Gov. Abbott should (a) mobilize the Texas National Guard, who are under his exclusive, lawful authority; (b) authorize the Texas State Police and Texas Rangers to recruit and augment as necessary their forces, including the employment of qualified volunteer auxiliary deputies; (c) encourage all Sheriffs throughout the State to do likewise; (d) secure from the legislature the requisite funding/reimbursement; and (e) establish a nimble command structure to lead, manage, administer, organize, and deploy these forces as may be required to STOP the illegal invasion, drug trafficking, slave trafficking, and other smuggling into and across Texas.

Texans would rally to such a “long roll of the drums” in amazing numbers.

Properly led, they would END this assault on their state that is being aided and abetted by a lawless regime in Washington, DC. //

Furthermore, Arizona could do the same, as could New Mexico and California – though, admittedly, the latter two suffer poor leadership and probably would not engage.

However, the additional State forces deployed in Texas and Arizona would enable the federal US Customs and Border protection forces to shift assets from Texas and Arizona to California and New Mexico.

In addition to all of the above, Texas and Arizona could invite other States to send volunteers … as in 1836 … and as Florida Governor DeSantis is now offering. And invite other individual Americans to come to their aid, e.g., those vetted as law-abiding citizens in good standing, and who are law enforcement and/or military veterans.

the legislature passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act (“SAPA”) — which was then signed into law by Missouri Governor Mike Parson on June 12, 2021. //

So, what exactly is SAPA? In a nutshell, it’s a law that prohibits the enforcement of federal provisions that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. //

Sounds like this is setting up a bit of a showdown. Who’s got the winning hand here? As noted above, this legislation has been in the works for years — it wasn’t just thrown together haphazardly. //

Cam Edwards, over at our sister site, Bearing Arms, had this to say about the constitutionality of the provision:

There’s nothing unconstitutional about the new Second Amendment Preservation Act. In fact, it fits squarely within the Court’s precedent in Printz vs. U.S., which held that state and local law enforcement are under no obligation to perform the duties of federal law enforcement. Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act is comparable to California’s Sanctuary State law, which forbids state and local governments from cooperating with ICE in most cases. The Supreme Court upheld California’s law last summer, and if they have the opportunity to weigh in on the Missouri law, I’m sure the justices will do the same. //

Blue State Deplorable
10 hours ago
So let me get this straight. It’s ok for California to ignore federal immigration law, but not okay for Missouri to ignore federal law that infringes on its citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights. Got it~ //

emptypockets
11 hours ago
"Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to.”

If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.
https://ryoc.us/us-supreme-...
Which seems to have already decided that..."There’s nothing unconstitutional about the new Second Amendment Preservation Act."...is a statement of fact.

North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson first gained notoriety at an April 5, 2018 Greensboro City Council meeting, when he eloquently defended his, and his fellow gun owners, Second Amendment Rights. The Council was taking constituent comments on then-Mayor Nancy Vaughn’s attempt to end gun shows at the Greensboro Coliseum, and despite Robinson’s qualifier that he didn’t have time to prepare a fancy speech, his words were well-spoken, fiery, and effective.

Much has been written in the last couple of days regarding United States District Court Judge Roger Benitez’s decision on Friday declaring California’s ban on “assault weapons” — as defined in the statute — to be an unconstitutional limit on the right of California citizens “to keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment.

But this was not Judge Benitez’s first foray into Second Amendment jurisprudence that produced a favorable outcome for advocates of Second Amendment rights. Back in August 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court decision that similarly found as unconstitutional a related California statute — one banning the ownership of “large-capacity magazines.” The author of that lower court decision was Judge Roger Benitez.

In between those two decisions, there was an “en banc” decision from the Ninth Circuit on a different subject of constitutional disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment. In Young v. Hawaii, the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s “open carry” firearm regulations, which require applicants applying for an “open carry” license to show either an “exceptional case or demonstrated urgency” to carry a firearm. The plaintiff, George Young, twice applied for an “open carry” license, but his applications were denied based on his failure to meet the “exceptional case or demonstrated urgency” requirements. //

there are some interesting aspects of Judge Benitez’s opinion on Friday that are worth noting because he takes some time to explain where Second Amendment jurisprudence stands — 13 years after the Supreme Court changed everything with its decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

As Judge Benitez wrote, there was Second Amendment law pre-Heller, and there is Second Amendment law post-Heller, and only the latter seems important to Judge Benitez — unlike the majority view in the en banc decision in Young v. Hawaii. //

The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of lawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned “assault weapons” are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns… Instead, the firearms deemed “assault weapons” are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.

Prior to 2008 [Heller], lower court opinions did not acknowledge that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own firearms, or that the right applied against the states. See e.g., United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 565–66 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his court has concluded that ‘the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.’”)

Judicial recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms to be respected by the states would come later with the Heller decision in 2008 and the McDonald decision in

2010. //

Heller involved a “federal” law, in that it was gun ownership prohibition in the District of Columbia. McDonald extended Heller to state and local regulations by holding that rights under the Second Amendment were applicable to state law under the 14th Amendment. //

When a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense amounts to a destruction of the Second Amendment right, it is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. “‘A law that imposes such a severe restriction on the fundamental right of self-defense of the home that it amounts to a destruction of the Second Amendment right is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.’” //

DeeInFL
17 hours ago edited
This line of questions from Justice Alito I found quite interesting during oral hearings on New York State Rifle & Pistol case.

Alito: Mr. Dearing, are the people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

Dearing: No, I don't think so. We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

Alito: Well, if they're not less safe, then what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?

Dearing did not have an answer except that the city's arbitrary restrictions on transporting firearms may have made its other rules a bit easier to enforce.

Judging by the chronically empty shelves at gun shops and “out of stock” notices online, folks seem to be buying ammunition at unprecedented rates. Preppers stock up on things, like toilet paper, by the case. Ammo is no different. So when they buy, they look for bulk ammo deals. But how much ammo do you need? We have built this ammo calculator and written this article as a guide.

As a note, while I am listed as the author here, it’s actually the result of four minds coming together: myself, Steve Markwith, Aden Tate, and my behind-the-scenes web guy who took our collective thoughts and turned them into an online ammo calculator.

The calculator is below, but to make the most sense of your results – and this subject as a whole – it is important to read the article through. It explains our reasoning behind the formulas in the calculator and will help you determine whether they’re accurate for you and how to adjust your results up or down.

It severely undermines the confidence in our gun laws as well as the ATF ... if there are not criminal consequences,' Sen. Tom Cotton said. //

David Chipman, Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, refused to say during a Senate Judiciary hearing on Wednesday whether Hunter Biden should be prosecuted for an illegal firearms purchase in 2018.

According to a March report by Politico, subsequent reporting by The Federalist, and Hunter Biden’s own memoir, the president’s son appears to have lied about his drug use on an ATF form, a felony that earlier in the hearing Chipman had considered a serious crime. When Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, specifically asked the ATF nominee about the Biden son’s gun purchase, however, Chipman evaded the question.

During Monday’s press conference, Psaki was asked about the mass shootings that have occurred over the past year with 4,000 people shot and killed by a gun. The journalist asked if there was a “crime problem” in the U.S., setting up an almost too perfect alley-oop for Psaki to talk about Biden’s continued action on gun control.

“Well, I would say certainly there is a gun problem,” said Psaki. //

Psaki continued to discuss the “hundreds, thousands of people who lose their lives” via gun violence, and that Biden is working with the Senate to push universal background checks and working with states with the “greatest level of activism.” //

Dana Loesch
@DLoesch
We have record gun sales and new gun owners but not the crime to match. What we have is a judicial problem, lowered deterrents for repeat offenders via her party's policies, reduced police morale, and criminals emboldened by "defund cops" talk from her party. //

the presence of a gun doesn’t result in the elevation of violence either. An armed community is oftentimes a safer one as various studies have found time and again. For instance, 98 percent of mass shootings that occurred since the 1950s happened in gun-free zones? Did you know that over a million people in Texas are licensed to carry a firearm and that 0.4 per 100,000 have committed a homicide? Compare that to the .99 per 100,000 homicide rate in jolly ol’ Britain where guns are banned. //

Biden’s pandering to those shouting “defund the police” and his party’s subsequent obedience to these radicals is also a massive contributor to the rise in crime. As Fox News pointed out, major cities that leaned into the narrative that funds should be allocated away from their respective police departments are experiencing crime surges.

The police officers that do remain no longer feel safe doing their jobs and become less likely to do the necessary proactive policing that stops so many crimes before they happen. A study by Harvard Professor Roland Fryer found that proactive policing is necessary for the safety of any community, but that when the public turns on the police, crime goes up. //

"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from all who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

• George Washington //

edintexas
9 hours ago
The Socialist/Communists can't explain why they are so adamant that semi-automatic rifles which may look somewhat like military weapons are high on their list of firearms they want to eliminate from public possession. They aren't challenged on this by the MSM (no surprise) and yet the Bureau's annual Homicide statistics by type of weapon consistently show the number of homicides in the category "Personal Weapons (hands, feet, elbows, etc.) exceed the number of homicides by rifle (any type of rifle, not just those they claim would reduce crime if banned). For that matter most, if not all, years both rifles and shotguns total fewer homicides than Personal Weapons.

On Monday, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision in Caniglia v. Strom, overruled the First Circuit Court of Appeals which had held a plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated in a civil case involving the police entering his house without a warrant to seize lawfully owned and possessed firearms inside. //

There is an interesting factual anomaly here that I noted in my earlier article.

Among the three judges on the panel of the First Circuit Appeals Court that extended the doctrine to cover warrantless searches of homes was retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

You could look at this as the Supreme Court unanimously reversing a former Supreme Court Justice.

I’m not sure that has ever happened before.

By and large, members of my generation were raised in households with two parents, and we were taught how to deescalate and talk things out when problems arose. Today, that no longer seems to be the case.

We have a moral and social failing in our country that has caused an increase in mass shooters, predominantly young men. One has to pause to think about what’s different today from 30 or 40 years ago. It certainly isn’t guns, because it’s harder to get guns today than it was in the past, when you didn’t have to go through nationalized background checks. When I was growing up, you could purchase a firearm with no questions asked, yet we didn’t see so many mass shootings.

America’s young men are struggling with mental health issues or are broken and living in poverty with single mothers struggling to survive. Many of them are clearly crying out for help, and we owe it to them to listen. //

Another important facet of this dialogue is religion. I know we don’t often talk about religion these days, but it instills moral and ethical values that are key to a society’s success. It creates boundaries that inform us of what is good and what is bad.

Many of the greatest thinkers known to man have talked about the importance of morality and ethics for all civilized people, how they are key to a good life and setting boundaries against bad behavior. ///

God and the church are the answer that we are looking for to the ills of society

In granting certiorari earlier this week, the Supreme Court will finally address the constitutionality of New York’s law. However, in granting review of the case, the Supreme Court narrowed the issue for review to “whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” This question differed from that which the petitioners had sought review, namely “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

Both framings of the issue, however, squarely present the Supreme Court with the question of whether Heller and McDonald’s guarantee of an individual right to keep and bear arms is limited to the home. While several circuit courts have read Heller and McDonald as limited to the possession of guns within a home, Justice Thomas’ recent dissent (joined by Justice Kavanaugh) from the denial of certiorari in a gun case exposed the folly of such a view:

As this Court explained in Heller, at the time of the founding, as now, to bear meant to carry. When used with arms, . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. Thus, the right to bear arms refers to the right to wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person. The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. Confrontations, of course, often occur outside the home. See, e.g., Moore, supra, at 937 (noting that ‘most murders occur outside the home’ in Chicago). Thus, the right to carry arms for self-defense inherently includes the right to carry in public.

This conclusion not only flows from the definition of bear Arms but also from the natural use of the language in the text. As I have stated before, it is extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. The meaning of the term bear Arms is even more evident when read in the context of the phrase “right . . . to keep and bear Arms. To speak of bearing arms solely within one’s home . . . would conflate bearing with keeping, in derogation of [Heller’s] holding that the verbs codified distinct rights. In short, it would take serious linguistic gymnastics—and a repudiation of this Court’s decision in Heller—to claim bear Arms does not extend the Second Amendment beyond the home.

Justice Thomas added to the above reasoning an analysis of “cases and treatises from England, the founding era, and the antebellum period,” all of which “confirm that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry in public.”

Of course, several justices are nonetheless likely to resort to linguistic gymnastics to avoid what they perceive as bad (or unpopular) policy. But will five justices stand firm? We will know next year.

Why would I go talk to a hunter about the Second Amendment? That’s like talking to a hairstylist about surgical work because both fields make use of scissors. Yes, hunting is an assumed use of firearms under the Second Amendment, but it is not at all the reason for its existence. And what does magazine capacity have to do with body armor? A long-barreled rifle chambered in any normal hunting caliber that holds only five rounds is typically going to penetrate body armor better than a .223 Remington round from an AR-15. Biden is just spewing anti-gun ideas that aren’t even congruent. //

The Second Amendment was created so that ordinary citizens could keep and bear arms, thereby being able to organize into militias to fight threats, foreign or domestic. Hunting wasn’t even on the radar (though, it was assumed because it was such a normal part of life), and bringing it up shows a profound ignorance of the topic at hand.

As to why someone needs a 100-round magazine, the answer is simple: Because they want one. Any more questions? //

disintelligentsia
an hour ago
The Second Amendment is about hunting tyrants, not deer. //

wmeyer
an hour ago
The root problem, of course, is that the Democrats consider the Bill of Rights to be a set of (limited) rights granted to the people by a benevolent government.

Nonsense is what that is.

The founders knew no government is benevolent, and wrote the Bill of Rights as a set of limits imposed on the government to prevent it encroaching on these natural rights which flow from our Creator.

the Supreme Court today agreed to hear the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Corlett, a major 2nd Amendment case that will address the question:

Whether the state’s denial of Petitioner’s applications for Concealed-Carry Licenses for Self-Defense violated the Second Amendment?

Interestingly, that is not the question as posed in the Petition. In the Petition the Court was asked to answer the following question:

Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense? //

the question as posed in the Petition asked for an interpretation of the breadth of the Second Amendment’s pre-emption of state regulation, whereas the question as reformulated by the Court focuses on what New York has done and whether that act violates the Second Amendment — a question that can be answered without sweeping away all other state-imposed limitations on gun ownership and possession.

The language chosen by the Court suggests a narrower analysis of the specific New York’s firearm permitting process, and seems to focus on the specific applications made by the Petitioners within the framework of the statutory limitations created by New York going back to a point in time prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment. //

Deciding the applicable “standard of review” — particularly if the Court decides that “strict scrutiny” is the proper standard — would then be a basis to send the case back to the Second Circuit without addressing the foundational issue of how broad are the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. It would also cause a likely “reset” of other cases recently decided or currently pending in other circuit courts. A decision establishing the “standard of review” would “rewrite the rules” in a meaningful fashion on how lower courts should evaluate state restrictions on gun ownership and possession. Such a “reset” of lower court cases would allow the Supreme Court to again put off resolving the more controversial issues about how far the Second Amendment should reach in prohibiting state regulation of firearms. //

DannyBhoyo13
4 hours ago
From what I gather, the Supreme Court narrowing the question under dispute give them another opportunity to punt on decision concerning, “shall not be infringed.” //

Romeg
4 hours ago edited
The Right of Self-Defense PRE-EXISTS the creation of ANY State since it is a Natural Right that is part and parcel of being a natural person while The State is an artifice, a creation of mankind whose 'just powers' derive from those who created The State. Having thus been created and granted such powers as it has and not having been granted, expressly, the right to LIMIT natural rights, The State, therefore, LACKS the power to grant unto itself the power to LIMIT the Natural Rights of those who created IT.

It never occurred to the Founders to apply the language of the Second Amendment to the states since, first off, The Constitution of The United States establishes the Federal Government and the Bill of Rights, which includes The Second Amendment thereto, LIMITS the powers of The Federal Government. But for the Natural Right of Self Defense which presupposes the right to Keep and Bear Arms, the American Revolution would have been lost before that first shot was fired on April 15, 1775 and NO STATES would exist as the consequence. They would be Provinces akin to other former elements of the United Kingdom.

If NO STATE can invade a woman's privacy for the sake of protecting the life of another human being then how, in G*d's Name, can it have the power to tell one of its citizens that unless you can demonstrate some special need, you don't have the right to arm yourself for your own protection?

The language is plainly on display in the Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States: "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Maintenance of a Free State*, The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"

*Free State, in the context of this amendment, does NOT refer to any political subdivision. Rather it refers to the CONDITION of being Free, as in the language of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 4: 10-14, to wit:

"10-But I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at length ye have revived your thought for me; wherein ye did indeed take thought, but ye lacked opportunity. 11-Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content. 12-I know how to be abased, and I know also how to abound: in everything and in all things have I learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. 13-I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me. 14-Howbeit ye did well that ye had fellowship with my affliction."

Municipal police departments have what amounts to tanks. In 1985, the Philadelphia Police Department dropped a bomb on a home from a helicopter. The sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge have shown us that the government not only will use the power they have, but they will use that power even if it means killing unarmed children. “Oh come on, those were cults and anti-government holdouts. What else was the government supposed to do?”

Now, out of California, we know that the answer to the question includes fighter jets. //

In March of last year, California National Guard members awaited orders from Sacramento headquarters to make preparations for any civil unrest that might arise from the outbreak of the coronavirus. //

But then came an unusual order: The air branch of the Guard was told to place an F-15C fighter jet on an alert status for a possible domestic mission, according to four Guard sources with direct knowledge of the matter. //

they understood it to mean the plane could be deployed to terrify and disperse protesters by flying low over them at window-rattling speeds, with its afterburners streaming columns of flames. Fighter jets have been used occasionally in that manner in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, they said

Deploying an F-15C, an air-to-air combat jet based at the Guard’s 144th Fighter Wing in Fresno, to frighten demonstrators in this country would have been an inappropriate use of the military against U.S. civilians, the sources said. //

The argument isn’t about whether or not the fighter was armed or could have been used against those citizens; rather whether or not a fighter could be armed for that same mission. The government clearly has shown the interest and desire of implementing such a strategy, so why would we think they would stop there? What if the citizens didn’t respond to the window-rattling flyovers? Would they further escalate to strafing the offenders or using small-scale ordnance? For anyone to argue they wouldn’t have used force other than low flyovers, would then have to justify the use of a fighter jet against American Citizens in the first place.
The debate for safety and protection from government violence shouldn’t be about whether or not the government would use that power but rather whether or not it is capable of it. If the answer to that question is yes, then we must make sure we elect people who will restrain government with the law and procedures, rather than empower it. //

We shouldn’t be cheering on the sidelines when government abuses power against one side or the other. The problem isn’t necessarily our differences, but rather the fact that the government isn’t only capable of using a fighter jet against us, they attempted to.
I am sure they would think twice if they knew we were willing to intimidate in return.

A construction company in Powell, Wyoming is going bold.

As reported by Cowboy State Daily, Wiggins Construction is pushing a promotion that’d likely leave Beto 2020 devotees, well, triggered.

For residential and commercial customers purchasing a new roof, Wiggins is offering quite the caliber of a welcome gift: a free AR-15. //

Courtesy of Range365.com:

[I]n 1985, you could order a Chevy truck with an Outdoorsman Package. It came in hunting trim with a bunch of gear that included with a Winchester Model 94 in .30-30 complete with Chevy medallion in the stock, a Tasco scope, gun case, window rack, safety glasses, and a Winchester hat. … Purchase price also included an assortment of hunting, fishing, or camping gear, valued at $500.

Purchasers of the hunting package received a special edition Winchester Model 94 XTR with a commemorative Chevy medallion set into the stock and outfitted with a Tasco W 4×32 scope held in place with Holden 751 Iron-Sighter scope mounts. You could transport the 94 in your choice of the included Doskocil Deluxe 101 gun case or two-gun rear-window rack.

Can you imagine that today? //

Back to Wiggins Construction, Matt said people around town appreciate the 2nd-Amendment-affirming offer:

“[H]ere’s the thing. None of these people are locals that are really saying [negative things about the promotion]. The response from the actual public and the locals has been phenomenal — we’ve got probably three voicemails this morning from people like ‘Hey, we don’t need a roof, but we saw your ad in the Powell Tribune and we just want to say that it’s awesome, and we really support what you guys are doing.’”

Daily Caller
@DailyCaller
BIDEN: "The folks who own guns, they support universal background checks. The majority of them think we should not be selling assault weapons. Who in God’s name needs a weapon that can hold 100 rounds, or 40 rounds, or 20 rounds."

Dana Loesch
@DLoesch
We have background checks and private transfers are ALREADY regulated.
We aren’t selling “assault weapons.”
Your son lied on his 4473 and your daughter-in-law stole a gun and threw it in the outside trash across from a school, so no lectures. //

Loesch was referencing the story that Hunter Biden allegedly didn’t tell the truth on his gun application form and then his girlfriend (who had been his brother’s wife) took the gun from him and dumped it in a trash can from which it disappeared.

That’s one of the main problems with Democrats is that they want to pass laws, but they have no idea what already exists and they’re ignorant in general on guns. Not to mention, the law never seems to apply to them when when it comes right down to it, as we see with Hunter Biden who appears to have never suffered consequences for any of his actions — at least so far.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/04/08/daily-mail-covers-what-wasnt-in-hunter-bidens-book-n357686

The American marksman can make good use of any firearm that comes into their possession. Good gun handling is an earned and perishable skill. It cannot be purchased; it must be patiently learned. The target is the arbiter of your efforts. You are either good at it or you’re not. And the patience you learn to apply to the skill pays off in many other aspects of your life. Being “good” is not about being the best; it’s about having the skills to pass muster at what the Bill of Rights calls “well regulated”.

What does that really mean? How do you explain that to people at cocktail parties? For the purposes of this article, let us reduce that to the simple question of can you consistently hit the 10-ring of a standard target at 100 yards? For the NRA SR-1 target, that is a circle 3 1/3 inches in diameter, about the size of a tangerine a football field away. Here’s the thing, anyone can do it once they learn to apply basic skills and self-discipline.

Let’s stay away from the murky world of politically loaded imagery. Just for fun, let us ask if you can do that with the original American rifle, a muzzle loading musket. In this case, a Thomson Center .50 caliber Hawken rifle firing a patched round ball over 70 grains of FFg black powder. About as back-to-basics as it gets. Here is my recent attempt at it. //

I can dial myself into the center of the target a bit faster than others. But holding center once there; that anyone can learn. For teaching people, a Ruger 10/22 or something like that at 1/2 the distance on an appropriately scaled target is the better learning tool. Truthfully though, this is not that high a bar to achieve for anyone who puts the time in to become a responsible gun owner and makes the effort to become “well regulated”. I assure you, you can do this too.

Rep. Lauren Boebert
@RepBoebert
And the gun grab begins. This week, Biden...

-nominated a gun control lobbyist for ATF director

-pushed red flag laws

-created a plan to seize lawful property

-proposed 6 gun control executive actions

The Second Amendment is being trampled, and I won’t stand for it.

Molly Rogers
@JollyMollyRoger
Your gun should be at least as well-regulated as my uterus.

Dana Loesch
@DLoesch
I can take my uterus on a plane, my county courthouse, I can’t ever forfeit carrying it, I don’t have to pay a fee and ask the government if I can carry it concealed — and other people don't pay for my range time or firearm accessories. //

Ditzy feminists are freaking out and Karening in my timeline because I mocked one of the dumbest analogies of all time. It deserved to be ridiculed and I’ll do it again. Stop making stupid comparisons. https://t.co/IUs2U2S3Nm

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) April 8, 2021

Neither Side is Winning
23 minutes ago
"19 Republicans still voted to confirm him because the GOP remains a mostly useless vestige."

You fail to understand the truth about the 2 party system... Both sides of the same coin will never change the coin...

Red/Blue game theory

"The power structure needs people to believe that the way to solve problems is within the system. That is the KEY to the whole puzzle. The system is run on game theory. The status QUO know that as long as people are working in the system, nothing fundamental can ever change.

The primary method they use to distract people is with the two party red/blue system that gives you a “right” to vote. Do you want red or blue? As long as you are trying to “get back to the constitution” or get someone on the supreme court, you will lose “the game“. Period. How much evidence has to be accumulated? The government never shrinks. The people are ignored. The debt just grows.

The entire red/blue system is the heartbeat. Countless hours are drained off arguing about things that make no difference. The whole industry of Red radio, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et. al are doing a great job. They just can’t see that the job they are REALLY doing is not what they think. Some are truly genius in the way they have learned to parse the liberal agenda’s hypocrisy. If they turned that genius on the right target we might actually GET somewhere.

But do we actually ever GET anywhere? No. Just look around. Nothing ever changes. Conservatives. Nothing. Tea party, nothing. Libertarians, nothing. Patriots, nothing. Why? Because the people in these movements don’t understand the real LEGAL GAME. These movements are serving as pointless time drains when they could otherwise be a useful asset for REAL change.

The red/blue game keeps people parsing distinctions and issues that don’t matter! The candidates are never going to change the system. No party will ever “change the system”. The Parties ARE THE SYSTEM. GET IT?

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers. –Thomas Pynchon

Power to the people! And it’s true. You just misunderstand WHICH people.

Still don’t believe me? Then answer this one question. We have had both republican/red and democrat/blue guys running the country alternating since the end of the “great depression”, right? And has there ever been a 20 year period where the government shrank? How bout a 10 year period? how bout just a 5 year period? Get it? The red/blue game is a distraction. It will never work. It can’t. It’s game theory."

source: http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.COM/rush-limbaugh-is-right-hes-just-analyzing-the-wrong-problems/ //

edintexas
an hour ago
' It’s an easy political cudgel that doesn’t actually do anything which makes it right up Biden’s alley."

But it does do something. The premise that "gun control" is about firearms is completely mistaken. It is about "control", the firearms are almost superfluous. Take away people's ability to protect themselves and their families, bit by bit, and the criminals and the government will have control of the people. Today it is attacking the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle (and "pistol") when rifles of all types were the weapon in fewer than 600 homicides out of fewer than 11,000. As we've noted time and again, rifles of all types were used to commit homicide less frequently than knives, less frequently than "personal weapons" (hands, feet, elbows, etc.) and most assuredly less frequently than the criminal's firearm of choice, the handgun. So this isn't about crime, it isn't about firearms. It is about control. As long as we are an armed nation the Socialist/Communists can't do as they please without any fear of retribution.

Woodbutcher
3 hours ago
"From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own"

Well, yes, Joey boy, you could, in the beginning. Up to and including cannon and warships!

tonysc Woodbutcher
3 hours ago
GMTA, I'm not going to delete my comment but, canons were, indeed privately owned. At the time, I'm not sure what weapon was considered more war-like than a canon but I can't think of any.

Diamondback tonysc
3 hours ago
A fully-armed warship with two dozen of 'em on its gun deck would fit that description nicely, this was why privateers had to have a Letter of Marque and Reprisal before sailing.

The backbone of Revolutionary War naval efforts was actually our privateer fleet, ditto the War of 1812 and the Quasi-War with France.

Consider that the Man-o-War was the ICBM of the day...

tonysc
3 hours ago
From the beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own.
That's weird, I seem to remember canons being privately owned back when that silly Constitution was written but maybe he was talking about weapons that hadn't been invented yet. //

Draconis tonysc
2 hours ago
...On the note of 'weapons that had not been invented yet' nothing shows the ignorance of the gun grabbers more than 'when the Constitution was written they couldn't imagine something like today's rapid fire weapons existing'....They have obviously never heard of the Girardoni Air Rifle....
...Developed by Bartolomeo Girardoni in 1779, used by the Austrian army from 1780 to 1815, it used compressed air to fire a projectile each time the trigger was pulled (similar to today's semi-automatic rifles) maintaining that rate of fire for 30 shots before it had to be 'reloaded' with compressed air.....Lewis and Clark even carried one on their expedition....in 1803....
...For those who are a bit vague on history, the Second Amendment was written in 1789 and ratified in 1791 ....TWELVE YEARS after this semi automatic rifle was developed...... //

johncv tonysc
3 hours ago
and warships too. IIRC John Hancock owned one. The Privateers also preyed upon British shipping.

The communists are showing the weakness of their programs - the apparatchik speech writers are as ignorant of history as the students they indoctrinate.