Tag: gun control

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

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!

Mind Blown

Mind Blown

Had a good friend call me last night excited with a new idea he just had. He suggested I write a childrens book about guns. He said he was tired of all the gun violence. He said that I had credibility and knowledge that would make people listen. My head exploded.

Mind Blown GIF by SYFY - Find & Share on GIPHY

I grew up in an athletic family.  I have two cousins that made it to the professional sports level.  My father was trying to play professional baseball in New York before he “remembered” he had enlisted.  My mother was a star basketball player in high school.  Somehow those genes missed me.  I however was a marksman.  I didn’t know it was important or esteemed until the State Department placed a bunch of different firearms in front of me preparing to serve as an Embassy Guard overseas as a US Marine.  After enlistment, I got a good government job with the Central Intelligence Agency.  They nurtured my curiosity and gift which led me to shoot firearms from all over the world.  I became a trainer for our security teams and agents.  I have been trained by some of the best in the world to teach.  By the time I got to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia; I was a distinguished expert.  And when we didn’t have time to train folks, they sent me to protect VIPs in 13 hostile places.

I became internationally known and trademarked the name Black Man with A Gun™. I was ordained in the Baptist church and became a pastor which being pro-gun was a challenge. I have testified in the state legislatures of Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, and Wisconsin. I have been podcasting since 2007. I have voiced commercials for TV and radio against racist gun laws. I have been featured in four documentaries. I have authored several books.
 
It was then that I noticed for the first time, the disparagingly low numbers of African Americans in the gun magazines, books and competitions.  I created African American Arms & Instruction, (A3i) in 1991.  Forbidden by “the government” from using my bona fides for marketing, I got used to not promoting myself to my own detriment.  I did connect with like minds as a gun advocate and began my crusade to change the hearts and minds of people I thought would eventually see the light.  As an advocate before the age of social media, I got beat up by all the usual suspects often not on camera but in churches, town halls and state houses. I wrote the first edition of Black Man With A Gun in 2000 to help me get the word out.  I created a national African American gun club in 1992.  I met the founder of USCCA then and forged a friendship as he was building his magazine and ultimately USCCA as it is today. Rewrote the book in 2014.  I retired from the Second Amendment struggle in 2019.  Letting the younger lions take it on.  I’m a little more coordinated now than I was as a kid.  I can run and shoot accurately now, just not that fast.

Since he obviously forgot all that, I suggested I should probably then try to influence state laws, lobby, get on TV, radio, create a podcast, a website, a facebook group, and travel to places of worship to speak too. I gently reminded him that “gun violence” is a misnomer. That all he has just mentioned I have done for thirty years. I shared with him that the gun advocacy ranks have risen and that I knew of at least ten new “soldiers.” (I wondered how he had missed it)

Stick a fork in me mama, I’m done.

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

Grandmas Gun

My maternal grandmother introduced me to the history of the Second Amendment and busted the myth of gun control. Her annual ritual of celebratory gun fire gave me the true origin of Watch Night.

Grandma was not a gun rights advocate, or a politician. She and my ailing grandfather lived in poverty about 500 yards from the Virginia border of North Carolina on a small farm. Historically it was the same location that Nat Turner ran through and hid after becoming a fugitive for fighting slavery and leading a four-day rebellion of both enslaved and free black people in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. It was remote, rural and poor.

Grandmas was the orphanage for our family. Her barn was the storehouse for baby items, and furniture. Instead of selling stuff, our families brought it here if it could be reused by a new parent, newlywed or member of the family needing to start out. Except for the baby cribs, most of it was never reused. It was just junk.

My grandparents raised hogs, chickens, ducks, and rabbits and had a garden. Only two neighbors. The closest was 500 yards down the road on one side. The other was the hunting lodge a mile in the other direction.

No indoor toilets, (we had an outhouse and chamber pots) no showers, drafty in the winter, blazing hot in the summers, it was going back in time.

My grandfather suffered a stroke early in my life and walked with a cane. He was slightly disabled, but still worked the farm when able, and then there was grandma who took care of us all.

It was the best time of my life.

A small pond / swamp also was connected to the property which was my playground growing up. Dish and bathwater were dumped into this place. There was a grapevine at the end of the property that was the home of bees, and all manner of creeping things.

It was in this home that I first saw my grandmother use the shotgun that sat behind the wood burning stove in the kitchen all my life.

My understanding of the Second Amendment, and gun ownership began with that shotgun. It was naturally camouflaged by rust, age and dirt. It was probably a Sears Roebuck 12-gauge 101 shotgun for the collectors.

It was that shotgun that became the base of my pro-gun stance. For people that are ignorant about guns that was what I was exposed to because of my grandmother. It was unlocked, loaded and accessible gun in a kitchen, with 3-10 grandchildren in the house at any time. No accidents, no fear of it. We respected our grandparents. We respected their home, rules and gun.

One summer that I spent there as a child amped up my appreciation of arms and my grandmother. While playing near the swamp, a four foot water moccasin came out of the water to dry itself and warm up. I was just standing there when it came out of the water. Water moccasins are an aggressive species of poisonous snake also known as the Cottonmouth. When it found its spot on the bank, it didn’t want any crap from a young kid like me. It hissed, bared its fangs and stood up to make itself look bigger.

It worked because it scared the crap out of me. I screamed. SNAKE! Grandma- Snake! It was then that I saw the marksmanship of my grandmother.

Except for New Year’s, which I will share with you next, I didn’t know if my grandmother could use the gun. I don’t remember my age but I know when she came to the screen door and saw the snake about six feet away from me, she went into mama bear mode.

“What do you want boy” she said looking through the screen door on the back porch. She saw me, she saw the snake and went back in the house.

Grandma I yelled again, not wanting to be left alone. I didn’t know she saw my predicament.

She came back in seconds. I was a first relieved and then I got worried. She had that old shotgun and started walking toward me.

The first thing I thought of was, she is old. What if she can’t shoot? She ain’t the Rifleman. She might shoot me. But that is how she walked. Like the rifleman straight at me.

No grandma no I said quietly,

Steadily walking toward me…

She mounted the shotgun into her shoulder like a soldier, looking down the barrel and without warning fired a shot which expertly disintegrated the black snake. Parts of which went back into the swamp.

The noise of the shotgun made me jump. After I looked at where the snake should have been all I saw was the back of grandma going back into the house, going back to whatever grandmas do, not even phased or concerned.

I just stood there, mouth opened, still in shock from the whole event. I wasn’t shot, she kept me from being bit, she had fired an old shotgun from what I realized today was a good distance on the move.

YAY Grandma!

The second time I saw the shotgun move from behind the stove was during hunting season. It was a cold morning, during my Christmas break and a truck load of white men drove onto the farm unannounced. By the time a couple of them approached the outer door, Grandma had the shotgun in hand as she opened the door to greet them. They never knew it but she was armed.

With practiced “sweetness” she answered the door, ready to defend us if necessary. The white men were just as polite and apologized for the interruption and offered “Ms Mary” some venison should they be lucky today. It was in exchanges like that I saw examples of how an armed society was a polite society. I think that is a podcast somewhere.

And then finally the annual event that reminds me of my grandma’s shotgun was watch night otherwise known as New Year’s Eve.

For some people making noise, and popping corks is the extent of celebrating the New Years’ revelry but I want to share with you what it meant to an African American woman born before women were allowed to vote, the Titanic sank, and during the time when people of color were discouraged from voting. Someone who was a child during the conflict of WWI, and Virginia’s alcohol prohibition.

My great grandparents where the first generation to celebrate the experience what was first called Freedoms Eve.

You see, New Year’s Eve used to be a special occasion in African American culture. Celebratory gunfire meant more than noise making. Freed men owned guns, slaves did not.

Let’s go back to December 31, 1862. After the Union Army was victorious at the Battle of Antietam on September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation that declared that all slaves in “any state or designated part of a state . . . In rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Many blacks in the North and South as well as both free and enslaved blacks anxiously waited for Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to become effective on January 1, 1863.

Wide eyed with anticipation, many African Americans dared not sleep throughout the late night hours because they wanted to watch “the night turn into a new dawn.” As they watched, many slaves reflected on their hardships and toils, mourned the memory of their ancestors and loved ones who died in slavery, and spent time thanking and praised God for allowing them and their descendants to watch the night of captivity pass.

The chains of poverty, racism, and discrimination have acted as constricting shackles for many African Americans throughout the course of the century following emancipation. Being only quasi-free and given the illusion of equality, many African Americans derived hope from the well spring of their faith as they struggled for the realization of God’s perfect will for true liberation and justice

But this wasn’t universal. Many African Americans want “to distance themselves from the more painful and degrading aspect of the race’s collective past,” as they feel that celebrating emancipation kept the memory of slavery alive. After 1870, and even continuing into the twentieth century, many African Americans advocated halting Freedom Day commemorations. It is rarely even mentioned in church services.

Shooting a gun wasn’t allowed for many of us. We have culturally added prohibitions on ourselves to prevent our children from being lynched, or jailed. This self-inflicted behavior is from the Black Codes. The first gun control law in Virginia was circa 1639 where the General Assembly of Virginia specifically excludes blacks from the requirement of possessing arms.

Black codes were restrictive laws designed to limit the freedom of African Americans and ensure their availability as a cheap labor force after slavery was abolished during the Civil War. Though the Union victory had given some 4 million slaves their freedom, the question of freed blacks’ status in the postwar South was still very much unresolved. Under black codes, many states required blacks to sign yearly labor contracts; if they refused, they risked being arrested, fined and forced into unpaid labor. Outrage over black codes helped undermine support for President Andrew Johnson and the Republican Party.

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for domestic terrorist aka night riders (KKK) to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced.

High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and their descendants… With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)

When I was a kid, all my heroes had guns. Around Christmas time that was all I wanted. All the popular TV shows had guys with trademarked guns. Cowboys, spies, cops, cartoons, and soldiers all had cool guns.

Oh yeah and my grandma.

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

That’s Crazy Talk

I was recently listening to a talk given by my friend Cheryl Todd of Gun Freedom Radio on the topic of “red flag laws,” and she said something that caught my ear. She was explaining the difficulty that trained psychology and psychiatry professionals have in predicting violent behavior, and said “we suck at it.”

Minority Report is fiction, you know.

She’s absolutely right. It does not take much research to discover that it is in fact extremely difficult to predict violent behavior in even those clinically diagnosed…by professionals…as mentally ill. It is also a widely recognized fact that mental illness does not automatically mean someone is dangerous.

So why would we get in such a big hurry to take guns from people suspected of being dangerous, as assessed by the untrained non-professional…when the professionals admit that they “suck at it,” and that the vast majority of legitimately mentally ill people are not dangerous?

And why, if the mental health of the person is in question, do “red flag laws” confiscate the gun(s) but not the person? If the person is suspected of being dangerous, why should they not be immediately confined for assessment by mental health professionals? If their mental health were really that important to us, wouldn’t we want to see that they receive immediate care? And if the safety of those around them were truly the priority, how effective is it to just confiscate the guns we know about, while leaving the supposed dangerous person free to a gun we missed, obtain a replacement gun, or substitute another weapon to commit violence? After all, you could even leave the guns right where they are if you simply take the dangerous person away from them and into treatment.

Seems like there’s an awful lot of holes in that red flag.

You just know what she’s going to do if she gets out…

It is because it actually has nothing to do with mental health or violence prevention, and everything to do with removing as many guns as possible from the hands of free, law-abiding citizens. There are already plenty of laws on the books to prohibit criminals, addicts, and those who have been legally designated as mentally ill from possessing guns. But “red flag laws” are nothing more than an attempt to throw the largest possible net over as many gun owners as possible, without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

And that’s crazy talk.

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com on July 31, 2019.

It’s All About You

It’s All About You

Occasionally they will slip up and tell you what the real objective of their “commonsense gun safety” and “good first step” gun laws really is. Notice this comment from a Facebook thread discussing the recent shooting in Aurora, Illinois:
That’s right. The commenter here never mentions how useful background checks are in keeping guns away from criminals; rather he points out their utility in creating lists of gun owners which can be used later to confiscate guns. Remember that…it’s going to come up again.
 
Then, since police had his name on a list, they raided his home and confiscated all his guns. Actually, that’s not true. I made that part up.What the police did do after revoking his FOID card was…send him a letter. In the letter he was informed that the FOID card was revoked and ordered to surrender his guns to his local police department. It’s unclear what happened after that (other than the part where he still had a gun and shot people with it).
Bev Horne/Daily Herald via AP
 
I suppose it is possible that the police were simply too busy to go get his guns, but then that doesn’t make the confiscation of the hundreds of millions of American guns look too feasible, does it?
It’s also possible that the police did go looking for his guns, and he hid them. Or that they did confiscate them and he simply went out and got another (without a FOID card or background check). Doesn’t make those gun control laws look too effective, does it?
 
And it is possible that the reason that cops typically don’t go all raid-ey and confiscate-y on this guy and other prohibited persons who fail background checks is because none of this is about disarming criminals, it’s about disarming YOU.
In fact, people who fail background checks while attempting to purchase firearms are almost NEVER prosecuted (12 prosecutions out of 112,090 denials in 2017), and there are a couple of reasons for this. The first and foremost reason is the extremely high rate of false positives (some estimates run into the 90% range). Bear in mind that when we say “false positive” in regards to a NICS background check failure, we are actually talking about a law-abiding citizen who was denied their right to purchase a firearm.
This brings us to the second big reason that there are so few prosecutions for failed background checks, and it is because…you may want to sit down for this…actual criminals don’t submit to background checks in the first place. Studies have shown time and again (as if we needed a study to tell us this) that criminals obtain their firearms by buying them on the street from other criminals, from friends and family members, or most commonly by stealing them. Sorry, but I don’t think you’re going to get a crook to take that stolen gun to an FFL for a background check.
That’s why the Illinois murderer still had a gun, despite all the controls in place in that state. He was never going to submit to gun control laws, and the truth is they weren’t designed to stop criminals like him. They are only meant to create an ever-tightening noose around the necks of law-abiding citizens, until the point that it is impossible for people like you to own a firearm (see the Facebook comment at the top of the page).
It’s not about crime. It’s all about you, baby.
How to Ban Private Gun Ownership in America

How to Ban Private Gun Ownership in America

It can be done. You just can’t do it in one fell swoop. You must do it in steps.

You take the first step in 1934 by making some kinds of guns bad, requiring them to be registered with the government and levying a special tax on them. This is to establish the idea that while some guns are OK, other guns are bad. This will be handy later on.

Image result for nfa restricted firearms

You take the next step in 1968. You pass laws adding more restrictions on gun ownership and sales, most notably establishing the requirement of a government-issued license for a business to sell guns. This will be handy later on.

Image result for FFL

Your next step is in 1993, when you pass a law creating certain classes of citizens who are prohibited from possessing guns, as well as adding a requirement that licensed dealers (created in 1968) run each prospective purchaser through an FBI background check before selling them a gun. This will be handy later on.

Image result for filling out 4473

It is now “later on.” It is 2019, and none of this has had any impact on criminal gun ownership. Although that is not the true objective, you point this out and insist that we must take yet another step.

Image result for house judiciary committee hearing hr 8
House Judiciary Committee advances HR 8 to markup.

So far you have managed to outlaw certain types of guns and certain types of gun owners, and to require that sales from licensed dealers obtain government permission before proceeding. The problem is that citizens are still allowed to transfer (some) guns to each other without the participation of a licensed dealer (1968) or a background check (1993).

This next step is to pass laws requiring “universal background checks.” (2019) This will now close the loop and ensure that no guns of any type (good or bad) are transferred to any citizen (good or bad) without government permission. And although some would say this is a “good first step,” they are now only two moves away from the end game.

From AWR Hawkins at Breitbart News.

The next step is to point out that “universal background checks” have been ineffective in reducing crime (though they were not intended to reduce crime) since you don’t know who in America owns all the guns. You can’t tell if people are complying with the background check law without gun registration. So you pass that law…to “close the loophole”…and now you have everything you need. All the pieces are in position to take the final step and eliminate private gun ownership in America…at least by law abiding citizens.

 

Let’s review:

We have established that some guns are bad, and the government decides what those are. (1934)

We have decided that some people are bad and prohibited from gun ownership, and the government decides who they are. (1993)

We require government permission to obtain a gun. (2019?)

The government has a list of guns and gun owners. (?)

Remember, every time they pass another law, it is referred to as a “good first step”…right before the next one.

Things That Go Bump

Things That Go Bump

Wow. According to the flames shooting out of my laptop, the President recently banned bump stocks by executive action. These same flames also tell me that this betrayal spells doom for President Trump and the cowardly Republicans. Honestly, if I could figure out how to monetize the anti-Trump and anti-GOP commentary coming from the gun community over this bump stock ban, I’d have my next couple of African safaris paid for already.

Understand that I think bump stocks are a stupid range toy. They are an unserious waste of money and I personally have no use for them. Also understand that I oppose banning them, period…but I agree with Michael Bane that this is not the hill we want to die on.* In fact, I think the President’s attempt at a ban is a “yuge” mistake, and may very well be overturned in court. (Seriously, what’s a liberal judge going to do when blocking a Trump action means supporting gun rights?)

But here’s my proposal. If this “ends” Donald Trump and the Republicans, I’ll buy you a Bentley. You know what’s going to happen to them, worst case? Donald Trump doesn’t get re-elected and the Republicans move back into the minority in the Senate (having already lost the House). You think this “ends” them? Nope. Even if he’s not President anymore, Donald Trump will still be Donald Trump…and at least he was President once. (You get that promotion to Assistant Manager yet?) And the Republicans? They might be in the minority in the House and Senate, but they’re still in the House and the Senate…and you’re still stuck in line at the Chick-fil-A.

So what’s my point? My point is that they aren’t afraid of you, dear Gun Voter. Shake your fist at the sky and threaten to never vote for them again, and watch them scurry off in fear to pass National Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act…right after they finish fighting that dastardly bump stock ban. Right?

I’ll never vote Republican again, as long as I live!

The truth is that the GOP prefers to be in the minority. As the minority, they don’t have to produce any results. All they need to do is “fight the good fight,” where they can then vote for all this pro-gun stuff, knowing it will never pass. Then the scrappy losers can hit the campaign trail and tell you how much they loves them some 2nd Amendment, and how they will never give in…as long as you vote for them. Go ahead and throw them in that briar patch, Brer Fox…

But here is where the two parties differ. While the Republicans may not fear their electorate enough to pass pro-gun legislation, the Democrats expect to be loved by their electorate for passing the most stringent gun control imaginable. And although this doesn’t bode well for advancing gun freedom, it ought to be clear which is the worst of the two options.

So what to do? The Vichy GOP will likely never go to the mat to roll back any existing gun control law (and they are all gun control laws). But I am also confident that if Hillary Clinton had been elected, her bump stock ban would be old news, and we’d certainly be facing even worse. Give Democrats enough power, and you’ll be calling Donald Trump’s bump stock ban “the good old days.”

So spare me the tirades about how you’re done with Trump and the Republicans. Sit out future elections, or worse…vote Democrat…and see what happens. Me? I guess I’ll keep voting Republican and working to “bump” them in the right direction.

 

 

*And if you want my pro-2A bonafides, here goes: I really and truly believe that every single gun law enacted since 1781 should be repealed. All of them. I am not exaggerating one bit. So there.

It Can’t Happen Here

It Can’t Happen Here

“It can’t happen here,” is a phrase often associated with denial, and in the firearms industry, we usually discuss denial within the context of violent crime. Not today.

In my state of Kentucky, we have enjoyed a strong pro-gun environment for quite a while. Kentucky joined the concealed carry wave relatively early on, adopting shall-issue concealed carry in 1996. Here in the Bluegrass State, concealed carry licensing is relatively easy and reciprocity is widespread, and there are many other robust protections for gun owners.

But now we are facing a bill which is truly a gun controller’s wet dream. Pre-filed in the Kentucky General Assembly by Representative George Brown (D-Fayette County), BR 349 is basically an omnibus gun control bill. I would encourage you to read it for yourself here, but here are some highlights of this atrocious piece of anti-gun legislation:

  • Defines semiautomatic rifles ‘assault weapons’ based on a removable magazine plus a single feature, such as a pistol grip.
  • Defines pistols with a threaded muzzle as an ‘assault weapon’.
  • Defines magazines which hold more than 7 rounds as ‘high capacity’.
  • Enacts requirements for all transfers of firearms to go through a licensed dealer (FFL), to include a background check.
  • Makes all firearms transfer records public.
  • Enacts mandatory reporting requirements for loss/theft of firearms.
  • Enacts safe storage requirements.
  • Requires inventory of firearms belonging to the estate of deceased persons be reported to the county Clerk of Courts.
  • Creates licensing requirement for handgun possession.
  • Registers all handguns.
  • Registers all ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ as defined above.
  • Requires dealers to log sales and periodically transmit that log to the Kentucky State Police.

Now, it is unlikely that this bill will even make it out of committee. But this is pro-gun Kentucky, and the fact that a bill like this even exists here ought to give you chills, even if you live in another state…especially if you live in another state. Because it can happen here. And if it can happen in a state like Kentucky, it can happen anywhere.

Where liberty goes to die.

Don’t think it can’t. Don’t fall asleep and assume that politicians will simply do the right thing. Contact your legislators and remind them that we value our gun freedom here, and that you expect them to represent those values when they kill this thing.

Click on the picture below to find out who your Kentucky legislators are and how to contact them.

 

You Don’t Need To Hunt

You Don’t Need To Hunt

A recent article on Huffpost, by alleged hunters, is repeating the old narrative that the only guns which merit any protection are those which are deemed necessary for hunting. After all, they say, you just don’t need an AR-15 to hunt. Big mistake, Elmer.

 

Never mind that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and never mind the obvious arguments against living in a society where you are only allowed to possess the things which you need (as decided by someone else).  Let’s stick to the idea that you only need guns which are suitable for hunting, because there is a very specific problem with that position.

The problem is that once need becomes the linchpin of your position, you now open up the debate as to whether or not you really need to hunt at all. And you know what? You don’t.

There are very few people left in this country who require hunted game meat to feed themselves, if any. We hunt because we enjoy the activity, and because we like game meat, but we don’t need it any more than we need a new Xbox. And if you really want to argue the case that you and your family need hunted game meat in order to survive, I’ve got a solution for you…and you aren’t going to like it.

It involves means testing before being allowed to hunt for subsistence. If your income as reported to the IRS does not fall below the poverty line, then you do not qualify as a subsistence hunter. Remember, the only allowable guns are those suitable for hunting, and since your income level means you do not need to hunt, you may possess no firearms at all.

The next phase of the solution comes once all the non-subsistence hunters and their nasty old non-hunting guns are weeded out. Now we have a relatively small subset of impoverished gun owners who simply cannot afford to buy meat at the grocery to feed their families. It then becomes a simple matter to put them on government assistance (if they aren’t already) and bump their allowance enough to enable them to buy their meat at the supermarket like everybody else.

The supposed need to hunt has now been removed once and for all. Now, not only have the awful guns no one needed to hunt been eliminated, the so-called “good guns” are unnecessary as well. Once you put need into the equation, you are one government-issued EBT card away from no longer needing to hunt. There’ll be no tasty venison for you, but you won’t starve. And once you no longer need to hunt, you won’t need any of those guns at all, Elmer.

Thanks For Visiting