VIDEO: Per Capita Gun Ownership in the United States

The USA has, by far, the highest per capita gun ownership in the world. Progressives will tell you that this is what makes America the Murder Capitol of Planet Earth. But we’re not, and in this devastatingly effective Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why the center of Gun Nut Nation is in fact one of the safest places in the world.

©All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

11 Times the Second Amendment was Attacked and Prevailed

Infographic by MinuteManReview.com.

TO VIEW THE INFOGRAPHIC 11 TIMES THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ATTACHED AND PREVAILED CLICK HERE


James Miller is a defensive firearms coach, certified through the ICE Training Company. He teaches Intuitive Defensive Shooting fundamentals and tactics to shooters of all skill levels. He lives, writes, and skis in Reno, Nevada.

©MinuteManReview.com. All rights reserved.

Political Elite Value Their Own Safety, NOT YOURS

The hypocrisy of the pampered political elite on the topic of personal safety is reaching breathtaking new levels. No longer content to merely deprive the citizenry of the means with which to defend themselves, politicians in some jurisdictions are depriving residents of police protection as well. All the while, these contemptible figures have shown a keen interest in making arrangements to secure their own safety.

Anti-gun political actors have always ignored the logical implications of their own policies. Hillary Clinton travels with a bevy of bodyguards, as did Democrat mega-donor and NRA opponent Harvey Weinstein. According to a 1986 account from United Press International one of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) private bodyguards was arrested “when he arrived at the Capitol with two submachine guns and ammunition.”

On June 26, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to advance a measure to disband the Minneapolis Police Department. The move to defund the police received significant criticism from leaders of the communities that most rely on the police department. Being charitable, the left-leaning Minneapolis Star Tribune described the city council’s proposal as “not well thought out.

However, city council members have little to fear from the sweeping overhaul of law enforcement. On June 30, the Star Tribune reported that at the same time council members were working to defund the police, city taxpayers spent $63,000 on private security for three council members. In a July 1 editorial, the paper noted, “We do hope that council members fully consider the implications… Residents and businesses also face threats that can be mitigated by the presence of licensed, armed officers.” The item went on to note, “The debate in Minneapolis and elsewhere should not be about taking security from some but providing it persuasively to all.”

According to the Star Tribune, one of the officials to benefit from private security is City Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins. In June 2019, Jenkins advocated for further security at city hall after she was “shaken” by a group of protesters during a council meeting. The paper reported that “Jenkins said the city could put security guards at several entry points in the building.” The paper went on to quote Jenkins as complaining about a purported lack of gun control.

Another private security beneficiary was Ward 9 Council Member Alondra Cano. In August 2019, Cano took to Twitter to demand new gun controls, including measures “to remove certain guns from the market.”

The third politician to benefit at taxpayer expense was Ward 4 Council Member Phillipe Cunningham. As a candidate in 2017, Cunningham spoke at a gun control event put on by the anti-gun group Protect Minnesota.

This conspicuous display of hypocrisy was not limited to the Mill City.

In early June, Seattle politicians ceded several city blocks to dissidents in what came to be called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), and later the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). Private property owners and residents inside the area were abandoned by the city. A statement from attorneys who have filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of those affected explained that “For more than two weeks, and with the full knowledge and participation of the City, our clients’ neighborhood and properties have been blocked, barricaded, occupied, and vandalized.” During the occupation, the area experienced several shootings, including one that resulted in the death of a 16-year-old and the wounding of a 14-year-old.

At the outset, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan appeared to have little issue with the burgeoning autonomous zone. Addressing the area, the mayor opined that Seattle may experience a “summer of love.” When President Donald Trump took to Twitter to criticize the experiment in lawlessness, Durkan responded “Don’t be afraid of Democracy.” Of course, it is unlikely many Emerald City voters thought they were signing off on such an anarchic project last time they went to the polling booths.

With the several shootings, pressure began to grow for Seattle to regain control of the autonomous zone. However, decisive action didn’t come until after the Durkan’s personal security was threatened.

On June 28, Socialist Alternative Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant joined a protest outside Durkan’s fashionable multi-million-dollar home. Unconcerned with the lives and property of those inside CHAZ, Durkan took great umbrage to the protesters in her neighborhood.

The mayor issued a letter to the city council demanding an investigation into Sawant. Durkan complained that by leading a protest to her home, Sawant had shown a “reckless disregard of the safety of my family and children.” Durkan went on to whine that “at that rally, [Sawant’s] followers vandalized my home by spray-painting obscenities.”

Less than 72 hours after Durkan’s home was targeted, the city cleared CHAZ.

Much like the well-protected Minneapolis council members, Durkan has also advocated to restrict residents’ right to self-defense. In May 2018, Durkan proposed city gun control legislation to restrict Seattle residents’ ability to store firearms in a manner by which they can quickly access them for self-defense.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has also proven herself unwilling or incapable of upholding the law in her city.

In early August, Chicago’s magnificent mile shopping district was looted. For many business owners it was the second time in three months that their stores and livelihoods were attacked. According to data from the Chicago police, shooting incidents in July in the city were up 75 percent over July 2019. Murders were up 139 percent over the same time period.

When pressed on the dire state of her city, Lightfoot has been quick to deflect blame onto Second Amendment rights rather than accept any responsibility for the the visible devolution of civil authority.

However, Lightfoot has gone to great lengths to ensure her personal safety. The city has constructed what some locals are referring to “Fort Lori” around the mayor’s entire neighborhood. According to the Chicago Tribune, “[t]he Chicago Police Department has effectively banned protesters from demonstrating on Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s block in the Logan Square neighborhood, ordering officers to arrest anyone who refuses to leave.” The paper also noted that a city directive “did not distinguish between the peaceful protesters Lightfoot regularly says she supports and those who might intend to be destructive.”

Making perfectly clear that she values her safety far more than that of average Chicagoans, Lightfoot defiantly lectured the press, “[t]his is a different time like no other and I’m not going to make any excuses for the fact that, given the threats that I personally receive, given the threats to my home and my family, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that they are protected.”

Through their actions, these politicians have made clear that they are willing to sacrifice the safety of their constituents, but are unwilling to compromise their personal safety in the process. Such a flagrant breach of the social contract forfeits whatever perceived moral authority they may have claimed in order to control how their constituents provide for their own defense.

RELATED ARTICLE: 5 Reasons Why Violent Radicals Feel Empowered

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

You Must Read ‘Insurrection and Violence’ a Citizens Guide

If you do nothing else today, this is the ‘must read’ you have been waiting for.

(And, includes some of the things I have been saying in my ‘Rioting Leftists‘ series.)

The 58-page guide authored by Rich Higgins and Stephen Coughlin and published by Unconstrained Analytics is a handbook for your survival and for the Nation’s survival in the chaotic months (years?) ahead. (Hat tip: Leo)

From the Introduction:

(emphasis is mine)

The United States of America is enveloped in crisis. Not since the Civil War, have we faced an insurgency and resistance movement with the capacity, capability, and very real potential to fundamentally change the structure of our republic. All, without passing a law. We are near a tipping point of insurrection and unlegislated change, from which the nation thus changed, will cease to be recognized or function as a representative republic.

The purpose for writing is to alert you to this fact – we are under attack by an ‘insurgency syndicate’ employing unconventional warfare tactics. The North American Insurgency Syndicate (NAIS) is currently gaining strength and they are on the offensive. This book endeavors to deliver an understanding of the insurgency, their goals, strategy and tactics. Then, to provide a framework to respond and protect your family, your property, your freedom, and our country.

As you read about violent insurgent groups, and their goal to fundamentally change our form of government, many a reader may be asking themselves “But, what can I do?” A rational response to this question is the motivation for our project. We offer a guide to assess your current position, analyze your risk, and help you make a reasoned plan to protect you, your family, and further; to provide you ways in which you can help the Nation.

For, if well-meaning citizens do nothing – do not recognize the danger, do not vote, do not volunteer at polling locations, do not influence others, do not prepare for their own defense, and do not push back against enemies of the Republic, then they are ceding space and power to the insurgents. The consequence of citizen inaction, at this perilous moment, is to put at risk the Constitution, our way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If law-abiding patriots across the country do not take prudent action, if they remain subdued and silent, then our nation will be fundamentally altered and cease to function as a republic.

We begin by increasing your “situational awareness.” The book describes the current situation in the United States – that we are at a critical point where the NAIS is successfully exploiting a national emergency to rapidly gain strength. We provide a synopsis of the various and disparate insurgent organizations and movements that are involved in direct-action violence, harassment, agitation, and social media attacks.

Then we explore their syndicate structure. At the tactical level, the NAIS relies upon self-organizing groups of insurgents united for insurrection. The syndicate, waging unconventional warfare with new and innovative tactics, intends to change or overthrow the government.

Here is a snip from Chapter 1 Insurrection and Violence: A Citizens Guide (.pdf) hammering the point that we are at war:

The United States of America is enveloped in crisis. Not since the Civil War, have we faced an insurgency and resistance movement with the capacity, capability, and very real potential to fundamentally change the structure of our republic. All, without passing a law. We are near a tipping point of insurrection and unlegislated change, from which the nation thus changed, will cease to be recognized or function as a representative republic.

The purpose for writing is to alert you to this fact – we are under attack by  an ‘insurgency syndicate’ employing unconventional warfare tactics.

Keep reading because this is not your usual wonky analytical look at what we are facing (although there is thorough analysis), but includes chapters on what you can do to prepare and to fight back! 

I was especially interested in Chapter 3 on preparation since that is what I have been yakking about for the last two months (and working on myself!).

Insurrection and Violence: A Citizens Guide (PDF)

Read it (maybe make a donation to Unconstrained Analytics) and then get to work!

EndNote and changing the subject:  If you are not a regular reader of Refugee Resettlement Watch, you might want to visit and see what is happening as this is the big month in which the President usually makes a determination about how many refugees we might admit in the coming fiscal year that begins on October 1.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

2nd Amendment Support — Will It Grow This Year?

2020 has not been kind to the U.S., or the world for that matter. Multiple crisises have hit the country. The state of politic in the US is also in a divisive and downright strange place. With all of that said, could there be good news for those in the firearms community?

Waning Fear Tactics

The ways in which the mainstream media attempts to push control have always been wrought with misinformation. There has long been a sense in the gun community that people would see through to the truth if they simply looked into the facts of matter. However, much of the media is not interested in spreading the truth. They routinely paint the country as warzone with gun homicides as an ever-increasing threat. Their coverage of mass shootings has been particularly egregious. They can often make it sound as if schools are being attacked every other day, when these kinds of attacks actually make up a tiny amount of homicides. Of course, mass shootings have to be taken seriously. Lives are lost, and they deserve respect. The issue is that many in the media attempt to take advantage of our empathy to garner support for gun control. They also mischaracterize weapons, labeling them as “military grade assault weapons”, to conjure fear. They fail to explain the actual breakdown of firearms homicides.

The issue with a campaign built largely on propaganda is that it creates a house of cards. Looking behind the scenes at the actual data can quickly cause their vision of a country wrought by an epidemic of gun violence to crumble. As powerful as their campaign has been, this sets the stage for curious people to easily peek behind the curtain of propaganda. For those interested in learning about their second amendment rights, it is not hard to find the truth.

Millions of New Gun Owners

Data suggests that there have been roughly 5 million new gun owners this year. This seems to be connected to the sense of social unrest that has plagued the country this year. At the beginning of the year, the coronavirus caused a spike in purchases. Many feared that the coronavirus could disrupt American life and lead to shortages of food and other necessities. This led to panic buying by some and to gun purchases by others wanting to be prepared for anything. Then, protests erupted. Thousands of protesters lined the streets, and footage came out showing businesses being attacked by rioters. This added to fears of social unrest, and many felt like they needed to ensure that they could be protected. In addition to social unrest, we are in an election cycle. Biden has made his anti-gun stance clear. There is a real chance that he may become president, and many have a sense of wanting to purchase a gun before it is too late. All of these factors have led to the roughly 5 million new gun owners we have seen this year.

Unlikely Support?

The idea that support for gun rights would strengthen on the right is not particularly surprising, but interestingly, support has been growing among many on the left.

The Pink Pistols are an organization that aims to empower members of the LGBTQ+ community by educating them on their gun rights. “Armed queers don’t get bashed” is one of their slogans. It empathizes a key point of the second amendment which is that when a group feels threatened by society, firearms can act as a great equalizer.

Many black Americans have also been rediscovering the usefulness of the second amendment. The history of gun control cannot be separated from racism. During the times of segregation and Jim Crow, black people had their gun rights limited in any way possible. Many understand that being able to defend oneself is necessary to preserving the rights of any group.

Where Do Things Go from Here?

Recent events notwithstanding, the data generally shows that support for increased gun control measures has been slowly increasing over the past few years. Some polling data suggests that support for tighter gun control rose to around 60% in 2019. As shoddy as arguments for gun control may be, there is no guarantee that everyone will see through it. It definitely seems that support for the second amendment is growing though. America has a rich gun culture, and there is no reason why it should only include members of one political party. The second amendment is incredibly important for all disenfranchised groups, and hopefully that message will continue to spread. It is not yet clear how significant the increase in support for gun rights has been this year, but it seems promising.

The best move for those concerned about their second amendment rights is to educate people. Offer to take your friends to a gun range. They may have never handled a gun in their lives, and the experience of shooting for the first time can be enlightening. Do what you can to calmly explain the usefulness of firearms. Education is one of the most powerful tools at our disposal.

©Jay Chambers. All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: Leftists Deface Trump Billboard with ‘F__k UR Guns!’

We conservatives know the double standard, hypocritical leftists have no  respect for our 1st Amendment unless what is spoken, written, demonstrated etc. supports their socialist Marxist message.

If what we say or do doesn’t support their socialist message; reflects conservative values or in this case our choice for re-electing POTUS Trump then the left thinks we don’t have 1st Amendment rights.  As a direct, local example, the following involves the defacing of Trump/Pence Billboards excellently erected locally by a team of volunteers – see their efforts.

WATCH THE WINDER HAVEN 912 VIDEO HERE

The co-leader of the volunteer billboard construction team wrote the following:

Hello to All

Some of you have already heard about the “attack” on our Trump BILLBOARDS. Severe damage was done to two signs at LeadFeather Gun shop and range. Please if you are on FB search “leadfeather” (see link below) and like the group. Will, the son of the owner Bill, has posted a response to this “attack” and offered a reward to arrest of these people. We are over 1,000 comments and shares at last count on their page. Please join this group, like and share.

I will attach a picture of the damage to one of the signs. damage was also done to two more that we are aware of so far. Please be aware that offensive language was spray painted on the sign.

Click here for the link to LeadFeather Gun Shop and Range FB Page and pics of the defaced signs.

LeadFeather Gun Shop and Range stated:

 “After the local Trump precinct contacted me to ask to put up a Trump sign, I agreed! Only one week in and this is how the opposition responds! If your beliefs and values are not the same as theirs, they vandalize your property! Police were notified, additional cameras installed and a NEW larger and taller sign is on its way. $500 reward if your tip leads to the arrest of the assailant! Never before has your vote counted so much this year!!!!”

The irony and stupidity of these  “useful idiot” criminals who vandalized these signs on private property next to Overlook Rd, Winter Haven, FL is that new signs will be posted above these defaced signs and the defaced signs will help to motivate people driving by to support Trump and LeadFeather Gun Store and Range.

We will not be deterred – we are on the right side in this battle of good vs evil; Constitutional Republic vs. Socialism and with our help and the help of GOD, POTUS Trump will WIN again on November 3rd, 2020!

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Staffers Donated to Nonprofit That Bailed Out Criminal, Then He Fractures Man’s Skull

VIDEO: Joe Biden Says He Tries Not To Discuss ‘Law And Order’ Because It Plays Into President Trump’s Hands

Democratic nominee Joe Biden claimed President Donald Trump is trying to distract from “the job he hasn’t done” by talking about “law and order” and election security as he took to the podium to make remarks and answer questions from the press Friday from Wilmington, Delaware.

Biden said he was concerned that the president’s attacks on mail-in voting could disrupt attempts by Biden supporters to vote, before continuing on to denounce the “law and order” rhetoric Trump’s campaign has deployed.

WATCH:

“That’s why I try not to talk about it so much,” Biden continued, suggesting that he could be “playing into” Trump’s hands by talking about election security and civil unrest throughout the country.

“I’m playing into — we’re playing, the more we talk about — there’s two things he wants us to talk about: ‘Is the election legitimate?’ and, ‘The whole country is up in flames. Everything is burning. Law and order.’”

Biden said the president’s focus on election security and violent unrest in major American cities is a distraction from the job he “hasn’t done.”

“Because he doesn’t want to talk about anything. Anything at all,” Biden continued, “About the job he hasn’t done. And, so, it is —it’s a conundrum.”

This statement comes only days after a speech Biden gave in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where Biden condemned violent unrest, saying “we have to stand against violence in every form it takes,” but did not mention “Black Lives Matter” or antifa during the address.

Biden and Democrats largely ignored rioting and looting during the Democratic National Convention in August, possibly because they believed it played into Trump’s hands then as well, but have since changed their tune and have begun trying to pin the unrest on Trump.

COLUMN BY

BRADLEY DEVLIN

Reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 31 Times The Media Pushed Narratives Downplaying Riots And Looting After George Floyd’s Death

New Narrative: Democrats, Media Team Up To Blame Trump For Riots

Barr Commends Federal Agents For Taking Out ‘Violent Agitator’ Michael Reinoehl

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Rittenhouse Attorney: Kenosha Shootings Were ‘100 Percent Self-Defense’

The attorney representing alleged Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse said Monday that his client was exercising “100 percent self-defense” on the city streets.

Rittenhouse has been arrested and charged with first-degree murder after he shot and killed two people and injured another last Tuesday.

Attorney John Pierce described Rittenhouse as a concerned youth who was determined to protect businesses from being torched and looted by rioters. “Kyle and his friends decided that nobody was doing anything to protect that community and they decided they would answer the call and help protect that business,” Pierce told Fox News’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

The lawyer said that Rittenhouse was not only armed with an AR-15 rifle but had brought a first aid kit because “he was concerned that there would be wounded protesters downtown,” in a city had become a “war zone.”

Pierce explained that Rittenhouse became a target of rioters because “he was trying to put out the fires” that arsonists had started. “The mob became enraged. They began screaming that Kyle needed to be killed and they were going to kill him.”

”They started relentlessly hunting him as prey as he ran down the street attempting to retreat,” Pierce began, saying that Joseph Rosenbaum, one of those killed by gunfire, “attempted to take his weapon, take his firearm, and Kyle, when he turned, he instantaneously had no choice but to defend himself by firing one, he was in eminent danger of serious bodily harm or death” Pierce insisted.

The lawyer described the second shooting incident as similar to the first. “Again, the mob relentlessly and viciously pursued him and he was struck as he was running from behind by one of the rioters.”

“He tripped and fell to the ground and then one of the rioters was right over him,” Pierce continued. “The other one was attempting and both of them were attempting to disarm him to take his AR-15. He was successful in being able to fight that off and he had no choice but to then immediately defend himself. It was serious bodily harm or death.”

Kenosha police said Monday that 102 of the 175 people arrested for rioting and violent protest are from outside of the community. President Donald Trump has promised to visit the city on Tuesday.

COLUMN BY

DAVID KRAYDEN

Ottawa Bureau Chief.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Attorneys for Teen Kenosha Shooter Say He Acted in Self-Defense

Alleged Kenosha Shooter Charged With First-Degree Murder

Alleged Kenosha Shooter Told Daily Caller He Was There To ‘Help People,’ Protect Property Before The Shooting’

3 Times Media Said Everything Was Fine As Fires Blazed, Riots Happened Behind Them

CNN Editor Under Fire From Conservative Journalists After Suggesting Trump Is Misclassifying ‘Riots’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Kyle Did Nothing Wrong’: Attorneys For Teen Kenosha Shooter Say He Acted In Self-Defense

Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with killing two people and wounding another during a riot on Tuesday, said the teenager “did nothing wrong” and only pulled the trigger to defend himself from harm.

“Kyle did nothing wrong. He exercised his God-given, Constitutional, common law and statutory right to self defense,” Pierce Bainbridge, the law firm representing Rittenhouse, said in a press release Friday evening.

Rittenhouse is facing six charges from the shooting, including first degree intentional homicide and attempted intentional homicide.

Video from the incident shows a group of people chasing after Rittenhouse, someone other than Rittenhouse firing a shot into the air, and then Rittenhouse turning around and shooting one of the men chasing him. As Rittenhouse fled from the scene of the first shooting, he tripped and was set upon by several other individuals who were chasing him, videos show.

Rittenhouse shot two of the men as they lunged at him while he was on the ground, according to video from the scene. All three of the shooting victims were convicted criminals with crimes ranging from sexual conduct with a minor to felony strangulation, court documents reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation show.

“A 17-year-old child should not have to take up arms in America to protect life and property. That is the job of state and local governments,” John Pierce, the law firm’s founder, said in a press release Friday.

“However, those governments have failed, and law-abiding citizens have no choice but to protect their own communities as their forefathers did at Lexington and Concord in 1775. Kyle is not a racist or a white supremacist,” Pierce added.

COLUMN BY

PETER HASSON

Editor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

This Democratic Congresswoman Called The Alleged Kenosha Shooter A ‘White Supremacist Domestic Terrorist’

Mitch McConnell’s Reelection Campaign Hires Former Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann

Meet The Hero Dog That Saves Firefighters’ Lives After The Flames Are Put Out

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

CATHOLICS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Natural rights under attack

Watch the full episode of Mic’d Up: God, Guns and the Government.

One of the most hotly-debated issues in America today revolves around the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In this week’s Mic’d Up, the Second Amendment is defended from a Catholic angle.

Michael Voris interviews Jason Jones, executive producer of the 2006 People’s Choice Award-winning film Bella. Jason, along with his co-author John Zmirak, also wrote The Race to Save Our Century: Five Core Principles to Promote Peace, Freedom, and a Culture Of Life.

God endows as part of His design the natural and inalienable right for humans to defend themselves, and if they’re responsible for the lives of others, this defense is a grave duty. Government, therefore, doesn’t give the rights, but defends them.

This comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the respect for human life, and more specifically, legitimate defense: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” (CCC 2265)

Since self-defense is a natural right freely given by God, it makes sense that historically, the irreligious have stripped people of these rights in order to bring about their own agenda.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.Tweet

In 1918, as the Russian Revolution was launched under Vladimir Lenin, the Council of People’s Commissars, which became the highest authority of the Soviet Union, put together “On the surrender of weapons.” This decree ordered citizens to surrender their firearms, swords and bayonets.

This communist revolution is thought to have resulted in the murder of millions of Russians from 1917–1922.

Since then, Hitler’s Nazi GermanyMao’s communist China, and even socialist Venezuela have all stripped their own people of their natural right to defend themselves.

In the United States, some Churchmen — like Cdl. Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey — have joined many Democrat politicians in calling for “a ban on the sale or possession of all assault weapons.” Fr. James Martin has even portrayed gun control as moral issue equal to abortion.

Jason Jones and John Zmirak, both Catholic writers at The Stream, wrote a thorough article debunking these assertions.

COLUMN BY

Paul Brock

EDITORS NOTE: The Church Militant video and column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Biden-Harris Administration Will Make You an Offer You Can’t Refuse

It’s no secret that most in the legacy media do not support the Second Amendment; at least, not a proper interpretation of what that amendment actually protects. It’s also no secret that most of those same purveyors of “news” will do everything they can to attack President Trump, and defend the Biden-Harris ticket—now the official Democrat ticket for President in 2020—any chance they can get.

A recent USA Today “Fact Check” is a perfect example of this obvious bias.

The impetus of this “Fact Check” was that someone on Facebook posted what was said to be intended as a hypothetical statement by VP candidate Kamala Harris. Based on her history of proposing and supporting a litany of anti-gun schemes, the post attributed to Harris the statement, “If elected and you don’t surrender your guns, I will sign an executive order and the police will show up at your door.”

So, USA Today is now “Fact Checking” random Facebook posts by private citizens? At least they haven’t delved into “Fact Checking” satire.

Technically, USA Today is correct when it classifies the actual quote as “False.” As far as we know, Harris has never said these exact words. But if one believes the person who made the post—that it intended it as a hypothetical statement that “isn’t that much of a stretch” from Harris’s true feelings—it’s probably more true than “False.”

When Harris was an actual presidential candidate, she did clearly state that, should Congress not enact several of her gun control ideas within 100 days of her taking office, she “will take executive action.” At least USA Today acknowledges this, although they emphasize that she would, using Harris’s words, focus on “reasonable gun safety laws.”

But what, exactly, is a “reasonable” law, in the mind of someone like Harris, or her running mate, who is so unreasonably anti-gun?

She clearly supports gun bans, which are unreasonable to many Americans, and, more importantly, unconstitutional.

Harris is a co-sponsor of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Cal.) legislation that seeks to ban countless semi-automatic firearms. This includes, of course, the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, which has been available to the public for more than half a century. In total, there are tens-of-millions of firearms currently in the hands of law-abiding citizens that Feinstein and Harris would like to see banned by the federal government.

That hardly seems “reasonable,” unless you simply don’t like the idea of law-abiding citizens being able to exercise their right to self-defense with the firearm of their choosing.

But what about the hypothetical line that “the police will show up at your door”?

Well, Harris has made it clear that she doesn’t believe Feinstein’s ban goes far enough. It would allow those who currently own these firearms to continue to own them, as the ban would “just” be on the future manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of these guns. Harris, on the other hand, has stated her support for firearm confiscation.

While campaigning for president last year, during a stop in Londonderry, N.H., Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details—there are a lot of details—but I do… We have to take those guns off the streets.” She also called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3, 2019, MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November interview with NBC Nightly News.

So, if she supports the ban, and the “mandatory buyback” scheme, what if some people choose to not comply? How will she “take those guns off the street”? Perhaps police coming to your door is not out of the question. It seemed to be the plan for one of her fellow former presidential candidates, who her current running mate seems to want as his gun control czar.

USA Today’s “Fact check” conveniently avoids any mention of the VP candidate’s outspoken support of banning most semi-automatic firearms, which seems odd, considering that position is clearly what inspired the hypothetical quote. By avoiding her support of gun bans, the paper could also avoid her voicing support of a “mandatory buyback program,” and, thus, avoid discussing what such a program actually is.

But we are happy to fill in USA Today’s intentional blanks.

As we’ve said before, a “mandatory buyback” is simply an anti-gun euphemism for confiscation.

First, you cannot “buyback” something you never previously owned, and the government did not own the tens-of-millions of guns that would be targeted by this scheme.

Second, the term “buy” implies that both the seller and purchaser are willing participants in the transaction, and the ability to negotiate a price would, presumably, be involved. But if the “buyback” is “mandatory,” then it does not matter if the seller is willing; the government has dictated you will sell. And if the government has dictated the sale, there will be no possibility of negotiating price; the government will dictate the price.

Finally, if it is “mandatory,” and you don’t take part in the “buyback,” the next obvious step is confiscation, and perhaps jail time, and that would clearly be done by police. In fact, a more accurate term for “mandatory buyback” would probably be “compensated confiscation,” with the understanding that the “compensation” will likely be far less than what you originally paid. Or, to paraphrase Don Corleone, the government will simply make you an offer you cannot refuse.

And we really don’t have to speculate on how the scheme might play out, as we’ve seen it implemented in Australia.

In 1996, following a high-profile shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia’s states and territories adopted the federal National Firearms Agreement (NFA). The agreement set up stringent licensing requirements to possess firearms, requiring license applicants provide a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm; the agreement made clear that personal protection was not a genuine reason. The measure also targeted several types of commonly-owned firearms, and included a near total ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns.

With the ban, which did not allow for continued possession of firearms lawfully acquired before it went into effect, came an amnesty and compensation program. Through a massive public education campaign, gun owners were warned that they were required to turn their newly-prohibited firearms over to the government for a set price. Sounds exactly like what Harris supports.

We also don’t have to speculate on what would happen after, if a scheme like the one Harris supports were to be implemented. Australia has seen its ban fail, leading to new amnesty/confiscation schemes in spite of the growing understanding that such schemes don’t work. And because they don’t work, Australia continues to see efforts to push for more gun control laws—laws that Harris and USA Today would also likely consider “reasonable.”

So, we agree that Harris didn’t actually say what someone apparently hypothesized she might say, were she to tell the truth about her views on gun control. There is ample evidence to support the view that Kamala Harris does support the banning and confiscation of tens-of-millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens. After all, when discussing her support of a mandatory “buyback” scheme—which is confiscation—she did say, “We have to take those guns off the streets.” While they are generally in the homes of law-abiding gun owners, we understand what she means. She just hasn’t been honest enough to actually say such things.

So, kudos to USA Today for clearing up any confusion some may have had regarding a Facebook post by an individual who was, apparently, expressing her opinion of what Kamala Harris actually feels when it comes to gun bans. This was not an editorial, or a campaign ad, or a story from a news broadcast, or even a comment from a political candidate. Just a Facebook post.

That’s groundbreaking journalism. Look out memes, you’re next!

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Third Time Isn’t Always a Charm

Gun Control End Game

New York Politician Introduces Bill to Criminalize (He Says) the Sale and Manufacture of Firearms

New Mexico’s Background Check Law: A Year in Review

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Democrats Don’t Think Government Should Protect Honest Citizens, St. Louis Gun-Wielding Couple Says At RNC

St. Louis, Missouri couple Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the homeowners who defended their home from protesters while wielding firearms, spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention Monday in support of President Donald Trump.

video of the McCloskeys defending their St. Louis mansion with firearms during a June 28 protest has garnered more than 15 million views on Twitter. The couple warned Americans that a similar incident could happen to anyone in the country.

“What you saw happen to us could just as easily happen to any of you who are watching from quiet neighborhoods around our country,” Patricia McCloskey said.

Mark McCloskey added: “Whether it’s the defunding of police, ending cash bail so criminals could be released back out on the streets the same day to riot again, or encouraging anarchy and chaos on our streets, it seems as if the Democrats no longer view the government’s job as protecting honest citizens from criminals, but rather protecting criminals from honest citizens.”

The McCloskeys ended their segment by endorsing Trump for president.

WATCH:

In the aftermath of the June incident, the couple said they were defending their home from protesters who were shouting threats, Fox News reported.

“[They said] that they were going to kill us,” said Patricia McCloskey on Fox News’ “Hannity” in a July interview.

Several protesters can be seen screaming at the McCloskeys while others are heard saying “keep moving,” according to video. “Private property, get out,” a barefoot Mark McCloskey is heard yelling to protesters while holding a rifle in separate footage of the incident.

The protesters were on their way to Democratic Mayor Lyda Krewson’s home to demand her resignation, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Krewson read the names and listed the addresses of protesters who demanded that the city defund its police department, NBC-affiliate WAND-TV reported.

Protests have been occurring in the wake of the death of George Floyd, who died in Minneapolis police custody after an officer knelt on his neck, video of the incident showed.

Police seized the McCloskeys’ firearms in July and days later St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner filed felony weapons charges against the couple. However, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sought to dismiss the charges while Gov. Mike Parson indicated that he would pardon the couple if they were convicted.

Trump called the charges “absolutely absurd,” according to White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

The McCloskeys are a husband-wife attorney team at McCloskey Law Center who specialize in brain injury, spinal injury and catastrophic injury cases. Mark McCloskey is representing Isaiah Forman, a black man who alleges he was unjustly kicked by Officer David Maas in a 2019 incident, The Associated Press reported.

COLUMN BY

THOMAS CATENACCI

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

St. Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner Fundraised Off McCloskey Case. Their Lawyers Want Her Disqualified

Portland Police Say They Were Pulled Away From Other Emergency Calls Due To Riots

Rudy Giuliani Says ‘Joe Biden’s America’ Can Be Seen In Portland’s Riots

Unrest Erupts In Wisconsin Town After Police Shoot Black Man Entering His Car

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

EXCLUSIVE: New York City Rifle Permit Applications Surge by 340%

New York City rifle permit applications and pistol license requests have surged this year, according to New York Police Department (NYPD) data obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

NYC residents submitted nearly 149% more handgun permits and nearly 340% more rifle/shotgun permits from Jan. 1 to June 28 compared to the same period in 2019, according to data provided to the DCNF by NYPD spokeswoman Sgt. Jessica McRorie.

A total of 2,338 people applied for handgun licenses from January to the end of June this year, compared to 1,571 last year in the same time frame, according to the NYPD data. Residents applied for 1,492 rifle permits in the six-month span in 2020 compared to 441 in 2019, the data show.

Handgun licenses were approved at a rate of 46% and rifle and shotgun licenses at a rate of 29% in the six month period in 2020, data show. Last year, 77% of handgun licenses were issued and 61% of long gun permits were approved in the same period, according to a data analysis performed by the DCNF.

The apparent decrease in approvals may not necessarily equal an uptick in denials, as residents can end up waiting up to 8-10 months to receive their permits. Thus, many of the currently unapproved applications may have yet to be either approved or denied.

The five boroughs have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and are one of three regions in the U.S. to mandate citizens have permits before they can purchase either handguns or rifles, according to the Giffords Law Center.

Residents must apply for the permit that covers the specific class of weapon they’d like to acquire and cannot purchase a gun legally without one, according to New York City Guns, a local firearm-advocacy organization.

A New York City rifle and shotgun permit application is 13-pages long and costs $231 to submit with all relevant materials. Applicants must show four color photographs of themselves, a utility bill or lease, a birth certificate and two character reference letters in addition to being fingerprinted.

If approved, the applicant is granted a license but must then register all of their firearm purchases with the city. License holders are also required to comply with NYC’s assault weapons ban that forbids the ownership of any firearm with a folding stock, pistol grip or threaded barrel, among other common features.

Any component that police deem to be akin to military features can also be banned at their discretion, according to the application.

NYC also has outlawed pistol magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and rifle or shotgun magazines that hold more than five rounds, according to New York City Guns.

The city has experienced a wave of violence since the death of George Floyd, who died after a police officer knelt on his neck for over eight minutes, video showed.

NYC has experienced a 64% increase in shootings in May, a 130% increase in gun incidents in June and a 177% uptick in shootings in July, according to NYPD crime statistics.

Murder in the Boroughs is also on the rise with 79% increase in May killings, 30% rise in June murders and a 59% increase in July killings, NYPD crime comparisons to 2019 showed.

COLUMN BY

JAKE DIMA

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Virginia Blocked Over 1,000 Handgun Purchases During New Regulation‘s First Month

AG Barr: Media Is Telling ‘A Lie’ With Stories Of ‘Peaceful Demonstrators’

Suspended Wisconsin Officer Assaulted, Shot At By Mob At His Home, Police Say

Rioters, Looters Hit Chicago After Man Reportedly Hit In Shootout With Police

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: ‘Black Guns Matter’ — The Racist History Of Gun Control

Gun control is pushed endlessly by the left as a way to decrease violence and save lives, but many people aren’t aware of the gun control movement’s sordid, racist history.

In this Daily Caller Productions video, black gun rights activists explain how gun control efforts evolved from “Slave Codes” that banned slaves from owning weapons before the Civil War to “Black Codes” that targeted freed slaves for disarmament to today’s gun control measures that leave majority-black inner-city residents vulnerable to criminal predators.

“The genesis of gun control was designed to keep guns out of the hands of black people,” gun rights activist Colion Noir said. “The last thing that they want to do is prop up a message that demonstrates to the very people they rely on to gain their power is the idea that we utilized the very thing they are trying to ban to gain our freedom or to protect our families back during the time period where we needed them the most.”

The video describes how these measures were fought and ultimately overcome by freedom-loving Americans.

VIDEO BY:

DAILY CALLER PRODUCTIONS

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Diversity In Gun Ownership Nothing New To The Firearm Industry

Riot Declared In Portland As 73rd Day Of Protests Results In Fire At Police Union Building

Lindsey Graham: Memo Shows FBI Lied To Senate About Dossier Source

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

2020 Democratic Party Platform Declares Total War on Second Amendment Rights

The national Democratic Party is no longer making any attempt to hide their antipathy towards guns and gun owners. Where once the party attempted to tailor their anti-gun messaging to appear moderate and appeal to some gun owners, the draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform contains a full-throated assault on firearms ownership and a blueprint for undermining every aspect of Second Amendment rights. Viewed in historical context, the draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform is the most anti-gun the party has ever put forward.

Released July 21, the draft platform contains the following passage:

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

The proposals include so-called “universal” background checks, the elimination of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System’s three-day safety -valve provision, and gun owner licensing, which would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege dependent on the whim of government bureaucrats. The Democrats would empower government intrusions into the home to dictate how Americans keep and store firearms for self-defense and to confiscate firearms without due process based on the flimsiest of evidentiary standards. Moreover, the draft platform calls for a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, something explicitly prohibited under the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Another portion of the platform states, “Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue.” At a time when the politically-biased Centers for Disease Control has come under severe criticism for its response to an actual communicable disease, the national Democratic Party platform would further distract the agency from its core mission by turning it back into a taxpayer-funded gun control factoid factory.

The gun control section of the draft 2020 Democratic platform is an escalation of the anti-gun position put forward in the 2016 platform, adding and expounding upon the positions in the earlier document. Both are notable for what they omit. Neither recognizes that Americans have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms

As recently as 2012, the national Democratic Party was willing to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms – something understood by the vast majority of Americans and the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2012 Democratic platform explained:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

Similarly, the 2008 Democratic platform noted:

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

The 2004 Democratic platform stated:

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms… 

Although the 2000 Democratic platform did not cite the Second Amendment, the platform stated that the party sought to regulate firearms “in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.”

Earlier Democratic platforms (1996199219801976) often offered language meant to assure hunters and target shooters that their rights would not come under threat.

The Democrats’ inclusion of Second Amendment language in the platforms of the early 2000s wasn’t by mistake. After George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, there was a concerted effort by Democrats to moderate, or at least give the appearance of moderating, the prevailing party positions on gun control in order to better reflect the American electorate’s respect for gun rights. For instance, in 2002, the Washington Post reported on a Democratic Senate caucus retreat at which “several” senators suggested a move away from gun control. According to the item, this prompted freshman Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to “[urge] her colleagues to keep their positions but change their language to be less inflammatory to swing voters.” In the mid-2000s Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel also sought to shift the party’s anti-gun perception.

With the nomination of Clinton in 2016, the pretense that the national Democratic Party would respect Second Amendment rights was no longer tenable.

During the campaign, Clinton repeatedly attacked the individual right to keep and bear arms. She even attacked the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, which recognized the individual right to arms. Clinton told the audience at a September 2015 fundraiser in New York City “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” At a separate event in Connecticut, the former senator called Heller “a terrible decision.” When asked by ABC’s George Stephanopolous to clarify her position on the Second Amendment, the former first lady refused to acknowledge that it protects an individual right.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s persistent attacks on gun owners also make platform language in support of the Second Amendment indefensible.

The career politician has endorsed the confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Biden had the following exchange with CNN’s Anderson Cooper when asked about firearm confiscation during an August 5, 2019 interview:

Cooper: So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.

Biden: Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.

Further, while attending a private $500 a person fundraiser in November, Biden revealed his intent to ban 9mm pistols. According to an article from the Seattle Times, while at the soiree, the 77-year-old posited to attendees “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment prohibits the gun bans Biden advocates.

In Heller, the Court concluded that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” The AR-15, which Biden has made clear he seeks to ban, is the most popular rifle in America and therefore undoubtedly “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment. Similarly, industry data shows that 9mm pistols are the most common type of pistol produced.

In 2015, Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated that the Second Amendment and Heller preclude so-called “assault weapons” bans when he signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles [with many millions more owning them in 2020]. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

The gun control section of the draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform is a perfect fit for the party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Both the platform drafters and the former vice president have put forward a radical gun control agenda that would further burden every aspect of gun ownership. Above all, both have exhibited a complete disregard for the Second Amendment.

RELATED ARTICLE: Black Lives Matter Founder: DNC Platform Must Call for Defunding Police, Abolishing ICE – American Renaissance

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.