Legally Armed Defender Faces Four Attackers Outside of a Bar
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A young man and his buddy tried to drive away from a bar. That doesn’t sound like part of an attack and armed defense, but it was in this case. This self-defense story starts to unfold at about 11:30 on a Friday night outside the Steam Pub in Southampton Township. The pub is about 16 miles north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the pub takes its name from an old train station. Two men tried to leave the pub, but four men were leaning on their car in the parking lot. The four men began punching the two men as they tried to enter their car and drive away.
One of the victims, Luis Rodrigues, tried to enter the passenger side door. He was hit several times and ran away to get help. The driver, Liam Hughes, was punched as he tried to enter the driver’s side door. He was knocked to the ground. He tried to enter his car but was grabbed and pulled back outside, where he was hit again. Again, the driver dove into his car and pulled his gun from between the driver’s seat and the center console. As the victim was again dragged out of the car, he shouted that he had a gun.
The victim was on the ground as several attackers again advanced on him. That is when the victim fired his handgun. The defender stopped shooting when the attackers backed away. The armed victim stayed at the scene and called 911. It is unclear from the news stories if the attacker’s motive was to beat the two victims or to steal their car.
Two of the attackers died at the scene. A third was transported to the hospital for treatment of a bullet wound to his arm. The four attackers and the two victims were detained by the police. Police reviewed security video of the parking lot outside the bar.
The armed victim was a 140-pound male. He purchased his firearm legally. He also had a concealed carry permit. He had been in the Army Reserve for the last 3-½ years.
The attackers were both larger than the victims and the victims were outnumbered. After being hit several times, the armed driver was on his back on the ground outside his car. He could not move to escape his multiple attackers, nor could he effectively defend himself from that position.
That disparity of force is critically important. The victims could easily establish an immediate and unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm. The district attorney agreed after he reviewed the witness statements and viewed the security video. The defender was not charged.
Pennsylvania law includes the crime of felony assault, where an accomplice may be charged with second-degree murder if the death occurred during the commission of a felony. So far, one of the assailants was charged with the misdemeanor crime of simple assault.
The defender did a number of things that helped his case. He didn’t start the attack or shout insults back at his attackers. In contrast, the defender shouted for his attackers to stop. He shouted that he was armed. The defender stopped shooting when the attackers let him go and the attackers backed away. He stayed at the scene of the crime and called 911, asking for help. When they arrived, the defender identified himself and gave a statement to the police.
As an aside, I wonder how accurately I could shoot if I was on my back being dragged across the ground by several attackers. Also, if the police suggest that you go to the hospital to have your wounds examined, then take their advice. That medical documentation may be used in court to substantiate your claims.
Gun Counter Sale Store Shop shutterstock_Nomad_Soul 1686855574.jpg
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- More people own guns today than ever before. That growth is a continuation of a long-term trend that goes back several decades. In addition to that gradual increase, we’ve also seen extraordinary growth in new gun buyers in the last two years. We had to rewrite who owns guns and why they own them. Today, about four-out-of-ten families have a firearm in their home. Despite the astounding changes in gun ownership, the way some politicians talk about guns and gun owners is out of date. New gun owners are subjected to a crash course in being misperceived and misrepresented by politicians and by the mainstream news media alike.
What is real, and what is fantasy?
Sitting President, Joe Biden, echoed old myths about gun owners at a fundraising event in June. He said,“More people get killed with their own gun in their home trying to stop a burglar than, in fact, any other cause.. Think about that. Because it’s hard to do. It’s a hard thing to do.”
Mayor John Fetterman, the Democrat candidate for the US Senate from Pennsylvania, also felt the need to comment on guns and gun ownership. He said,“I have seen with my own eyes at the scenes in my community what a military-grade round does to the human body.” He said that rifles, particularly modern rifles, should be outlawed.
New York Governor Kathy Hochulsaid,“This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”
Those statements don’t fit what we know. We know a lot about new gun owners because we talked with them. Gun stores asked new gun owners why they wanted a gun so the gun shop employee could direct the customer to the appropriate products. The industry trade group representing firearms manufacturers and distributors collected those answers. The stereotypical gun owner used to be an old white man who bought a gun to go hunting. Several years ago, personal safety replaced hunting as the major reason new gun owners buy a firearm. Today, gun owners are from every demographic group; male and female, rich and poor, urban and rural. Gun owners represent every ethnic and racial group. About one-out-of-four African-American adults own a firearm. It seems strange that the mainstream media and politicians have deliberately ignored that change.
We saw firearms ownership increase for many reasons. Concealed carry of a personal firearm is now common in all but a handful of states. Not only are tens of millions of us licensed to carry a personal firearm in public, but we exercise those permits on a daily basis. Today, about one-out-of-a-dozen adults carry a firearm in public when and where it is legally permissible to do so. We also stop most attempted mass murders when the goverenment allows us to carry our firearms. Good men and women, ordinary civilians, use a firearm to protect themselves and their families more than four thousand times a day. Excluding some politicians, more and more of us have come to the conclusion that armed defense works.
Another reason for increased gun ownership is the unusual increase in crime we’ve seen in the last few years. Our judicial system stopped removing repeat criminals from society during the Covid lockdowns. The resulting increase in crime touched our families and friends. Many of us discovered that the police will not be there to protect us. Millions of us responded by buying a firearm and protecting ourselves.
We should probably add a third factor that increased the rate of firearms ownership. The Covid lockdowns reduced the time we could spend with friends and extended family. We spent more time looking at our computers and our phones. During the lockdowns, the news media had a larger influence on our perception of what is happening in the world around us. In order to deliver viewers to their declining list of advertisers, the news media fed us a concentrated diet of sensationalized crime reports. It is true that crime increased in the last few years but the tiny screens brought crime to where we live as never before. In combination, factors like these significantly increased both the number and diversity of legal firearms owners.
We defend ourselves with a firearm between 1.7 and 2.5 million times a year. 44 percent of black gun owners reported using their firearm to defend themselves or their family. Many of us know someone who used a firearm in self-defense. In contrast, I never heard the mainstream media correct President Biden’s statement that our guns kill more of us than they save. That leaves our personal experience in direct contradiction with the President’s claim and the media’s twisted narrative about gun owners.
Mayor Fetterman’s claim sounds strange to me as well. Looking at our history, even the ubiquitous 9mm handgun cartridge was first carried as a military round. Today, the 9mm is the most common handgun cartridge carried by both law enforcement and civilians.
When a policeman is carrying it, the modern rifle is called a “personal defense weapon” or a “patrol rifle.” The same gun made out of metal and plastic is relabeled by anti-gun politicians as an “assault rifle” and a “military-grade weapon” when our neighbors own one. The modern rifle is called a “weapon of war” despite the fact that no modern military branch would field the semi-automatic rifles that US civilians are allowed to own today. Today’s military rifles are capable of automatic fire, and ours are not.
Fetterman’s gun-confiscation proposal might make some sense if we only looked at one side of the argument. Fetterman deliberately ignored the hundred thousand times a year that long guns were used in armed defense. We have about 25 million modern rifles in civilian hands here in the US. If these gun owners were a problem to society then we would surely know it. Modern rifles save many more lives than they cost, but that isn’t what we see on television.
The news media sells sensationalized stories and leaves out the additional facts that put violence into perspective. About four times as many people are killed with knives than are killed with rifles each year. Drowning kills ten times more people each year than die from “assault weapons.” According to FBI homicide statistics, more people were killed with hands and feet than were killed with a long gun of any kind.
We agree that violent crime is shocking, but the mainstream news media never called out the distortions of these anti-gun politicians. The media often reports when a criminal uses a firearm. In contrast, the media seldom reports when our neighbors use their legally owned firearms to stop a crime.
Each time that a major US media outlet mentions an armed citizen using a legally owned firearm to save lives, the media runs hundreds of stories where criminals used a gun. That media bias turns the world upside down. In fact, armed defense is several times more common than a criminal using a firearm during the commission of a crime. This deliberate editorial policy misrepresents the news of armed defense by a factor of over a thousand to one. That is why we think that mass murder is common and that armed defense is rare.
If you only know what you’re told by the mainstream press, then you might believe the gun-control politicians too. One hint is that many Democrat politicians own guns even as they vote for ever more gun-control laws to disarm the rest of us.
The stereotype of gun owners is a lie. The media calls us male-pale-and-stale, and who cares if old white men are disarmed anyway. In fact, gun owners now look like a cross-section of the USA. Minority urban women are the fastest-growing segment of new gun owners. I think Democrat politicians are afraid that more women and minorities will decide to become gun owners. These new gun owners might enter the culture of armed America and protect themselves.
What Elon Musk Owning Twitter Means for the Second Amendment
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Elon Musk completing the purchase of Twitter is a massive boon for Second Amendment supporters in our efforts to protect our freedoms – and our enemies know it.
Musk’s purchase of Twitter deals Silicon Valley censorship a very serious blow, one that is going to be difficult for it to recover from outside some very drastic intervention. We’ll get to that later, but for now, Second Amendment supporters now have a reasonably fair playing field thanks to the Tesla/SpaceX CEO.
In one sense, Second Amendment supporters now have the chance to show up and reach out on this site without interference from a cubicle somewhere in Silicon Valley. In another sense, they have to be careful – because Musk isn’t going to save us from our own mistakes or if we botch the fundamentals.
We’ve seen what just showing up does in some other contexts – Fox News gets better ratings than CNN and MSNBC simply by giving us a reasonably fair shake. We also can look at the lessons from the successful campaign of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia for a similar lesson.
Show up and reach out, but remember what I’ve said before and will say again: How we come across to our fellow Americans matters. The approach we take when we are making our case matters. Making sure we have our facts straight will matter because it goes to credibility. In anything, Second Amendment supporters must emphasize the fundamentals even more.
Elon Musk may be ridding Twitter of censorship, but a lot of media double standards will still be around. Those who fail in these, even if it’s an honest mistake, will make things harder, not easier, for those trying to defend the Second Amendment and could do far more damage than if they had just sat out.
That said, there is an elephant in the room – well, more accurately, Brussels – that Second Amendment supporters may have to deal with. The European Union could very well make Musk’s effort to restore Twitter to free speech a lot more difficult, to say the least, with fines for so-called “hate speech” and “misinformation” – and we have no real control over who in the EU will make those calls. Similarly, we do have the worry of companies who are told that advertising on Musk’s version of Twitter could impact so-called ESG scores.
Despite the potential threats from the EU and corporations, Second Amendment supporters have a lot to celebrate about Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. A fair fight on Twitter will, on balance, help Second Amendment supporters defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.
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.
Maryland –-(AmmoLand.com)- In July, the Montgomery County Council proposed a truly draconian piece of legislation: Bill 21-22. That Bill sought to defy the US Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen by effectively banning the possession, transport, sale, and transfer of firearms in any place (public or private) in the County where people “may assemble.”
As proposed, the Bill was specifically designed to include in its bans wear and carry permit holders by repealing the existing exemption for such permit holders currently found in the County Code. On July 26th, a hearing was held on the Bill and the County Council heard a great deal of testimony against it from MSI, NAAGA, and other well-spoken Marylanders, all of whom warned the Council to abandon this misguided and unconstitutional Bill. After a hiatus of several months, the Bill has reemerged. It is now scheduled to be reviewed by the Council’s Public Safety Committee at 9:30 am on Monday (10/31) morning. This Monday session is not a hearing where testimony can be accepted, but it will be streamed via YouTube HERE.
The Committee’s senior legislative attorney created a report outlining suggested amendments to the Bill. Interestingly, the report acknowledges many of the problems MSI had pointed out in its written and oral testimony. However, while the amendments would eliminate the bans in all places where people “may assemble,” the amendments would still criminalize the mere possession of a firearm, with or without a carry permit, in or within 100 yards of any publicly or privately owned:
park
place of worship
school
library
recreational facility
hospital
community health center, including any health care facility or community-based program licensed by the Maryland Department of Health
long-term facility, including any licensed nursing home, group home, or care home
multipurpose exhibition facility, such as a fairgrounds or conference center
childcare facility
It’d also criminalize firearms possession by any person (including permit holders) in:
government building, including any place owned by or under the control of the County
polling place
courthouse
legislative assembly, and
a gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional right to protest or assemble
The report also suggests amendments to the County’s ordinance concerning privately made firearms, in an (unsuccessful) attempt to make the County’s existing ban on such firearms consistent with state and federal law with respect to privately made firearms (which the County insists on mischaracterizing as “ghost guns”). Even with the proposed amendments, the legislation would still violate the Second Amendment in multiple ways under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. And it would remain in conflict with State and federal laws governing privately owned firearms. We hope the County comes to its senses.
Other Legal News: MSI has had an extremely busy and successful summer on the legal front:
Call v. Jones III (May-Issue Carry Permits)
With the US Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen finding subjective ‘proper cause’ requirements for licenses to carry handguns in public unconstitutional, the Court singled out Maryland Public Safety Art. § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) as unlawful. Since Governor Hogan’s July 5th announcement that the “good and substantial reason” requirement will no longer be enforced, every otherwise qualified person became eligible for unrestricted permits, leaving nothing at issue in the case. The parties jointly requested the 4th Circuit to dismiss the case as moot, which it did a few weeks ago. The State quite literally folded and as many of you know, permits are being issued to the public at large without needing to demonstrate any sort of need.
Special thanks go to the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who led the fight in this case.
Maryland Shall Issue v. Anne Arundel County (Dealer storage requirements) – A WIN for Marylanders!
Anne Arundel County had passed an ordinance earlier this year that would have threatened County firearms and ammunition dealers with onerous and vague security requirements as a condition of doing business within the County. The ordinance also would have levied harsh fines and other penalties against firearms dealers not in compliance. Citizens have a Second Amendment right to acquire arms and dealers have the ancillary Second Amendment right to sell them. MSI and four dealers brought suit against the County under State preemption law and the County Council responded by giving up. Specifically, the County amended the ordinance to provide that the security requirements would only be enforced if the State-wide law, HB 1091, passed by the General Assembly in 2022, were enjoined or repealed. At that point, the case became moot and the court dismissed the suit on that basis. MSI’s efforts forced the County to back off. Kudos to Cindy’s Hot Shots, Worth-A-Shot, Field Traders, and Pasadena Arms for standing up as named plaintiffs.
Maryland Shall Issue v. Anne Arundel County (First Amendment)
Not to be outdone with its first attempt at punishing lawful commerce, Anne Arundel County also passed a measure that compels dealers to display and distribute County literature asserting that there is a causal link between firearms access and suicide. MSI and the four dealers filed suit in federal district court alleging that the County requirements imposed “compelled speech” in violation of the First Amendment. In response to a motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction, the County suspended its requirements. Apparently feeling overwhelmed by the First Amendment issues, the County sought the help of Everytown lawyers from New York City, who are now taking the lead in the case. Discovery was completed earlier this month and motions for summary judgment have been filed by both parties. Briefing will be completed by mid-November. We think the court will act promptly so we may have a decision relatively soon. Stay tuned.
Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County (Bill 4-21)
MSI brought suit against Montgomery County in State Court on State preemption grounds back in late May of 2021 challenging the enactment of Bill 4-21. That Bill banned privately made firearms and banned as well the mere possession, transfer, sale or transport of firearms in any place (public or private) where people “may assemble” (which is pretty much everywhere). After the County unsuccessfully tried to remove the case to federal court, the State court held a hearing on cross motions for summary judgment in July 2022. However, by that time Bruen had been decided by the Supreme Court, thus enabling MSI to file an amended complaint alleging that the ordinance also violated the Second Amendment, as construed in Bruen. The County once again removed that amended complaint and the case is currently pending in federal district court where the County is seeking to hold the Second Amendment claim in indefinite abeyance pending adjudication of the State law claims. MSI has vigorously opposed that approach and has argued that the federal court is obligated to consider the Second Amendment claim first. That issue remains before the court, but we expect a decision soon on that issue. Stay tuned!
Hulbert v. Pope (Wrongful Arrest, First, Fourth Amendment Violations)
This case is fully briefed before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and it is a matter of time before the Court takes action. The case was briefly touched on in a video by Audit the Audit as the case will likely set precedent for other cases within the Fourth Circuit. Briefing is complete and we are awaiting either a decision by the court of appeals or for the court of appeals to set an argument date.
Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan (Handgun Qualification License Requirement)
MSI’s longest-running case has heated up. In this case, MSI and plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the HQL requirement under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs initially lost the case on standing grounds in district court, but the Fourth Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded for a determination of the merits. On remand, the district court sustained the statute under intermediate scrutiny. By that time, Bruen was pending in the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, over the State’s objection, agreed to hold the appeal in abeyance pending a decision in Bruen. Bruen was decided in June of 2022 and held that the courts may not apply intermediate scrutiny in Second Amendment cases. The appeal was immediately reactivated and the parties have almost completed briefing, with plaintiffs’ reply brief due in mid-November. The case is tentatively scheduled to be argued the first week of December.
There’s no shortage of post-Bruen cases going on elsewhere. You can follow along at the case tracking page HERE.
New Guides on Carry Permits and Maryland’s Weapons Laws
You may have noticed already, but we’ve prepared two guides, one on Maryland Wear and Carry Permits and another on the State’s firearms laws. These guides are full of the hard-to-find information and are a “must-read” for every permit holder or applicant for a wear and carry permit. Be sure to check them out.
Maryland Shall Issue is an all-volunteer, non-partisan effort dedicated to the preservation and advancement of all gunowners’ rights in Maryland, with a primary goal of CCW reform to allow all law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon; and to the education of the community to the awareness that ‘shall issue’ laws have, in all cases, resulting in decreased rates of violent crime.
I Voted sticker on a Ruger Mini-14 223 carbine with Nikon P223 scope. IMG Jim Grant
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- To say that there’s a lot at stake in the midterms this year would be a gross understatement.
Georgia has proven to be an important battleground for the Senate this year as many Republican strongholds turn blue. Gun owners remember Stacy Abrams barely lost to Brian Kemp, and Georgia quickly became a central focus in the battle for election integrity.
Make no mistake: when Democrats say that “voting rights” are at stake, they most certainly mean it. Just not in the way you might think.
The radically anti-gun Democrats have not only demonized some of their own (pro-gun) base but also their political opposition. It’s a tactic that has always been used in the past by both political parties, but not with the hatred and divisive rhetoric previously shown by Democrats.
So for example, when they express concern over “voting rights,” they’re really only talking about the right of people to support Democrats and nothing more. Consider the reaction to the Supreme Court case overturning Roe vs. Wade. Had the decision been in their favor, they would have applauded the mechanism that is the Supreme Court as honorable and incorruptible in every way.
No matter your views on abortion, the point is clear that they don’t envision a society where your opinion or thoughts matter, and by that standard you should view how they want to approach voting rights.
The Democrats have wanted federalized elections for a long time. From mail-in voting to ballot harvesting, their proposals bring the integrity of an election into question, at a minimum.
Returning to my home state of Georgia, we are politically standing at a crossroads.
Gun owners lost badly in 2020, losing both Senate runoff races and barely escaping with the governor’s race. The 2022 midterms are just as much about Republicans getting fired up to get out and vote as they are relying on the Democrats to feel so demoralized that they simply stay home.
Some hardcore Democrats are switching sides for sure, but most, at least historically, will sit out a race before they support another political party. Recent polling data shows Republicans ahead in most races in Georgia, but don’t let that be the laurels you rest on.
We should not allow the divisive and rhetorical tactics of the Democrats to cloud our judgment or make us forget who we are dealing with. We need to support Herschel Walker because he is from Georgia, and he wants to serve the great state of Georgia. He is one of us, and he has earned the support of Gun Owners of America.
Don’t let the opposition paint him as a “slow southerner” or something even worse. Raphael Warnock is not dumb. He knows that making Republicans stay home is the only way he stands a chance of beating Walker. Rather, Walker is a model American: a successful Georgian who values work ethic, gun rights, and Christian values.
To say Warnock is self-serving would be dishonest. He serves the likes of Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. His voting record thus far proves that. We need to show up for Walker and give him a chance to change course for Georgia. We must also hold the Republicans to the fire when we do win back the House and the Senate.
The days of lame-duck politics are over. The days of serving the party are over. Americans want politicians who serve the people and the Constitution of the United States.
That’s why it’s important to get out and vote this November. All the Senate needs to do is pack the Supreme Court with several more anti-gun Justices, and you can kiss everything you know and love about civilized Western society goodbye.
About Eric Blandford
Eric Blandford is the YouTube personality known as Iraqveteran8888; the channel has over 2.6 million subscribers and has been in existence since 2008. He has guest starred in Ted Nugent’s Gun Country as well as appearing on Gunnytime twice as a weapons expert. Eric is the Georgia State Director for Gun Owners of America (GOA).
USA –-(AmmoLand.com)- The critical Nov. 8th 2022 midterm elections are only days away. As people continue talking about a “red wave” sweeping across the U.S. landscape to wash anti-gun Democrats from Congress and state legislatures, the “gun vote” could be the decisive factor in many of these races.
According to Fox News, “The discussion surrounding gun control in the United States is a core issue for some voters heading to the ballot box this November.”
The critical factor is whether gun owners—who often are guilty of lethargy and/or election season apathy—will turn out in adequate numbers to swing the vote. They did last year in Virginia, putting solid pro-gunners in statewide offices, but will they repeat that performance on a national scale?
Take a look at Massachusetts, where the Gun Owner’s Action League just released a report showing how homicides in the Bay State have increased 110 percent since the passage of the 198 Gun Control Act in that state. GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace, in a telephone conversation with AmmoLand News, said the report speaks for itself:
“The Commonwealth’s decades old gun control scheme has been an unmitigated disaster.”
The law failed to reduce gun-related homicides. It failed to reduce accidental firearms fatalities, and it has done poorly in efforts to reduce gun-related suicides.
Call it the “October non-surprise” since gun control laws have also failed in other regions.
Out in Oregon, Fox News is reporting on Ballot Measure 114, an extremist initiative that would add Oregon to a list of states currently requiring a permit to purchase a firearm. [government permission silps]
According to Fox, “Oregon’s law would be the only one that mandates a live-fire safety class approved by the state police and administered by local law enforcement.”
The proverbial fly in the ointment is that nearly all police agencies do not have the facilities to provide the required training.
The story further notes, “The Oregon State Sheriff’s Association opposes Measure 114, citing the burden it would place on financially-strapped law enforcement agencies. Officials say it would delay law-abiding citizens from being able to purchase guns by months or even longer.”
Kevin Starrett, director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, told Fox News essentially the same thing he told AmmoLand News months ago: “The measure is designed to absolutely guarantee that people will not have the means to protect themselves and to dox anybody who attempts to comply with the permit process.”
In Georgia, it’s gun owners versus an avowed anti-gunner in Stacey Abrams, whom Fox News described as “one of the most significant advocates of gun control in a battleground election against Republican Incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp.”
The Fox report also pointed to Ohio, where anti-gun Democratic State Representative Tim Ryan is squaring off against Republican JD Vance.
It is against this backdrop that Friday’s attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—another perennial gun control proponent on Capitol Hill—was so shocking. Pelosi was brutally attacked in his own San Francisco home. He was seriously injured by a suspect who wielded a hammer, demonstrating that blaming guns and penalizing gun owners for violent crimes is a false flag.
Reacting to the attack, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said the nature of the attack “should preclude any effort by Speaker Pelosi’s Democrat colleagues to exploit this horrible incident for the purpose of advancing their extremist gun control agenda.
“This is the kind of violent crime against which average citizens, including Speaker Pelosi’s constituents, must be prepared to defend themselves on a daily basis in an environment where the far left has pushed ‘defund-the-police’ efforts and adopted policies which have allowed dangerous individuals to roam our streets and neighborhoods,” Gottlieb added.
In Gottlieb’s home state of Washington, there is also an energetic challenge of 30-year-incumbent Democrat Sen. Patty Murray—a dependable anti-gunner—by Republican Tiffany Smiley, a political newcomer who has been waging a remarkably effective campaign. A strong turnout of Evergreen State gun owners could provide a nasty surprise to Murray, who critics say has never represented their interests in Congress.
The only thing that will make the “gun vote” a reality to be reckoned with, not just now but in elections to come, is for gun owners actually to turn out in the millions to cast ballots.
They must understand a couple of things:
The political party with the majority calls the shots; that is, the majority party sets the legislative agenda, and historically, gun control measures are championed by Democrats.
Those who oppose Joe Biden’s gun control agenda have only one way to derail it: to take Congress and state legislatures away from his party.
In cities across the nation, “defund police” schemes have resulted in rising violent crime, and only one party has supported this approach.
In 1994, gun owners outraged by the Clinton semi-auto ban and passage the year before of the Brady Handgun law turned out by the millions and threw out more than 50 anti-gun Democrats, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley. Because of that, gun control was essentially a non-starter for at least a dozen years.
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.
Mom Defends Children, Shoots Attacker in Her Home, iStock-488768992
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– At about 9 pm, a woman at home with her children defended herself with a firearm. The event occurred in Hidalgo County, Texas, on October 25th, 2022. As noted in the news release by the Hidalgo County Sheriff, the mother did everything reasonable to prevent the necessity of the use of deadly force.
When the suspect was breaking into her home, she retreated to a bedroom with her children with her defensive firearm. She attempted to deter the intruder by notifying him she had summoned the police and she was armed.
On Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at approximately 9:13 pm, Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Deputies and Deputy Constables responded to a Burglary of Habitation in progress on the 5500 block of Nardo Street, north of Rogers Road on 10th Street, in rural Edinburg, Texas.
Deputies made contact with the homeowner who advised that a male subject, identified as Carlos Garcia, 36 years of age, had broken into the house through the garage and was trying to get into the bedroom where she and her children had locked themselves. The homeowner warned Garcia that the police had been called and she had a gun. When Garcia refused to leave and continued to try to get into the bedroom, the homeowner shot once through the door. Garcia fled the house.
Deputies searched the area and with the assistance of DPS air support, Carlos Garcia was found approximately 100 yards away in an open field with a gunshot wound to his left arm. Garcia was medically cleared and booked into the Hidalgo County Adult Detention Center for Burglary of Habitation with Intent.
Further reports have stated the woman did not know Carlos Garcia.
This is a classic tactic in the use justified of deadly force, which has been taught for decades. My recollection is it was first popularized by Massad Ayoob in his timeless book, In the Gravest Extreme.
The point of the tactic is to force the intruder to come to you, where you are barricaded in a defensive position and where the intruder has to expose themselves to your fire in order to reach you. As they attempt to do this, their time is limited because, at your chosen redoubt, you have the communication capability to contact reinforcements in the form of police. The defensive position channels them into a deadly funnel.
Cellular telephones have made the selection of the redoubt easier. A room with only one readily accessible entrance, preferably with a solid, lockable door stout enough, can provide some time for you to call 911 and make ready.
Any intruder who keeps attempting to break through your defenses has shown they should be viewed as a deadly threat, not only by you in that moment but by a prosecutor or jury later on.
A woman with children in this situation has even more reason to use deadly force to protect herself and the innocents in her care. Once the intruder breaches the interior defensive perimeter, she and her charges are in a highly vulnerable situation, which nearly all adults will readily understand.
There will be a few who refuse to see the obvious. From the comments on the Hidalgo Sheriff’s Office site:
Sergio Pardo Jr. Eric this is what’s wrong with America, she had already called the police, no need to use military style weapons to harm another human being.
Mr. Pardo ignores how long it will take the police to arrive. The average response time can vary from minutes to hours. The Edinburg location is semi-rural with large lots, within 15 miles of the Mexican border as the crow flies, 19.3 miles or half an hour by road.
Much can happen while the victim waits for official reinforcements to arrive. The close proximity of the border means a miscreant has a good opportunity to flee and cross the border before being apprehended.
I have been unable to discern what type of firearm was used. Nearly any firearm will penetrate a door and cause serious injury or death.
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.
Washington, DC –-(AmmoLand.com)- “Tech platforms are notoriously opaque,” the White House complained last week, saying Americans deserve to know more about how online forums decide “when and how to remove content from their sites.”
Yet the Biden administration, which routinely pressures social media companies to suppress speech it does not like, is hardly a model of transparency in this area.
In a lawsuit they filed last May, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt argue that the administration’s “Orwellian” crusade against “misinformation” violates the First Amendment. They are trying to find out more about this “vast ‘Censorship Enterprise’ across a multitude of federal agencies,” and the administration is fighting them every step of the way.
So far, Landry and Schmitt have identified 45 federal officials who “communicate with social media platforms” about curtailing “misinformation.” Emails obtained during discovery show those platforms are desperate to comply with the government’s demands for speech restrictions, including the removal of specific messages and accounts.
On July 16, 2021, President Joe Biden accused Facebook of “killing people” by failing to suppress misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. That same day, a senior executive at the platform’s parent company emailed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in an effort to assuage the president’s anger.
“Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and culminating today in the President’s remarks about us,” the Meta executive wrote. “I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”
Murthy had just published an advisory in which he urged a “whole-of-society” effort, possibly including “legal and regulatory measures,” to combat the “urgent threat to public health” posed by “health misinformation.” Biden’s homicide charge came the next day, and Meta was keen to address the president’s concerns by cracking down on speech that offended him.
Shortly afterward, Landry and Schmitt report, the same executive sent Murthy a text message. “It’s not great to be accused of killing people,” he said, adding that he was “keen to find a way to deescalate and work together collaboratively.”
And so he did. “Thanks again for taking the time to meet earlier today,” the Meta executive said in a July 23, 2021, email to the Department of Health and Human Services. “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation.”
Old Fashion Censorship & Shadow-Banning
The executive bragged that Meta had deleted objectionable pages, groups and Instagram accounts, taken steps to make several pages and profiles “more difficult to find on our platform” and “expanded the group of false claims that we remove.” Other messages show that Twitter was equally eager to fall in line.
Social media companies have a First Amendment right to exercise editorial discretion. But that’s not what is really happening when their decisions are shaped by implicit or explicit threats from the government.
The White House mentioned a few of those threats last week: “antitrust legislation,” privacy regulation, and “fundamental reforms” to the law that shields platforms from liability for content posted by users. Given the broad powers that the federal government has to make life difficult for social media companies, the administration’s “asks” for stricter moderation are tantamount to commands.
Federal officials expect obsequious compliance, and that is what they get. This largely surreptitious exercise in censorship by proxy, practiced by an administration that preaches transparency while practicing opacity, is especially troubling because it targets not only demonstrably false claims but also speech that the government considers “misleading” or contrary to the prevailing “consensus.”
Whether the subject is the origins of COVID-19, the effectiveness of face masks or the newsworthiness of Hunter Biden’s laptop, that consensus often proves to be wrong. Both publicly and behind the scenes, federal officials are subverting the free inquiry and open debate required to reveal those errors.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.
Bans Hundreds of Common Tools Used Throughout Society
Bans Knives in Restaurants, Scalpels in Hospitals, Utility Knives Everywhere
Bans Axes, Hammers, Screwdrivers, Nail Guns, Heavy Tools
Bans Baseball Bats, Hockey Sticks, Golf Clubs
Bans Mops, Brooms, Bricks, Lumber
Bans Chainsaws, Free Weights, Tire Irons
Bans Pens & Pencils
Bans Anything That Can Be Misused to Inflict Serious Harm
New Jersey –-(AmmoLand.com)- October 25, 2022. The geniuses in Trenton who concocted the carry-killer bill (A4769/S3214) were in such a frenzy to ban the right to carry handguns for personal protection that they made a serious drafting error with far-reaching, absurd consequences — which could prove fatal to politicians’ careers if it goes uncorrected.
In their now-infamous list of contrived “sensitive places” (used as an excuse to ban carry everywhere), they banned “weapons” generally instead of limiting the ban to “handguns.” The distinction between the two terms is immense under New Jersey law, and as it now stands, the legislation prohibits and criminalizes hundreds of common everyday tools and implements used in every facet of society.
The legislation bans them in all “sensitive places” – essentially everywhere.
N.J.S. 2C:39-1(r) defines “weapon” as “anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. . . . “ It doesn’t ACTUALLY have to be used lethally or to inflict serious injury – it only has to be CAPABLE of that to qualify as a “weapon.” It’s a thoughtless and nonsensical definition to begin with, demonizing tools themselves rather than those who misuse them. But that’s the “wisdom” of lawmakers in the Garden State, it’s the law here, and the chickens have now come home to roost on that one.
Legislators made a colossal blunder in the new bill by banning all “weapons” in sensitive places, when they apparently intended the ban to apply “only” to handguns. Not only does the bill ban every tool or implement that COULD be misused, but it imposes serious criminal penalties carrying years-long jail terms if those tools are found in “sensitive places” – essentially, everywhere.
New Jersey lawmakers have outdone themselves and, in the process, proven the sheer absurdity of their handgun carry ban by extending it to common, everyday objects that “could” be misused.
Now that the general public is being victimized by the same mindless rules that have been weaponized against honest gun owners for decades, perhaps they will begin to understand how gun owners have long been persecuted merely for wanting to exercise a Constitutional right.
While there are hundreds of tools and circumstances that would be impacted by this lunacy, below are just a FEW examples of what the brain trust in Trenton has cooked up for New Jersey’s 9+ million law-abiding citizens. This is not empty rhetoric or mere hyperbole – this list is absolutely real, and any claims to the contrary are a lie:
KNIVES & CUTLERY Steak knives in restaurants, scalpels in hospitals, utility knives used by tradesmen, cutlery in the kitchen, cutlery in stores and supermarkets, pocket knives, pen knives, Swiss army knives, multi-tools, and the like.
AXES, CHAINSAWS, HAND-SAWS & WOOD CHIPPERS No more tree services, utility work, firemen’s tools, post-storm tree clearing, or firewood creation.
COMMON HAND TOOLS No more hammers, screwdrivers, awls, wrenches, drills, nail guns, hand-saws, power-saws, or the like in “sensitive places.”. They’re all banned.
SPORTS EQUIPMENT No more baseball bats, golf clubs, hockey sticks, lacrosse equipment, hard balls, or pucks, specifically forbidden in schools, stadiums, and arenas, in addition to everywhere else. No hockey sticks for the NJ Devils.
ROCKS, STICKS, MASONRY, LUMBER Better not have bricks or lumber in public places, or in private places without the written permission of the owner. Better not touch any stones or fallen tree branches.
WEIGHTS & GYM EQUIPMENT No more free weights, dumbbells, barbells, or training equipment that could be used to injure someone. Nope, not in “sensitive places.”
SCISSORS & SEWING EQUIPMENT No more scissors, needles, knitting tools, or related equipment in “sensitive places.” If you live in an apartment, you’d better get the landlord’s written consent first if you don’t want to go to jail.
CHAINS, TIRE IRONS, LUG WRENCHES Obviously, these are evil instruments that should be banned in a “civilized society.” Lug wrenches on school buses to change flat tires prohibited.
ROPES, WIRES & POWER CORDS Can be used to strangle.
GLASS BOTTLES, FLASHLIGHTS, PIPES & TUBES Can be used as blunt objects to strike someone.
CAUSTIC, TOXIC & ACIDIC SUBSTANCES Janitors kill. So do lab scientists. And painters. They all must be stopped to protect the public.
SLEDGEHAMMERS, PICKAXES, HEAVY TOOLS Banned in “sensitive places” (that is, everywhere).
PROPANE TORCHES & LIGHTERS Can be used to set lethal fires.
MOPS & BROOMS Their wooden or metallic sticks can be used as weapons.
PENS & PENCILS They can be used to stab someone.
Please forward this email to all NJ lawmakers (click here for the list). Tell them that banning common tools just because they can be misused is as nonsensical as banning the right to carry for trained, law-abiding citizens.
Tell them to vote no on this absurd legislation.
About Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs:
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the official NRA State Association in New Jersey. Our mission is to implement all of the programs and activities at the state level that the NRA does at the national level. This mission includes the following: To support and defend the constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To take immediate action against any legislation at the local, state, and federal levels that would infringe upon these rights. Visit: www.anjrpc.org
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- House Bill 1929, repealing Pennsylvania’s ban on automatic knives, passed the Senate unanimously (50-0) on Wednesday. The bill previously passed the House 202-1. HB 1929 now moves to Governor Wolf for his action.
We will let you know when it is time to take further action.
Knife Rights has worked diligently to get HB 1929 through the Senate and onto the Senate floor for final passage since it was voted unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee over a month ago. Knife Rights has been leading the educational and advocacy effort supporting passage of HB 1929 in the Senate.
Knife Rights wants to thank Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Lisa Baker for her support and for moving the bill onto the Senate Floor. We also want to thank Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward for calling up HB 1929 for full consideration and a final vote. Finally, Knife Rights would like to thank Senator Sharif Street, our Senate companion bill sponsor, for his support of the measure.
Knife Rights Director of Legislative Affairs Todd Rathner has worked closely with our team on the ground in Pennsylvania these last few days to stop a last minute, potentially destructive, amendment. These efforts were successful and allowed the bill to move to the floor.
We are proud of the collaborative process by which this issue was discussed, supported and eventually passed.
Knife Rights has led the effort to repeal switchblade bans or restrictions in 19 states, starting with New Hampshire in 2010. Repeals have since been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
Knife Rights
Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 39 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 25 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.
Knife Rights’ VA Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill Out of House Public Safety Committee
A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll found 58% of likely voters plan to vote for the proposed amendment in the Nov. 8 midterm election. Thirty-seven percent of likely voters would vote against it, and another 6% are not sure.
The great seal of Iowa features a citizen soldier armed with a musket. The Great Seal, has, in bold letters emblazoned on the banner near the top of the Seal:
“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”
In spite of those bold words, Iowa is one of only six states which do not have protection in the state constitution for the right to keep and bear arms.
At the time of the adoption in 1847, the right to keep and bear arms was not controversial.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made the argument that black people could not be recognized as citizens, because if they were, they would have the same rights as white men. From the infamous Dred Scott opinion, bold added:
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized 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. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
The Dred Scott decision was written only ten years after the Great Seal was adopted by the state of Iowa.
Iowans thought their rights were protected by the Second Amendment. 174 years of experience has shown many powerful people have worked hard to negate the protections of the Second Amendment.
Iowa Second Amendment activists have been attempting to rectify the lack of protection in the Iowa constitution for several years. They have seen courts claim the militia clause of the Second Amendment rendered the right of the people toothless. They have seen courts, such as the Wisconsin Supreme Court, ignore protections which were considered to be plain, which is why the “fundamental right” and “strict scrutiny” language were added.
Here is the text of the amendment which will appear on the 2022 ballot:
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.[4]
The procedure for amending the Iowa constitution is long and difficult.
First, the proposed amendment must be passed by both houses of the legislature.
Second, a regular election of the legislature must happen.
Third, the proposed amendment must be passed by both houses again.
Fourth, the proposed amendment is offered as a choice on the ballot of the next election.
If the proposed amendment passes by a vote of the electorate, the amendment becomes part of the Iowa Constitution.
Proponents of the amendment started moving it in the Iowa legislature in 2017, the first year in decades when Republicans held control of both houses of the Iowa legislature.
Amendment proponents suffered a setback when the Secretary of State forgot to publish the amendment, as required by law, in 2018. This set back the effort on the amendment by two years, and another set of votes was required in both houses of the Iowa legislature.
In 2021, Iowa passed Constitutional Carry on April 2. There are now 25 states in the Constitutional Carry club.
In recent decades, several states have passed right to keep and bear arms amendments or upgrades.
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court published the Bruen decision. In the decision, the court eliminated the use of various “levels of scrutiny”. If the rights protected by the Second Amendment were infringed upon, the laws infringing on them are unconstitutional, period. In the Bruen decision, the Second Amendment is considered a fundamental right, not a “second class” right.
The Second Amendment is now more protective than the proposed Iowa Amendment. The Iowa amendment cannot be changed. It will appear on the 2022 ballot as written.
Prediction: The Iowa constitutional amendment will pass by a large margin.
The right of Iowans to keep and bear arms will be protected in both the federal and state constitutions.
The five states which will continue without protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions are California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.
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)- The U.S. is the only truly free Constitutional Republic in existence. That is how the framers of the U.S. Constitution designed our Government.
Our Federal Government is the only one on Earth that exists solely to serve the interests of the American people. It has no other purpose. The Federal Government is answerable to and subordinate to the people. The American people are supreme sovereign over the Government. Once the people’s servants fail to recognize and acknowledge these aforesaid facts and then forsake the interests of the people, the Government has descended into Tyranny.
The American people have no lawful duty to suffer Tyranny.
The Nation was founded on one singular precept, set forth in the Declaration of Independence. It is that our people are a free people and are ever to remain so, and as sole sovereign over their Government and each to him or herself, masters of their own fate, and the final arbiters and deciders of the Nation’s destiny.
How Do Americans Exert Their Sovereignty Over A Government That Has Raised The Specter Of Tyranny?
That the American people are lord and master over the Government, this is to be understood as resting not only in the limited and demarcated powers of Government but, more fundamentally, in the unalienable, illimitable, eternal, and unalterable natural law rights bestowed on man, not by Government or by other men, but by the Divine Creator, and thereupon codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is an integral and essential part of the U.S. Constitution.
By voicing dissent against the encroachment of Tyranny, and through the firearms they bear to thwart its inception and to prevent its entrenchment, the American people have the means not only to stave off Tyranny but both the right and the duty to do so, else they merit the Tyranny they allow to exist by their active or passive failure to resist it.
None of this can be reasonably doubted. Yet, somehow, somewhere through the passing years, decades, and centuries, these paramount truisms became eroded, and, for many citizens, they became lost to memory.
The forces that crush entire populations and nations, utilizing, in recent years, advances in both psychological conditioning and communication technology, have induced veritable amnesia in the masses of all countries, dulling their mental acuity and deadening their will and spirit. This has done much to dampen the resolve of populations of much of the European Union as well as of the populations of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
And the same insidious weakness has now infected the American psyche, brought about by similar, incessant brainwashing programs, introduced into our Country by the same forces that have crushed western Europe and the British Commonwealth Nations. And they have thence directed their toxins against Americans, lessening their resolve, fostering self-doubt, confusion, and outright fear of the very Government that was created to serve them.
This Federal Government has betrayed the American people; misused the powers entrusted to it—has turned those powers upon the American people. It has unlawfully brought those powers to bear on its own masters. In so doing the Government has usurped authority that rests not in Government and never did—authority that rests solely in the American people, and always has.
Through their many agents, the forces that crush people and nations have gained ascendancy in Government here and have bent much of the private sector to their will. In the process, they have gained substantial control over the thoughts and conduct of a broad swath of Americans.
Many Americans have become compliant, empty vessels, unable to escape from the incessant drone of hypnotic messaging, emanating throughout the Country. The messaging has infected all communication resources: smartphones, airwaves, and reading material—insinuating itself firmly into the minds of Americans, seeping poison into one’s reasoning faculties and into the darkest recesses of one’s emotions, where rests one’s fears and feelings of hopelessness.
Wherever they may be, the American public has become an oft unwilling, captive audience to the constant dissemination of noxious propaganda.
Yet many Americans have resisted indoctrination. Through inner strength of will, they are either immune to or have become inured to this indoctrination. They have effectively walled off the horrific effects of mass psychological indoctrination that have plagued so many others.
Something For Americans To Ponder When They Go To The Polls In November
As the Midterm elections loom, the Obstructors and Destructors of our Nation have shown no disinclination of easing up on their agenda to corral and control the thoughts and conduct of the American people. On the contrary, they are “doubling down” their efforts.
They intend to bring to fruition a global neo-feudalist State. To accomplish that feat requires them to maintain, as a necessary condition, firm control of Congress and the Executive Branch of Government.
How did we Americans get to this place where our foes have taken over control of our government, of our press, of social media, and of wealthy, powerful corporate and financial conglomerates?
The slow ossification of the thinking processes of Americans and the slow erosion of Americans’ natural law rights and liberties took time—commencing one hundred years ago—perhaps earlier. But it has rapidly moved ahead only since the turn of the 21st Century, made possible through major advances in communication and the consolidation and control over much of the Federal Government and our Nation’s myriad institutions.
In their discourse, the Destroyers of our Nation and their toadies endlessly go on about “Democracy,” but rarely do they mention the words, ‘freedom,’ ‘constitution’ and ‘republic.’ And they never mention the phrase ‘Free Constitutional Republic” in one breath.
That phrase—‘Free Constitutional Republic’—is an apt descriptor of our form of Government, and our Free Constitutional Republic has served us well since its founding. Because of it, we have become, in the space of fewer than two hundred years, the most powerful, successful, and wealthiest Nation on Earth—the envy of all other nations, where previous generations came legally to live the “American dream.”
But the forces that crush people and nations are many, and they are powerful, wealthy, and ruthless. They are jealous of both the power of our Country, the resilience of its people, the strength of our natural law rights, and our belief in the Divine Creator—ultimate sovereign over people and government. These forces intend to rend us from these beliefs and crush us.
These wreckers of our Nation intend to plunder our Nation’s mineral resources and, in the interim, make those resources unavailable to the American people. Have you seen the price of gas? And as they have taken control over the Federal Government’s military, police, intelligence, and judicial apparatuses, they have turned those engines of Government against the American people, as Americans are now beginning to learn.
And what these wreckers of our Nation find either unsuitable to or antithetical to their needs, wants, and objectives, they have marked them as Detritus and have consigned those items—both tangible and intangible—to the Trash Heap.
And we all know what those items are:
The Nation’s Constitution;
The Idea and Fact of the Sovereignty of the American People over Government
The Nation’s Natural Law Rights, Codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights;
The Dismantling of the Nation’s Institutions, History, Heritage, and Culture;
The Destruction of the Nation’s Emblems and Symbols, and Arts and Artifacts;
The Erasing of the Nation’s Ethos, Ethics, and Christian Morality;
The Erosion of the Importance of the Family in American Society;
Transitioning Americans away from Reliance on Self to Dependency on Government;
Promoting the Precepts of Collectivism; Denigrating the Precepts of Individualism;
Infusing Americans with a Conformist Mindset;
Acclimating Americans to Conditions of Poverty and Minimal Expectations; and
Dissolution of Concepts such as ‘Nation-State,’ ‘Citizen,’ and ‘Patriotism.’
Our Republic is hanging on by a thread. Strength of Will and Dint of Arms is what we have left. May we hold fast to both in these trying, dangerous times!
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.
and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans
