Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

JPFO Alert: Bundy Ranch Showdown Proves Militias Can Stop Government Excesses

For the doubters out there, an armed militia can face down the greatest military superpower in the world, as today's JPFO Alert notes.

The issue here is that even if Bundy is wrong, enforcement of grazing fee requirements is not legitimately the work of heavily armed paramilitary forces. And the further issue is that for now, at least, when those paramilitary forces stared through their rifle scopes at armed private citizens staring through their rifle scopes, it was the government's eyes that blinked, with no injuries except to the feds' pride.

That injury itself is enough to prompt outrage in some circles. Sen. Reid is not alone in denouncing Bundy and his supporters as "terrorists." On the "progressive" discussion group site Democratic Underground, many participants are evidently angry that the showdown was not resolved with Bundy, his family, and his allies dying in a hail of gunfire.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

JPFO Alert: Justice Stevens (Inadvertently?) Admits RKBA Unconnected to Militia Service

Today's JPFO Alert catches retired anti-gun Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens making some rather surprising admissions about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If this "fix" is to change anything, must that not mean that the Second Amendment as actually written is unencumbered by any such limit on its application? To borrow an old analogy used by the forcible citizen disarmament zealots (as irreparably flawed as that analogy is), no one seems to have suggested that the First Amendment should be edited to say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, except with regard to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater . . . " (unless that's one of Stevens' other five proposed amendments).

Catching up on JPFO alerts

Somehow, I failed to post links to the last three JPFO alerts I've written. We have:

And David Codrea, Nicki Kenyon, and Claire Wolf all have been putting out their superb work. Find it all here.

Tuesday, April 08, 2014

ATF war on EP Armory illustrates arbitrary inanity of gun regulation

But on a more fundamental level, why should it matter? Whether the frame is made first, and then filled in with plastic of another color, that will then have to be removed; or the to-be-removed portion is made first, and the frame formed around it--the aspiring builder gets the same thing, and has to do the same amount of work, either way. Selling a receiver made as outlined in the first example, though, without observing all the legal niceties required for gun commerce, would be a federal felony, while selling receivers manufactured by the second described technique, without any controls at all, is completely legal. How is the first scenario any more "harmful" than the second? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

Monday, April 07, 2014

Anti-gun congresswoman wants to make Yee's alleged crimes 'more illegal'

So the Leland Yee Gun Crime Reduction Act (maybe "Yee Law," for short) would nullify every federal, state, and local law that in any way regulates commerce in any weapon up to and including 155mm howitzers. This would reduce "gun crime," because the number of gun laws people could potentially break would be so greatly reduced. It would work in exactly opposite the way the Brady Campaign to Create Gun Crime does.

Now that's a gun law freedom loving Americans could get behind. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

Saturday, April 05, 2014

JPFO Alert: Ft. Hood Soldiers Turned by Policy into Targets

In today's JPFO alert, I share some memories brought to the fore by Wednesday's Ft. Hood shooting.

Just as we began the run, a mentally disturbed sergeant opened fire on us from the treeline, killing Major Mark Stephen Badger with his first shot, and then continuing to fire, apparently without regard to specific soldiers as his targets.

That ended up being 18 additional targets, all of whom survived, although one was paralyzed.

And we, the supposedly elite paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division, ran like frightened rabbits, because in a "gun-free" zone, the armed predator is king.

Thursday, April 03, 2014

JPFO Alert: In Kentucky, Any 'War on Women' Will Face Armed Resistance

With iron-clad veto-proof majorities in both chambers, the Kentucky legislature has passed an important reform in favor of self-defense for victims of domestic violence:

The way the bill would work for domestic violence victims is that anyone who has an emergency protective order or a domestic violence order will be able to apply for an emergency temporary (good for 45 days) concealed carry permit, for which the training requirement would be waived (the applicant would still have to pass a criminal background check). If the permit holder does receive the required training at some time during those 45 days, the permit becomes like any other Kentucky concealed carry permit.

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

JPFO Alert: No Room for 'Politeness' in 2A Advocacy

Today we discuss the "pragmatic" view of gun rights advocacy, as articulated by NRA board member and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association president Tom King:

The idea that we must be more "polite," lest we frighten "the very people we want to attract to our side," ignores the nature of the right we are fighting for. The Second Amendment exists to guarantee the people's right to the means of killing aspiring tyrants and their hired muscle. There is no polite way to say that, as insurgencies tend to be more than a little "rude."

We must be "frightening," because the people who would trample our rights will only lose interest in doing so if they perceive a very
personal risk to themselves in continuing on that course. They will have no reason to perceive such a risk if they see that our strategy is to cross our fingers and let judges tell us what our rights are, and when those judges tell us that those rights are effectively nothing, we then reduce ourselves to hoping that our liberties can win a popularity contest.