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.You want a "conversation," Carson? Then listen closely: keep your filthy claws off our guns--or face the consequences. Conversation over. [More]
The gun prohibitionist lobby calls us "violent," but it's not our agenda that requires the slaughter of innocents.
Speaking of their desire to disarm people, that of course serves their purpose in more than one way. Not only is citizen disarmament their desired end, it's also a
means to that end, because the more "gun free" zones, there are, the fewer people permitted the means to effective self-defense, and the more they can be limited in whatever firepower they are permitted to have, the less likely it is that the next killer will be stopped before he racks up a big, exploitable body count.Just the kinds of "horrific crimes" forcible citizen disarmament advocates are taught to "seize opportunistically on." Just what they're waiting for. Just what they need.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
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.Ah, so
that's his standard--as long as the government's recognition of the right to keep and bear arms does not "vanish altogether," we're golden. In an instant, shall not be infringed has become "shall not vanish altogether," and that's supposed to be good enough for us.It's not, O'Mara, and it's not good enough for the brave men and women we celebrate today who died upholding their oath to defend the rights you are so casually willing to toss away, as long as it's done in small enough pieces. [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.But alert reader Chris Meissen noticed
another qualifier that was in the original proposal, and missing in the current one. In this proposal, there is no mention that the multiple sales have to be to the same purchaser, as is explicitly stated in the original proposal. In other words, if the BATFE gets its way, it can demand sales details from every gun store that sells two or more so-called "assault weapons" in a five-day period--no matter if each is sold to separate purchasers. [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.But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the supposedly "suspicious" nature of cash purchases is related to the recent development of the Obama administration's Department of "Justice" attempting to squeeze gun dealers by scaring banks and credit card companies away from doing business with them.
So gun dealers risk lawsuits if they accept cash for gun purchases (despite cash being defined by law as legal tender)--
and they are systematically being "choked" off from banking and credit. What are they supposed to take as payment--gold bullion? [More]
Today's JPFO Alert looks at just how ineffably eager the Brady Campaign is to outlaw self-defense.
But never mind that. Consider instead that the Brady Campaign wants for the
only handgun available to New Jersey residents to be chambered in the woefully inadequate for self-defense .22 caliber. They want to force them to spend $1400 on the gun, and another $400 on the required "magic wristwatch"-- a poll tax on self-defense. They want New Jersey residents' lives to depend on keeping fresh batteries in the watch and gun, be certain to keep the watch within 10 inches of the gun (tricky, if one has to switch hands, while using the off-hand to fend off an attacker) -- and to enter a PIN number before the gun can be fired. And with all that, the gun can still be expected to fail once over the course of firing a ten-round magazine.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
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.But Downing is right about one thing. If we the people do find ourselves with no recourse against tyranny short of "voting from the rooftops," we will certainly have the expertise of a great many combat veterans, whether formal members of the Oath Keepers or not, and some of that expertise will be in the form of hands-on experience with Army Technical Manual 31-201, the Improvised Munitions Handbook, although he should know that those techniques are not the exclusive province of military veterans.
And the government's hired muscle is going to need a bigger MRAP. [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.That's a thought that should give pause to those who advocate ever more oppressive regulation of firearms. And again, the Mexican drug cartels provide a prime example. Mexico's gun laws, far more restrictive than even the most optimistic anti-gun group in the U.S. would dare advocate publicly, have done nothing to stem the massive carnage in that unhappy country. Instead, they have made gun trafficking
into Mexico a nice, lucrative adjunct to drug trafficking out of Mexico, while at the same time ensuring a paucity of legal guns with which the law-abiding in that country can defend themselves from the narco-terrorists. [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.What she is not getting is that a person carrying a gun in a holster is
using the gun, and deriving benefit from its use, with every minute of peace of mind that comes with knowing that one is equipped to defend oneself. A firearm near the bed is being used to good effect with every moment of restful sleep made possible by the knowledge that a home invader will not find a house full of defenseless victims. An AR-15 in the gun safe is being used by its owner, as he knows that a government bent on tyranny will have to somehow deal with him and millions of others equipped with life and liberty preserving firepower. [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.But here's the thing: the language of the Hughes Amendment bans transfers of post-1986 machine guns to a
person, which we have just been told that an unincorporated trust is not. Therefore, the Bureau seems to have painted itself into something of an awkward corner when someone applies for a new machine gun on behalf of a trust. [More]
I can't argue with a single word in the Mississippi Rebel's assessment.
And what do McConnell, Simpson, Cochran, and Tillis have in common, besides being phonies?
All four of them were endorsed by the NRA.
A blog to keep an eye on.
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.The
Washington Post and other, similarly anti-gun newspapers can squawk all they want, the BATFE can invent all kinds of new "rules," without even the benefit of unconstitutional laws to justify those rules, and legislators can come up with new, creative[ly stupid] laws to try to impose some kind of government control over home-manufactured guns, but Americans are still going to be well armed, by whatever means necessary. [More]
Today's JPFO Alert looks at some truly bizarre logic behind the justifications for banning so-called "assault weapons."
Unfortunately, she seems to have avoided one logical inconsistency, only to blunder into another, arguably
more troubling one. She is arguing that accuracy, and control, are dangers that must be regulated out of firearms.If that's the case, why not outlaw gun
sights, or at least modern, highly visible ones? Maybe rifling should be outlawed. "Gun safety" advocates complain about what they argue are inadequate training standards for concealed carry permits (and some even want mandatory training for mere gun ownership)--but since a more highly trained shooter tends to be a more accurate shooter, isn't training a danger? They also rail against guns in bars (even when the armed patron is not permitted to drink), but since a sober shooter is likely to be a more accurate shooter, might "gun safety" not be better served by requiring that armed citizens be drunk?
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
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.North Korea is one of the most brutally oppressive dictatorships in human history, so it's certainly not surprising that the government is critical of the idea of allowing the people access to firearms. When you are condemned by North Korea, you know you have earned the honor of being despised by the despicable. And the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has found another ally to add to the list in advocacy of a "government monopoly on force"--everybody wins. [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.The justification we have always been given for the reporting requirement, dubious as it is, is that it will (
somehow) curtail the rampant violence associated with the illegal drug trade in Mexico. How that squares with the Department of "Justice" deliberately "gunwalking" so-called "assault weapons" across the border, without even telling the BATFE's own own attaché to Mexico, has never been explained. As little sense as that makes, though, it's at least far less ridiculous than justifying the sales reporting requirement with breathless fantasies of it somehow stopping someone from "mow[ing] down an innocent crowd." [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.But the
Washington Post clearly is taking the "threat" seriously, or has at least chosen to appear to do so. That would seem to be rather cold-blooded and callous of the--to advocate forcing every New Jersey handgun dealer to choose between going out of business, and engaging in the same behavior that supposedly provokes homicidal rage among people who are presumably armed. Then again, if one believes that the fewer guns in society, the better, as would appear to be the editors' position, perhaps a few dead gun dealers seems an acceptable price. [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.Even if Lane is elected, she is unlikely to succeed in making anti-armor rocket launchers more easily available to private citizens (and apparently Leland Yee has now left the business of distributing them illegally), so we'll most likely have to learn how to make our own.
The U.S. is
not magically immune to its very own Tiananmen Square Massacre, and those who would deny the people the right to the means of stopping one have already chosen the wrong side. [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.Come to think of it, if we are to blame "gun violence" on a culture, perhaps the most logical target would be the culture of overarching nanny-state government futilely attempting to
impose responsibility, instead of staying out of the way of the people's exercise of it. [More]
In today's JPFO Alert, another "progressive" gun-hater proposes "editing" the Second Amendment, even more cluelessly than Justice Stevens (ret.) did.
Yep--he is kindly offering to "strengthen the spirit" of the Second Amendment, by limiting it to the point of irrelevance. Thanks, but no thanks, Sanjay.
I once wrote some commentary responding to Sanghoee's piteous inquiry, "Where is Gun Control?" As it happens, JPFO can provide him with a comprehensive history of
precisely where it has been for most of the last century. That's probably far more truth than he wants to hear, though.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
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.And now, the BATFE evidently believes it no longer needs even that dubious justification. If not, is there any reason to believe they will feel the need to limit themselves to "certain rifles," as Judge Collyer describes detachable magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifles of greater than .22 caliber? Maybe the existence of the .204 Ruger cartridge means that "greater than .22 caliber" will be seen as too limiting. Maybe "bullet buttons" and ARMagLocks mean that the BATFE will decide it should not limit itself to requiring the reporting of only detachable-magazine fed firearms. [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.For a self-proclaimed "staunch defender of our Second Amendment freedoms," Fallin certainly finds some strange reasons to not only decline to defend them, but to undermine the efforts of others to do so. And now the Oklahoma State Senate is enabling her. They need to hear from voters, and quickly. [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.Absent the threat of a legal
requirement that guns be "smart," gun rights advocates have no reason to fear further development of the technology (although removing that threat would presumably not neutralize some anti-gunners' rather odd objections to it). If some slow-learning gun shop owners have to be forced out of business to remove that threat, that's an acceptable price. [More]
In today's JPFO Alert, I note that despite several tries to get it right, Dr. Ben Carson still needs remedial training regarding the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps he is advocating his own Justice Stevens
esque edit to the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, except by a federal government that maintains a sound fiscal policy."Carson's stance on that which shall not be infringed has "improved" over the course of about a year from utterly unacceptable, to . . . well, very slightly less utterly unacceptable. He might want to consider picking up the pace. Dramatically.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
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.Instead, the legislature is now taking the time to override her veto of legislation so uncontroversial as to have received votes from over 85% of the House, and almost 96% of the Senate. And indeed, the veto override process is well underway, with the House voting 86-3 on Wednesday in favor of the override. The bill now goes to the Senate, which originally passed it by an even more overwhelming margin.
Fallin can take comfort in the fact that the presumably easy override vote there should at least not take much time, but hopefully she has learned that vetoing the people's fundamental human rights--however "minor" she deems that issue to be--is not a good way to save time. [More]
Bloomberg and his billions can't buy the true grassroots passion and determination of good people fighting for a just cause, but they can buy a lot of the whores who think of themselves as our "leaders." Today's JPFO Alert is a reminder that we cannot afford to not take the threat seriously.
In the final extremity, we can, and will if we must, defend our right to keep and bear arms by
exercising that right. How much better for everyone, though, if it never comes to that, because we successfully defend it by exercising our First Amendment rights?That will take work. Let's get to it.
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.
Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner
Stumble it!