JPFO Alert: "More Guns, Less Crime" May Be True, But Misses the Point

Today's JPFO Alert urges gun rights advocates to remember that our fight for liberty isn't about numbers.

Gun ban zealots try to bolster their arguments with statistics all the time--to the point of coming up with bogus stats, such as "A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense," or that, "Forty percent of gun sales proceed without a background check." They can afford to use numbers (even if they have to make them up), because their agenda is not troubled by collective punishment for individual crimes, or sacrificing the innocent "for the greater good."

We, on the other hand, must remain better than that.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

Reid's position on 'assault weapons' for police sounds familiar

Both Reid and Horsford appear to be arguing that the fact that sometimes law enforcement agencies do indeed abuse the power of certain firearms should not mean that agencies that do not engage in such abuses be forced to get by with lesser guns. Does the same logic somehow not apply to the rest of us? [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.

JPFO Alert: David Frum Blames Militarization of Police on Guns in Hands of "the Policed"

Today's JPFO Alert notes that to ostensibly "conservative" David Frum, police state apologist extraordinaire, we the people of a supposedly free country are "the policed."

Actually, I cannot remember seeing any objections to police wearing body armor, and would only harbor such objections myself if efforts to ban possession of body armor by private citizens were to gain ground. More importantly, look at Frum's term for private citizens: "the policed." To Frum's way of thinking, apparently, that is how we the people are to be defined: as those who are kept in line by the government's hired muscle.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

'Government monopoly on force,' as demanded by CSGV, on display in Ferguson, MO

You want to know why the Bundy ranch guardians were able to make the government back down, while Ferguson residents remain under the government's jackboots, CSGV? It's because at the Bundy ranch, the government knew that they would not enjoy a "monopoly on force"--that they would pay for their excesses in blood, more of it than they were willing to lose. The Ferguson cops, on the other hand, clearly like their overwhelming edge in firepower.

That's your "government monopoly on force," CSGV. Own it. [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.

JPFO Alert: Kodiak Arms "Intelligun" Perhaps Well Intended, But Still Threat to Gun Owners

Today's JPFO Alert notes that although the people behind Kodiak Arms' "Intelligun" appear to have vastly more honorable intentions than other "smart gun" technology manufacturers, they're still making some very disturbing wrong choices.

And why is Gentry, with his vow that his technology will not be used to restrict freedom, more willing to trust the government's hired muscle with guns whose default setting is to fire every time the trigger is pulled, with or without batteries, than he is to trust private citizens with that same vital feature? Why are they the "Only Ones" worthy of that trust?

Gentry is clearly far better for American gun owners than the people behind Armatix, but that's still not good enough.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

NRA=Not Really Assertive (once again)

For all my criticism of the NRA, sometimes they really do stand up tall on the right side of an issue. Unfortunately, they tend to be easily talked into pretending they never did. The Mississippi Rebel explains:

The NRA quietly deleted a video discussing gun rights for the blind from its website after facing ridicule from the liberal media.

The video pointed out that the blind should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights just like everyone else. In it, NRA commentator Dom Raso said: “Every law-abiding blind individual should be able to have whatever guns they want. And if you disagree with that statement or you haven’t thought it all the way through, you don’t take your rights seriously enough.”

The Rebel has more to say on the subject--go see.

Congressman Mike Honda wants to be sure people shot with rifles die

What kind of "encouragement" the cops would offer is left unclear, but judging from the fact that his "solutions" to violent crime all center on a) making certain that cops are better armed and armored than private citizens, b) that there are more cops, and c) that the police have access to records of private purchases of things he doesn't think private citizens should own; it seems unlikely that he would insist that this "encouragement" be particularly gentle.

One should probably not hold one's breath waiting for him to explain what to do when the mass shooter with a rifle is himself an "Only One." [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.

JPFO Alert: Palmer v. D.C. is Also about Gay Rights

Today's JPFO Alert is a reminder that as a fundamental human right, armed self-defense is for everyone, and everyone who fights for it deserves our support and respect.

But it is they, the "progressives," who hope to keep these most vulnerable members of society disarmed and defenseless. It is they who claim that the best protection for such people is "hate crime" laws, making it "more illegaller" to commit heinous violence against someone if the assailant was motivated by hate for a group his victim is a part of, rather than anything about the victim himself.

Tom Palmer is fighting for everyone's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. That makes him a far better man than any who oppose his efforts.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, Claire, and Mama Liberty, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

Missouri voters declare right to keep and bear arms 'unalienable' . . . sort of

Amendment 5, although a large positive step for Missouri gun owners, lends a veneer of legitimacy to the practice of allowing voters to decide whether or not government is to be forced to recognize our fundamental human rights as "unalienable," and Bloomberg is spending scores of millions to convince low information voters to give the government a free hand. Might we have given up more than we gained? [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.