JPFO Alert: Discretionary Concealed Carry Permit Systems Value Money Over Lives

Today's JPFO Alert notes that when protecting money is a sufficiently good reason for the government to "allow" you to carry a gun, but protecting your life is not, something is very wrong.

This reflects a sick, twisted, and depraved set of values. The gun ban zealots claim to value each and every human life above all other things, but this policy, and others like it elsewhere, show the real truth. To these people, one's value can be deduced from one's bank statement. This scrofulous outlook must be utterly rejected by all people of decency, and Judge Scullin's ruling is a good step in the right direction.

JPFO Alert: New Federal "Ban" of Combat Gear for Cops is the Kind of "Ban" Gun Owners Could Accept

Today's JPFO Alert notes that a "ban" that only means that the government isn't buying the "banned" item for you is one gun owners could get behind.

A nitpicking, irrelevant distinction? I don't think so. Look at it this way--what if proposals to ban private citizens' ownership of so-called "assault weapons" meant only that the federal government would not be subsidizing all or part of the purchase price? What if attempts to "ban" .50 caliber rifles were only attempting to clarify that it will be the responsibility of the aspiring rifle owner, and of no one else, to pay for it? What if the abandoned (for now) attempt on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to "ban" M855 ammunition simply meant that the federal government could not give it to us for nothing?

JPFO Alert: Gun Bans No Longer Enough; Now They Want to Ban Gun Information

Today's JPFO Alert notes that with the statists, crushing fundamental human rights is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one.

No, indeed you cannot stop the signal, and the fact that the administration is trying so strenuously to do so shows how desperate it has become.

JPFO Alert: Garland, TX and the Right that Defends All Others

Today's JPFO Alert notes that the right to free speech would not be of much use without the right to an effective means of defending it.

And so it is with all rights. The Constitution of the United States, as brilliant a document as it is, does not, cannot defend the rights it guarantees all by itself. The pen may indeed be mightier than the sword, but the sword is a great deal more effective for hacking people to death. One retains only the rights one can defend.