Tag: 2A

Goldilocks

Goldilocks

Disclaimer: Nothing in this article should be taken to mean that I do not believe in training. I absolutely do. What I do believe is that it should not be mandatory to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Original post at deltabravocharlie.com.

I was recently involved in a discussion on social media centered around the idea of mandatory training for the issuance of a 50-state concealed carry license…and it quickly devolved into a discussion of the concept of mandatory firearms training for any exercise of 2nd Amendment rights. (This was in a closed Facebook group composed of graduates of a very well-known firearms training school in Arizona, by the way.)

Yes, training is good. Yes, you should get some.

The original poster opined that 16 hours of mandatory training would be just right and an acceptable compromise in order to achieve nationwide concealed carry. For the record, I disagree wholeheartedly, as did the vast majority of participants in what turned out to be a very active thread. The originator found himself very much on the defensive and seemed to take great offense at how many of his contemporaries failed to see the common sense behind his proposal. Still, it was quite interesting to hear the opinions of the originator and the few others who agreed with him, and the thread certainly provided some food for thought. (Not that I haven’t considered and rejected the idea of mandatory firearms training before.)

What it made me think about this time was, “why 16 hours?” So I posed the question to a couple of co-workers, in a workplace where we are all armed and have passed a standardized (if not especially challenging) training and qualification course. Neither had any problem with the 16-hour requirement. But with one of them, I pushed the question a little farther and asked him, “Why stop at 16 hours? Why not 40 hours? Why not 80? Wouldn’t that be even better?” He sat silently for a time, struggling to come up with an answer. I pushed a little more and suggested that even though he wouldn’t say it, that he and I both knew exactly why he wasn’t comfortable with requiring even more training. He threw up his hands and said, “OK, why?” And I said, “Because requiring that amount of training would be too much…right”?” And he agreed that that quantity of required training would be too much.

And there lies the first takeaway from the discussion about mandatory firearms training: There can never be any agreement on how much mandatory training (in order to exercise a Constitutionally-protected civil right) is just right. There is always going to be disagreement regarding how much training is adequate or inadequate, or when it would be so excessive as to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.. (And before you go there, don’t even suggest that you simply pull together a bunch of gun experts to come up with an agreed upon standard…like you could get a bunch of gun people to agree on anything.)

Group photo after a class with the late, great Louis Awerbuck. Yours truly in the back, third from left.

The second thing I have noticed about those who agree that some amount of mandatory training would be a good thing, is that this line of thinking comes from two categories of people:

  • Those who do not own guns at all, and…

  • Those who own guns and already have the level of training that they would impose on others.

In other words, most of the folks I hear from who favor some level of mandatory training would be unaffected by the imposition of such a standard. Funny how that works, isn’t it? I find it especially interesting among those who consider themselves trained, or in the case of people such as my co-workers who might even consider themselves professionals. Never mind that you can find nearly endless examples of “professionals” who did some seriously dumb stuff with a gun, even after completing training far in excess of the suggested 16 hours (check my previous post here). But it certainly makes me wonder how many “gun people” who support in mandatory training would embrace it as readily if it meant they would have to shell out some cash and go take a class on their own time. (Especially since most of them cannot be convinced to expend a couple of hours and 100 rounds of ammunition to come out and shoot a steel match.)

This is elitism which ignores the situation of many of the millions of American gun owners who simply cannot invest the time and money in the type of training that their “betters” would impose on them. There will always be someone who, through no fault of their own, will be unable to comply with the arbitrary training standard and barred from gun ownership. When it comes to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, Goldilocks was a fairy tale, and no amount of mandatory training will ever be just right.

Goldilocks was make-believe. So is “just right” mandatory training.

Postscript: In none of these discussion, online or in-person, has anyone ever addressed the issue of recurrent training, or how often someone would have to refresh that initial training. Anyone with any understanding of firearms and firearms training at all should recognize that “one-and-done” training at any level is of limited use if not maintained, and that without recurrence any benefit of such one-time training would be temporary.

Cover image by Oleg Volk, and used with permission.

Beautiful Loser

Beautiful Loser

“He’s your oldest and your best friend
If you need him, he’ll be there again
He’s always willing to be second-best
A perfect lodger, a perfect guest”

The recent events in Washington have highlighted a recurring thought of mine. As we watch Republican after Republican run away from President Trump and his agenda, I keep hearing political commentators saying that “Republicans don’t know how to win.” I don’t think that’s true at all. After all, you don’t maintain a seat in the U.S. Senate for 35 years if you don’t know how to win. You’ve actually been winning for some time.

The problem is that when you and I think of winning, we’re thinking of advancing conservative principles as they pertain to government. And in that sense, we can all agree that they are huge losers. But to the modern Vichy Republican, winning means maintaining their position as DC elite, not preserving the Constitution or the Republic it created. Consider these words by South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem:


“There are a lot of Americans whose frustration has been building for many years. Republicans have had opportunities to fix our healthcare system, reform immigration, and get our fiscal house in order, among many other things. Republicans have had chances to deliver for the American people. But we haven’t followed through…Republicans have not been disciplined enough to do the hard work. The American people need us to fight for them on a daily basis, not just 30 to 60 days before an election.”

She’s not wrong. But unfortunately, to these Vichy Republicans it is not only acceptable to come in second place, it is actually preferable. As the minority party, they aren’t expected to produce any results. All they need to do is shake their fists at the sky, and mouth some conservative words until they inevitably lose to the Democrat majority. Then they take the video of their “fiery takedown” of the Democrats and weave it into their next campaign ad, so they can tell you how they “fought the good fight” and how they’ll keep fighting for you (against insurmountable odds) if you’ll just vote for them one more time.

Republican chair of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, Thomas Massie. Voted NO on reciprocity then, doesn’t support it now.


Take the current iteration of H.R. 38, the national concealed carry reciprocity bill. If it sounds familiar, it’s because it keeps getting recycled every Congress, where it fails to pass every single time…yet is used as cover for Vichy Republicans to bolster their pro-2A bona fides without having to produce any real change. Even in 2017, when Republicans held both houses of Congress and the Oval Office, our own Republican “leadership” couldn’t find the cojones to pass it; after repeated badmouthing* from Congressman Thomas Massie (Republican founder and chair of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus) Republican Senate Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell folded right up and let it die in committee.

If the GOP had any intention of advancing the conservative agenda, they’d have passed that bill. But that would have landed them on the bad side of people they want to stay in good with…and that’s not you. It’s the other politicians’ good graces they need to keep winning, and that means they need to lose. They know you’ll be there for them come election day, because where else are you going to go? Sure, there will be some voter pushback, and some Republicans will lose some elections. But not all of them. There will still be Vichy Republicans enjoying the good life in DC, so who are you calling loser?

*I’ll be addressing Congressman Massie’s opposition to HR 38, and his…ahem…lack of transparency as to his reasons in the next couple of days.

Reposted from deltabravocharlie.com

The Good Old Days

The Good Old Days

With the election less than a week away, I think it is time for a final reminder of the importance of this decision regarding gun freedom. No matter how you personally feel about Donald Trump, there is no other choice if preserving the 2nd Amendment is important to you. There is no third way.

If you vote third party, or simply stay home (kind of the same thing), you are saying that there are other things more important to you than the 2nd Amendment. That’s OK, if that’s how you really feel. But don’t try to convince the rest of us that you’re making the best choice for preserving gun rights…don’t kid yourself, either. And if your grudge against President Trump is because he banned bump stocks and made a couple of comments about gun control (which he never acted on), then explain to me how voting him out of office does anything to improve the position of gun rights in this country. I actually saw a comment on Facebook where someone said they wanted to vote Trump out of office because he “wants his bump stock back.” I hate to tell you, bud…but if you vote Trump out of office, you’ll be looking back at the time he banned bump stocks as “the good old days.”

“Things were so much better when all we had to worry about was bump stocks and rude Tweets.”

That’s because if Trump loses, it will be because Joe Biden won (no, Libertarians…Jo Jorgensen isn’t going to win). And under a Biden (and eventually Harris) presidency, you ain’t getting your bump stock back. In fact, if Biden wins, you quite literally stand to lose everything. If the Democrats keep the House, flip the Senate, and manage to put Biden/Harris in the White House, you’ll wish all they were doing was banning bump stocks. Their gun control agenda…which is documented in detail on their website…is so draconian and so comprehensive that if they successfully implemented even half of it, then it is effectively game over for the 2nd Amendment.

“There’s an old picture of me shooting my AR-15…back before President Biden banned them. I sure do miss that rifle.”

Now, some of you are probably thinking, “No, it isn’t game over. I’ll fight to keep my guns.” How brave of you. How serious you are. So serious that you would consider spilling blood over your gun rights, rather than making the strategic choice and voting for the best hope of avoiding that fight. So serious that you would consider lining up sights on your fellow Americans and pulling the trigger before you would consider voting for Trump. All because of bump stocks and a few ill-considered words.

“Yes, I voted for Biden. Trump was so rude! No, I still haven’t gotten my bump stock back. Why do you ask?”

Again, if Biden wins every single gun control measure imaginable is on the table. A Biden administration is guaranteed to make life worse for gun owners than a Trump administration. Then, if the battle for the 2nd Amendment becomes a literal one instead of a figurative one, things become still worse for gun owners…as well as everybody else. In either of these futures, we’ll be looking back at the Trump presidency as the good old days.

“Remember when we thought Trump was the worst for banning bump stocks? Before we voted for Biden and he banned everything? Those were the good old days.”

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

Who Are You?

Who Are You?

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

While catching up on a podcast of Tom Gresham’s “Gun Talk,” I heard Tom say this in the last minute of Hour 3: “You don’t like his tweets?…You’re going to give up your gun rights over tweets? That says a lot about YOU.” It’s a great point, and worth discussing.

So what exactly does that say about you? What I heard was Tom suggesting that it says you’re the kind of person who would sacrifice the Second Amendment over something as unimportant as some rude comments and tweets. It says you’re the kind of person who is so sensitive to the President’s commentary that you are willing to either vote for Joe Biden, vote third party, or sit out the election (kind of the same as voting third party). It says that that you are the kind of person who values a president who “acts presidential” even more than you value protecting the Second Amendment. I think he’s absolutely right. I also think it might say something much worse.

Because to steal a phrase from the opposition, “here’s the deal”: Either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be the next president. (Sorry, Jo Jorgensen supporters. In case no one told you yet, she is not going to win.)

So let’s do Donald Trump first. Gun people who are reluctant to vote for Trump will point to two reasons (other than rude tweets). Their first objection is that he outlawed bump stocks. We can argue the merits and demerits of that another day, but in my opinion that was never a hill worth dying on. If you think it is…well, let’s just say I understand why the President’s tweets upset you so much. Next, they’ll point out that he made comments which indicated that he supported red flag laws. He also didn’t act on it. That’s it. Those are the two anti-gun arguments commonly leveled at the President.

Now, gun folks who latch onto that last one also like to insist that statements in support of gun control are no different from actual gun control. (You know, sort of like how a certain segment of the population equates words to actual violence. But I digress.) Still, if we’re going to hold the President’s words against him, then it’s only fair that we hold Candidate Biden to the same standard, and hold his words against him. If you are unaware of his stance on guns, I suggest you click on over to https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/ and review his plan to “end gun violence.” And how is he going to end it? By enacting the most comprehensive and draconian agenda of gun control ever. Again, if you want the particulars, head on over to his gun control page and read for yourself. I’m not going to list it all out here, but it is safe to say that any gun control measure you can think of is in there. In fact, if Biden’s gun control ambitions are realized, you’ll be referring to the time when Trump took away bump stocks as “the good old days.” No one serious about gun rights can be serious about Joe Biden.

“But Dave,” some of you might say, “it isn’t really just an either/or choice. We can not vote for Trump because we don’t like him, and then if Biden comes for our guns we’ll fight!”

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

OK, I get it. Molon labe, cold dead hands, Wolverines!…blah, blah, blah. But what that tells me is that you’re the kind of person who would rather go to war to defend gun rights than to vote to save them. That you’re the kind of person who finds the prospect of spilling the blood of your countrymen preferable to voting for Donald Trump…because of tweets, bump stocks, and and some poorly considered comments which have never been acted upon. (Also…I can’t help but notice that none of you have actually gone to war over any of those things yet. Just saying.)

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

But if you truly favor the prospect of allowing things to slide to the point of possible bloodshed; if you can’t bring yourself to vote for rude, tweeting Trump even if it could save the nation from violent clashes over gun rights…what does that say about you? I think what it says about you…at best…is that you’ll throw the Second Amendment overboard because of some tweets and rude comments. And what it says about you…at worst…is that even though you understand a Biden gun control presidency could cost lives in defense of the Second Amendment, you still won’t vote Trump to stop it.

Is that who you are? Are you a person who would embrace and exhaust every peaceful option to defend the Second Amendment before resorting to violence? Or are you a person who would sit back and willingly let things slide until there is no non-violent option left? Who are you?

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

Dream On

Dream On

An awful lot of gun people seem to be having a little crush lately, and the object of their affection is Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen. I have to say that while she gives great soundbites, I don’t think there is a whole lot of substance underneath the surface. Kind of reminds me of this 90’s tune from obscure Canadian band, The Northern Pikes…

Now we can consider all the ins and outs of the Electoral College, and how Dr. Jorgensen doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of scoring even a single electoral vote. But if you’re politically engaged enough to even know who she is, then you already know her odds of winning. If…after considering all that…you are still considering throwing your vote away by checking the box for her “on principle” come November, then this is the post for you.

It is admittedly easy for a pro-2A voter to swoon when she speaks on her plans for the right to keep and bear arms. Just listen to what she had to say to Tom Gresham on Gun Talk a couple of weeks ago:

Except her plans aren’t really much of a plan. Taken at face value, she is a gun- rights advocate’s dream. Abolish all gun laws passed in the last 100 years? Yes! Abolish the ATF? Count me in! It all sounds good on paper, until you notice that she offers nothing in the way of a strategy to actually accomplish any of this. She even says “if it were up to me I would get rid of every gun law passed in the last 100 years”? The thing is, it isn’t up to her, or any president. If she’s unaware of that, she might not have a solid grasp of what the office actually entails. If she is aware of that, then she’s straight up pandering to the gun vote.

It was the lack of detail in the Gun Talk interview that led me to Jorgensen’s website to see if there was any more information on her plans to restore the Second Amendment. Imagine my surprise when I found…absolutely nothing. There is nothing at all on her website which addresses gun rights, even in passing. It is not listed under her “Issues,” or anywhere else on the site that I could find. No mention. At all.

What does this say about her sincerity or seriousness when it comes to the Second Amendment? It tells me that if you’re looking to Jo Jorgensen to restore gun freedoms in this country, you can dream on. She stands no chance, and has no plan to achieve what she claims she aspires to even of she did somehow win. And if you somehow cling to the idea that a third-party vote does anything other than help elect Joe Biden, you need to wake up. The addled Democrat’s gun policy embraces every radical anti-gun policy you can imagine; he is no moderate on the issue of the Second Amendment (and neither are any of his potential running mates, who will likely end up as president early in Biden’s first term).

There is no third way. There is no realistic strategy for preserving gun freedom other than a vote for Donald Trump. Keep dreaming that dream, and wake up to a nightmare.

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

Top 12 Episodes of this Podcast

Top 12 Episodes of this Podcast

Top 12 

How Does It Feel To Be Right?

 

Lessons For Colion Noir

 

John Wick on Gun Rights

 

Armed Christian Perspectives

5 Things You Need to Know Before Shooting Naked

 

Why We Love History (and you should too!)

3D Gun Printing is BS

 

Hurricane Florence

 

 

Five Things You Need To Know About EDC

 

5 Things you should know about shotguns

 

5 Mistakes In Gun Rights That Make You Look Dumb

 

Keeping your Back Hole Out of Jail

 

Gun Control Is Dead

Gun Control Is Dead

Let’s be honest…the ol’ gal was kind of on her last legs anyway, but it’s beginning to look like the hordes of anarchist rioters burning America’s cities may just have delivered the coup de grace to the gun ban movement. Let me explain…

tenor.gif

What I mean when I say, “gun control is dead” is that popular support for gun control has been effectively killed off. The convergence this spring and summer of a pandemic virus and now violent riots in our cities seems to have done a pretty fair job of finishing off the ideas that “you don’t need a gun,” and “only the police should have guns,” and “the police will protect you.”

A quick browse of Twitter last night revealed numerous posts by people announcing that they are done with the idea that being without teeth and claws makes them anything other than prey. And they don’t want to be prey. If you look around, you can find plenty of similar sentiment out there on social media and other opinion outlets. While it isn’t scientific, it isn’t my imagination, either.

New Guns.jpg

I believe that this year’s events (and we’re not even halfway done) have awakened a lot of people to a concept that many of us in the community of gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters have understood for a long time…

Korean shop owners during the 1992 LA riots.

YOU. ARE. ON. YOUR. OWN.

No matter what you have been told, there are multiple court cases which have set the precedent that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. And legal obligation aside, it isn’t even possible for the police to arrive at your emergency before you do. Most of the time, most cops will do their absolute best…even risk their own lives…to come to your aid. But most of the time isn’t all of the time, and if you want a guarantee that someone will be there to defend your life at all times, the safest bet is on yourself. I think current events have caused a many of Americans to see this more clearly than ever; the mask is off all of the gun control lies which have been told for decades.

There are obviously very good reasons to have an AR-15.

There are good reasons to have magazines which hold a lot of ammunition.

There are reasons that waiting periods and “may issue” permits and background checks are harmful.

guns-los-angeles-mario-tama-getty-1068x722.jpg

There are reasons you should not be dependent on another to come rescue you.

Capture.JPG

So while the gun ban lobby won’t abandon their efforts to disarm everyday Americans (and we’ll keep fighting them), I think the events of the last few months have cemented their eventual failure, because those everyday Americans have now been awakened to the truth. Guns save lives, and the freedom to own guns is a very real and important right. As a serious idea, gun control in America is dead. Good riddance.

13871304_web1_M5-181017-EDH-LynnwoodColdcase-1024x694.jpg

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

Black Man With A Gun

Black Man With A Gun

The end of African American history observance month 2020 is this week.
I’ve always been a fan of history. I don’t like what happened most of time. I don’t romanticize about it. I don’t even wish I was born earlier. I had enough drama in my own lifetime.
 I’ve even made some history.

My friends from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) asked me to do a little video to remind my American family of how far we’ve come and how far we have to still go.

 Freedom to live as our Republic was intended is always under attack.

Most people don’t know I’ve been defending the right to keep and bear arms publicly since 1991. I am the founder of the first African American National Gun Club, the Tenth Cavalry. We had chapters in DC, Baltimore, NJ, Chicago and Georgia. I’ve helped launch several  untraditional gun groups.

I was one of the champions for concealed carry reform nationally.  I lobbied the US Congress and in the state legislatures of Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, and Wisconsin. I have been producing podcasts since 2007.  The Black Man With A Gun Show podcast  (2007- 2019) was one of the first pro-gun podcasts. I have voiced commercials for TV and traditional radio against racist gun laws before social media. I have been featured in four documentaries. I has authored several books.  I’ve recently just written a couple of pieces for the USCCA.

But in December 2019 I decided to let the next generation have at it.

 Well until requested to speak on this video.
 

I may be the best that ever did it and got away with it. 

 I’m still around if you need me though. Just send up the Black signal!

Check out these podcast:  Black Man With A Gun Show ,  Speak Life church , and  Indian Motorcycle radio  The Books, Kenn has written.

The Gun Owners’ Guide to Democrat Presidential Candidates

The Gun Owners’ Guide to Democrat Presidential Candidates

Are you ticked off about President Trump’s lack of support for the Second Amendment? Steamed that he banned bump stocks? Are you annoyed that he hasn’t signed executive orders repealing FOPA, GCA, NFA, and enacting nationwide constitutional carry? Maybe you’d like to teach him a lesson, and vote for a Democrat…but you can’t decide which candidate is the best choice for a no-compromise gun rights purist like yourself?

Hey…I’ve appointed enough conservative federal judges to overturn gun-control laws for a generation! (Including the bump stock ban.)

You’re in luck! Read on, and I’ll help you deduce which Democrat you can trust to respect the Second Amendment and protect your gun rights, all while making you feel better by sticking it to that bump-stock banning orange man! What follows is a list of Democrat candidates, their individualized positions on specific gun rights issues, for a simple compare and contrast guide to help you make your selection.

I don’t like (your) guns! Don’t be stupid!

First up is Michael Bloomberg:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I don’t like guns, except around my gulags!

Then comes Bernie Sanders:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

Of course I don’t like guns. Not for you, anyway.

And then there’s Pete Buttegieg:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I don’t like guns just as much as the rest of them don’t like guns.

Next is Amy Klobuchar:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

Do I like guns? Two words…Wounded Knee!

And then Elizabeth Warren:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I got your double barrel shotgun right here.

Then there’s Joe Biden:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

This is NOT a finger gun! Don’t like ‘em!

And don’t forget Tom Steyer:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

There you go. That should make it pretty easy for any voter who values the Second Amendment to decide which Democrat is the best choice for gun owners in 2020. None of them!

Inconceivable!

Inconceivable!

I was promised “human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!”

Listening to the anti-gun left and their media mouthpieces, I thought there was so much gunfire out there that I’d need to do 3-5 second rushes just to make it from my driveway to the front door.

So imagine my surprise when yesterday the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for 2018, and the data says that violent crime fell by 3.9% from 2017! Just when I thought things were getting worse, it turns out that when it comes to violent crime…things are actually getting better.

How the heck is an anti-gunner supposed to remain logical with facts like these?! Because the facts are that…even with hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands…crime is down, violence is down, and firearms accidents are down.

Thanks For Visiting