is aimed at Second Amendment oriented media as a way to improve the skills of media covering firearms and Second Amendment issues.

Every presentation offered techniques and ways to improve reporting, coverage, and reach for the reporters, bloggers, Youtubers, writers, and podcasters which were present. Presentations included such topics as “Pitch Sheet & Earned Media”, “Turning Strangers into Raving Fans”, and “Rebranding an Organization”.

In this correspondent’s opinion, the star of the day was Mark W. Smith, prominent constitutional attorney, member of the United States Supreme Court Bar,  Host of the excellent Youtube channel the Four Boxes Diner, and AmmoLand contributor.

Mark gave a supercharged and superbly informative one hour presentation at AMM*Con.  The subject was “How to Report on 2A Supreme Court and Other Cases”. Mark explained the different types of cases which are filed in the courts. He explained what organizations look for in cases to pick for Second Amendment challenges.

Two important points were: The current Supreme Court does not like criminals or drug users. This means, in order to restore Second Amendment rights, it is better to use civil cases where the plaintiffs are law abiding citizens rather than criminal cases. It is why the Biden administration pushed the Rahimi case to the top of the list for review by the Supreme Court. Secondly, when referring to cases where Second Amendment supporters prevailed, remember our Second Amendment rights are being restored, not created.

Mark talked about the state of play in current cases, and the types of cases which were candidates for Supreme Court review. Mark made the point the Supreme Court only hears about 70 cases a year. About 7,000 to 8,000 cases are presented to the Supreme Court, asking for review. Less than 1% are chosen.

Of the 70 cases chosen by the Supreme Court for review, the Court may accept 2-3 cases involving firearms per year. This is the reality. The possibility of the Supreme Court accepting more than three firearms related cases in a year is extremely low.

Mark explained if one firearms case is taken, it means a different case will not be heard in that year. Because the Court has not been sympathetic to drug users, Mark recommended Second Amendment organizations back away from pushing marijuana cases. Multiple cases are in play. It seems AR-15 ban cases are very likely to be heard. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has said the Supreme Court will hear a case in the current term or the next term. Young adult cases involving the rights of 18, 19, and 20 year old Americans are the most likely to be heard next by the Supreme Court.

Mark W Smith’s presentation style was fact filled and useful for everyone who wishes to see the rights protected by the Second Amendment restored. If you prefer to obtain information by video, this correspondent highly recommends Mark’s Youtube channel, The Four Boxes Diner.

Michael Schwartz from the San Diego County Gun Owners and Gun Owners Radio, gave an outstanding keynote address. One of many memorable points he covered was the difference in moral “tastes” between conservatives and liberals. Liberals focus almost exclusively on caring and fairness. Conservatives include traditions and conserving what works, loyalty, sanctity, and liberty. If you are going to change leftists/liberal minds, it is more persuasive to focus on the caring and fairness aspects of the argument.

Other presenters provided excellent information. This correspondent highly recommend attending AMM*Com and the GRPC if an opportunity presents itself.

---

New National Rifle Association President’s Page is Worth a Gander

North Carolina’s Constitutional Carry Bill Faces Critical Test

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/lVpXv4C
via IFTTT

DOJ Refuses to Drop Defense of Biden Era Engaged in the Business Rule

DOJ Refuses to Drop Defense of Biden Era Engaged in the Business Rule IMG iStock-923173436

Donald Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) instructing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review any case that might affect the Second Amendment. One such case was a lawsuit filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA) challenging the ATF “engaged in the business” rule, which requires almost anyone selling a gun to get a federal firearms license (FFL).

During the Joe Biden presidential administration, Democrats pushed for universal background checks (UBCs) for all gun transfers. The resistance prevented such a law from being passed in Congress. Because of the repeated failures, the executive branch ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to redefine what it means to be a gun dealer. The White House and the ATF claimed they could make the changes because of the John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) master minded Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

The new rule states that if a person makes money from the sale of a firearm, they must have an FFL. Moreover, if they used a spreadsheet or other tracking software to keep track of their guns, they would also require an FFL to transfer a firearm. If someone sold a gun to help pay for rent, they would need an FFL. Selling as little as a single gun could make someone a gun dealer. The idea was to squeeze as many potential transfers as possible under the new rule. Many gun rights activists viewed the ATF rule as backdoor universal background checks, essentially side-stepping Congress to make a de facto law.

After the rule was unveiled, Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA), and the state of Texas sued in a Texas Federal District Court to block the implementation of the law. A District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction for the lawsuit members, including all members of the plaintiffs’ organizations. The DOJ requested a pause in the case to review potential Second Amendment implications. Many saw this as a positive step, thinking that the DOJ would drop its defense.

Now we know the result of the pause. The DOJ is prepared to defend the ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule despite the President’s executive order on Second Amendment cases. The Justice Department did not modify its defense; instead, it chose to defend all the original arguments laid down by the Biden-era DOJ.

Instead of being more Second Amendment-friendly, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s department seems to have doubled down on an anti-gun regime’s reasoning. Many gun owners who showed up to vote for President Trump are disappointed in the DOJ’s actions.

Judge says @AGPamBondi “asked this court to reject [2A] claims” against Biden’s Engaged in the Business Rule.

“And [anti-gun] States concede that [Bondi will] protect their interests as long as [DOJ is] ‘defending [Biden’s] Final Rule.’ [Bondi] ha[s] done just that.” https://t.co/gZWBYqFBvE

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 25, 2025

GOA was also disappointed in the actions of the DOJ. Instead of keeping its promise of defending the Second Amendment rights of the people, the DOJ is operating business as usual, which many see as a weaponization of government against law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

“Gun Owners of America is disappointed that the Department of Justice is choosing to fight Second Amendment advocates in court. Gun owners need Pam Bondi to de-weaponize ATF and look for permanent solutions to prevent these egregious attacks on our rights–such as backdoor universal background checks–from ever happening again.” – Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President, GOA.

Ammoland News reached out to the DOJ and the White House for comment, but our request has not been returned by the time of writing.

Second Circuit Upholds New York State’s Sensitive Area Restrictions

Trump Could Open Door to Another Source for M1 Garands with Executive Action

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/VGE89D3
via IFTTT

The 2nd Amendment: America’s Timeless Equalizer for the Weak & Vulnerable

Opinion

File Photo: GLOCK G30 Gen5

The right to keep and bear arms is not an outdated relic of the 18th century, as the anti-gun zealots want you to believe, but a safeguard of liberty and self-preservation.

Critics often portray the Second Amendment as a barrier to public safety, yet both history and reported weekly self-defense incidents confirm otherwise. The truth, when the media chooses to report these incidents, clearly establishes that our GOD-given right of self-defense remains a vital protection for all Americans, especially the weak and vulnerable who would otherwise be defenseless.

The Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Our friend Dick Heller’s case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court struck down a handgun ban and affirmed that self-defense lies at the very core of the right to bear arms. That recognition was extended to the states in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and reinforced again in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which held that firearm regulations must be consistent with America’s historical tradition of gun ownership. The Court recognized that targeted restrictions are possible, as shown in United States v. Rahimi (2024).

Still, it has never wavered from the principle that self-defense is central to the Second Amendment.

This understanding reflects a much older truth: the right to defend one’s life is God-given and natural, not something granted by government.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights Section 13

From John Locke’s writings on natural law to the Declaration of Independence’s recognition that men are “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights, the Founders understood that life cannot be secured without the means of defense. The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 directly tied the right to arms with personal and communal security. To disarm the people, in their view, would be to strip them of the very ability to preserve their lives and liberties.

These principles are not abstractions or the result of paranoia; they are seen in the lives of ordinary Americans who have relied on firearms to save themselves and others. These examples that the media often choose to ignore are far more common than reported.

• In 2022, a young man in Indiana stopped a mass shooting at a mall within seconds, preventing untold carnage.
• In 2024, 85-year-old Christine Jenneiahn, beaten and tied up by a home invader in Idaho, managed to reach her revolver and fatally stop the attacker, saving herself and her disabled son.
• Across the country, armed school staff and resource officers have done the same for children: in 2024 at Apalachee High School in Georgia, two SROs rushed toward an active shooter armed with a rifle and put him in custody within minutes, saving lives.
• In 2019, at STEM School Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a private security guard detained a shooter during an attack, preventing further bloodshed. And in 2021, Sarasota County Officer Mary Thoroman calmly disarmed a student concealing a handgun in school, using training and quick judgment to prevent what could have become another tragedy.

The power of firearms is at its best in empowering the strong and leveling the field for the weak.

An elderly widow, a disabled veteran, or a single mother cannot hope to fight off younger, stronger aggressors with fists or sticks. A firearm, however, gives them a fighting chance. It is the equalizer that ensures no American is too frail, too old, or too outnumbered to protect their own life.

Readily available evidence supports what common sense makes clear. Studies by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz estimate that Americans use firearms defensively more than two million times per year, usually without firing a shot. The simple display of a firearm is often enough to deter crime. John Lott has shown in More Guns, Less Crime that areas with shall-issue concealed carry laws experience reductions in violent crime, undermining the argument that more guns necessarily mean more violence. Even the Centers for Disease Control and the RAND Corporation, often cited by skeptics, have acknowledged that defensive gun uses are significant. However, estimates vary widely, mostly due to the underreporting of brandishing incidents where attacks are stopped without firing a shot. Recent studies published found that millions of Americans report using a firearm for self-defense at some point in their lives, confirming that this is not a rare phenomenon, but unfortunately, at times, a routine part of American life.

Critics such as Harvard’s David Hemenway argue that defensive gun use is exaggerated and that firearms cause more harm than good. But these claims once again do not take underreporting into account, since it has been established that many lawful gun owners do not report defensive incidents to police out of fear of the legal quagmire, which often results. They also ignore the comparative scale of harms: accidental firearm deaths, while tragic, statistically seldom occur, compared to the estimated hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses.

When measured honestly and accurately, the benefits of lawful gun ownership far outweigh the costs.

The Second Amendment also carries practical implications for some of society’s most sensitive areas. Nowhere is this clearer than in the debate over armed teachers and staff. Critics worry about risks, but parents and educators understand a sobering reality: when a shooter enters a school, seconds count, waiting minutes for police is too long, and too many of our children die. The examples from Georgia, Colorado, and Florida show that armed and trained defenders already save lives in schools. Expanding armed teacher programs like FASTER Colorado to allow trained staff to carry is not reckless it is a moral imperative.

The Second Amendment matters today for the same reason it mattered in 1791: government cannot always protect you, but it should never prevent you from protecting yourself.

It affirms the dignity of every individual, not only the strong, but especially the weak and vulnerable. It deters criminals who must now wonder whether their next victim will be armed. It also connects us to a tradition of liberty that recognizes self-defense as the foundation of all other rights.

Far from being obsolete, the right to keep and bear arms is the safeguard of every American’s life, liberty, and security. It is the people’s ultimate guarantee that their most basic, God-given right, the right to live, will never depend solely on the mercy of others, and will never be surrendered without a fight.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 26 Gen5 Mos 9mm Luger Semi-Aut Handgun - Glock 26 Gen 5 Mos 9mm Luger 3.43'''' Bbl (3)10rd Mags Black	Brownells.com	$ 620.00
	Glock G26 Gen5 9mm Pistol, Black - UA265S201	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99 $ 539.99
	Glock G19 Gen5 9mm Pistol, Black - PA195S203	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99 $ 539.99
	19 Gen 5 Custom 9mm Trump Victory/Golden Age Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 19 Gen5 9mm 4.02'''' Bbl (3)15rd Trump Victory/Golden Age	Brownells.com	$ 729.23

---

About Sean Maloney.

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?

ICYMI CDC Study Findings Show Americans with Guns Very Effective at Stopping Crime

Who Are The Guardians?

from https://ift.tt/eDTVw56
via IFTTT

New National Rifle Association President’s Page is Worth a Gander

National Rifle Association Headquarters – Credit John Petrolino

FAIRFAX, Va. (AmmoLand.com) — In the October 2025 President’s Column at “America’s 1st Freedom,” Bill Bachenberg announced a new “President’s Website.” It’s live and worth looking at if you’re a National Rifle Association member.

Change in Motion

The National Rifle Association has been under fire for a number of years. According to NRA President Bill Bachenberg, that’s rightfully so. The Association’s board and new leadership have made moves to right the ship, and there have been several reports of positive change within the organization. In part of the continued aim to remain transparent and also listen to the membership, Bachenberg created a President’s website for members only.

Bachenberg Calls for Comments

In the September President’s Column, Bachenberg shared his email address with the entire membership — and really, the public at large. “Please let us know how we are doing and share your ideas on how we can support your NRA better,” Bachenberg wrote. “Feel free to drop me an email … ”

What came of that? Bachenberg said in his October message — written two months prior to publication — that he’s been able to “personally respond to all of your emails (quite a few late nights) and I have talked with a few of you also.”

The Need for a Bigger Platform

Bachenberg has received over 400 emails, and counting. So he launched the President’s website in order to connect in a more real-time manner with members. The website notes that he aims to update the site weekly.

If you’re a member of the NRA, you can log in with your member number at NRAPresident.com.

Bachenberg told AmmoLand News that: “I’ve replied to over 85% of the e-mails and counting. These emails have been personalized, not a form letter response, and sometimes [replying] back and forth with a member.”

“It takes a lot of time to respond in this manner, but our members deserve answers,” Bachenberg confided. “However, the volume has grown too large to continue answering every one individually, I’m sorry. This is one of the reasons I created the website — so all members can access the same information, not just those who emailed me and received a response.”

Bachenberg did note that he will read every email and follow up as needed.

“I believe it is important for the members to know the NRA did not pay for the site or hosting,” Bachenberg said when he was asked about who’s footing the bill. “This is not about me, it’s about our members, donors and industry knowing that the Board of Directors is back in full control.” He said that he’s paying for the site out of his own pocket to better serve the membership.

What are You Going to Find at NRAPresident.com?

This all started with an overflowing inbox. Bachenberg gives his own synopsis of what those emails were all about.

To try and address the most frequent elements discussed in correspondence he received, Bachenberg shared copies of some emails. The threads include the messages and his responses. (To keep the senders anonymous, when needed, he used first names and initials to identify the senders.) There’s a wealth of information buried in the — at the time of publication — 21 email threads that were already shared.

“The Last Eight Years”

A section titled “The last eight years at the NRA: A hard look back,” Bachenberg explains in a detailed, over 1300-word exposé, as much as he could about the Association’s affairs. In this section, there’s a trove of documents also shared, where members can read things like trial documents and other reports.

Documents included at this time:

• FRENKEL REPORT 5/12/03
• NY AG FORENSIC ACCOUNT REPORT 03/24/23
• NY AG JURY PHASE ONE TRIAL 1/8/24 THRU 02/23/24
• NY AG PHASE TWO TRIAL DECISION 07/29/24
• NY AG FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE FULL CASE 12/11/24

Additional Sections

There are five additional sections beyond those highlighted above. Those sections discuss the NRA’s past, present, and future.

The sections are as follows:

• PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
• THE FUTURE
• LEADERSHIP
• COMPLIANCE
• VIDEOS

Overall Impression

This is one of the most transparent acts that an organization’s leader can make. There’s been a call for reform; Bachenberg, the officers, and the board are working to answer that call.

Since the ousting of Wayne LaPierre and election of Doug Hamlin as the executive vice president, the Association — board and employees — have been working to fix the organization. With the election of Bachenberg as the president earlier this year, even more work has been getting done to add transparency and address members’ concerns — the President’s Website illustrates that.

If you’re a member though, you can do the digging on your own. Don’t just rely on our reporting. You’re now able to go and connect directly with the president of the NRA Board of Directors. What’s the thought process at NRA? What’s the plan?

More importantly, you can air your grievances or offer your commentary. Considering the large mass of messages that NRA leadership receives, you might not get a response or an immediate response…but from what it appears, they’re listening and taking action where needed.

Head to NRAPresident.com with your member number and check it out for yourself. Sound off in the comments about what you think of Bachenberg’s latest project.

---

---

NRA Board Election Results 2025: What Happened & What it Means for the Membership

---

About John Petrolino

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

---

from https://ift.tt/lz02NBO
via IFTTT

Venezuela Hands Out Guns to Civilians — But Don’t Call It the Second Amendment ~ VIDEOS

Caracas, Venezuela – Headlines coming out of South America, like this headline from the BBC: “Now Venezuela is giving civilians guns” make it sound like Venezuelans are suddenly being armed and empowered, but don’t be fooled: this isn’t the Second Amendment at work. What’s unfolding in Caracas and beyond is a desperate move by Nicolás Maduro’s regime — using ordinary citizens as cannon fodder in a high-stakes standoff with the United States.

From “Militia” to Human Shields

After U.S. Navy strikes destroyed suspected drug-running boats earlier this month — killing at least 17 people — Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino called it an “undeclared war.” In response, Maduro ordered his military to activate the Bolivarian National Militia, a force originally created by Hugo Chávez in 2009.

ON VIDEO: U.S. Military Forces conducted a strike against a designated terrorist organization engaged in narcotrafficking. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking illicit narcotics and was en route to poison Americans. The strike killed three male narcoterrorists. pic.twitter.com/wjxRRMrxwB

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 20, 2025

But this militia isn’t made up of trained, disciplined troops. As the BBC reported, many recruits are senior citizens or public-sector workers pressured into signing up. Some had never even handled a firearm until this month. State television broadcast images of people struggling to hold rifles, with fingers on the triggers and muzzles pointed at Associated Press photographers. At the same time, soldiers shouted commands and taught “resistance tactics” in the streets of Caracas.

This isn’t about empowering citizens with the right to self-defense — it’s about padding out body counts. Maduro’s “army of the people” is designed to make any speculated U.S. intervention look like a bloodbath.

The Lead Photo from TRTWorld via AP shows dangerous gun handling. – Screenshot IMG TRTWorld 9-29-2025 

Military Theater, Not a Citizens’ Right

Maduro has mobilized thousands into these neighborhood training camps. In Caracas’s Petare district, streets were shut down for drills on weapons handling, first aid, and “revolutionary resistance.”

“This is a true military revolution!” shouted Defense Minister Padrino during one of the events, according to the Associated Press. But the spectacle revealed the opposite of what Americans understand as a constitutional right. Venezuelans weren’t freely choosing to bear arms for their own protection. They were being herded, drilled, and propagandized to serve as shields for a dictatorship.

Trump, who redeployed naval forces to the Caribbean in what the U.S. calls a counter-narcotics operation, blasted out footage of the drills on Truth Social: “TOP SECRET: We caught the Venezuelan militia in training. A very serious threat!” One video showed a woman running clumsily with an AK-style rifle while troops barked orders to “aim at Trump.”

22 Sept 2025
TOP SECRET: We caught the Venezuelan Militia in training. A very serious threat! pic.twitter.com/Xn217KsJS8

— ZoieZoe (@zoiezoe__) September 23, 2025

The Bigger Picture: Regime Survival

While Maduro rails about “oil, gold, diamonds — our resources,” polls show the majority of Venezuelans don’t buy it. According to Panterra research shared with The New York Post, more than half of Venezuelans expect Maduro to be gone within six months, and most consider his 2024 election a fraud.

Still, Maduro sees value in civilian militias. They create an illusion of nationwide loyalty, and they ensure any U.S. action will mean tragic headlines of “civilians killed.” It’s a grisly calculus — but one designed to keep him in power.

Why It’s Not the Second Amendment

American gun owners should recognize the distinction here. The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms — to protect themselves, their families, and ultimately their freedom from government tyranny.

What’s happening in Venezuela is the opposite. Maduro’s government controls who gets the guns, decides how they are used, and demands loyalty in exchange. Civilians are not free citizens — they are tools of the state.

As one pro-government slogan painted on a Caracas wall puts it: “If you mess with Maduro, you mess with the neighborhood.” That’s not liberty. That’s dictatorship in camouflage.

---

We are in dangerous times! We have ONLY MET A THIRD of our funding goals! Will you help out?

from https://ift.tt/XgvLNhb
via IFTTT

Canada’s Gun Grab: Amnesty Expiration Approaches as Top Officials Sow Confusion

Opinion

iStock-1169526109

Canada’s Liberal government has consistently and misleadingly used “buyback” to describe the 2020 mandatory “assault weapon” confiscation law, in an attempt to make the scheme appear less hostile to property rights and Canada’s responsible gun owners and more palatable to the general public. Recent pronouncements on the gun ban and confiscation have now veered even further down the road of disingenuous political messaging.

In a September 10 interview with Alberta podcaster Ryan Jespersen, Prime Minister Mark Carney went so far as to describe the scheme as “voluntary.”

“This is not about confiscation,” Carney said. “This is about voluntary return of firearms for compensation…We’re not confiscating guns. People aren’t going around confiscating guns. …That is a mischaracterization. What it is, is an opportunity for Canadians to return guns for compensation.”

A day later, a Juno News reporter asked the latest federal Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree (who oversees the department responsible for implementing the gun ban and confiscation law) about the Prime Minister’s comments. Anandasangaree agreed with Carney and said, moreover, that “it’s always been voluntary.”

Carney’s interview included another whopper, with the Prime Minister claiming that the ban does not affect hunting rifles or sporting firearms. “We are not talking about hunting rifles. We’re not talking sports shooting or anything like that. We’re talking about assault rifles.” Automatic firearms have been classified as “prohibited” firearms in Canada for decades, so the gun ban list of prohibited firearms and devices almost exclusively features semi-automatic firearms (not just rifles, but shotguns and handguns) along with many bolt action and pump action models. It was obvious from the start that the ban covered “hunting rifles” because it includes an explicit exception (here and again in 2024, here) “for Indigenous peoples’ exercising a right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, as well as those who use firearms for sustenance hunting, which enables them to continue to use their newly prohibited firearms to hunt.”

One could speculate that either this language is a cynical PR exercise to misrepresent the ban as applying solely to dangerous and unusual “military grade assault weapons,” or Carney is unaware of just how far-reaching the gun ban actually is.

Certainly, his Public Safety Minister has demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the basics of Canada’s gun laws and the confiscation scheme. A podcast by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) featuring Kris Sims and Gage Haubrich (both firearm owners) examined an exchange between Anandasangaree and Conservative Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton. Asked by Lawton about how many prohibited firearms are liable to be collected under the confiscation scheme, Anandasangaree responded that the “anticipation is about 179,000.” The podcast notes that Anandasangaree’s latest figure is at odds with a 2021 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which indicated that the number of impacted firearms is unknown but could exceed 500,000. (To mix things up even more, in late 2023 Canadian gun rights site TheGunBlog.ca reported that the Liberal government gave an estimate of 144,000 rifles and shotguns to be destroyed, based on a document prepared for the Public Safety Minister at the time.) Due to the significant expansion of the prohibited firearms list in 2024 and again in 2025, the 2021 and 2023 figures are likely obsolete and call into question the minister’s new estimate.

In response to Lawton’s follow-up questions, the Public Safety Minister admitted he doesn’t know what an RPAL or a CFSC are. (An RPAL is the Possession and Acquisition License necessary to lawfully acquire and possess a “restricted” firearm, like handguns and certain long guns; the CFSC is the mandatory Canadian Firearms Safety Course that all would-be gun owners must complete successfully to be eligible for a PAL.) The minister, as the podcasters note, “doesn’t seem to know a single thing about the thing he supposed to be in charge of,” akin to a Health Minister “who has never, like, seen a band-aid.”

The most alarming part, however, was Anandasangaree’s retort to a question about whether he understands the classes or other safety demands required of law-abiding gun owners, in which he stated, “this [the gun ban law] is not about law-abiding gun owners.”

That answer pretty much sums it up.

The gun ban amnesty and compensation scheme apply exclusively to legal owners of the now-prohibited firearms. In fact, as the government’s own website notes, the only individuals eligible to claim compensation are those who “held a valid firearms licence on May 1, 2020 (and who have maintained that licence in good standing).” To echo the CTF podcasters, does the minister really believe that Canadian gun rights groups would be advocating in favor of criminal gun possession – that “there would be this big hullabaloo if this was about criminals not getting guns? Like, nobody would be opposed to this…of all the really dumb answers he gave there, him saying that this wasn’t about law-abiding gun owners was the most mind-blowing.”

As for the claims that the confiscation is “voluntary” and has “always been” voluntary, the current Public Safety Canada website on the now-prohibited firearms states, unequivocally, that the gun ban “takes effect immediately” and the “Government will not provide any option for owners to grandfather these weapons as it intends to bring forward a mandatory buyback program” (emphasis added). To the extent that an owner has any other options, it is the Hobson’s choice of surrendering the gun to authorities without compensation, permanently deactivating the gun, exporting the gun “in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the legal requirements of the country to which it is exported,” or face criminal prosecution and sanctions.

There is other trouble on the horizon. Anandasangaree disclosed earlier this month that provincial law enforcement in Canada’s most populous province has refused to participate in the government’s gun confiscation program. According to the news source, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is “responsible for more than a quarter of the policing in Ontario;” the refusal compels the federal government to now convince local governments with their own police to implement the confiscation, while looking for an alternative in places without local law enforcement. According to the article, though, that doesn’t appear promising: representatives for several such local forces either indicated that they had no active plans regarding participation or declined to respond. Further, the office of Ontario’s Solicitor General, Michael Kerzner, has lately advised that “Ontario police services do not have the resources to attend residential addresses to confiscate previously lawful but now prohibited firearms from lawful gun owners.”

This obfuscation on the law from the highest officials in the land is exacerbated further by the imminent expiry of the already twice-extended amnesty period. The amnesty is all that stands between responsible gun owners and criminal liability for the possession of their lawfully acquired, but now illegal, firearms. Even so, at the time of writing Public Safety Minister Anandasangaree was prevaricating over whether another extension was in the works – “his government is not ready to announce when and for how long its gun amnesty program will be extended,” states a Sept. 17 news report from the CBC.

Given that the confiscation and compensation program for individual owners is still not operational, this seems to be the latest example of the government’s directionless drift on this blatantly ineffective, pointless and likely unworkable law.

---

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

---

We are in dangerous times! We have ONLY MET A THIRD of our funding goals! Will you help out?

from https://ift.tt/MeH9Fnm
via IFTTT

The Left Blames Their Violence on Others and Guns

The Left Blames Their Violence on Others and Guns, iStock-583851226

It’s human nature to assume we know what others are thinking. We watch someone’s behavior and instantly assign a motive. We think we’d feel a certain way in that situation, and we assume they must too. But we don’t really know what they’re thinking. At best, we’re guessing. Sometimes we get it right, not because we’re mind readers, but because we got lucky.

Picture someone sobbing in a hospital bed, clinging to a loved one’s hand, hooked up to wires and machines. Why are they crying? Your instinct may be to assume tragedy. But what if they are tears of joy? What if they’ve just been told they’ll make a full recovery? Same situation, completely different interpretation, filtered through your own expectations.

Sigmund Freud called it “projection.” It’s a psychological defense mechanism that allows people to externalize their own fears, flaws, and impulses while assigning them to others. It is the man who feels emasculated and insecure, labeling masculinity itself as “toxic.” It’s easier to accuse someone else and attach your own anger and toxic personality traits onto others than it is to confront yourself.

Projection is also political.

And it might just explain why the anti-gun Left is so determined to disarm law-abiding Americans.

They’ll tell you guns cause violence. That arming citizens leads to chaos. But listen closely to the subtext, because what they’re really saying is: “If I had a gun, I might lose control.” It’s not your behavior, they’re afraid of. It is their own impulses, projected onto you, that are the real driving force of their blame and fear.

Let’s be blunt. Most recent high-profile acts of violence, particularly politically motivated ones, with guns being used as the weapon of choice, haven’t come from the right. They’ve come from the left. The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. The murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The Nashville Christian school shooting. The ICE facility attack in Dallas. The shooting of Steve Scalise. Two attempts on President Trump’s life. These are not right-wing crimes.

Yet, what does the media do? They rush to pin these acts on conservatives and blame guns for the actions of left-wing activists. Why? Is it deliberate misinformation? Political spin? Or is it a deep-rooted inability to face uncomfortable truths about their own ideological allies?

This isn’t paranoia. It’s projection. The inability (or refusal) to self-reflect leads to fear and blame. And when mixed with a toxic ideology, it becomes extremely dangerous.

The political Left has spent decades building a media machine that not only deflects criticism but cultivates a belief in its own moral superiority. If they are the “good guys,” then all the violence must come from “bad guys.” That’s the narrative. That’s the doctrine. And like any dogma, it discourages introspection.

Of course, conservatives can fall into the same trap. But there is a distinct difference. Conservatives aren’t walking into schools or campaign events with rifles to mow down ideological opponents. There’s a level of moral restraint, or perhaps spiritual grounding, that keeps most on the right from acting out violent fantasies. Many live with a belief in higher accountability. Many practice self-reflection. That’s what tempers dark impulses.

But if you’ve never been taught to examine your own thoughts… if you’ve been told your side is always right… Then violent urges don’t feel like moral failures. They feel like righteous crusades.

Which brings us back to guns.

Why does the Left oppose civilian gun ownership so fiercely? Could it be that, deep down, they assume you’ll use a gun the way they imagine themselves using them? That you’ll act on the same impulses they’ve refused to confront in themselves?

We’ve seen the clips. The calls to “take to the streets,” to “fight like hell,” to “take up arms.” It’s no mystery why some leftists don’t want you armed. It’s because they know what they’d do if they were armed.

To many Americans, a firearm is a tool of protection, of preserving life, and defending the innocent. To others, it’s a tool of power and aggression. That difference lies not in the object, but in the mind of the holder.

So, who should we worry about more: the person who views a gun as a last line of defense… or the one who sees it as a first strike in an act of violence?

Yes, projection is a universal human tendency. It’s something we all do. But it’s humility, confidence, and the ability to self-reflect that separates a healthy mind from a dangerous one. Those who carry the weight of conscience tend to use their power responsibly. Those who don’t, who suppress, deny, or project their violent impulses on others, can become unpredictable and unstable.

The thought of violent people in society is scary. But the thought of people who don’t even recognize their own violent tendencies trying to disarm the rest of us?

…That’s terrifying.

---

Why Gun Grabbers Say ‘Gun Violence’ Instead of Addressing Real Problems

The Left’s War on Reality: Normalizing Madness While Demanding Your Disarmament

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book 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 Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, 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.

Dan Wos

from https://ift.tt/95vyUl2
via IFTTT