Tag Archives: Gun Control

‘Progressive’ Praise for McCain Shows Limits of ‘Acceptable’ Conservatism, by David Codrea

If McCain is held up as the epitome of conservatism, anybody more conservative is by definition a right-wing crazy. From David Codrea at ammoland.com:

“Dear friends” celebrate their interpretation of the Constitution with awards — meaning anyone to the right of this alliance can be labeled an “extremist.” (John McCain/Facebook)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him,” Mark Antony declares in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Those familiar with the play understand the subtlety of the oratory and its hidden political purposes. There are political parallels now that Republican Sen. John McCain has passed, with Democrats signaling their admiration for the man.

I’m not going to speak ill of the dead. McCain’s record in life was clear and my differences with him – and there were many — were expressed then. It’s more productive for the purpose of defending against some of those differences to look at what his ostensible political opponents, his friends across the aisle and in the media, are saying about him now.

Continue reading


The Government Will Allow Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed to Distribute Gun-Making Software, by Brian Doherty

Here’s a way to get around gun control: on the internet show people how to 3D print their own guns. From Brian Doherty at reason.com:

The Justice Department has reached a settlement with the Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed, a collective that organizes, promotes, and distributes technologies to help home gun-makers. Under the agreement, which resolved a suit filed by the two groups in 2015, Americans may “access, discuss, use, reproduce or otherwise benefit from the technical data” that the government had previously ordered Defense Distributed to cease distributing.

Mark McDaniel/ReasonMark McDaniel/Reason

Before this, the feds had insisted that Defense Distributed’s gun-making files violate the munitions export rules embedded in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Defense Distributed’s suit claimed that this was was “censorship of Plaintiffs’ speech,” since the files in question consist of computer code and thus counted as expression. It also argued that “the ad hoc, informal and arbitrary manner in which that scheme is applied, violate the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments.” (The Second because the information in the computer files implicates weapons possession rights.)

That Wired story is mostly devoted to scaring the reader about what a world in which people are freer to use computer files to make weapons at home might mean. Wilson is open that as far as he’s concerned, he’s killed the cause of gun control by popularizing the home construction of weapons via computer instructions.

Wired also speculates that the settlement is some sign of a Trump administration bending over backwards to satisfy a Second Amendment constituency. Alan Gura, one of the lawyers on the plaintiffs’ side—and the attorney who won both 2008’s Heller case and 2010’s McDonald, two major Supreme Court victories for gun rights—disagrees, noting the administration’s record in other ongoing Second Amendment cases.

To continue reading; The Government Will Allow Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed to Distribute Gun-Making Software

Ron Paul: Republicans, Democrats Teaming Up for Federal Gun Confiscation Bill, by Matt Agorist

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights must be ever-vigilant, because governments default mode is always to try to disarm the citizenry. From Matt Agorist at thefreethoughtproject.com:

In an email Tuesday night, former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul released an ominous statement claiming that a source they have in the Senate revealed Democrats are teaming up with Republicans to push through a massive gun control bill.

According to their source, as Paul explained, “Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are teaming up with Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ram through one of the worst nationwide gun confiscation schemes ever devised.”

The gun confiscation bill, according to Paul, is designed to disarm Americans without any due process. The senators are using the recent tragic shooting in Texas as the impetus behind the law—in spite of the fact that this law would not have prevented the shooting at all.

As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, some states have already begun implementing laws like this one. Using mass shootings as a their ammunition, states have enacted “Red Flag” or “Risk Protection” laws which allow police to confiscate a person’s weapon before they are ever given a chance to defend themselves.

In both of the gun confiscation cases reported by TFTP, neither of the two men were suspected of committing a crime, nor had they committed a crime.

Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, due process clauses are in place to act as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. What’s more, neither of the men were granted their sixth amendment rights to be confronted with the witnesses against them. In both cases, simple orders—under new laws—were issued, arguably arbitrarily, which stripped these two men of their property.

To continue reading: Ron Paul: Republicans, Democrats Teaming Up for Federal Gun Confiscation Bill

AR-15 For Home Defense: When Defensive Gun Use Is Labeled As A “Mass Shooting”, by Duane Norman

Here’s an answer to the frequently asked question: Why would anyone need an assault rifle? From Duane Norman at fmshooter.com:

A recent shooting involving an AR-15 left one dead and two wounded, but it did not make national headlines.  This story was likely not covered by mainstream media because it involved a “defensive gun use” (DGU) inside the home of the victims:

Three men say they were asleep inside a mobile home in Glen St. Mary about 4 a.m. Sunday when they heard a voice outside yell “Sheriff’s Office!” before the front door burst open.

In stormed a masked gunman who fired off a single round before two of the men inside, one armed with an AR-15 rifle and the other with a handgun, emerged from two bedrooms and opened fire.

Gunfire ripped into the masked gunman and two other intruders, who crumpled to the floor with multiple gunshot wounds.

The Sheriff’s Office said the five were among seven masked individuals armed with guns who barged into a mobile home on County Road 125 about 4 a.m. to confront four people staying there over a feud.

The AR-15 and similar platforms have been ballyhooed as a weapons system that “no one needs”, in spite of the fact that it is often an ideal choice for home defense, as this particular instance demonstrates.  This flies in the face of claims made by former Vice President Joe Biden, who once quipped that “you don’t need an AR-15” for home defense:

“I promise you whoever’s coming in is not gonna,” Biden said. “You don’t need an AR-15 (assault rifle). It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”

“Buy a shotgun,” he said, lowering his voice almost to whisper.

Perhaps “Crazy Joe” feels comfortable defending his home with a shotgun, but a woman who is 5’0” weighing 100lbs (or less) will likely have a much harder time aiming and firing a shotgun than she would with a semiautomatic .223 rifle.

The ease of use and short range accuracy of the .223 cartridge has led to its popularity and widespread adaptation by civilians, military and law enforcement.  Notably, the cartridge is not permitted for hunting of deer and larger animals due to its smaller size relative to larger cartridges.

The truth is, an attacker or mass murderer can always plan around a magazine restriction (if they even use a gun at all).  But in those pivotal moments defending your home facing down multiple attackers, and when a magazine change adds valuable seconds, Biden’s “30 round” restriction could be the difference between life and death. 

To continue reading: AR-15 For Home Defense: When Defensive Gun Use Is Labeled As A “Mass Shooting”

They Take the Second Amendment First and the First Amendment Second, by Kurt Schlichter

The British example is quite instructive. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:

They Take the Second Amendment First and the First Amendment Second

We have talked a lot about the liberal assault on our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms for the defense of ourselves, our families, our communities, and our Constitution, but it is a mistake to think of a disarmed population as their desired end-state. No, that’s merely the first step toward the subjugation of the Normals. What they want is not only for us to be disarmed, but to be silenced.

They are not going to stop with the Second Amendment. Next, they are going to move to finish off the First Amendment.

They don’t want you to speak freely.

They don’t want you to have access to a free press.

They don’t want you to practice your religion as you see fit.

And when you are disarmed and silenced, and you are stripped of any god but government – the government they control absolutely and forever – then they will have achieved their dream. You will no longer be a citizen; you will be a serf.

We can imagine what an America without our rights would look like, and it is really bad.

Oh, that’s crazy talk.

Really? Let’s look across the ocean and see what’s happening there. The British have kindly given us a preview. They allowed themselves to be disarmed, but why would they need guns? Britain is totally safe – except London just stumbled past New York in terms of violent crime. Oh, and it has an epidemic of knife violence. And acid attacks. But on the plus side, the decent people are helpless.

In the view of the elite, that is a plus. When you are helpless, you need them, and you are compliant.

But at least they have freedom of speech . . . except no, they don’t. In recent weeks, some guy calling himself Count Dankula was convicted of a crime for saying something.

For saying something.

It was a joke, and a tasteless one, but he now faces jail for speaking words. Think about that. And the police agencies in a land that used to be a bulwark of freedom and human rights are on the case, tweeting warnings to others who might say something that offends the elite’s sensibilities that the bobbies are watching.

George Orwell would be all, “See, told ya!” if he was alive, except he’d probably be in the slammer too for saying things that are illegal to say.

Let’s review: In once-Great Britain, there are things that are illegal to say.

But not here at home. Not in America. Why, that could never happen here. Liberals certainly don’t want to limit your speech, just like they don’t want to take your guns.

Baloney. The left is intent on taking away your right to speak freely.

To continue reading: They Take the Second Amendment First and the First Amendment Second

Guns and the left’s war on freedom, by Peter Morici

Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control. From Peter Morici at washingtontimes.com:

American democracy is under siege, and gun control is at the very center of the left’s war on all our freedoms and its agenda for an America in the mold of European socialism.

Facts — terrible massacres in strict gun control jurisdictions like Connecticut and France — have no place in fashioning the left’s gun regulatory proposals. Every horrific shooting is followed by demands for draconian restrictions on gun ownership without reasonable evidence that those measures can’t be circumvented by would be mass shooters.

The establishment GOP in Congress, just as it has on entitlements, taxes and a host of other issues, reverts to the mistake of offering compromises without strict conditions. Over and over again, it falls into the error of believing just one more concession will buy peace with the left but it can’t.

 For the executive class of the professional left, a victory on one issue — for example, gay marriage — requires finding another — transgender rights. The civil rights movement must keep alive racism, sexism and white male privilege, no matter the progress of society, or its leaders would have to find honest work.

I have never owned a gun and have fired one only once — at the age of 5, my Sicilian grandmother lifted me up to pull the trigger at a Coney Island shooting gallery. I don’t feel gun ownership is necessary to secure my masculinity — something I am entitled to cultivate even if the liberals at my university enforce the notion in curriculum and public speech that it is the source of all injustice.

However, I am convinced it is impossible to make guns too difficult for would-be shooters to obtain. Even if the government made all gun ownership illegal and could confiscate the 350 million plus guns in circulation, a deranged shooter could make an AR-15 and ammunition with a 3D printer.

Similarly, it is impossible to arm and train American school teachers or harden schools to make those fully safe — unless we surrounded schools with barbwire fences, watch towers and guards armed with machine guns.

America is not Israel, where school teachers believe terrorists can be stopped by a well-trained educator holding a semi-automatic. Rather, American teachers are organized into unions that believe more entitlement spending and supporting Black Lives Matters’ anti-police agenda are vital to ending mass shootings.

To continue reading: Guns and the left’s war on freedom

Gun Control in America Has Always Been About Disarming Black People, by Carey Wedler

Guns can even the odds between the weak and the strong. It’s no surprise that gun control has often been targeted at the most historically oppressed group in America—blacks. From Carey Wedler at theantimedia.org:

Americans calling for gun control in 2018 often argue that a cursory glance at history proves there was never meant to be an unrestrained right to own firearms — that there were always meant to be restrictions on gun ownership. In at least one respect, they are correct: United States history shows there has always been an element of racism underpinning gun control. From the colonial era to the post-civil war era to the 1960s, laws have sought to disempower African Americans by limiting their ability to protect themselves.

Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively on the history of gun control in America, has explained the long legacy of gun control as it relates to this country’s long legacy of racism (though not all gun control measures were racist in measure, the institutional racism inherent in many policies is indisputable).

In the colonies before the Revolution and in the states right after, racially discriminatory gun laws were commonplace,” he wrote in an article published by the New Republic in 2013.

Fearing revolts, lawmakers enacted statutes barring slaves from possessing firearms or other weapons. That ban was often applied equally to free blacks, who otherwise enjoyed most rights, lest they join in an uprising against the slave system. Where blacks were allowed to possess arms, as in Virginia in the early 1800s, they first had to obtain permission from local officials.

After the civil war, Southern states passed the Black Codes, which banned black Americans from owning guns. Acknowledging that gun control laws are not always effective, Winkler explained:

You can draw up any law you like, but people don’t necessarily comply. To enforce these laws, racists began to form posses that would go out at night in large groups, generally wearing disguises, and terrorize black homes, seizing every gun they could find. These groups took different names depending on locale: the Black Cavalry in Alabama, the Knights of the White Camellia in Louisiana, the Knights of the Rising Sun in Texas. In time, they all came to be known by the moniker of one such posse begun in Pulaski, Tennessee after the war: the Ku Klux Klan.”

To continue reading: Gun Control in America Has Always Been About Disarming Black People