by -
34 422

Growing up in the 1980s, when I hear someone talk about a red light, I’m probably going to think of the song “Roxanne” by The Police as I am a traffic light. (If you’re unfamiliar with “Roxanne,” it references the red lights districts of Holland where red lights are turned on outside of a room when a prostitute is… um… open for business.).

Now, anti-gunners have gotten the idiotic idea that shining red lights outside of their homes will somehow deter gun violence. It’s, possibly, the most idiotic gun control idea that I’ve ever heard. Angry Patriot writes,

 It’s long been obvious that your average liberal does not understand human nature, and especially doesn’t understand the mindset of criminals.

Their latest idea proves that the average liberal honestly feels like they are impervious to becoming a victim of crime. Liberals have begun to indicate their home is gun free with red porch lights.

(hat tip to here for the lead)

I can’t be the only person who immediately realized why this is a bad idea. Once those with criminal intent realize that these homes are literally safe zones for them to do whatever they want, which homes do you think that they will target? It’s obviously the homes that they will almost certainly be able to walk out of uninjured and unconfronted.

Angry Patriot points out another oddity about this campaign:

There’s another odd element to this idea that I just can’t shake. This liberal meme implies that the people putting out these red lights are “activists.” Since when does changing your light bulb amount to political activism?

This just goes to show that to liberals; political activism is no longer about making good arguments and exercising your freedom of speech. Instead, political activism is about social pressure. I can just imagine liberals everywhere trying to convince their neighbors that they don’t want to be the only home on the block that hasn’t switched over to red lighting.

This “activism” also comes from the immature line of thinking that if enough patriots see enough people with red lights in their home, they will somehow start to think the Second Amendment isn’t that important after all.

It’s sheer lunacy to think that this will do anything but get anti-gunners robbed, assaulted, and killed, and, while I disagree with what they are trying to do, I do think that it’s sad that more people will suffer because of this silliness. I hope, for their sake, that this campaign disappears quickly.

by -
0 261

These days weapons are made from a variety of materials, metals, plastics, and polymers, but, every so often, you hear about a new material source that surprises you. For example, I will admit, this is the first time that I have heard about guns being made from… typewriters.

Eric Nado is a Canadian artist who decided to make art by taking apart old typewriters and recombining them in ways so that they look like guns (they are, unfortunately, non-functional). Lucy Wang writes,

Nado’s reconstructive artworks are crafted with all original parts of vintage typewriters, including brands such as Underwood and Royal. Though startlingly realistic, these steampunk-esque guns are non-functional. The assemblage artist has also worked with other mediums, most notably in his Seamstress Series where he transforms vintage sewing machines in sculptures reminiscent of workingwomen of the post-war era.

This is a refreshing change of pace coming from the art world which is almost notorious in it’s militant leftist politics including anti-gun hysteria. This is the kind of gun showing that you could take your political adversaries to (though, they’d probably be offended even by the idea of liking something that looks like a gun). Wang continues,

In an interview with Creators, Nado said he was motivated by his childhood memories of playing with his mother’s typewriter. “The sound of the keys evoked, for me, the sound of guns going off. It is this memory that initiated in me, years later, a new obsession, fueled by what were now years of experience in technical manifestations of art,” he said. “I wondered, could it be possible to transform these evocative machines into representations of a gun arsenal? My intuition was that it could be done and the objective was to do so by deconstructing and reconstructing solely the pieces of one typewriter at a time, making each and every gun an art piece with a history in itself.”

You can see examples of his work starting at about 2:00 in the video below.

by -
9 324

How many hoops did you have to jump through to get your license to carry your weapon? Chances are that you had to go through a little bit of hassle (though, obviously, some states and areas are easier to work with than others), but it’s unlikely that you had to go through the same aggravation that Richard Brandon of Pennsylvania did. He had to wade through a four year court case to be able to legally carry there.

Brandon applied in 2013 for a carry permit, and the Butler County Sheriff’s Office denied his license because the Pennsylvania Instant Check System showed that Brandon had twice been involuntarily committed to psychiatric facilities. Here’s where the story gets frustrating for law-abiding citizens of Pennsylvania: even though Brandon was denied his carry license, the Pennsylvania State Police could not produce any records documenting that Brandon had been committed.

In other words, he was denied his right to carry based on hearsay. Chris Eger writes,

State Police did not have copies of the original notices from mental health authorities in their records and Butler County’s mental health department did not have any Section 302 petitions for Brandon in their files. Hospital records for the visits were no longer available and state law requires that medical records only be preserved for seven years.

Brandon’s attorney, Joshua Prince, could point out inconsistencies in even the limited records the state presented, noting that one form showed him admitted to a different hospital. He further pointed out that the FBI, as far back as 2001, had chastised PSP [Pennsylvania State Police] for denying licenses to individuals in cases where they did not have sufficient information to decide.

Fortunately, the judge followed the law and ruled in Brandon’s favor, but it’s utterly ridiculous that he had to go through this situation and wait four years to exercise his Constitutional rights.

by -
5 310

It’s simply amazing how much blind faith people put into the government’s ability to protect us. Many Americans are of the absurd opinion that, just because government is involved, people will be safe from harm. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, a lady in Clay County, Kentucky was afraid that her ex-boyfriend was a threat to her. She feared for her life. She sought protection by the law and by the police. This protection failed. Fortunately, for her, she had someone with her who understood the safety value of firearms. Jennifer Cruz writes about the situation,

A Kentucky man was shot and killed Tuesday morning during a confrontation at his ex-girlfriend’s home in Clay County.

The deceased man was identified as 34-year-old Jody M. Sevier. The woman’s name was not released, but Matthew Caldwell was confirmed to be the shooter, not the ex-girlfriend. The relationship between her and Caldwell is not known at this time.

Authorities say the couple had a history of domestic violence and, in fact, the woman shot Sevier in the face just last month during an incident with an electrical cord and the woman’s child.

At the time of Tuesday’s shooting, Sevier’s ex-girlfriend had filed an emergency order of protection against him, although it had yet to be served.

No arrests have been made at this time and preliminary evidence suggests the shooting was an act of self-defense. The investigation is ongoing and, once completed, will be turned over to the grand jury to determine whether charges are appropriate.

It’s unfortunate that someone was killed in this situation, but it would have been even more unfortunate if Sevier had been allowed to continue to harm his ex-girlfriend, and it is good for her that Caldwell was there.

It’s simply more proof that legal gun ownership is vitally important for people’s safety. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

by -
2 189

I have a friend who jokes that a .50 caliber is for when you need to hit the robber behind the refrigerator… in your neighbor’s house. My friend is joking when he says that, but a gun using ammunition that large is no laughing matter when it is pointed at someone.

Unfortunately, two people in Minnesota didn’t know that. Hank Berrien writes,

On Monday night, a 19-year-old Minnesota woman was arrested for shooting her boyfriend to death as part of a YouTube stunt for her blog.

The criminal complaint in the case states that Monilisa Perez, who is pregnant, told police that her boyfriend, Pedro Ruiz, 22, wanted to make a YouTube video of her shooting a book while he was holding it; Ruiz thought the bullet would be stopped by the book. Ruiz had set up a GoPro camera and another camera to record the shooting.

Prior to the incident, Perez had tweeted: “Me and Pedro are probably going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever. HIS idea not MINE”

After she shot Ruiz, Perez called 911.  When police arrived, they attempted to save Ruiz but he died at the scene. Perez told police Ruiz had shown her a different book which a bullet did not penetrate; she acknowledged to police that she shot Ruiz from one foot away using a .50 caliber Desert Eagle firearm.

According to Tasneem Nashrulla, Perez has a YouTube channel which she hopes to be able to use to become famous. Nashrulla writes, “Perez had uploaded several YouTube videos featuring her and Ruiz, many of which involved doing ‘pranks,’ ‘stunts,’ and ‘challenges.'”

Tragically, this couple’s obvious lack of firearm training will lead to her being famous, but not for any good reason.

It’s this kind of senseless death that should drive home how careful that you need to be as a responsible gun owner and that you should pass on safety instruction to those around you. The world doesn’t need to see another person die because people were too foolish to consider how to be safe.

by -
0 145

Anti-gunners want people to believe that we don’t need the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And, in a way, they are right, but not for the reason that they think.

You see the Second Amendment explicitly states that the Federal government doesn’t have a right to prevent you and me from owning and responsibly using firearms, but there are two other Amendments to the Constitution that cover the Second Amendment and more. They are the Ninth and the Tenth Amendment. Mike Maharrey explains,

As I explained in my Constitution 101 article on the Second Amendment, the Constitution only delegates specific powers to the federal government. The enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all powers not listed. Designato unius est exclusio alterius is a legal maxim meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.” You will find no authority to regulate firearms or ban certain types of weapons in the Constitution. The supporters of the Constitution consistently argued that the federal government would not possess the authority to exercise any power not explicitly given.

As a condition of ratification many states insisted on a Bill of Rights, including amendments to make this rule of construction explicit. The result was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

So, even if the Second Amendment was never ratified, or if we accept the very narrow application preferred by progressives, the federal government still cannot infringe on the individual right to self-defense.

The Ninth Amendment was ratified to ensure that listing certain rights in the Bill of Rights would not be construed as all-inclusive.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Madison’s proposal for what became the Ninth Amendment makes clear the intent was to amplify the limits of federal power – specifically to ensure the enumeration of certain rights was not taken to imply the federal government could violate rights that were not mentioned.

Maharrey continues,

That brings us to the Tenth Amendment. It works together with the Ninth Amendment to explicitly define the limits of federal power.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Because the Constitution does not delegate gun control to the federal government, and because the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the federal government cannot infringe on individual liberties – even those not listed in the Bill of Rights – any regulation or laws regarding guns remains the province of state governments, as dictated and limited by their constitutions.

Simply put, no matter how you care to interpret the Second Amendment, based on a constitutional reading guided by Amendment IX and X, the federal government possesses zero authority to enforce any type of gun laws, or infringe on the right to self-defense in any way whatsoever.

So, to put it in layman’s terms, the Constitution specifically says that, if the Constitution doesn’t plainly and directly grant a power to the Federal government, then the Federal government does not have that power, and, because the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Federal government has the right to prevent people from owning and using firearms, then the Federal government cannot take that right away from us.

This is something that you’ll probably never hear from an anti-gunner propagandist, and, to be fair, they’ve probably never heard it either (as evidenced by their illiteracy about the Constitution on gun issues), but, if they want to get silly with their notion of what a “well regulated militia” is, then just point them to these two Amendments. If they have a shred of honesty in them, they’ll simply admit that they don’t have any kind of legal standing for their gun control nonsense.

by -
15 562

As a responsible gun owner, you hope that you never have to use your weapon to defend yourself, but you also know that the sad reality of our world is that you just may find yourself in the situation where you have to fire on someone to protect yourself or someone that you love.

A homeowner in the East San Francisco Bay area of Brentwood, California, found himself having to use this last resort to protect himself from robbers who wanted what was inside his gun safe. Unfortunately for them, that’s exactly what they got. Chase Stephens writes,

[Neighbor Reggie] Nichols went outside to see what was happening. “I could see the guy lying in the street, so then I came back and got my flashlight and got my phone, ran over there. He was still alive but he wasn’t doing good,” Nichols said.

The homeowner came out and explained to Nichols that four men tried to break into his house about 11:40 p.m. and steal a safe.

“They made him open the safe. After he opened the safe, I guess they weren’t ready for him,” Nichols remarked, adding that his friend “came out blasting.”

Nichols also said,

I think he had the right to do what he did. Like I said, I’ve seen him. He was really shook up. I don’t think he wanted to do it but he felt like his life was in danger.

Fortunately, no charges have been filed against the homeowner as his actions appear to be legitimate self-defense.

In this situation, it’s both fortunate and unfortunate that the homeowner had a gun safe in his house. Unfortunate because the robbers specifically seemed to want what was in that safe. Fortunate, though, because he was able to use what was in that safe to save his own life.

It’s also good to remember that it’s exactly these kind of high-stress situations that we need to train for so that if we find ourselves in this kind of awful situation, we can take the effective action needed to save innocent lives.

by -
14 693

If there is one thing that you can say about hardline gun control advocates is that they are consistent in their unwavering support of gun control. No matter how much logic gets thrown their way or how much evidence that is shown to them, they remain steadfast loyal gun control advocates.

They are completely devoted to their misguided religious faith in the benefits of gun control.

So, you’ll understand our shock when a left coast newspaper (which would be expected to be stumping for Bloomberg’s gun control nonsense) printed an op-ed piece admitting that gun control does not work. We had to sit down when we read that, too.

The op-ed by Jay Ambrose, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, was printed in The Mercury News (a California newspaper) on June 22, 2017. Ambrose wrote,

Whenever there is a shooting, liberals have an answer that is not an answer, namely the charade of more gun control. Fine, try it, and maybe some voodoo along the way but it doesn’t work very well. There are better alternatives and what’s truly absurd in this debate is the demeaning expression “gun nuts.”

What about “gun control nuts?”

What about people who seem to think murders will go down if fewer guns are sold even though a major crime drop starting in the 1990s was accompanied by a huge increase in the number of guns?

What about people apparently not knowing that we have 300 million guns in this country and getting hold of one will continue to be easy short of mass confiscation that will not and should not happen? Criminals, by the way, mostly get their guns from such means as the black market or a family gift, not through store purchases.

Ambrose lays out the details about how banning guns in both the U.K. and in Russia resulted in increased murder rates and that more people are killed with knives and with fists than with guns.

In fact, Ambrose lays out all of the facts that intelligent gun owners already know. It’s just refreshing to see those facts printed in a newspaper in a staunchly anti-gun environment.

We just hope that a few people can open their eyes enough to read Ambrose’s op-ed piece and grasp the truth: gun control doesn’t reduce violence. Gun control increases violence.

by -
2 433

Maybe it’s an old-fashioned sentiment, but many people actually believe that people should do the right thing because it’s the right thing. That’s not to say that they begrudge someone making a good income, but, if that person says they are doing what they do for moral reasons, then that person’s actions should follow that up.

Which makes you wonder why some gun control advocates really take that political position because, apparently, being a gun control advocate pays well. In fact, it looks like it pays very well.

Take a recent news story about a home owned by Shannon Watts. You may not be familiar with her, but you’ve probably heard about her organization, Moms Demand. Miguel over at writes about this:

Take a look at this humble 4 bedroom, 5 bathroom side of the mountain abode located tat 1145 Timber Ln Boulder, CO 80304. […]

However, it is not for sale, it was bought in 2014 by measly $2,275,000 (Yes, that is seven figures) and according to Boulder County records, the owners are:

Yes! John and Shannon R Watts formerly of Zionsville IN!

I am not gonna say that all those trinkets, t-shirts and fundraisers from Moms Demand went to pay for this palatial Rockies’ place. I am sure their old art gallery business was sold at a premium because it made crazy money in Indiana.

And to say that it pays to be the puppet of Michael Bloomberg would be pure unfounded speculation, so don’t.

Of course, Miguel is being very tongue-in-cheek. This nice, innocent, “mother of five” who just wants to make the world a better place seems to be doing pretty well and not living among the teeming masses who can’t afford to pay over $2 million for a home.

When you see stuff like this, you don’t even have to be very cynical to think that maybe, just maybe, all those gun control supporters are getting fleeced because maybe, just maybe, it’s not actually about wanting to make a difference, but it’s about selling something to people that they’ll buy.

And, by the looks of it, people sure have been suckered into buying Shannon Watts’s propaganda.

by -
21 636

Gun control advocates keep saying that making it harder to legally buy guns will reduce violent crime. They say it again and again and again. It’s like they took a page from the Adolf Hitler playbook who was reported to have said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Well, Seattle bought the lie hook, line, and sinker. They passed a “gun violence” tax in 2015 on sales of guns and ammunition in Seattle city limits. Mike Miller writes,

Proponents of the law, which went into effect on January 1, 2016, argued that neither would happen and the law would generate from $300,000 to $500,000 on an annual basis, which, in 2016, was earmarked to “fund a study of gunshot victims, including medical and behavioral interventions.”

Now, some people will be surprised what happened since the tax was put into effect. Gun stores began to close and gun and ammunition sales are down in Seattle, so gun control advocates got that out of this tax (which is, presumably, what they wanted). Of course, they probably think that reducing gun and ammunition sales will reduce violence.

They were wrong. Miller again writes,

According to the Seattle Police Department, the number of gun shootings with injuries is up 54 percent and gun deaths have doubled during the first five months of 2017, as compared to the same period before the law went into effect. […]

Dave Workman, senior editor of GunMag, rhetorically asked “how much data do you need?”, adding “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”

City officials wouldn’t reveal the amount of revenue generated by the law in 2016, saying only that it was “under $200,000.”

So, the next time that you hear some gun grabber babble on about how reducing legal gun sales or reducing legal ammunition sales will reduce violence, just point them to the facts of the Seattle “experiment.” Gun sales and ammunition sales reduce violence, and that is the truth.


34 422
Growing up in the 1980s, when I hear someone talk about a red light, I'm probably going to think of the song "Roxanne" by...