Even women who know their assailant need armed self-defense

The obviously far more fundamental question, though, is, "Does knowing one's assailant (intimately or not) impose a moral prohibition on the intended victim defending herself by the most effective means?" If her husband, or boyfriend, or ex, wants to kill her, and is sufficiently more powerful than she to succeed in doing so unless she uses a gun, is she morally obligated to die?

Unfortunately, VPC, CSGV and friends are unlikely to muster the courage to answer those questions. Then again, that reticence is itself an answer of sorts, and one that does not speak well of them. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Bloomberg's $12 million 'gun safety' ad campaign is negligent and dangerous

Indeed, "Average Joe" never takes his finger away from the trigger throughout the entire ad.

"Average Joe"? His negligent, irresponsible and dangerous gun handling would seem to much more accurately categorize him as an "Average Joe Biden." [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Anti-gun 'outraged liberal' gets everything wrong--except most important thing

No, what he got right--the only part he and other gun-haters need to get right--is that to attempt to disarm the American citizenry is to provoke an explosion of "gun violence" that would make him nostalgic for the relative serenity of the blood-soaked days of the crack wars in the late '80s and early '90s (when "gun violence" was dramatically higher than it is now).

Tell your friends, Beem. Tell every elected official who lets you bend his ear. We will not be disarmed, because the lessons of history are not lost on us. If you are serious about "saving lives," this is your chance.

If not? Molon Labe. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Bloomberg paying millions for power to 'infringe on your freedom'

And now think about Bloomberg's specific wording. He did not say "limit your freedom," or "impose on your freedom." He argues that the government should "infringe on [our] freedom." The word "infringe" appears (in its past tense form) precisely once in the Constitution. "Infringed," according to the supreme law of the land, is exactly what the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be.

Does anyone believe that Bloomberg's choice of that particular word was accidental? That on the day before his $12 million ad campaign in favor of federal infringements on the right to keep and bear arms began, it was not intentional on his part to spit in the faces of those of us who believe that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

New York's 'SAFE Act' scores twofer in claiming its first victim

And oh, what a prize for the gun haters this first victim is. You see, not only is he a gun owner, and thus already an enemy in the "progressives'" culture war against Americans, our alleged "gun criminal" is also a war hero and former Marine--and thus doubly an enemy of the anti-gun left. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Bans of so-called 'assault weapons' may not hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny

No one knows if the Supreme Court will ever take up the question of the Constitutionality of an "assault weapons" ban, or what the outcome will be, if that happens. Furthermore, if the Court does hear such a case, and sides with the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, the fight--the real fight, when the statists' "cold war" against gun ownership goes hot--will only then begin.

Still, when the chance remains to settle the issue without killing anyone, morality demands pursuing that chance. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Atlantic Wire suggests NRA threatened from surprising direction

While the government will soon lose any say it now has in what kinds of guns citizens can own, and which citizens can own them, most of us would still prefer not to be branded "criminals" for enjoying this new access to freedom.

Regardless, the NRA had might as well embrace the "printed gun" revolution, because like the government, it will be powerless to stop it. And that's a good thing. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Gun ban advocates must decide if they're willing--and able--to kill 50,000,000+

What this poll shows, though, is that aspiring gun banners need to do some math homework. 64 to 80 percent of an estimated 80 million gun owners (a common, if tough to verify, estimate) works out to 51 to 64 million freedom loving, angry--and armed--Americans who intend to stay armed. Taking the math a bit further, that's about 102 to 128 million hands that are not cold and dead, and will be holding guns until they are.

. . .

Who is going to disarm us? Who is going to kill us, in order to make that possible? Here's something to think about before you answer. There are not enough jackbooted thugs to make it happen. There are not even enough grave diggers to bury the JBTs who might try. We were ready to rumble as three percent of America's gun owners. At 20 or more times that, there won't be enough targets to go around. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Michael Moore wants dead children exploited to 'revise or repeal' 2nd Amendment

Note that his chastisement of America is based on the fact that we haven't moved to "revise or repeal" the Second Amendment. That is a pretty clear tacit acknowledgment that any new oppression of gun owners that would have any hope of preventing such atrocities as Sandy Hook (and realistically speaking, it takes an enormous amount of unwarranted optimism to believe that any laws, no matter how draconian, would prevent such evil) would defy the Second Amendment. That's the kind of argument that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough claims is "willfully ignorant," and intended to "mislead" Americans about supposed limits on the right to keep and bear arms. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Senator Cruz may have given Feinstein too much credit

A time may come--and perhaps soon--when liberty in America will depend on the people knowing how to improvise explosive weapons from materials that will never be banned (bleach and salt substitute, for example). Given the Department of Homeland Security's recent shopping spree for mine resistant vehicles, these improvised explosives may need to be rather large (but there is a reason the vehicles are called "mine resistant," and not "mine proof"). And Feinstein wants to imprison people for 20 years, for disseminating that vital information.

When Senator Cruz assumed Feinstein would hesitate to attack free speech--speech, no less, that might be vital for the preservation of our free republic--he gave her far too much credit. If she saw any benefit in quartering soldier's in private citizens' homes, the Third Amendment would be on her target list, as well. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Just like NIJ, IL state rep. says magazine bans useless without confiscation

"There can be no grandfather clause on this," he said to those requesting an amendment, "because there are no identity numbers on these clips." If he allowed grandfathering the magazines, he said he would lose votes from those from which he had already garnered support.

Yep--Zalewski claims that some of his colleagues so fully share his sick lust for imprisoning Illinois gun owners that they would refuse to support his bill if it were not oppressive enough. One cannot help but wonder, though, if those who would drop their support if the confiscation language were removed know that even with confiscation, the ban will be made irrelevant when anyone who wants a "high capacity" magazine can simply print one. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Illinois' Governor Quinn wants Supreme Court to back mandated defenselessness

Attorney General Madigan may or may not comply with Quinn's "suggestion," despite being no less fervently anti-gun than he is. She seems to be betting on Chicago-area legislators succeeding in forcing through a concealed carry law that only a gun-hater could love. She also notes that in taking the case to the Supreme Court, the state runs the risk of being handed another loss (if the court even agrees to take up the appeal)--this one setting a nationwide precedent that not only does the Second Amendment's right to "keep arms" mean what it says, but so does the amendment's "bear arms."

What's an anti-gun cud-muncher to do? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

California again proves that purpose of registration is confiscation

From Senator Feinstein's early plans for her "assault weapon" ban, (and remember, that's "just the beginning"), to the Obama administration's own National Institute of Justice declaring that "assault weapon" and "high capacity" magazine bans cannot accomplish anything without confiscation, to Rep. Eliot Engel's (D-NY) perennial confiscatory ban of "armor piercing" handguns, the gun prohibitionist lobby very clearly considers confiscation to be a realistic goal, and not just an abstract fantasy for the distant future.

Well, they can try. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

No 'slippery slope' toward total forcible citizen disarmament? Think again

The "slippery slope" is indeed real, but if we reach the bottom, it will not be to find the "gun free paradise" that Schakowsky envisions. At the bottom of that slope lies bloody civil war--and America's gun owners do not intend to lose. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

'Gun control' oppresses the minority, as always

The minority opinion, according to CSGV, can be safely disregarded, and the rights of those holding such opinions legitimately trampled. Whatever else one might say about CSGV, they cannot be accused of lack of respect for "gun control's" long tradition of oppression of minorities.

CSGV's problem, and the problem of any government officials who do their bidding, is that gun owners are quite capable of defending our rights, even as a minority as small as, say, three percent. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

MO Department of Revenue data grab: One more argument for Constitutional Carry

Luckily, there is a simple solution. If defensive firearm carry licensees' privacy is threatened by the state's unwillingness to enforce the protections of that privacy, the obvious solution is to stop requiring any license for the exercise of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

It is, after all, a right that shall not be infringed, and any right that cannot be exercised without a government permission slip is not only infringed, but reduced to a mere privilege, to be granted or denied at the state's whim.

Missouri bureaucrats have proven themselves unworthy of being entrusted with this information--information for which the government has no legitimate claim, anyway. So . . . eliminate the very existence of that information--problem solved. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

U.S. has been 'mostly non-tyrannical'; Second Amendment obsolete?

"Mostly non-tyrannical" doesn't cut it--doesn't come close, and aspiring "mostly non-tyrants" have no right to be surprised when they find themselves staring down the muzzles of the "mostly non-insurrectionist" people's guns.

I have no idea whether or not Bill Hammond has daughters of dating age, but if he does, I'm sure he'll have no objection to them dating "mostly non-rapist" boyfriends. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Illinois Congressman makes bid to disarm the poor

Furthermore, Gutierrez has announced that his bill would ban the manufacture and sale of "junk guns" in the same way that the Gun Control Act has banned the importation of them. This means that short barrels, small calibers, fixed sights, light weight--many of the very features that define an ideal defensive firearm for concealed carry--are to count against a gun's legal status.

In other words, Gutierrez not only pushes the evil "No guns for Negroes" agenda, but also demonstrates that in his eyes, all of us who refuse to abdicate personal responsibility for our personal security are "Negroes." [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Anti-gunners wage war of annihilation on gun culture

If the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms cannot be crushed right now, the forcible citizen disarmament fanatics will be patient. It might take a generation or two, but if their side is the only one with any soldiers, the outcome is not difficult to predict.

When toy guns are outlawed, only outlaws' kids will be worth a damn in a fight against tyranny. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Gun show organizer apparently likes the taste of jackboot leather

Leckrone did state that he opposes the Obama administration's push to ban so-called "assault weapons," saying, "We don't believe in that. We believe in the Second Amendment." The version of the Second Amendment, evidently, that states that "the right of the background-checked people (who have Illinois Firearm Owner ID cards--for which they had already endured a background check) to keep and bear arms, after a 24 to 72 hour waiting period (so much for "a right delayed is a right denied"), shall not be infringed." And how convenient for him to oppose the infringement almost certain to fail, while supporting the one most likely to pass.

Hoping that crocodile will eat you last, Mr. Leckrone? Perhaps your appeasement will buy you that much, but eat you he will. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Missouri House Democrat implies desire to sell citizens' gun rights to feds

In other words, Colona wants to know if protecting Missourians' Constitutional rights is "worth" losing federal money--if perhaps Missouri should let the federal government buy the state's complicity in, or at least non-interference with, the violation of citizens' fundamental human rights. On top of that, take note of what he chooses for his example of what that federal bribe money could buy: efforts to "keep guns off the street," which sounds a whole lot like disarming Missourians. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.