The Growing Number of Women Taking Concealed Carry Classes

Women can be just as interested in guns as men. After all, there is no label on guns that says they are only suitable for men. Lately, there has been an increase in the number of women taking concealed carry classes. Although these classes are mainly dominated by men, women are getting more and more interested in them.

This doesn’t really come off as a surprise, given that many times, women feel unsafe while on the street, and don’t know how to protect themselves by force. This is one reason why the number of women obtaining concealed carry permits has surpassed the number of men getting the same permits.

Why Do Women Take Concealed Carry Classes?

Women are mainly interested in concealed carry classes because they want to learn how to protect themselves when facing a dangerous situation. Since people have the right to own a gun in the U.S., many want to use this right – women included. Owning the gun itself is not enough, though, as guns require careful maneuvering, and if you haven’t used a gun before, the chances are that you’re unaware of how to use it properly.

So, the number of women who want to use guns is increasing because they want to learn how to protect themselves, without having to depend on someone else for their safety. Many females feel that a gun offers them a sense of safety, especially after certain events that have been occurring in the U.S.

Many times, people tend to wait until the last minute to take steps for protecting themselves. Until a tragedy happens, some people don’t even think they will ever need to use that kind of protection. So, tragedies have been a steer in the right direction.

Also, women who want to learn how to shoot should have the proper mental capability of doing it. If you don’t think you should use the gun and hesitate for a moment, you risk having the gun used against you by a potential attacker. This is why so many shooters say that you need to be ready to shoot whenever you aim the gun, or otherwise you shouldn’t do it.

Conversely, there are women who want to learn more about gun laws, and a gun instructor is the best person to learn from. Concealed carry classes will lead to the woman being able to apply for a concealed carry permit, and thus carry a gun with her when needed.

The Increase in the Number of Concealed Carry Permits

Over the years, more and more people have decided to use their right to own a gun. Basically, over a period of 10 years, the number of permits for handguns has had an increase of 256%. Therefore, more than 16.36 million permits have been granted.

This led to the study reporting the amount of concealed carry permits by gender in 2016, and thus it revealed that 36% of permit holders were women, in 14 of the states. Also, in 8 states, the number of permits increased by 22% for men and 93% for women.

According to studies, the number of women who obtained permits has grown due to shooting events taking place. Of course, people put themselves in the victims’ shoes, so they think they may one day be unsafe themselves.

Because of that, statistics show that more concealed carry courses have been taken ever since the Parkland, Florida shooting. The number went up by 24% after the incident occurred, being the highest increase since July/August of 2016.

So, the chances are that more women will consider applying for concealed carry permits as time goes by and they feel the need to protect themselves.

The Response of the Firearm Industry

Since they saw how many women decided to pick up guns, the firearm industry worked to adapt firearms for women. Basically, since 2005, there has been an increase in the number of high caliber guns with greater lethality. Also, since 0.380 guns have had a production boost too, they opened the door towards more-concealable weapons – perfect for women.

With this in mind, the firearm production has started working on stronger, yet more concealable weapons. Given that women want something that can be easily used while hidden properly, this is an amazing thing. Now, women have access to a series of handguns meant for them, and they aren’t too big or heavy to carry.

Also, the public relations director for the NSSF (the National Shooting Sports Foundation), Michael Bazinet, has made a confirmation regarding SHOT Show. It seems that more exhibitors at this show are making guns for women. So, things are looking bright for women who want to get a concealed carry.

Also, the US Concealed Carry Association Expo of the NRA Show is offering quite a nice sight too. More and more weapons for women have been presented in 2018, showing the increase in demand for women.

Women who want to learn more about guns and see the newer handguns created for them can attend SHOT Show and interact with professional female shooters. There will be many great lessons to learn from them, as well as a confidence boost when you see you are not alone in this game.

Final Thoughts

If you want to assert your right and take concealed carry classes as a woman, you have the chance to pick the best handgun. For instance, a Smith & Wesson M&P9 Shield 2.0 is perfect for concealed carry and is only suitable to use under most female clothing. Having a short grip and slim profile, you cannot go wrong with a handgun like this.

Women have decided to take the initiative and go to concealed carry classes either to learn more about gun laws or protection or to learn how to shoot and protect themselves. So, if you’re a lady who wants to go to such classes, you aren’t alone – therefore, there’s no need to hesitate.

MSNBC’s Las Vegas Anti-Gun Rally

On Wednesday, anti-gun news outlet MSNBC, along with their partner organizations Giffords and March for Our Lives, hosted nine Democrat candidates for President for what was billed as a “Gun Safety Forum.”  Most of the time was spent by candidates and anti-gun activists railing against guns, NRA, and occasionally, President Donald Trump.

As one can imagine, there really wasn’t much new discussed, as candidates continued to try to convince Democrat voters that each is the most anti-gun choice.  At times, it seemed like a fight might break out over who had the most outrageous scheme to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Everyone seemed to agree on “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and that there is an “epidemic” of gun violence in our country.  But as each candidate took the stage for their individual allotted time, most tried to separate themselves from the others.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the higher polling lower tier candidates, started things off, trying to draw a connection between passing new gun laws and combatting “white nationalism.”

Buttigieg also promoted gun licensing, as well as “red flag” laws and “universal” background checks.  Attacking NRA, he made the patently false allegation that our association represents the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than our 5 million dues-paying members.

Mayor Buttigieg also talked about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, making the confusing statement that such things should not be sold “anywhere near an American school or neighborhood.”  He seemed to clarify later that he was not talking about limiting where gun stores could operate, but meant he wanted to ban these popular rifles.

While trying to sell the constitutionality of banning some of the most commonly owned firearms in America, he made two bizarre comparisons.  First, he said that people can own slingshots, but not nuclear weapons, followed by stating that water balloons are legal, but predator drones are not.  It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous comparison than one between children’s toys and actual weapons of war while discussing the Second Amendment.

His support of banning AR-15s, however, did not, at this time, include support for the type of confiscation scheme that has been promoted by one of the other candidates.  More on that later.

Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro was next. He promoted increasing the tax on ammunition to further drive up its cost and supported the banning of so-called “assault weapons,” but fell short of calling for their confiscation.  Instead, he promoted a voluntary “buy-back” scheme, followed by registering those not turned in and tracking their future transfer, similar to the way fully-automatic firearms are currently regulated.  While he did not mention fully incorporating them into the National Firearms Act (NFA) protocols, that seemed to be where he was heading.

Next was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.  He stated support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms, pushed so-called “safe” storage laws, and promoted his scheme to implement a federal licensing program for gun owners.  He went so far as to call out all of his opponents that don’t support his position, claiming anyone who does not support licensing “should not be a nominee from our party.”  He then went on to pat himself on the back for pushing “the most ambitious” gun plan.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been leading the pack in some polls, then spoke.  She promoted the idea of limiting firearm purchases to one-a-month, and also suggesting a 7-day waiting period before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm.  She also threatened a federal investigation of NRA—a clear attempt to quash our right to free speech, and that of our more than 5 million members.

Following Warren was former Vice President Joe Biden. While Biden had been the favorite in the race, at one point commanding a lead of more than 25-points over his closest rival, his advantage has all but disappeared.  Biden again raised his make-believe idea on gun control—mandating guns that can only operate utilizing “biometric markers.”  He also pushed a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and similar rifles, coupled with regulating those that are currently owned under the NFA.  This scheme has been promoted by representatives of Giffords, one of the sponsors of the event, so Biden was clearly playing to the audience.

His presentation was marked by the usual rambling, odd tangents, and self-promoting hyperbole to which we’ve grown accustomed.  At one point he stopped in the middle of praising those behind March for Our Lives to clumsily transition to talking about the federal restrictions on hunting migratory waterfowl; pointing out that there is a limit of three shells in your shotgun when in the field.  That brought him to discussing putting limits on the number of rounds one can have in other firearms.  Biden seems to be struggling with determining an arbitrarily acceptable limit on ammunition capacity, so maybe he’s now testing out the idea of using three.

Former Texas Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke, who self-identifies as “Beto,” took the stage after Biden.  He specifically called out Mayor Buttigieg for not supporting his gun confiscation idea, all but calling him a coward.  He seemed to imply the same about Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) for their questioning the level of support for the disarmament scheme.

O’Rourke also pushed the popular lie among the anti-gun crowd that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war.”  He even made the outrageously false claim that such firearms are “sold to the militaries of the world.”  Of course, this is just an evolution of what gun-ban advocate Josh Sugarmann began promoting in the late ‘80s, when he wrote about so-called “assault weapons”:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Of course, millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic rifles, while fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated under the NFA, and are what is actually “sold to the militaries of the world.”

He also claimed that, when the Second Amendment was ratified, it took “three minutes to reload a musket.”  In fact, someone in the 18th century who was familiar with their musket could fire and reload it two- to three-times a minute.  While that fact has little to do with the debate over gun control, what O’Rourke ignores is the more relevant fact that those privately owned muskets were no different than the muskets used by those in “the militaries of the world.”

The bottom-tier candidate waited until near the end of his time to break out two of the shticks for which he has become somewhat famous; profanity and high school-level Spanish.

Another bottom-tier candidate, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, was next, although she didn’t really bring anything new to the discussion.  She mostly echoed the same, tired gun-control ideas promoted by those who came before her.  Perhaps that is why she has been struggling throughout most of her campaign to generate more than 1% support in the polls.

Businessman Andrew Yang, who can’t seem to achieve much more than mid-single digit support in spite of promising to give people “free” money, had some curious ideas.  He appeared to support Biden’s “biometric markers” idea, and mentioned expanding on the Booker notion of licensing by promoting a multi-tiered licensing program, although he didn’t offer real details on that while on stage, other than there would be different licenses for different guns.

Yang also mentioned wanting to keep track of people who own multiple firearms, but also offered no details on accomplishing this to the audience.

Two particularly odd ideas stood out.  First, in order to counter the impact of organizations like NRA, he suggested giving every American $100.00 of what he referred to as “Democracy Dollars.”  People could give this money to lawmakers and candidates to help influence their votes, which sounds a bit like buying votes.  While we do not support the notion of buying votes, perhaps Mr. Yang did not consider the fact that NRA has five million members.  Does he really want to add more than half-a-billion dollars that could be used to support the campaigns of candidates that support the Second Amendment?

His other odd idea, which may be better described as troubling, was the suggestion that gun manufacturers be fined every time one of their lawful products is used by a criminal.  One presumes he is not suggesting the same penalties for the makers of any other lawful products commonly used by criminals.  If he did, then he would likely be accused of trying to bankrupt the entire manufacturing industry, rather than just those that manufacture firearms.

One other odd statement he made, but also didn’t go into any real details about, was implying that criminals who use firearms to kill others are somehow victims.  This line of thought deserves no additional commentary.

Finally, California Senator Kamala Harris spoke, offering nothing substantively new.  She reiterated her desire to use executive action to implement many of her schemes.  Perhaps hoping to avoid the ire of O’Rourke, she made clear that she supports his approach to banning and confiscating AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms.  Some of the candidates who took the stage mentioned their version of supporting the Second Amendment included, at least to some extent, the right of self-defense.  Harris, however, spoke only of respecting the Second Amendment as it relates, in her mind, to the tradition of hunting.

Ultimately, this anti-gun rally produced what would be expected of an event run by an anti-gun news outlet and anti-gun organizations.  The same gun control ideas that have been promoted ad nauseum by radical extremists for years, or even decades.  It was at least slightly interesting to see at what lengths candidates will go to try and out-anti-gun one another, especially considering the controlled environment where there was no chance of facing any sort of push-back.  Especially from citizens who still respect the Constitution, individual freedom and our right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Mayor Waffles on NRA “Terrorist” Group Designation

Federal Court Entertains Bizarre Legal Theories That Threaten Gun Owners, Rule of Law

Violent Crime Dropped in 2018

NRA’s Adaptive Shooting Program Aids Disabled Hunters

Member Spotlight: Meet the Police Officer Who Told Congress She ‘Would Not Comply’ with a Gun Ban

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

Citizens Speak Out Against Florida’s ‘Red Flag Law’ and ‘Risk Protection Orders’

I want to thank and congratulate the 12 members of WH 912 (3 of which are also LARC Members & 4 of which are Members of Polk REC) who came to the annual FL Congressional Delegation forum open to the public on October 7, 2019 at the Polk State Campus in the PCSO complex.

Seven made 3 minute testimonies on the unconstitutional provisions of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Public Safety Act (hereafter referred to as SB 7026) and five more supported us for a total of 12 activists in attendance.

Many thanks and kudos to our lineup of speakers – in order of appearance they were Patti Zelsman, Jack Zelsman, Danny Krueger (nominated for this years WH 912 Oscar), Royal Brown III, Glynnda White, Kay Mijou, and Manny Brito. All were well rehearsed and completed their presentations within 3 min limit or a few lines (seconds) past 3 minutes. We also appreciated those present to support us – Roy and Nancy Pearce, Linda Adams, Jane Thomas, and Dy Soldwedel-Krueger.

We spoke before five of the six members of the Polk County Congressional Delegation who were Senators Albritton and Lee and Representatives Burton, Tomkow and Bell. Sen. Stargel was not present, Her Legislative Asst. Chad Davis was the recorder for the Delegation.

Glynnda White wrote the narratives for each of our 7 speakers and submitted them to Chad Davis in advance so that we would be pre-scheduled in a sequence that built upon each other and reinforced all the major points we wanted to get across. Among important points made were as follows:

  1. MSDHSPSA (SB 7026) is unconstitutional and violates our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights and, in certain circumstances may also violate our 1st and 5th Amendment Rights – each of the testimonies drove this point home with specific examples of how our rights are/can be violated.
  2. School Safety and Gun Control should have been considered in two separate bills/laws and not cobbled together in one rushed 3 week time frame after the Parkland shootings.
  3. The Risk Protection Order (RPO) codified within SB 7026 prescribes Ex Parte petitions resulting in seizures of firearms, ammo, accessories & permit without a Hearing which comes 14 days later at which time the respondent must prove he/she is not a threat. This is a clear violation of Due Process Rights and the Legal Precedent of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” for law abiding citizens who might be served with an RPO. This and other provisions are not only troubling to law abiding gun owners (especially those who have undergone background checks, have no criminal record, received CCW training and issued carry permits) but are fraught with many dangers that can result in violations of our Constitutional Rights (see attachment which was given to all the Congressional Panel Members).
  4. Age restrictions on owning, possessing, purchasing long guns clearly violate the 2A rights of 18-20 year olds.
  5. Bottom line recommendation was to support, co-sponsor Rep Mike Hill’s HB 6003 or sponsor a companion Senate Bill to HB 6003 which will revoke the RPO and 2 A age restrictions. Reconsider a much different and constitutional Bill for potential emergency situations where firearm seizure procedures may be appropriate.

This is the kind of Grassroots effort we must all support if we want to retain our rights and not live in fear of the possibility of an unconstitutional seizure of our firearms, ammo, accessories and permit.

BACKGROUND: Risk Protection Order in SB 7026 Violates Many Rights

Stands Due Process on Its Head – RPO takes away our Due Process Rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the Fl Constitution Sec 1, Art 9 and infringed upon our 2nd Amendment (2A) rights including FL Constitution Sec 1, Art 8.

Ex parte seizure of firearms, accessories, ammo, permits (if issued), etc. before a hearing for the respondent

Triggered by False Allegations/Weak Investigations –   Allows possibility of being triggered by false accusations and possible less than thoroughly investigated information by very busy and often overworked law enforcement.

Reverses legal precedent of being innocent until proven guilty since the respondent must prove they are not a threat rather than the court proving they are in the “after the fact” (post seizure) final RPO hearing.

Premonition Not Fact – Judges making decisions to seize property based on premonition of what might happen in the future – to do so opens very dangerous avenues to ignore our rights – trading rights for safety

Impact on Innocent Respondent  – Current procedure could lead to law abiding gun owning citizens being put through the embarrassment of seizure, personal cost to hire an attorney, loss of the means to defend themselves and their families and bureaucratic nightmare of being placed on state & federal criminal data bases and the difficulties of clearing their names.

Civil Procedure Treated Like Criminal Law – Since the RPO is a civil procedure, Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Weak Rules of Evidence  – An RPO based on a premonition should at least be supported with beyond reasonable doubt evidence not the nebulous clear and convincing evidence of a threat as stated in the law.

2A Privilege Not Right– Hearings being held after the fact of seizures has the effect of turning the 2A from a right to a privilege.

Legal Representation – During the final RPO Hearing the court is represented by prosecution/attorney(s) representing Law Enforcement (LE) petitioners whereas the respondent is not entitled to Public Defense.  If they want (and probably should retain) legal representation, the respondent must hire an attorney without reimbursement compensation should their case be vacated.

Vague language of the RPO is open to varying interpretations by different legal jurisdictions, Judges, LE.

Duty Judges – Reliable sources have reported where large numbers of RPOs are being issued, the load is too great for assigned judges to review petitions and hold hearings so case assignment can go to duty judges with little knowledge of the RPO procedures.

Contract Lawyers for LE are being hired to represent LE petitioners with an incentive for pay based on cases leading to issuing of Final RPOs.

Judges Removed  – In at least one Court Jurisdiction, the Judge assigned to RPO cases was replaced by the Chief Judge of that Jurisdiction because of complaints by LE petitioners that he was turning down too many LE petitions he judged to not be clear and convincing and did not issue an ex parte RPO.

Property Treatment – There are no specifics in the RPO process as to the condition of how the seized property of the respondent is to be handled, stored, maintained and returned nor are there stipulations within what timeframe to return property should the ex parte RPO or final RPO be overturned or vacated.  This can lead to damaged property being returned without compensation and bureaucratic delays in returning properties.

3rd Party Transfer – The time frame of the option whereby a respondent can transfer property to be held by a 3rd party is also not determined nor prescribed.  There are unanswered questions about the strict conditions (such as passing a background check) required of the 3rd party transferee.

  •     For example if the 3d party is a CCW permit holder is this enough proof that a background check has been performed or does a new check have to be made and by whom?  Transfer requires a  sworn statement that the 3rd party will not allow respondent access during RPO period – will the LE officer serving petition take this statement or does the 3rd party or if not who/where do they go?
  •     Based on the lack of specifics on the transfer process, it appears this transfer won’t happen before the seizure but afterwards/post seizure.  This then leads to more bureaucracy and time delays.  The transfer should be conducted before seizure so as to preempt the need for LE to take possession, store, maintain and return property e.g. this function should take place between respondent & 3rd party at the same time the petition is served to the respondent and LE conducts inventory.  This would save LE resources as well.

Unequal Penalties – The fact that an accuser found to have rendered a false statement can only be charged with a misdemeanor whereas a search warrant can be issued to determine if any of the prohibited items are in the respondent’s residence and if the respondent is found to possess any firearm or related item after the final RPO (including one firearm bullet), they can be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony. This is also absurd, amounts to a civil search and unbalances the scales of justice.

Other Rights in Jeapordy – We are concerned these violations of our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment rights by SB 7026 could lead to other violations such as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

  •   1st Amendment Rights – Sen. Galvano’s coordination with FDLE to identify hate groups and hate speech could lead to RPOs being issued to members of these groups even though no such correlation exists in past mass shootings.
  •   What will be the criteria/sources used to determine that a group is a terrorist group and that they are a threat?  Surely not the uber leftist SPLC who has placed most conservative groups on their list of terrorists?
  •   Who will determine what is hate speech ?  This is fraught with the possibility of politicizing hate speech and using it against political opponents and seems more like the tactics of the Communist KGB or Nazi Gestapo than USA law.
  •   There are leftist groups such as the SPLC who have falsely classified most conservative groups as hate groups.  Others have now stated the NRA is a terorist group and all members of the NRA are racists.  These types of action like the RPO run the risk of turning certain agencies of the FL Govt into “speech police” which could further jeopardize our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Weakening Self Defense Laws: Then there are the intended or unintended consequences in RPOs weakening our Self Defense laws and Stand Your Ground rights – law abiding citizens will be concerned about using their firearms under lawful conditions for fear of then having an RPO issued against them while a determination of immunity from prosecution for shooting takes place.

  •   Acceptance of large donations from gun control groups like Everytown USA  to PACs helping Republican Senators get re-elected also smacks of a conflict of interest and definitely conflicts with Republican values.

Civil Law Process Treated Like Criminal Law.  Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Conclusions – All of the above stacks the deck against the respondent in an RPO case especially if the respondent has no prior criminal record, is law abiding and is the target of someone’s vendetta, anger, political attack or other such lies and distortions to make LE petitioner and Judge wary that they might be a threat and then err on the side of perceived safety rather than individual liberty.

VIDEO: Where the House Judiciary Actually Got Things Right

While there was plenty wrong with Wednesday’s House Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1296, the proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.), there were some shining moments for those who still support the Second Amendment.

First, there were the two women who testified in opposition to the latest attempt at banning America’s most popular rifles.

Amy Swearer, the Senior Legal Policy Analyst for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, used an effective combination of statistics, research, analytical thinking, and anecdotal evidence in her testimony [below] to point out the massive flaws with enacting a revised version of the failed 1994 Clinton gun ban.

From a statistical standpoint, Amy explained that the firearms targeted by H.R. 1296 are used in a fraction of all firearm-related crime. She explained that Americans are four-times more likely to be stabbed to death than to be killed by a criminal wielding one of these firearms.

And while many in the gun-ban community continually ask why anyone “needs” a semi-automatic rifle, Ms. Swearer pointed out that these so-called “assault weapons” are particularly suited for civilians to use for personal protection, especially at times when the government is “unable or unwilling to defend entire communities from large-scale civil unrest.” Amy stated that in 1982, during the Los Angeles riots, many business owners and private citizens used such firearm to protect their lives and their property from rampant looters when the police were nowhere to be found. Similarly, during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, these firearms were again utilized by law-abiding citizens for lawful, defensive purposes.

Amy drove home her point about the suitability of guns like the AR-15 for personal protection by relating the story of taking her mother, who was not familiar with firearms, to the range to teach her how to safely use a gun. Ms. Swearer related that her mother, like many handling firearms for the first time, had difficulty with using a handgun accurately and effectively. When she switched to an AR-15, however, Amy said her mother was able to control the firearm far more easily than a handgun, and her accuracy improved vastly.

“That is why law-abiding citizens buy millions of these firearms,” Amy said. “When accuracy and stopping power matter, they are simply better.”

Pointing out that firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for personal protection between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times a year, Ms. Swearer closed by hoping politicians do not strip her mother of the ability to use the most effective firearm possible for ending threats to her safety.

Dianna Muller, a retired 22-year police veteran, spoke next [below]. A professional competitive shooter who has represented the United States in competition, Mrs. Muller also works with The DC Project, a nonpartisan educational initiative that seeks to bring 50 women, one from each state, to the nation’s capital to promote gun rights.

Mrs. Muller pointed out that gun rights are women’s rights. She stated that she is particularly vulnerable to violent criminal attack because she is likely smaller and “less equipped for violence” than someone who may seek to do her harm, especially if she is outnumbered. “My firearm is the great equalizer,” Dianna testified, “and levels the playing field.”

Also addressing the question of why someone “needs” an AR-15, she stated hers is her preferred firearm for home defense, and that her husband also uses one for hunting. Mrs. Muller also pointed out that if legislators want to look at reducing firearm-related fatalities, rather than demonizing gun owners, they should look at promoting several programs she mentioned that have already had an impact, and would be more effective than adding restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Among the programs she highlighted were NRA’s Eddie Eagle and School Shield.

Outnumbered by five anti-gun panelists, and facing a hostile majority in the House Judiciary Committee, Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller did an outstanding job representing the views of those opposed to banning guns.

Several staunch defenders of the Second Amendment who serve on the House Judiciary Committee also exhibited their strong support of law-abiding gun owners.

U.S. Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, reminded people that calling semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 “assault weapon” is designed to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms. He pointed out that some attribute the creation of the term to anti-gun extremist Josh Sugarmann, the founder and Director the Violence Policy Center. Sugarmann, Collins pointed out, stated, “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Collins also pointed out the hypocrisy of those who promote banning guns like the AR-15 in order to allegedly save lives. While those opposed to these firearms keep trying to tie them to an “epidemic of gun violence,” the ranking member pointed out that rifles of ANY kind were used in 403 murders in 2017. Semi-automatic rifles that fall under the restrictions of H.R. 1296 would be only a fraction of those homicides.

By comparison, he pointed out that in 2017, knives were used in 1,591 murders, and hands and feet in 696. The “epidemic” would seem to be far worse in areas unrelated to semi-automatic rifles.

Ranking Member Collins also pointed out that speeding was the stated cause in 9,717 fatalities in 2017, and further pointed out that nobody is seeking to limit automobiles to a maximum top speed of 70 MPH.

During the period when committee members could question the panelists, Collins asked Dianna Muller—who was on the police force before, during, and after the Clinton gun ban—if the ’94 ban had any discernible effect on her as a law enforcement officer. She said it had zero effect.

When Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) had a chance to speak, Amy Swearer related that the official report on the effectiveness of the 1994 gun ban found that renewing it would likely have no measurable effect on violent crime.

When it was time for Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) to speak, he pointed out that the discussion of banning so-called “assault weapons” focused on cosmetic features, rather than how a firearm functions. After stating that hunting with a semi-automatic rifle is legal in most states, he asked the panelists if hunting rifles should be banned. Only Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller stated they should not.

Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) used part of his time to point out that, when President Barrack Obama asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to look at existing research on gun violence, they found that “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” and that “semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly used in self-defense, especially in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they’re easier to control than handguns.”

It was during Representative Biggs’ questioning that Dianna Muller made what was possibly the most widely reported comment during the hearing. When speaking about the proposed ban on semi-automatics being discussed, Mrs. Muller stated, “I will not comply with the ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan (R) was the next Second Amendment supporter to speak, and he succinctly summed up what the legislation would ban, stating, “Semi-automatic weapons, with a magazine capacity of ten rounds or more, with scary features….”

During his questioning of Amy Swearer, the two discussed the fact that the “scary features” don’t have any impact on how the firearms function, and would not benefit criminals intent on doing harm. Both seemed to agree that those law-abiding citizens who follow the law will be less able to effectively defend themselves or their loved ones from violent criminals.

In fact, Ms. Swearer expressed concern that, should the bill become law, “You’ll see millions of law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for having scary looking features on firearms.”

As the two discussed the commonly understood fact that criminals try to avoid armed victims, and that the bill would only disarm law-abiding citizens, Rep. Jordan made another simple, but powerful point.

“Bad guys aren’t stupid, they’re just bad,” he said.  “They’re just evil. They’re not going to follow the law. What this legislation will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding people like you, like all kinds of folks, to protect themselves when some bad guy is bent on doing something wrong.”

Florida Representative Greg Steube (R) pointed out that those promoting the ban on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, if successful, will eventually look to banning other guns until they are all banned. He also attempted to ask Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall Brackney to clarify an earlier remark about banning all firearms. Chief Brackney seemed unwilling to either clarify or walk back her earlier statement.

Other Republican committee members also spoke out in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to the bill, including Representatives Ken Buck (Colo.), Ben Cline (Va.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), and Tom McClintock (Cal.).

Our thanks go out to all of those who spoke in support of law-abiding gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms, especially considering they were in a hostile committee where pro-gun panelists were outnumbered 5-2.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

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

VIDEO: Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

by Jesse Russell  •  ChurchMilitant.com

Responding to CNA’s Mary Farrow

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

With the post-John Paul II Church in America split between two rival camps of traditionalist and leftwing Catholics (a.k.a. “Left Cats”), one of the oddest media outlets is Catholic News Agency (CNA).

On one hand, during the Francis era, CNA has been an invaluable resource for Catholics, providing detailed analysis of the infiltration of the Catholic Church in America by George Soros-tier NGOs and Democratic Party operatives.

On the other hand, CNA will regularly publish pieces that sound like a whitewashed and toned-down version of something penned by one of the many Left Cat writers, many of whom are literally funded by George Soros.

In addition to a steady stream of cringe-worthy, “just a few million more” pieces arguing for the right of the entire world to enter the West via illegal and legal immigration, a recent gem on CNA’s website is a piece arguing for the classic Democratic Party “middle ground” approach to gun control in which Americans will be slowly stripped of their firearms via a dialectical series of compromises.

In “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control,” CNA’s Mary Farrow presents the argument that although the Catholic Church teaches that humans have a right to defend themselves, the Church also teaches that the state has a right to protect the common good by regulating gun ownership.

While such an argument seems perfectly reasonable on the surface, Farrow’s piece is a masterpiece of gaslighting worthy of a CNN-tier fake news segment argument for “common sense gun control.”

In fact, the lead photo of the piece is of two serious-looking teenage girls, one of whom is holding a sign with a crossed out AR-15 crudely drawn on it and accompanied with the (all caps, of course) words “COMMON SENSE” and “WE NEED GUN REFORM NOW.”

The message, of course, is that while our country along the entire West is rapidly becoming a violent, God-less hellscape, it would be only common sense to disarm the American population and leave them at the mercy of criminals who have no concern for gun laws.

Farrow begins her piece with a narrative of the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings along with a body count of those killed and some pleading words from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Luring the reader into assurance that her piece is not going to be a screed arguing for immediately taking away any and all guns from Americans, Farrow presents an argument from the Dominican Fr. Thomas Petri about the right Catholics have for self-defense.

However, with her gun-owning reader relaxed, Farrow then opens up her bag of tricks.

Taking aim at the iconic AR-15 and other high-capacity rifles, Farrow paraphrases Fr. Petri as saying, “A claim that does not seem to be morally or reasonably supported by Church teaching is the supposed right of citizens to protect themselves against their government.”

With respect to Fr. Petri, such a claim is, in fact, made by another Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who, in  Chapter 7 of , allows for legitimate resistance against a tyranny, writing in paragraph 49: 

If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.

Farrow finally gets to the heart of the matter by quoting Fr. Petri’s apparent argument, in the key of the radical Left itself, that the state needs to intervene with increased regulation and monitoring of Americans who own serious weapons:

A semiautomatic weapon is used for firing a lot of bullets very quickly, and what’s the reason for that? Well, it’s to do maximum damage to multiple targets at one time. So yes, I think Catholic moral principles would dictate that the state does have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor who has such means, and that they’re in good mental condition and are able to use them properly.

Like the innumerable pieces produced by CNA cheering on the now rapid death of the West via mass immigration, “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control” buries its subversive message within a deluge of noble and pious verbiage and a few  Teddy Ruxpin – level tear-jerking stories.

Contrary to CNA’s arguments, the worst thing imaginable would be to grant a judicial system and law enforcement apparatus under President Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren to disarm and humiliate those guilty of the crime of “wrong think.”

Moreover, those at CNA and their pals at the USCCB who think they can appease the power structure ruling our country and much of the world by selling globalist ideas to confused conservative Catholics must realize that they are only useful idiots whose shelf life will eventually wear out and who will someday find themselves red-flagged for their own all too conservative Catholicism.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

Priest Tells Joe Biden: You Can’t Be Catholic and Support Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement

Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.

On September 12, a visibly deranged Beto told the viewers of an ABC News Democratic primary debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” As has become custom among the more frivolous candidates, the Beto campaign was selling a t-shirt with the intemperate statement later that evening. According to the Associated Press, on September 19 Beto stated that he is open to broadening his plan to include all semi-automatic firearms.

Beto’s comments have drawn criticism from some Democrats. However, it is instructive that the Democratic criticism appeared to be more about the former congressman’s strategy than the substance of his plan; they prefer confiscation that is well-cooked instead of raw.

Sad that Beto’s candor might foil his more subtle approach to identical gun control efforts, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying Democrats are coming for your guns,” adding, “We need to focus on what we can get done.” CNN quoted a “Democratic aide” as saying that Beto’s debate statement “only feeds into the NRA’s narrative that Democrats are going to take away your guns.”

In other words: Stop it Beto. You’re spoiling the ending.

Beto’s bombastic delivery of their confiscation agenda even shamed the legacy media, who have long been complicit in obfuscating gun control advocates’ political aims. In response, the media was forced shine unwanted light upon the gun controllers’ confiscatory plans. As the editors of the National Review noticed, “For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible.”

The National Review editors appreciated what NRA members already know: confiscation has long been apparent to those paying sufficient attention. The only surprise for Democrats was Beto’s failure to follow their long-standing script. Others seem to be slipping in kind:

In May, former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did something similar while writing an op-ed for USA Today in which he described his plan to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Making clear that he would imprison those who did not comply, Swalwell wrote, “we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

Later that month, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) called for gun confiscation during an interview with CNN. When asked by anchor Poppy Harlow if that meant that otherwise law-abiding Americans would be imprisoned for failing to comply with his confiscation plan, Booker merely responded, “[w]e should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons.”

In September, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. At an appearance on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris called confiscation “a good idea” and told the audience that “we need to do it the right way.”

The gun controllers’ refrain is international. In reaction to the March 15 terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took unilateral measures to restrict firearms and Kiwi lawmakers enacted legislation to ban possession of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. The country’s gun control scheme provided for the confiscation of lawfully-possessed firearms.

U.S. anti-gun politicians cheered Ardern’s confiscation effort. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stated via Twitter, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.”

In recent years, gun control rallies have been littered with signs calling for firearms confiscation and the repeal of the Second Amendment. The great and good have written countless thought pieces calling for gun confiscation or an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. The New York Times used a frontpage editorial to call for gun confiscation.

Of course, the gun confiscation agenda didn’t start with the 2020 election cycle.

In 2015, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation. When asked about Australia’s confiscation scheme at a town hall in Keene, N.H., Clinton noted, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” Clinton added, “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

In 2013, President Barack Obama pointed to Australia and the UK’s confiscatory gun control regimes in calling for a “transformation” of American gun laws. In 2014, Obama again pointed to Australia as an example for America during a Tumblr Q&A session. After describing his failure to enact gun control as the “biggest frustration” of his presidency, Obama stated, “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting… And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

Decades ago, gun control advocates were just as explicit about their confiscation goals as many of the Democratic presidential candidates are today. They refuse to accept the benefits of gun ownership, and yet they’re the ones attacking the stubbornness of the Second Amendment?

In a 1995 interview with 60 Minutes, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) expressed her support for gun confiscation. While discussing the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban, Feinstein stated, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

In the 1970s, groups like National Council to Control Handguns (later named Handgun Control, Inc. then Brady) openly called for a ban on the civilian possession of handguns. NCCH Chairman Pete Shields went so far as to explain how gun control advocates would bring about confiscation. In a 1976 interview with the New Yorker, Shields stated,

I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest… So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.

An understanding that gun control advocates seek firearms confiscation must inform the entire gun control debate. As Shields pointed out, gun control measures build upon each other and facilitate the more extreme controls that anti-gun advocates have admitted they seek to enact.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed this out during a recent appearance on ABC’s This Week while explaining why gun rights supporters oppose so-called “universal” background check legislation. Cruz stated,

As soon as you have every person private to private transaction. If you have a grandfather giving his grandson a shotgun to go bird hunting. If you have a federal government background check for that, what you will see the next step to be is the only way to enforce that is a federal gun registry, and a gun registry is the step you need for gun confiscation… you know we now have three of the ten Democratic presidential candidates actively advocating for gun confiscation. They are saying the federal government is going to come forcibly take your gun.

Cruz’s analysis of the situation was spot on. Gun control legislation that requires all private firearms transfers to take place pursuant to federal government interference is a necessary component for facilitating anti-gun politicians’ confiscation plans.

Gun control advocates have made themselves clear. Their efforts are not about “background checks,” or keeping guns away from “dangerous” individuals, or any other so-called “commonsense gun safety” measures.

They are not operating in good faith.

The gun control movement is about civilian disarmament through firearms confiscation. Beto simply let their cat out of the bag.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules NRA-Supported Second Amendment Case for Argument

Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

The Hopkins Hypocrite: Michael Bloomberg Touts Free Speech While Another Bloomberg Entity Degrades It

Andrew Who?

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

OPEN LETTER: Bite me, Beto

Earlier this week in Atlanta, three minority males in their mid-teens were shot dead while attempting a violent armed robbers of a homeowner. This type of incident is why I bought AR-15s for my sons five years ago.

Below is what I emailed to a Democrat friend who thinks no one has any business owning a gun with more firepower than a 5-shot revolver.

Dear Susan –

I think it’s fitting that I give this email a title.

If it’s okay, I’ll call it Bite me, Beto.

Picture this. You’re at home in the yard with two other people, possibly your husband and one of your grandchildren.

Suddenly, three masked intruders—one firing shots—appear out of the dark in a nighttime robbery attempt.

What would you do to protect yourself and your loved ones?

According to multiple news reports, the scenario described above happened in an Atlanta suburb two days ago.

The homeowner and the two people with him, presumably family members, were not hurt.

The three teen lawbreakers were shot dead by the homeowner.

They were taken out by what is believed to be a semi-automatic rifle, far and away the best defense against multiple home invaders, according to no less an authority than Navy SEAL veteran Dom Raso – WATCH

Without adequate weaponry, the homeowner and the two people with him might be the ones whose funerals are now being arranged.

Bottom line: That homeowner was prepared to defend himself, and did, a moral responsibility every homeowner has, especially those who have family living with them.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Growing Government Tyranny – Democrats Empower it. Republicans Are Clueless.

RELATED VIDEO: Goodbye, America. How is America to be defined? By its failures or its triumphs? Today, there seems to be an obsession with the former and a dismissal of the latter. Is this dark vision of the freest and most prosperous nation on earth an accurate narrative or a cynical distortion? James Robbins, columnist for USA Today and author of “Erasing America,” considers that question in this video. How we view America’s past will very much shape America’s future.

8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

The Heritage Foundation has published a booklet titled “8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.” Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government,  and Amy Swearer, visiting Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, did a column after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida in March 14, 2018 using the same title.

Both the booklet and column found that politicians are willing to rush to judgement about mass shootings without knowing all of the facts. In the case of the Parkland shooting, every level of government, from the Broward County School District, to the Broward County Sheriff to the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew that Nickolas Cruz was a threat and clear and present danger to his fellow students. Yet, at each level, government failed. Why?

John Malcolm and Amy Swearer note:

Here are eight stubborn facts to keep in mind about gun violence in America:

  1. Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
  2. The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
  3. A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
  4. Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
  5. Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
  6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
  7. Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
  8. Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

Each of these facts is firmly based on empirical data.

Malcolm and Swearer state, “Murders in the United States are very concentrated. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Moreover, gun-related homicides are heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods within those counties: 54 percent of U.S. counties had zero murders in 2014.” [Emphasis added]

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC):

Murders actually used to be even more concentrated.  From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study.  Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates. [Emphasis added]

John R. Lott, Jr. in the third edition of his book “More Guns, Less Crime” states,

There are certain points that are beyond dispute.

1. By any measure, concealed- handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding.
2. Even the number of anecdotal news stories of defensive gun uses completely dwarfs any possible bad actions by permit holders with their concealed handguns.
3. No refereed academic articles by economists or criminologists claim that right- to- carry laws have a significant bad effect on crime rates.

Lott concludes, “At some point the risk of gun- free zones is going to have to be seriously discussed. Whether one looks at city or country gun bans or even smaller gun bans involving malls or schools, bans increase violence and murder. The gun- control debate has changed dramatically over the last decade.”

CPRC notes, “According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.”

Recently gun owners, particularly member of the National Rifle Association, have become the targets of the Democratic Party and their candidates running for president. Taking away guns is their mantra. Democrats regurgitate this without understanding how government has failed each and every time there has been a mass shooting. Governments at every level fail to understand that gun violence depends on: where one lives, who is your intimate partner, if you are a gang member and if are you a male between the ages of 18-34. The victims are predominantly women and children.

Government, especially in the case of Parkland, failed to see the numerous “red flags” when it came to Nickolas Cruz. In every mass shooting someone saw something, and in many cases, said something to government officials. The tragedy is that government officials often fail to take action, which is the greatest threat which leads to gun violence. It’s the government stupid!

Government cannot regulation or legislate morality. The answer is simple: Thou shall not murder!

© All rights reserved.

RELATED:

When Democrats Push For Universal Background Checks, The Danger Of A National Gun Registry Looms

Father of Parkland Victim on What Could Have Stopped the Tragedy

Violate Your Oath And Turn On American Citizens At Your Legal Peril, Gun-Grabbers

Idea Sheet from WH and DOJ On Toomey-Manchin Background Checks by The Daily Caller

Report: White House, DOJ Floats Background Check Proposal Amongst Republicans

Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

Democrat Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke continues to struggle to gain any sort of traction for his campaign. With some polls putting him in 10th place, and his average sitting around 7th, some might say that it is desperation time for the candidate who was once a darling with the far left and the legacy media while he was running his losing campaign to unseat U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

recent tweet from O’Rourke is just one clue that the candidate is, indeed, becoming desperate.

The former U.S. Representative from Texas called on banks and credit card companies to help promote gun control by refusing to do business with companies that produce legal products, and refusing to process legal financial transactions.

As has often been the case with Beto’s campaign, he seems to try to be provocative by rehashing old ideas.

Some banking institutions, with the urging of anti-gun extremists, have already adjusted their practices to accommodate those, like O’Rourke, who stand opposed to the Second Amendment. While this subject has been part of the anti-gun crusade for some time, it has been met with strong opposition, and others have questioned how credit card companies could stop processing certain, specific transactions without actually ceasing doing any business with companies that allow the targeted transactions, as well as others not targeted.

Beto’s most puzzling demand is that banks and credit card companies “(s)top processing transactions for gun sales online & at gun shows without background checks.” As a presidential candidate, and former U.S. Representative, O’Rourke should be aware that ALL firearm transfers through licensed gun dealers—whether they be at a brick-and-mortar store, at a gun show, or over the Internet—are required, by law, to be run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Of course, he knows this, but his tweet is intended to create confusion on the issue, as well as create the impression that he is proposing to address specific problems, even though they simply do not exist.

Rehashing an old anti-gun campaign isn’t his only sign of desperation, though.

On September 12, during the third debate of Democrat Presidential candidates, he tried to be even more provocative.

When asked if he supported confiscation of certain semi-automatic firearms, Beto stated, “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK47….”

And just to prove he was serious, his campaign started selling t-shirts.

Thankfully, he didn’t go so far as one former candidate who also proposed confiscation, but also made what many considered to be a rather ominous threat.

So far, Beto has tried being folksy, posting videos of him at the dentist, getting his hair cut, flipping burgers, and changing a tire. That hasn’t been successful in getting his polling numbers out of the low single digits.

Now he’s selling profanity and trying to prove he’s the most anti-gun candidate in the field in trying to lure support from Democrats in his Quixotic quest to be President. A far cry from when he faced only the Texas electorate, and assured lawful gun owners they could keep their firearms. If these tactics don’t work, which they likely won’t, can we expect O’Rourke to dive even deeper into the anti-gun end of the pool, and start promoting the repeal of the Second Amendment? As we often say, stay tuned!

RELATED ARTICLES:

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

Tell Your Lawmakers: No Semi-Auto and Magazine Ban!

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Declares NRA a “Domestic Terrorist Organization”

House Democrats Continue Unprecedented Push for More Gun Control

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

Democrats don’t hate your guns, they hate you!

In an article titled “Have They Lost Their Minds?” John C. Sigler wrote:

Last year I was criticized for saying “they don’t hate your guns, they hate you” – Well, it looks like I was right. San Francisco’s defamatory and utterly hateful and ridiculous resolution shows just how far off the deep end their hatred for you, the NRA, and America’s traditional values has driven the anti-gun crowd.

But there is a method to their madness. The real meat of their preposterous resolution lies not in the defamatory and inflammatory labeling of NRA as a so-called “domestic terrorist organization”. No, the real meat of their preposterous resolution lies in the purpose of that resolution which is to do the same thing that New York tried to do – scare off businesses who do business with NRA and its 5+ million law-abiding God-fearing, freedom-loving patriotic members. Here’s the punch line from their hate-filled resolution:

“The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization”( meaning the NRA and its members). [Emphasis added]

What we have seen since the election of Donald J. Trump is a global effort to delegitimize his administration and a national effort by the Democratic Party and the media to dehumanize his supporters.

The Democratic Party is working day and night to turn America into a socialist nanny state.

Their strategy is to use political correctness to silence the overwhelming majority of Republicans, growing numbers of Independents and Democrats who believe the party has gone to far. Even Rahm Emanuel, during a panel discussion on ABC’s show This Week, said,

We have taken a position so far, and the candidates have, through the process — a few have not — about — on basically Medicare for all, which is, we’re going to eliminate 150 million people’s health care, and we’re going to provide health care for people that have just come over the border.

That is an untenable position for the general election. [Emphasis added]

Whether it is the New Green Deal, Medicaid for all, free healthcare for illegal aliens, forgiveness of tuition debt, giving away money to everyone not working at the expense of those who are working, or attacks on the U.S. Constitution, the Democratic Party has left America.

On September 11th, 2019 CNBC reported that the Democrat controlled House passed two bills banning new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Florida Gulf Coast. The day after this bill passed drones attacked the Saudi oil fields. This has driven oil and gas prices up globally. The Democrats do not have what is good for working Americans in mind. Emma Newburger reported:

The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed two bills banning new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Gulf Coast of Florida. It was set to vote on a third bill banning drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The legislation could hamper President Donald Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development.

Conclusion

Democrats are unabashedly the party of Karl Marx and Mao.

Only President Trump had the foresight to make America energy independent. Only President Trump is unabashedly pro-worker, pro-middle class, pro-jobs and pro-America.

That is the choice on November 3rd, 2020.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

Flag on the Play: Media Promotes Gun Confiscation Laws by Exaggerating “Study” Results

Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

Why AR-15s are the Plastic Straws of the Gun World

And Why Banning “Assault Rifles” Won’t Save Even One Life

How did AR-15s become the plastic straws of the gun world? It’s simple: Demagogues need scapegoats. Yet just as banning plastic straws won’t make a dent in the ocean-polluting plastics problem, banning “assault rifles” (which aren’t) won’t save even one life.

It’s tragic how, just like faddish teenagers playing a dangerous or stupid social-media-driven prank, so-called adults go on misguided, media-driven, lynch-mob kicks. Remember when SUVs were demonized as planet killers approximately 15 to 20 years ago? Some environmentalists claimed that SUV drivers were essentially “hate group” members, and other vandalism-crazy greenies would, ironically, set fire to the vehicles to combat global warming. Yet SUVs currently appear more popular than ever, and all is quiet on the gas-guzzler front. What happened? The demagogues and their dupes have moved on to a different neurotic fixation.

Now the suburban soccer mom can drive her Panzer-size SUV (by the by, back in the “day” they were called “trucks” — ah, marketing) content in the “feeling” that she’s saving the environment because she supports banning plastic straws. Never mind that doing so likely won’t save even one marine mammal, since the U.S. is responsible for only one percent of ocean-polluting plastics, and straws account for just 0.025 percent of that. Never mind that anti-”strawism” began with erroneous claims in a nine-year-old’s science project (ugh, beam me up, Scotty). The lynch mob must be fed, and plastic straw users, well, really suck….

Joining straws in the dock, and giving new meaning to demonizing the one percent, are Assault Rifles™. Not only are they used in, approximately, just one percent of homicides, they aren’t even “assault rifles,” a term that had always referred to weapons that could be fired fully automatic or in more than one way (fully auto, three-shot bursts, etc). Now the term is being applied to semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one shot) rifles with certain cosmetic features (a military “look”), which is a bit like putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and claiming the car will win races.

But, hey, as anti-gun crusader Josh Sugarmann once put it, these “weapons’ menacing looks,” coupled with the public’s confusion — “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Yeah, it’s a con.

That said, AR-15s are used in an inordinate percentage of high-profile mass shootings. But believing that outlawing them would reduce these incidents’ frequency makes as much sense as believing that banning the BMW 4 Series — which AutoBlog.com lists as the car most likely to be involved in a crash — would reduce the accident rate.

Quite apropos, AutoBlog’s subtitle boldly reminds readers, “Remember: People cause crashes, not cars.” The point is that outlawing a vehicle wouldn’t take the kind of people who drive it off the road; they’d just get into accidents in a different vehicle.

This point is even more relevant for AR-15-category rifles. The AR-15 is commonly used in mass shootings for two simple reasons: It’s the most popular rifle in America.

And it looks cool.

In reality, though, such a weapon isn’t the best choice for committing mass shootings, which generally involve attacking soft targets at close range. More effective would be a semi-automatic, 12-gauge shotgun or even a pump-action one (and a shotgun was used in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting in 2012).

In other words, not only would mass shooters simply choose a different weapon if AR-15-type rifles were somehow unavailable, but it’s arguable that the rifle’s criminalization could push them toward more effective weaponry.

Speaking of which, presidential contender Irish Bob O’Rourke said in March, echoing many, “I just don’t think that we need to sell any more weapons of war into this public.” He’d have been more accurate if he’d stopped after his first four words. But the pitch is rhetorically effective, conjuring up images of flesh-eviscerating machine-gun fire.

Yet leaving aside the common argument that allowing Americans the same firearms the military uses was the Second Amendment’s actual intent, first note that the AR-15 was never a standard issue US military rifle. In fact, while the M-16 — which uses the same platform but isn’t limited to semi-auto fire — was, it was supplanted a while back by the M-4; this, in turn, is set to be replaced by an entirely different rifle that will likely even use different, more effective ammunition (critics have long bemoaned the M-16’s/M-4’s relative lack of stopping power).

Moreover, how many guns weren’t designed as “weapons of war”? Bolt-action rifles were once state-of-the-art weapons of war. So was the flintlock. Go back even further, and clubs were weapons of war, and many people are still killed with them today. Should we outlaw baseball bats?

In fact, far from devastating, the AR-15’s standard round is small caliber (the same diameter as a .22) and has the second least power of the 41 cartridges found on this Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List page (note: When loaded with 5.56mm ammo, the power is somewhat greater but still relatively lacking). In other words, you can acquire any number of hunting rifles far more devastating than an AR.

This, mind you, is why some states have prohibited the AR-15’s use in deer hunting; its relatively weak round may not kill the animal, but simply send it off wounded and suffering.

It’s also why the nine-year-old girl in the video below could fire the weapon with ease.

In contrast, I’ve seen a 240-pound man (who wasn’t prepared for the extreme recoil) almost knocked over by a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with a magnum shell.

So we can outlaw AR-15-type rifles if it makes us feel better, but just as banning plastic straws won’t save marine life, it won’t save even one human life. For this reason, it would also be followed by another scapegoated gun targeted for criminalization. Note here that Britain’s deadliest ever mass shooting, the Dunblane massacre in 1996, inspired sweeping anti-firearms laws — after being committed with handguns.

Oh, and London just surpassed N.Y.C. in homicides last year.

This is unsurprising since, as Professor Thomas Sowell illustrated, there’s no correlation whatsoever between stricter gun laws and lower murder rates.

This is why, more to fear than guns are demagogues — shooting off their assault mouths.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Democrats are openly calling for total gun bans.

145 companies just made it official: Leftist claptrap is more important than the U.S. Constitution

The United States’ Founders understood that law-abiding, decent people must be able to protect themselves from criminals and governments. They enshrined this right into the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Regretfully, leaders of 145 of America’s corporations – some of them industry and cultural leaders – just decided that sucking up to the “woke” leftist crowd is more important than human rights, constitutional guarantees, and evidence.

Complete cluelessness

From Twitter to Levi’s to Edelman and Eventbrite, these CEOs and co-founders wrote a letter demanding that Congress step in to restrict firearm ownership rights. They urged background checks and increased ability for law enforcement to restrict the rights of people interpreted as potentially dangerous – “red flag” laws.

Here’s the problem: Government has often missed obvious signs with current laws, never mind ones which put more responsibility on faceless bureaucrats and law enforcement officers. As we discussed earlier this month, the recent Odessa, Texas shooting happened a month after police were called about the alleged shooter threatening a neighbor with a rifle. Police never showed and the shooter never should have owned a firearm in the first place, according to media reports.

This is a common occurrence – the same government which these CEOs want us to trust to stop shooters completely missing obvious signs of future violence.

What about abuse of power?

Gun ownership is not a problem in America. The 2ndVote Gun Cam proves that a gun under constant surveillance NEVER commits a crime on its own, and the data shows that justified self-defense is a greater cause of gun deaths than homicide.

But these CEOs don’t get that. They want government to step in to stop crimes before they take place – thought-crime that can be valuable in keeping society safe, but can also easily be abused…especially if the citizenry is disarmed.

Take action

America’s corporations are increasingly taking an anti-constitutional approach to firearm ownership. We urge you to contact Twitter’s, Levi’s, and Eventbrite’s CEOs. Tell them to respect the human and constitutional right to self-defense by sticking to business instead of poking their noses into the morass of politics.

PODCAST: Swamp Ready To Pass Gun Control; Pundits cheering for a recession; Black Americans for a Better Future!

GUESTS

Dudley Brown President National Association for Gun Rights, has nearly three decades of professional experience in political activism with 25 years as a gun lobbyist, firearms instructor, and expert in American firearms laws and legislation. He founded Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in 1996, which is one of the most successful — and feared — state gun rights groups in the country. Throughout his career, Dudley has worked in the trenches of State Legislatures across the nation as a leader for gun rights.

TOPIC: D.C. Swamp Ready To Pass Gun Control!

Alfredo Ortiz is the president and CEO of the Job Creators Network, where he has led the defense of small businesses from the onslaught of bad government policies. Alfredo has testified before legislative committees about the impact of taxation and regulation on small business growth, and speaks frequently to business organizations across the nation about the need for job creators to seize responsibility for defending free enterprise.
He has been widely published in major media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNBC, The Hill, and U.S. News & World Report and is a frequent guest on cable news networks and national radio talk shows, including CNN, Fox News, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, and the Dennis Prager Show.

TOPIC: Pundits cheering for a recession!!

Raynard Jackson is a Pulitzer Prize nominated columnist and President & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC, an internationally recognized political consulting, government affairs, and PR firm based in Washington, DC. Jackson is an internationally recognized radio talk show host and TV commentator. He has coined the phrase “straticist.” As a straticist, he has merged strategic planning with public relations.

TOPIC: Black Americans for a Better Future

© All rights reserved.

Liberals Propose First Gun Grab Since Lexington and Concord

One wishes the media would stop using absurdly lazy phrases like “mandatory gun buybacks.” Unless the politician they’re talking about is in the business of selling firearms, it’s impossible for him to “buy back” anything. No government official — not Joe Biden, not Beto O’Rourke, not any of the candidates who now support “buyback” programs — has ever sold firearms.

What Democrats propose can be more accurately described as “the first American gun confiscation effort since Lexington and Concord,” or some variation on that theme. Although tax dollars will be meted out in an effort to incentivize volunteers, the policy is to confiscate AR-15s, the vast majority of which have been legally purchased by Americans who have undergone background checks and never used a gun for a criminal purpose.

The “mandatory gun buyback” exemplifies the impracticality and absurdity of do-somethingism. Democrats want to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for refusing to adhere to a law that retroactively transforms the exercise of a constitutional right into a crime.

And they do it without any evidence that it would curtail rare mass shootings or save lives.

While national confiscation would be unprecedented in American history, we already possess hard evidence that bans of assault rifles don’t alter gun violence trends. Gun homicides continued to drop steeply after an “assault weapons” ban expired in 2004.

It’s also worth noting that in 2017, the last year of available FBI data, there was a near-historic low of 7,032 murders with handguns, and 403 by “rifles” of any kind, not only “assault weapons.” To put that in perspective, there were 1,591 knife homicides during that same span, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking.

Although a number of Democrats now unequivocally support a “buyback,” no one has explained how the procedure will unfurl. What will the penalty be for ignoring the “buybacks”? Fines? Prison terms? Will local police be tasked with opening case files on the 100 million homes of suspected gun owners who are armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, or will it be the FBI?

Maybe Democrats will propose “paying back” family members and neighbors who snitch on gun owners? How else will they figure out who owns these AR-15s? There is no national tracking of sales.

Then again, many Democrats support “universal background checks,” which would necessitate a national database. So subsequent confiscations would be far easier, I suppose. (I can remember a time not very long ago when liberals accused a person of being a tin-foil-hatted nutter for merely suggesting that anyone had designs on their guns.)

It’s unclear to me if every candidate supports mandatory buybacks. Imprecision, after all, is the hallmark of gun control rhetoric. Of course a noncoercive “buyback” program wouldn’t work either because no patriotic American is going to sell his firearms under market value. If you pay gun owners more than market value, they will surely turn a profit and purchase new weapons.

The criminal class and deranged would-be mass shooters have absolutely no incentive to participate, anyway. But you knew that.

Then there is the little matter of constitutionality. I’ve noticed an uptick in gun grabbers — a phrase that’s no longer hyperbole — arguing that Americans don’t need AR-15s to hunt, as if it mattered.

Although ARs are used by hunters, I’m certain nothing in the Second Amendment mentions hunting, because the right of self-defense — an individual concern, as well as a collective one — has nothing to do with shooting deer and everything to do with protecting Americans from those who endeavor to strip them of their inalienable rights.

The District of Columbia v. Heller decision found that the Second Amendment protected weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” The AR-15 clearly meets both criteria. It’s one of the most popular guns in America. Its semi-automatic mechanism is the same mechanism found in a majority of other legal firearms in the nation.

The arguments for a ban on “assault weapons” — a purposefully elastic phrase that allows the liberal legislator’s imagination to run wild — is centered on aesthetics, on the false claim that the AR is a “weapon of war,” and on the firearm tastes of a handful of deranged, sociopathic murderers.

Democrats and their allies like to mock these sorts of arguments as nothing more than semantics; mostly because they need to conflate and euphemize terms to make their arguments work. It’s how they generate favorable polling. I’m sure you’ve heard about the popularity of gun-control measures. But like “Medicare for All,” and other vaguely positive sounding policies, once voters learn what specifics entail, those numbers tend to settle along the usual partisan lines.

If you think you’re going to have overwhelming support for “mandatory gun buybacks” when people learn that you’re really talking about “the confiscation of 20 million guns,” you’re fooling yourself.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter:.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is Support For Gun Control Going Up Or Down Or Staying The Same?

Trump Meets With Lawmakers, Could Soon Announce Gun Control Plan

Dem Governors Push Trump, McConnell To Back Anti-Gun Measures

Have they lost their minds?

What San Francisco Got Wrong About the NRA and Its Definition of Domestic Terrorism


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

U.S. Road To Hell Is Paved With Gun-Grabbing Intentions by Francis Marion

America’s largest retailer, Walmart, is the next to succumb to the anti-gun movement following the high-profile shootings over the past few weeks.

Walmart has decided to remove all “handgun” and “short barreled rifle” ammunition from their shelves in order to focus their sales on ammunition more appropriate for hunting purposes. This should not be a surprise considering the recent push to appease voters in the Democrat primary battleground, along with the relentlessly anti-gun focused media coverage of these killings.

The firearms industry will not suffer as a result of Walmart’s decision. There are plenty of available outlets for purchasing ammunition. The greatest concern for many 2nd Amendment supporters is the level of ignorance in anti-gun circles, from retail stores to the media to politicians.

First and foremost, America’s favorite rifle platform is a highly modular device with hundreds of variations, configurations, and caliber options. So what does Walmart mean by “pistol and short barreled rifle ammunition?”

The AR-15 rifle which is traditionally chambered in 5.56 NATO or 223 Remington rounds has been extended well beyond the ammunition that had been the standard cartridge of the U.S. military and her allies for the past 60 years. In the past 20 years, the AR-15 has been modified to accept more than 50 additional calibers to include popular hunting and defensive pistol cartridges, not to mention the several dozen calibers associated with the larger cousin of the AR-15, the AR-10.

Lastly, hunting cartridges far exceed the performance of small arms cartridges like the 5.56 nato round. For example, one of the most popular hunting calibers, the 30-06, saw military service for seven decades and is still in common use today. The 30-06 cartridge has an effective range double that of most modern small arms cartridges.

All of this means that Walmart’s decision, along with virtually every political proposal, doesn’t truly impact anything more than to put on display the dangerous level of ignorance on the subject.

So where do we go from here?

It is incumbent upon 2nd Amendment supporters to educate those who do not understand the finer points of the gun debate, from the gun terms to the history and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

We have begun our descent down the slippery slope of citizen disarmament and an infringement on our basic natural rights outlined within our Constitution. As virtue-signaling policies fail to address the greater issues in this country that lead to mass shootings, the woke left will take advantage of the next tragedy to try to grab the next mile of Americans’ rights.

ABOUT FRANCIS MARION

Francis Marion is a nine-year veteran of the U.S. Army, as an Infantryman and Airborne volunteer. He led a squad fighting in the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns. He was wounded during a deployment to Paktika Province in Afghanistan and medically retired in 2016. He is currently transitioning into a medical career while working as a small arms repairmen, firearms instructor and advisor to security professionals.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why the Right to Bear Arms Is an Individual Right

Dumb Arguments About Gun Control

To Promote Gun Control, AOC Just Accused Dan Crenshaw’s Friends of Being Violent Domestic Abusers

Dear Walmart, It’s Time We Start Seeing Other People

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.