by -
20 552

I am an unrepentant advocate of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that Americans have the absolute right to carry firearms for their protection, and I advocate being able to carry them at any time and in any place. So, when I see news like this, it concerns me.

The news is that President Trump’s new White House Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci, has an decidedly un-American viewpoint on firearms, based on his past statements. Now, some will suggest that I’m biased against Scaramucci because he is from New York, which, to many Americans, means that he is too buddy-buddy with anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg.

The fact of the matter is that I don’t care where he is from. What bothers me are things like a post that he made on Twitter on August 6, 2012 [hat tip to here for the source]:

We (the USA) has 5% of the world’s population but 50% of the world’s guns. Enough is enough. It is just common sense it apply more controls

Now, I have to ask, why in the world does he think that “more controls” will make any positive difference in gun violence? Chicago and Washington, D.C.’s crime rates, including gun crime, have been ridiculously high for years (certainly when he wrote that), so how can he conclude that?

(This is also a guy who gushed about liking Hillary. He Tweeted on April 16, 2012: I hope she [Hillary] runs [in 2016], she is incredibly competent[.]”)

To be fair, though, people can change their opinions on issues. For example, Scaramucci posted on Twitter on July 22, 2017 (a week ago at the time of this writing) [hat tip to here for this source]:

Full transparency: I’m deleting old tweets. Past views evolved & shouldn’t be a distraction. I serve @POTUS agenda & that’s all that matters.

I’ll admit that I respect the idea that views can evolve, though I will admit to being rather jaded about politicians in general, so I’m not sure that I completely buy it. Call me cynical.

by -
10 579

It’s long been a talking point of the anti-gun left that gun ownership is really just a Caucasian male thing due to the “violent tendencies” of that particular group. It’s hard to argue that white males make up the majority of gun owners simply based on that fact that many women, unfortunately, tend to shy away from considering violence even for defensive purposes and that there are more Caucasians in the United States than other ethnicities.

But new statistics are challenging the anti-gunner narrative that gun ownership is a racist, sexist thing. Jenn Jacques writes,

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), the number of concealed handgun permit holders has soared to an impressive 16.3 million law-abiding citizens!

But has that turned America into the “Wild West” as liberals feared?

Not quite.

It’s also interesting that despite the media’s claim the NRA is “racist and sexist”, some of the biggest increases in permits have been with women and African-Americans.

Among the findings in the report, John R. Lott highlights the following points:

  • There are now over 16.3 million permit holders, a record 1.83 million increase in permits since last July.
  • Nationwide, 6.5% adults have a concealed handgun permit. Outside of California and New York, 8% of adults have a permit.
  • Permits for women and blacks are increasing much faster than they are for men and whites.
  • There are also significant differences in not only the number of permits issued but also who gets them when politicians have discretion in granting them.
    • Los Angeles County provides a vivid example of how women and Hispanics are given few permits when politicians decided who can defend themselves.
  • Concealed carry permit holders also continue to be stringently law-abiding.

So, to set the record straight: women and African-Americans are getting more concealed carry permits, and the data is implying (if not outright saying) that where women and minorities feel the most threatened, the government keeps them from getting the protection that they need.

Which leads any sane person to ask, who is really the racist, sexist group in the gun control debate? Answer: the anti-gunners.

by -
16 718

I’m about to make a statement that will terrify many people in America: Children should learn how to use guns.

Now, to be clear (because some anti-gunners will think that I advocate giving a three year old a loaded fully automatic rifle), I’m not saying to be stupid about it. Teaching  your kids how to use guns includes teaching them gun safety, but, in our crazy world, our children have to be able to defend themselves even when they are children.

Take the example of seventeen-year-old Kimber Wood, who has a scary story. There had been reports of a number of police officers in her neighborhood. Because of these reports (presumably because this meant the police were concerned about something in the area), Wood’s parents decided that she should have her father’s .22 pistol to protect herself since she would be home alone.

It’s a good thing, too. A guy entered her home, searched the house, and came to Wood’s room last. It was then, when she didn’t have a choice, that she confronted him with the gun. He ran, and she chased him out of the house and out of her yard, firing a warning shot along the way.  She said, “I refused to be a victim.”

Good for her.

Herschel Smith has this to say about the story,

You mean to say that she hadn’t been trained in all of that tacticool super Ninja warrior stress control training, and she was still able to defend her life with a firearm?  This means massive narrative fail on the part of the controllers.  They won’t be happy.

In fact, in order to maintain the narrative and effect their designs for a defenseless utopia, they would rather she have been raped, or killed, or both.  Everytown and Bloomberg have already told them to try to change their names from controllers to “gun law advocacy groups.”  They’re very concerned about their image these days.

However, I would recommend in the future that she not shoot at fleeing people unless she wants huge trouble with the prosecutors and courts, and for heaven’s sake, don’t fire warning shots.

I agree with Smith about the warning shots (gun training may have prevented this dangerous action), but, unlike anti-gunners, I’m glad that Wood had her father’s gun to keep her safe. If you have a daughter, she needs to learn how to shoot so that she, too, has the ability to refuse to be a victim.

by -
19 558

Typically, when you hear someone talk about gun control, they try to moderate it by using terms that don’t make them sound like the type of nutcase who blindly trusts government to do the right thing (which is what they are). They’ll use terms like “common sense gun control” or “common sense gun reform.”

The first question that you have to ask is “What is common sense?” because, in my experience, common sense is actually pretty uncommon, and they probably don’t have it. It’s when you start pushing them for specifics (or when they think that you’re on their side) that the disturbing truth comes out.

A perfect example is Mark Glaze who is the former executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (as if any mayors are for illegal guns). Glaze wrote a piece for a new anti-gun group called Guns Down. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action tells us about Glaze’s article:

Writing on behalf of a new gun control group called Guns Down, Glaze endorsed mandatory firearm owner licensing, alluded to a “government buy-back” for commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, and called for restrictions that would prevent even the law-abiding from accessing guns.

In a departure from Everytown’s messaging, Glaze downplayed the importance of background checks, claiming that they “alone aren’t the answer.” According to Glaze, “To truly tackle the gun violence epidemic, lawmakers must go further – after the guns themselves.”

Glaze’s central thesis, and Guns Down’s organizing principle, is that there are too many guns in private hands the U.S.; regardless of whether those guns are lawfully or unlawfully possessed. This oversimplified view of gun ownership harkens back to the handgun prohibitionist messaging of the 1970s and 80s.

Think about that for a moment. Glaze is advocating “mandatory firearm owner licensing.” In other words, he says that you don’t have a Constitutional right to have your firearm. He thinks that you don’t have a right to have a firearm unless the government gives you that right.

Now, we can get into a long argument about where rights come from, but I’ll just mention that the Founding Fathers believed that our rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are inalienable. In other words, our rights don’t come from government; we have them because we are human beings.

Radicals like Glaze need to wake up to the reality of the fallacy of thinking gun control brings safety, and they need to stop treating government like God, as if government is where rights originate from. It’s that kind of ridiculous thinking that caused our Founding Fathers to fight off King George in the first place.

by -
11 671

Given the negative news about the U.S. court system’s hostility towards the rights of Americans to own firearms, it’s understandable if you expect every news article about the courts involving guns to be a frustrating read promoting gun control.

Fortunately, though, there are a few rulings coming through the court system in which the courts actually understand the 2nd Amendment and uphold an Americans right to bear arms. Yes, even when the case comes from notoriously anti-gun New York. Chris Eger writes,

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals this week said a New York woman who had her firearms picked up by the local sheriff five years ago should be granted a hearing to get them back.

The decision involves Christine Panzella who had her guns seized while she was the subject of a protective order filed by her ex-husband. Now with the order out of effect since 2013, the Nassau County Sheriff’s Department says she can’t get them back without a hearing. This week a three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s decision on appeal and unanimously said there is no apparent reason why she shouldn’t receive a hearing to get her firearms returned by the agency.

Five days after her ex-husband filed a protective order in New York Family Court against Panzella in June 2012, deputies arrived at her home to deliver it and in the process seized her pistol license along with two rifles and three shotguns, although the court did not specifically order their confiscation. The guns were locked up in the armory of the Nassau County Correctional Center, where they remain.

The temporary order expired and her ex eventually withdrew the filing in March 2013, leading county officials to return her pistol license. Since she is not prohibited from possessing firearms, Panzella has since purchased a new pistol. However, the county has a policy of not returning long arms seized from an individual unless they are given a court order to do so, and the family court does not have the authority to release them.

To get her guns back, in October 2013, Panzella filed suit against the county and sheriff citing her 14th Amendment due process rights and Second Amendment right to bear arms were being violated.

Panzella won her case. The county then (for whatever illogical and unlawful reason) appealed the decision which was struck down by the 2nd Circuit Court.

It’s beyond me why this sheriff’s department thought that they had any kind of legal standing to keep Panzella’s weapons even though they were seized without court order and there was no legal reason to to keep her from owning guns (they probably were going from the also-illegal thinking of civil forfeiture). Fortunately, though, even some courts rule on cases from anti-gun strongholds in ways that support the Constitution and our right to bear arms.

by -
46 1355

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 -
0 652

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 -
11 985

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 -
10 732

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 -
32 715

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.


0 39
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative...