Gun Control for Dummies – It’s Common Sense not Hoggwash!

Fluffyshotme posted the below video. Fluffy notes:

This video gives a further explanation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the context of the why the Bill of Rights was included along with the establishment of the Federal Government. Please share this with your friends so that they can help educate America.

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

EDITORS NOTE: Please check out Fluffy’s photography at

She Voted for Obama Twice. Now Antonia Okafor Explains Why She’s a Conservative Who Advocates Gun Rights.

This is an edited transcript of a conversation between Antonia Okafor and Katrina Trinko on the May 22 edition of The Daily Signal podcast. Okafor weighed in on her own journey to becoming a conservative, Kanye West, gun rights, and school safety. 

Katrina TrinkoJoining us today is Antonia Okafor, a political commentator and the CEO of EmPOWERed, an organization devoted to the Second Amendment rights of women on college campuses. Antonia, thanks for joining us today.

Antonia Okafor: Thanks for having me, Katrina.

Trinko: First question. You yourself voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

Okafor: Yes.

Trinko: Why did you vote for him and what since then has changed your mind on political matters?

Okafor:  I grew up in a pretty traditional Democratic family. I remember when I was young my mom telling me that, ‘If you could vote right now, you would vote for Bill Clinton.’ I remember that.

I just thought I was a Democrat growing up and then I went to college and realized … I was actually taking public policy courses and realizing … [that the policies] for the Democratic Party, I didn’t actually believe in.

Doing a lot more research and realizing that, you know what, my values that I grew up with that actually, coincidentally, and ironically [the values] my mother taught me—working very hard, education is an equalizer for everyone, that traditional family and the nuclear family is important to success, and having a faith in Jesus Christ is important to success as well—and just those traditional values really made me realize that I was in a party that did not reconcile with my values and I needed to change, particularly with the pro-life issue, but then later on, the pro-gun issue.

The only party that I believe that was really always consistently focused on those issues was the Republican Party.

After 2012, I’m [remembering] … voting for Barack Obama, even though I did have a hard time at that even doing that, but realizing that I will never vote again against my values and I would not vote for the Democratic Party because they weren’t doing what was important in that instance for my values.

Trinko: I think your story is particularly interesting because so many people go to college and actually come out liberal, or come out more liberal. This is sort of a personal question, but I’d just be curious: Why do you think you were open to changing? Why was your experience so different than so many other college students?

Okafor: You know what? I think I was open because kind of like what’s going on right now, [although] I think it’s to a worse degree because everybody’s so anti-Trump. It’s because the media’s so focused on making Republicans look like racists, and sexists, and misogynists, and horrible people.

Then me, I guess, I just have this affinity to be around people, or to seek out information for myself. I remember I was like, OK, if they’re really this bad I want to see for myself. Going out and talking to people who were Republicans and finding out that they weren’t bad people, in fact, they were amazing people and they actually share the same values. I mean, who would’ve thunk it that if you did your actual research, that you would find a lot of what people were saying is false.

That’s what happened to me, and so a lot of questions ensued after that of what else I was just believing without actually doing my research and homework on.

I came to find out that there were a lot of things that I didn’t believe that mainstream media for a long time was telling me that I should. It was them saying that you must be a certain way as a black woman, you must think this certain way or you’re not a black woman that made me actually, ‘You know what, I want to do my research and find out why they’re saying this.’

Come to find out, that’s exactly the opposite.

I think that’s what really spurred me onto being more open to finding out what my actual beliefs were and if I believe what they believe.

Trinko: OK. Well, that’s interesting because that relates to, of course, Kanye West, [who] had a huge backlash when he didn’t even really say he supported Trump, just said maybe not everything conservatives say is the spawn of Satan, essentially. What did you think about the backlash? Are we in a unique moment here? What’s going on?

Okafor: Well, two things. Even with Kanye West, I think actually I’m more saddened about what Chance the Rapper said and the backlash that he got right after that. Actually, he had apologized when he said that not all black people have to vote for Democrats. He apologized after that.

I was like, what are you apologizing for? I mean, statistically that’s true but unfortunately with, I think, African-Americans … the media, mostly the left, has been able to monopolize the conversation and narrative when it comes to that, [making it] … that you’re black and these people are white and therefore, if you’re a black person, you should vote for the Democratic Party.

Only white people are for gun rights, only white people are Republican, are conservatives. They’ve done a great job of doing that for so long but, no, because you’re a black person does not mean that you have to vote for the Democratic Party. If anything, when I found out that 95 percent of African-Americans voted for Barack Obama and then 88 percent of them voted for Hillary Clinton, that’s more than any other demographic group and it’s an overwhelming proportion more as well. I mean, Latinos, they voted 66 percent for Hillary Clinton.

I think, for a long time the left has used this narrative that as a black person particularly … you are supposed to vote a certain way.

I think a lot of people like Kanye, and Chance the Rapper, if they apologize or not, are starting to realize that maybe I don’t vote for Republicans, maybe I’m not a conservative. That’s what Kanye said—he said, I don’t really know if I would label myself as a conservative, but I think a different way.

We’ll see what he says, but I think it’s good that we’re having a conversation anyway, to say that you as a person are independent and you can think independently and make up your own decisions regardless of your race or your gender.

I think people are sick and tired of people putting them in boxes. I know I was sick and tired of it.

Trinko: Well, one of the criticisms of conservatives over the years has been they don’t really show up to a lot of minority events. Sen. Rand Paul [R-Ky.], when he was running for president, made a big deal of [it]: ‘I’m actually going to go to African-American neighborhoods, I’m going to speak, I’m going to be involved.’ What do you think conservatives should be doing to reach out to African-Americans?

Okafor: You know what? I’m a testament that that worked, because I remember seeing him when I was afraid of—

Trinko: Oh, Paul?

Okafor: Yeah, of seeing that he was going out to Howard [University in Washington, D.C.], he was going out to these HBCUs [historically black colleges and universities] and … still talking about conservative values.

I hadn’t seen that before, I hadn’t seen politicians on our side who had these values that would go out and talk to people, but not also pander to them and change their values because they’re in a different area.

I remember looking at Rand Paul and him being so focused and so true to his beliefs and his principles, and not budging on those. But the fact that he was even there in the first place just went to show that, yeah, these values are for everyone.

It made me realize that I could be conservative—come out of the closet—and champion these values. Also, still be a black person, still advocate for the fact that I’m very pro-criminal justice reform, and prison reform, and I’m so glad that now we’re seeing that with Trump looking into that, and people coming to a consensus.

It’s a lot of things that we can come to an agreement with and come together in but unfortunately, especially the other side I think sees that and sees that if they don’t make it a partisan issue then they could lose people.

They could have people like me five years later going from voting for Obama to voting for President Trump. That’s scary to them.

Trinko: Well, to switch gears a little bit, you’ve mentioned your support for gun rights. There was, unfortunately, another tragic school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. You’re a Texan yourself. What do you think the response should be? How do you think we should handle all these calls from the left for gun control [being] the answer?

Okafor: Part of it is that, unfortunately, they always get to dictate when we get to talk about the whole issue, after [the shooting]. You know, every time we have a tragedy, to be honest, now it’s like [comedian] Chelsea Handler says something, that’s when it starts the conversation on Twitter, unfortunately.

Trinko: Oh, Twitter.

Okafor: She’s the precursor of when gun control and gun rights conversation [happens]. It’s a sad society, but it’s true. They get to dictate when it’s appropriate to start talking about that, and we respond.

We shouldn’t respond anymore, we should be on the forefront, we should be leading the conversation.

That’s why I started my organization, Empower, because I knew as a gun rights activist, as someone who was part of the organization that brought campus carry to Texas in 2015, we are really … The movement is going to be pushed by young women.

I found that as a young woman that self-defense is important to us, particularly on college campuses. With the … gun control narrative, they don’t want people to see that. They don’t want to say that the strong, empowered woman, the college-educated woman [who] knows other strong, empowered, college-educated women who also happen to be pro-gun.

They want the narrative to be: If you’re a feminist, if you’re pro-female, then you can’t be pro-gun. That’s false. If anything, if you’re pro-female, you should be pro-gun, it’s one of the best equalizers that we have in this great country.

It’s horrific and we do need to do something about it. If anyone, especially my generation … [having] grown up in Columbine [era], grown up with both Virginia Techs and all these shootings on college campuses and high school campuses …

We don’t believe in [gun control] anymore and we want something different. This is our time to put out something different and to say that it’s not about the gun, it’s about the person behind the firearm that we should be focusing on.

Trinko: I certainly share your frustration that feminism always seems to box out conservative women, whether it’s abortion, or gun rights. No matter what, if you’re not right thinking, oh, suddenly you don’t care about women, which drives me insane.

Okafor: That New York Times article.

Trinko: Oh my gosh.

Okafor: They just had saying that the myth of conservative [feminism]—

Trinko: They were saying [conservatives] can’t appropriate feminism …

Okafor: I was like, thank you. First of all, the first feminists are the ones who were pro-life, so if anything, we could say ‘the myth of liberal feminism’ … I’m not going to say that because feminism is not dictated by liberal, or progressive, or being conservative. It’s about equality between the sexes. Absolutely, I believe it’s a big 10 issue when it comes to that.

Empowering women can look like, you can be empowered as a woman and believe that you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm just as much as you can be empowered if you don’t want that. I mean, just as long as you’re not impeding on other people’s rights, I think that’s what it comes down to. That’s really the equality of rights.

Trinko: What is the response to your group then on college campuses? As I mentioned, I don’t think historically or traditionally people tend to think of college women as gun carriers or advocates of gun rights.

Okafor: Yeah, well, it was because of my time as an advocate for campus carry and realizing that’s who the anti-gun side was always focusing on … women on college campuses, and making it seem like they were the ones who should not have guns. They were the ones who should not have any, or be advocates of anybody having firearms at all, and being very frustrated in the fact that, no, that’s exactly the opposite.

I wanted those pro-gun women to have a voice because I knew they were out there, I’d talked to them, I’d spoken to even professors who definitely don’t feel like they have a voice if they’re pro-gun on campuses. They would email me all the time during my time with students for conceal carry saying, ‘I completely support what you’re doing, I just cannot say anything or I would never get tenure.’

Trinko: Oh gosh, that’s so frustrating.

Okafor: Yeah, exactly. I was just like, you know what, they’re out there. People don’t want them to have a voice, but I can give them a voice, I have a platform, let me do so. I think that was my opportunity and so I’ve been grateful the last year that people actually believe the same thing too, I thought it was just me being crazy, but it’s not.

There are a lot of people who are just afraid to say something. The same thing with March for Our Lives and these high school students telling me that they’re afraid to say things too because their peers and their administrators are telling them the opposite, [that] if they believe anything other than being anti-gun, then they’re awful people, and that’s just not true. We need people to stand up for them because they’re afraid to stand up for themselves.

Trinko: And that’s such an important point. I often think, how different would our politics be if everyone was able to speak about what they truly believed?

Okafor: Yeah.

Trinko: I do realize, not everyone gets to work at a conservative outlet where you’re OK with that. There’s a lot of societal pressure, but I’ve definitely experienced the same phenomenon where people will say to you quietly, or behind closed doors, ‘I agree.’ It’s like, OK, well say that out loud.

Okafor: I’ve had people who agree with me after lectures. There’s a few African-American women that came up to me after my Dartmouth lecture just a couple weeks ago. I was like, ‘Can I take a picture with you?’ They’re like, ‘You had really good points.’ [And then] they’re like, ‘Is this going to be on social media?’ I was like, ‘Yeah, you don’t want it.’ [They said], ‘Yeah, let’s not do it.’ I’m like, ‘Oh, OK. Well, I understand.’

It’s sad that they feel like they can’t outwardly agree with me because then they’ll be a traitor to their race and their gender.

Trinko: Well, someday.

Okafor: Yeah, someday.

Trinko: I’m sure you’re inspiring a lot of people … thank you so much for joining us today, Antonia.

Okafor: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.


Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: .

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.


Gun Ownership Up, Accidental Shootings Fall

Gun ownership has risen to an all-time high. Accidental shooting deaths have fallen 48% since 1999.

Baffled. That’s the best way to describe the reaction by the liberal media outlets when they discover that statistics for accidental gun deaths are down, even as the number of Americans owning guns is at an all-time high. But somehow these media outlets, and their compatriots in groups like Michael Bloomberg’s so-called Everytown for Gun Safety, always have the answer: Despite the fact that many attempts by anti-gun politicians to enact more restrictions on Second Amendment-protected rights have failed, according to them, we can ultimately thank gun control for the decrease in accidents.

When you dig into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, the number of accidental shooting deaths since 1999 hasn’t merely declined—it has dropped off significantly. Taking into account population growth, the number of deaths is down by a whopping 48 percent! It certainly is a statistic to celebrate, and one would imagine we’d know exactly how and why this plummet has occurred.

According to Los Angeles Times contact reporter Kurtis Lee, “Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun-safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns.”

Who are those “experts”? Everytown for Gun Safety is of course at the top of Lee’s list. We know it as the organization that makes a mockery of real gun safety. Responsible gun owners know that safely storing firearms when they are not in use is key in preventing unauthorized access and accidental deaths. We know this because of true firearm safety education programs, not laws in some anti-gun states that take firearm storage mandates to the extreme.

What about the population of responsible gun owners in America? These “experts” also cite victory in the reduction in the number of households with guns. Yet fbi statistics from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (nics) indicate otherwise. When looking at the same period, 1999-2015, the number of background checks more than doubled, from 9,138,123 checks in 1999 to 23,141,970 in 2015. The numbers for 2016 and 2017 are also up from 2015, with nics stats reporting more than 25 million checks for each year.

Of the three reasons listed, Dr. Robert B. Young, of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, says that gun-safety education programs are most likely the real reason for the decrease.

“Thanks to the NRA, NSSF, SAF and countless state and local organizations and gun clubs, millions of people each year learn real gun control and safe shooting, and enjoy it,” Young said. “Reaching children through schools, Scouting and places of worship with programs teaching safety at relevant developmental levels is the optimal intervention.”

We know that despite its name, Everytown isn’t about gun safety. The group has stolen the term to cloak gun control initiatives. Real gun-safety programs go beyond social media shares and advertisements. Real programs educate. Teaching gun owners about safe storage practices and providing resources for parents and educators to talk about firearms and firearm safety with children through programs like the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program is having a positive effect.

How long might it be before the words “gun,” “firearm,” or “ammunition” become so monitored that we are no longer able to use them to connect with each other?

The Washington Examiner recently reported another reason for the decline in accidental gun deaths—one that has gun control advocates especially worried. A recent article highlights the “2017 gun sales surprise: Second best ever!” citing the increased social acceptance of firearms for a rise in sales.

Despite what the anti-gunners tell you, with 25 million background checks in 2017 and the increasingly powerful influence of social media over the past few years, American gun ownership is not declining. Concealed-carry permits and programs are on the rise, and training opportunities for ccw holders, such as the new NRA Carry Guard program, have increased as well.

Perhaps even more disconcerting to groups like Moms Demand Action is the fact that firearm ownership is not exclusively male. The number of women using guns is also growing, and shooting groups like The Well Armed Woman and A Girl and A Gun are thriving. Resources like NRA Women and Women’s Outdoor News are connecting with women from all walks of life, answering their questions and providing valuable information to help educate those interested in learning more about guns, personal protection and the shooting sports.

There is strength in numbers, and many gun owners no longer feel the need to be secretive. Where it can be taboo to talk about firearms at work or face-to-face, the rise of social media has provided an outlet. More and more, we’re seeing gun owners proudly share targets from range time sessions as well as their personal firearm interests by posting on their Facebook pages and sharing photos and videos on their Twitter and Instagram accounts.

Social media influencers aren’t just limited to actors, singers or beauty gurus. Gun influencers are also sharing their experiences on the range along with the importance of shooting sports, firearm safety programs and training opportunities. Even at the individual level, a simple “like” on a firearm manufacturer’s post or page is making it easier for lawful gun owners to identify one another and connect in ways never before possible.

Because of the virtual communities being built and growing on YouTube channels, blogs, Facebook groups and Instagram feeds, gun owners can now go beyond a Google search to find answers to their questions from real people they can interact with. As a result, they are discovering a thriving and knowledgeable firearm community that once existed solely at ranges or in gun clubs. 

This community is also dedicated to the preservation of rights and the knowledge that firearm safety is deeply connected with those rights. Its members are quick to share the importance of real gun safety. In many ways, it polices those who don’t use firearms safely through exposure. Social sharing trumps anti-gun media efforts in a real and personal way. This is terrifying for organizations that wish to control the narrative and, ultimately, control you.

Of course, media and gun control groups also use social media—and it’s often backed by anti-gun advertising dollars. Unlike those who use their influence and leadership to educate others about firearm safety rules and practices, a critical look exposes how these sites are centered solely around gun control activism. You won’t find basic firearm safety rules listed on any of their sites or accounts. They are anything but resources for education about firearm safety practices.

Social media is still a thriving forum for free expression. Slowly but surely, however, we are seeing more controls placed on how we can use it. Pro-gun voices are being silenced on YouTube, with channels locked down or deleted. How long might it be before the words “gun,” “firearm,” or “ammunition” become so monitored that we are no longer able to use them to connect with each other?

The increasingly common idea that the truth can vary from person to person is equally dangerous to our rights. The media and Hollywood thrive on creating and storytelling such falsehoods, and these “personal” or media truths are in some cases becoming more important than the real truth. Case in point, the L.A. Times cited reasons for the decline in both accidental gun deaths and the number of gun owners in the United States. Can we now expect to see a whole new level of activism through entertainment—one that dictates how we should feel and what we should believe through the “personal” truths of those who fight for gun control?  Despite box office failures like “Miss Sloane,” Hollywood is tenacious.

The success our gun community has with connecting one gun owner to another might be ignored, but it cannot be denied. We don’t rely on “personal” truths, but the real truth based on facts and statistics. As social media begins to regulate the gun owner, we need to find ways to keep connecting. We must be willing to keep the conversation going by sharing facts and experiences—not for mere social acceptance but to maintain our way of life.

At the same time, we must encourage and welcome those who want to learn more. Unlike gun control groups, the NRA is more than just a Second Amendment activist or lobbying group. Real resources, training programs, support for the shooting sports community and media outreach efforts such as NRATV prove how dedicated we are to safety and personal freedom.

In the end, it’s not at all “baffling” to see how true gun safety programs and initiatives—combined with our thriving, connected firearm community—are to be credited with the decline in accidental gun deaths. It is not “our” truth, but the truth. Please share it.


Julie Golob is one of the most accomplished professional shooters in the world with more than 130 championship titles in international, national and regional marksmanship competitions in seven different shooting disciplines. A veteran of the elite U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, she is regularly featured on outdoor television programming offering introduction and insight into the shooting sports and actively shares the importance of safety and training as lead instructor of NRA Women’s “Love at First Shot” and content contributor for NRA media outlets.

Gun Rights Were Expanded: Once Again, No Problems

As readers of our legislative alerts are only too aware, whenever NRA efforts to create more freedoms for law-abiding gun owners, anti-gun lawmakers and activists immediately begin repeating their doom-and-gloom mantra that the streets will run red with the blood of innocents, or some other outrageous claim.  As readers are also aware, however, the predicted carnage or other negative impacts simply fail to materialize.

Most frequently, the sky-is-falling nonsense erupts around the right to carry firearms for personal protection.  It began in the late-80s, when the push for Right to Carry (RTC) laws began to bear fruit with the passage of the Florida RTC law.  Soon, state after state passed laws that began to respect the right to self-defense by rolling back unnecessary restrictions or outright prohibitions on law-abiding gun owners carrying firearms.  And while dire results are always predicted by anti-gun extremists with the proposal or passage of every pro-gun reform, their claims are continually shown to be fabricated, unsupportable, and simply untrue.

You would think they would be grateful to be so wrong so frequently, or at least embarrassed.

Attorney and law professor David Kopel noted as far back as 1996, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences….But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”  More than two decades later, things haven’t changed very much.

Case in point: Arkansas.

During the 2017 legislative session in The Natural State, NRA worked with lawmakers on the passage of legislation that eventually became an enhanced carry permit system, which was signed into law.  The new law allows law-abiding Arkansans, who choose to upgrade their standard permit to the enhanced permit, to carry their concealed personal protection firearm in a number of otherwise prohibited places.  This, of course, caused the anti-gun crowd to go apoplectic, especially over the ability of enhanced permit holders to carry concealed firearms on public college and university campuses.

The Arkansas Times reported in January of 2017 that state Representative Clarke Tucker (D-35), when commenting about an early version of the bill, said its passage would hurt the ability of universities to recruit academics and students from out of state.  After passage of the bill, an anti-gun activist was quoted in an Associated Press article as claiming, “This legislation will make everyday life in Arkansas more dangerous.”

So, how prescient were the anti-gun opponents of this personal protection law?  As usual, not very.

The enhanced permit law was enacted in September of last year, but the system wasn’t actually operational until earlier this year.  With new, enhanced permits having been issued over the last several months, lawmakers invited some school administrators and campus law enforcement officials to Little Rock to comment last week about their experiences.

Those who support the right to personal protection will not be surprised to hear that there were no actual problems reported.

Captain Chris Bentley of the University of Central Arkansas told legislators, “We have not seen an issue yet on campus.”  The same sentiment was shared by several other college and university representatives.  In spite of the lack of issues, however, some still expressed they had reservations about the law.  Some people, as we all know, have an inherent distrust of ALL law-abiding gun owners, no matter how law-abiding they prove to be.

Fortunately, at least one voice spoke out in support of the law.

Henderson State University Police Chief Johnny Campbell noted that enhanced permit holders could help if a violent criminal does attempt to commit a violent act on campus, as the response time for police could be several minutes.  As we often note, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, and enhanced permit holders are the good guys (and gals).

As for the ridiculous student recruiting concern raised last year by Representative Tucker, it doesn’t appear any administrators lamented about enrollment being down.

Ultimately, it should be patently clear by now that when you trust law-abiding gun owners by reducing restrictions on their rights, the only people who should be concerned are violent criminals.  Regardless of what anti-gun extremists want you to believe.

Class dismissed.

VIDEO: How to Stop the Media From Inspiring Killers — #NoMSM


Can anyone tell me the last time a mass school shooter left a manifesto, a comment on social media, or a video where they said they were inspired to commit their atrocity … by a firearm. Name one. I’m sure you can’t and neither can I.

Because as much as the media love to pivot the conversation after a mass school shooting to gun control, the pen is still mightier than the sword. These kids aren’t being inspired by an innate hunk of plastic and metal laying on a table, they’re inspired by the infamous glory of past shooters who they relate to … and no entity on the planet does a better job whether directly or indirectly, of glorifying these killers, and thereby providing the inspiration for the next one … than our mainstream media.

You may hate guns and want to ban every single one of them, but even you know what I just said is true.

Attention seeking in this country is at an all time high and if social media has proven one thing, it’s that there are people out there willing to do anything for attention, even if it means slaughtering classmates they hate but letting the ones they like live so that they can tell their story to every mainstream media news outlet who are itching like fiends to be the FIRST to do a deep sea dive into the killers’ background.

As they see it, they get to leave a legacy of carnage, and the higher the body count the better—and we all know Wolf-Blitzer will be right there with the death toll counter keeping score.

While they’re doing all of that, the next mass shooter is quietly watching in envy as the guy who was just like him gets his name etched into the history books as he’s showered with attention and even love letters from women who would otherwise never acknowledge his existence. And this kid will be inspired to not only do the same thing, but to outdo the last kid and get as one high school student once said to me, “a higher score.”

It’s time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings, because it is killing our kids. It’s time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on our mainstream media’s ability to report on these school shootings.

There’s no need to cover these shootings for two weeks straight plastering the kids’ face over and over and over again. Pass a law stopping the media from reporting the killer’s name or showing his face.

You can still report on the shootings … we just need reasonable laws that place limitations on the glory and fame you give to these killers and their twisted motivations…

You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right.

That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment. Hearing me advocate for the government’s ability to limit anyone’s First Amendment rights, including the media, should anger all of you watching this video, the same way it should anger you when anyone tries to use the same limitations on the Second Amendment.

Here’s the thing. I do believe our mainstream media news outlets should hold themselves accountable in the way they cover school shootings. They should take into account how over reporting on school shootings inspires other shooters.

I honestly believe ignoring shooters and not giving them any attention will do more to stop school shootings than any gun control measure ever will.

However, I vehemently disagree with the government infringing on the media’s First Amendment rights the same way I don’t believe the government should infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.

The solution to the problem we all want to solve will only come with a firm commitment to all of our rights—not just the ones you think are important.

Colion Noir

The enigmatic Internet sensation never holds back or stays between the narrow lines of political correctness. As a NRA Commentator and the host of NOIR, his mission is to spread the facts about guns and hopefully change some minds. The practicing attorney, urban enthusiast and new face of gun culture didn’t pick up a firearm until later in life, and wasn’t pro-gun until the day he went to a range. “It was an eye-opener,” he said. The reality behind a firearm is, “It doesn’t have a soul, it isn’t evil, it’s just an inanimate object.”

Keep an eye out for new episodes of Colion’s show NOIR dropping year round here on NRATV.

Ted Cruz Says Media Is Avoiding Santa Fe School Shooting Because Texas Students Don’t Want Gun Control

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, says students from the high school near Houston where the deadly shooting occurred told him they don’t believe more gun control is the way to make schools safer.

In an interview in his Senate office Tuesday with The Daily Signal, Cruz said support for the Second Amendment in Texas is why CNN and other media outlets aren’t giving these students the kind of wall-to-wall coverage that followed the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. 

Cruz also talked about why the Senate should work full workweeks and potentially skip the August recess to get more done. From making tax reform for individuals and small businesses permanent to repealing Obamacare’s employer mandate, the Texas senator said plenty of legislative priorities could be passed with a simple majority and Republicans should take advantage of the relatively rare opportunity of being in charge in Washington.

Cruz also applauded President Donald Trump both for listening to many views and for standing up to much of official Washington and fulfilling his promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and get America out of the Iran nuclear deal. 

Watch the video of the full interview below. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Genevieve Wood: Sen. Cruz, thank you for sitting down with The Daily Signal. We appreciate it.

Sen. Ted Cruz: Always glad to be with you.

Wood: Let’s start first with our home state of Texas. A tragedy happened last week at a high school in Santa Fe. What are you hearing from folks on the ground there?

Cruz: The shooting Friday morning was just horrific. Santa Fe is a town that is about 30 miles outside of Houston, which is my hometown, about 30 minutes from my house. I was at home Friday morning when the shooting occurred, and I spent the entire day in Santa Fe.

At this point, we know that this deranged gunman, this young man who was a student at the school, he came in at 7:30 in the morning with a shotgun and revolver, and he murdered 10 people—eight students and two teachers. He injured an additional 13.

It was truly horrific. I spent a great deal of time with law enforcement officers, teachers, with parents, with students. The shock and trauma, it’s powerful. I went to the hospital and visited with some of the students who had been wounded.

I remember one particular hospital room, where there was a young man named Clayton who had been shot in the leg and he’d been shot in the arm. He’d just come out of surgery and he was conscious and in good spirits. Clayton is a bull rider and also a pole vaulter. I asked him what his best height was, and he said 13 and a half feet.

It was his left elbow that had been shot pretty badly. He had pins all up and down his left arm. I asked him, “Are you a lefty or are you a righty?” He said, “I’m a lefty.” He just smiled and said, “But I’ll learn to ride bulls with my right hand.”

Wood: Great spirit.

Cruz: It was that kind of—even in the face of horror—that spirit of hope and optimism. Probably a dozen students were there in that hospital room visiting Clayton, most of whom had been at the school. The agony the parents went through, I mean, that’s every parent’s nightmare. You send your daughter, your son off to school that morning, and they never come home.

Wood: Many parents, obviously in Texas but across the country, are asking, “Should I be worried about any of this?” Where does this move us in the whole issue addressing school safety?

Cruz: Well, listen. There have been too dang many of these. We’ve seen them over and over again, whether Santa Fe, or Parkland, or just six months ago in Texas, Sutherland Springs, the worst church shooting in the history of our country. I’ve too many times gone and cried with and held and comforted and prayed with the victims of these shootings.

Something’s wrong. When we were kids, this wasn’t a part of going to school. You might worry about getting a black eye at school or something, but you didn’t worry about someone, some lunatic coming in and shooting and murdering as many people as they could. That was not part of school.

Wood: And you have a lot of folks saying mental health problems here are an issue, and violence we see in video games and movies and all the like. But so, what do we do about that?

Cruz: I think there’s a lot we can do about it. You can focus on schools, but you can focus on also gun violence more generally. On schools, it was interesting: We’re in that hospital visiting with those students. I was there with the governor of Texas [Republican Greg Abbott], the two of us were there. We asked: “What’s the answer? What should we do?” And then we just shut up, we just listened.

And it was really striking. Out of a dozen students who just hours earlier had been in this shooting, every one of them said the answer is not gun control. They said, don’t take our guns. They said if you take our guns, it won’t make us safer, it will just mean the killers and murderers have guns.

A lot of the students there said, “Well, maybe more metal detectors in schools. Maybe more armed police officers in schools, so that you’re able to stop something like this when it happens.” Several of the students brought up that they thought teachers should be able to be armed.

One student who was there, he was in the adjoining classroom … he said his teacher was a former Marine, who was trained to handle a firearm, obviously, in the Marines. He said he wished his teacher had been armed; he might have been able to stop the killer before he killed so many people.

Those are the ideas that the students were suggesting. Now I will say, it’s fairly striking that, you look at the mainstream media, CNN, after the Parkland shooting, it was round-the-clock coverage of the students calling for aggressive gun control because that happens to be the political agenda of most of the media. In this case, where the students aren’t calling for that, suddenly … the media isn’t interested in covering it.

Wood: They’re not as interested. And you know, this is so much of a local issue, a state issue. But is there something at the federal level that …

Cruz: There’s a lot that can be done and should be done. Just a couple of months ago, in the federal budget deal, we included $2.5 billion of funding that could be spent on school safety, could be spent on things like metal detectors and police officers.

Things like examining the footprint of a school and reducing the number of entrances and exits, so that you don’t have—this shooter came in essentially a back door of an annex, where the art [class] was. If you had just one or two entrances where you had metal detectors and armed guards …

Wood: The way you have in this building [the Dirksen Senate Office Building].

Cruz: The way you have—

Wood: Several entrances were closed when we tried to enter here today.

Cruz: In this building … there are a ton of buildings where [you have] one or two entrances, and you have a security point to keep people safe. I think that’s something that should be examined closely.

I also think that there’s a lot more we can do going after violent criminals. Inevitably, people say, “We’ve got to do something.” That’s right, we do have to do something. But we need to do something that works. The proposals from Democrats, of taking away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, they don’t work. They’re not effective in reducing violent crime.

If you look at the jurisdictions across the country with the strictest gun control, almost inevitably they have among the highest crime rates, the highest murder rates. It’s actually what the students told me on Friday is true, that when you disarm the law-abiding citizens, then it means the criminals are the ones that have guns.

If you want to stop these kinds of crimes, there are things we can do. In 2013, I introduced legislation along with Chuck Grassley from Iowa, it was called the Grassley-Cruz legislation. It targets violent criminals. On the school safety front, it provided $300 million in additional school safety funding, funding that maybe could have made a difference preventing Parkland, preventing Santa Fe, if there were additional officers there.

Sadly, Grassley-Cruz, the Democrats filibustered it. They didn’t allow it to pass into law. We’ve got a majority of senators voted for Grassley-Cruz, but the Senate Democrats, [then-Minority Leader] Harry Reid and the Democrats demanded 60 votes and they killed it.

But not only that, Grassley-Cruz focused on the bad guys. If you look at Sutherland Springs, it was already contrary to federal law for that gunman to have a firearm. He had a felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction. But the Obama administration never reported his conviction to the background check database, so it was never in the database.

Grassley-Cruz required an audit to make sure that every conviction is in that database, so the database doesn’t have holes. And it required the Department of Justice to prosecute felons and fugitives who tried to illegally buy firearms.

What that means is, if Grassley-Cruz had passed into law, if the Democrats hadn’t filibustered it, the shooter at Sutherland Springs, when he tried to illegally buy that gun, he would’ve been arrested, he would have been prosecuted, and he would have been in federal jail instead of murdering innocent men, women, and children at that beautiful church in central Texas.

Wood: Would you consider reintroducing Grassley-Cruz? Is that something that could come back?

Cruz: It is, and I have reintroduced it. I’m pressing for it. Let’s take it up for a vote. Let’s pass it into law. Let’s focus on what actually works. The odd thing is, the media and many Senate Democrats, they aren’t interested in what works to reduce crime.

Sutherland Springs is another shooting they never like to talk about, because what stopped that shooting was another citizen. Stephen Willeford, law-abiding citizen, lived a block away from the church, who heard about it, ran over barefoot with his AR-15 and engaged the gunman. And ultimately saved many, many lives. Far too often what stops a bad person is a good person with a gun.

But that’s not what the media wants. They want to ban firearms for law-abiding citizens. If you want to stop violent crime, focus on the criminals. That’s something I’ve led the effort to do in the Senate. That’s something I’m going to continue leading the effort on.

Wood: You also have teamed up with some other senators who recently said there are a number of things that we need to do instead that aren’t getting done. I think you sided with maybe 16 other senators that sent a letter … to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying, “Why don’t we work on Monday and Fridays? Why don’t we cancel the August recess?” Not only so you can get more nominations through, but we don’t end up against the clock on funding the government bill. Where are you on that? Do you think the majority leader is going to agree?

Cruz: You know, I hope so. But we’ll see. We need to get—

Wood: Why is it so important? Why are things so jammed here?

Cruz: We need to get more done. And we need to take advantage of the opportunity we have. A few weeks ago, I did a presentation to the Senate Republican Conference. I was walking through an elaborate PowerPoint where I said in the last 100 years, we have had unified Republican control of the federal government—Republican House, Senate, and White House—four times, in 100 years. Since World War II, it’s only been a total of eight years that we’ve had unified Republican control. History teaches us this is rare.

This is an unusual opportunity. In my view, we shouldn’t waste a second. We should be working every minute of every hour of every day as long as the voters entrust us with unified control.

Now listen, in the last year and a half, I think we’ve gotten a great deal done. A great deal done that the media never talks about. They’re obsessed with whatever the latest porn star eruption is. I have to say, in Texas nobody cares about that.

If you look at what we’ve gotten accomplished: historic tax cuts, major regulatory reform, lifting job-killing regulations from small businesses and job creators, repealing the Obamacare individual mandate, which is real tax relief to the 6 and a half million Americans who are fined every year by the IRS because they can’t afford health insurance, confirming a record number of constitutionalist judges. All of those are critically important.

We’ve gotten those accomplished, but what I’ve been urging our leadership and my colleagues to do is let’s keep working and delivering. That means, let’s not take recesses, let’s not take vacations. Right now, the Senate typically works a three- to four-day week.

We’re facing historic Democratic obstruction, filibusters. The mantra of the Democrats—they’re listening to their extreme left wing—is fight, obstruct, resist. Resist is what they say over and over again.

Wood: So you don’t think they want to get anything passed?

Cruz: They want nothing. The Democrats’ position right now is “Hell, no.” On everything. They’re captive to the far left wing of their party. That can’t be an excuse for us not to deliver on the promises we made to the voters.

Wood: And as you all have said, we really want to make sure we don’t come up against the clock in September on spending, we want to get more nominations through. Democrats are also blaming Republicans right now for an increase in health care premiums. Is there a chance in your view to go back and revisit complete repeal of Obamacare between now and November?

Cruz:  Absolutely. What I did in the presentation to the Republican conference, I walked through probably 30 or 40 bills that different Republican senators had introduced, all across the conference, all sorts of different senators.

I said, look, these are all bills that I think have a real shot at getting 50 votes, at unifying the Republican conference, that will deliver real results. They run the gamut, from things like, on tax reform, making the individual tax cuts permanent, making small business tax cuts permanent, making [business] expensing permanent.

On Obamacare, there are a lot of things that could easily get 50 votes in the Republican conference. Ending the employer mandate, which would be an enormous benefit to jobs and small businesses. Expanding health savings accounts. Letting people who use health savings accounts to pay for premiums. That would effectively reduce premiums 20 to 30 percent like that. Codifying association health plans and short-term limited duration plans, which gives consumers more choices and drives down the cost of health care.

All of those are things we could do. Regulatory reform, codifying the REINS Act that says any economic regulation that imposes $100 million in cost to the economy or more can’t go into effect without an affirmative up-down vote from Congress. Enormously impactful.

What I urged my colleagues to do is, if you look at almost everything we got accomplished last year, we did it through legislative vehicles that only take 50 votes, that can’t be filibustered. So what I encouraged everyone, let’s decide what we want to accomplish as a conference in the next eight months and then let’s take up legislative votes that the Democrats can’t filibuster.

We know they’re going to obstruct. So let’s actually fight to win. Let’s have a strategy of here’s what we want to go to the American people saying, we promised you we would deliver and we did. Here’s our strategy to get it through in the face of Democratic obstruction.

I think there are a lot of members who agree with me on this. This is an active debate within the conference. I hope we’ll follow through and step up.

Wood: We’ll be watching to see. Final question. On the international front, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a big speech this week on what’s next after the Iran deal. One of the things he talked about was the administration believes this probably ought to be a treaty if we’re going to move forward with something. Is that something you think the Senate would take up?

Cruz: I absolutely believe that any deal with Iran should be a treaty. It should be confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. One of the things that Barack Obama did with the Iran deal is he subverted the constitutional requirements for a treaty because he knew it couldn’t get confirmed.

Remember, the Obama Iran deal was opposed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress. Not only couldn’t he get two-thirds to ratify it, he couldn’t get even a majority of either house.

Whether there’s a new Iran deal or not, I want to say that President Trump in the last two weeks has been incredibly consequential to foreign policy. Two events that occurred within days of each other. One was opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem.

Last Monday, I was in Jerusalem. It was the 70th anniversary of the creation of the modern state of Israel. It was truly a moment of history. When David Ben-Gurion formed the modern state of Israel, 11 minutes later President Harry Truman recognized Israel. America’s leadership with Israel has been powerful for the 70 years since then.

Presidents of both parties have promised they would move our American Embassy to Jerusalem. It’s the capital of Israel, it’s where the government is based, it’s where the Supreme Court [is], it’s where the Knesset is, it’s where the prime minister is, it’s where the president is. And yet, [U.S.] presidents of both parties have failed to follow through.

In the Trump administration, there was a big, active debate and argument about whether and when to move the embassy. The State Department and Defense Department both pressed back against moving the embassy. I was very, very active urging the president to do it and that this was the right thing to do.

Those within the administration who didn’t want the embassy moved, what they said is, “Look, we want to see peace in the Middle East. Moving the embassy makes that harder.” I’ll tell you what I told the president.

I said, listen, No. 1, the impediment to peace is not Israel. No one wants peace more than Israel. It is the Israeli babies that are being murdered. The impediment to peace is as long as the Palestinian leadership refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and embraces terrorism, I don’t believe there will be peace.

But what I also told the president is that whatever the chances are of peace, they are increased by moving the embassy. Why is that? Because although we can expect, and this did happen, that our Arab allies in the region would protest, we would see cries of dismay from Egypt and the Saudis, the Jordanians. They would have to, they would believe for domestic political reasons they would have to.

What I told the president is that I believe privately they would be incredibly relieved. Because what they would say is that a president strong enough to stand up to the criticism of the global media elite, to say to the world, “We stand by our friends and we stand up to our enemies,” is also a president strong enough to pull out of Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal. For our Arab allies, they recognize that a nuclear Iran is the greatest threat to our security, to their security, to Israel’s security.

So on Monday [May 14], we finally opened that embassy. It was a piece of history. I was there for it. There’s no way I was going to be anywhere else but right there in Jerusalem.

Also, within days [on May 8], the president did the right thing, pulled out of the Iran deal. There was the exact same debate within the administration. The same forces that didn’t want to move the embassy didn’t want to end the Iran deal. Once again, I spent a great deal of time urging the president, this is the right thing to do.

I’ll tell you, I was sitting in the Oval Office with President Trump and with [national security adviser] John Bolton 30 minutes before the Iran speech pulling out of [the nuclear deal] and helping, working with them on that speech.

It’s the right thing to do because the Obama Iran deal sent billions of dollars to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It put Iran on an inevitable path to acquire nuclear weapons. The Ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini, when he chants, “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” I believe him.

What I urged the president to do and what he’s done, and what Secretary Pompeo’s speech said, is under no circumstances ever will the Ayatollah Khomeini be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. That’s what the position of the United States should be, and I’m very gratified that’s the position the administration is taking.

Wood: Final question for you. As you saw him walk through that decision-making process … President Trump, how does he make these decisions? Why do you think he came down the way he did?

Cruz: Listen, on a great many of these issues, you’ve got multiple voices. You’ve got voices within the Cabinet. You’ve got voices in the business community. You’ve got the media pushing you. I can tell you, I think he hears all of them.

Wood: He just met with the French president [who supports the Iran deal].

Cruz: He did. President [Emmanuel] Macron. And also all of the European leaders were pressing him to remain in the deal. I will say … my office is speaking with the White House every day, and sometimes every hour.

Really, the two things that are consuming my time in the Senate are, No. 1, doing everything I can to encourage the president, encourage the administration on a positive direction, not a negative direction. No. 2, doing everything that I can to bring Republicans together in the Senate to deliver on our promises, not to waste this unique opportunity.

I’ve been very, very pleased that—there’s a lot of chaos, it’s the political circus, it’s insane. In Washington, the media are consumed with the scandal of the day. My approach when I walk down the hallways in the Capitol and the reporters start asking questions, I say, you know what? I don’t comment on tweets, I won’t comment on the random comment of the day.

If you want to talk substance, you want to talk policy, you want to talk tax reform, reg reform, Obamacare, judges, you want to talk national security, Iran, Israel, North Korea, I’ll talk about any of those. But if you want to talk about whatever has the talking heads on cable lighting their hair on fire, I’ve got nothing to say.

I’m not going to defend the indefensible. But what Texans are interested in, they’re not interested in the latest clutch-my-pearls scandal in Washington. They’re interested in real results. More jobs, higher wages, more opportunity, protect our rights.

That’s my focus, and I’ve been very encouraged that the Trump administration, over and over again, the president has been willing to make the right decision after hearing counsel from a lot of people.

Wood: Sen. Cruz, thank you very much.

Cruz: Thank you.


Portrait of Genevieve Wood

Genevieve Wood

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: @genevievewood.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s Education Secretary Is Wrong About Gun Control Being Best Way to Keep Kids Safe

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.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is by Ron Sachs/dpa/Picture Alliance/Newscom.

Dem Gun Confiscator Tacitly Admits Gun Control Wouldn’t Work

One of the more despicable Congress-critters is Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a man with utter contempt for Truth. He was on Tucker Carlson Tonight Monday evening pushing for confiscation of AR-type rifles and spinning like a dervish with rocket boosters. But let’s forget that while Swalwell wrote an op-ed calling for gun confiscation, it’s not really confiscation, according to Swalwell. Let’s forget that what he labels “assault weapons” are just semi-automatic rifles that happen to have a military-style appearance (much like putting a Porsche body on a Hugo chassis). Let’s forget that he claimed his AR-species confiscation plan would “keep kids safe,” ignoring that the most recent shooting, in Santa Fe, was perpetrated with a .38 pistol and a shotgun. Most significant is that, amidst his pseudo-Machiavellian babbling, he contradicted himself and refuted his own argument.

Pointing out the congressman’s more-equal-than-others status, host Tucker Carlson repeatedly asked Swalwell if he would restrict his own bodyguards, the Capitol Hill Police (CHP), to the same weapons to which he’d limit Joe Six Pack. Practice what you preach, right?

Aside from using the spurious diversionary argument of saying that Carlson was “denigrating” the police by likening them to bodyguards (hmm, in doing so, wasn’t the congressman denigrating bodyguards?), Swalwell also repeatedly said that he wouldn’t agree to limit the CHP because he, the man passionately proclaimed, doesn’t want our cops “outgunned.”

Did you get that?

Question: If outlawing AR-type rifles actually could get them out of bad guys’ hands, then how could the police be outgunned without them?

Perhaps Swalwell knows in his heart (and head?) that his proposal wouldn’t suffice to deny these weapons to criminals. It’s as if he’s tacitly admitting that he’s just a lying, power-hungry sack of excrementitious ambition and hot air. Below is the Tucker Carlson Tonight segment with the congressman.

Of course, another explanation is that such contradictions inevitably occur when, instead of seeking Truth while formulating opinion, you play games and just disgorge whatever sophistic argument you think will work at the moment. And as the above segment evidences, Swalwell is the epitome of this demagogic practice.

In reality, gun grabbers have completely departed from reality. I’m old enough to remember when the Left’s gun-control obsession involved banning handguns. I disagree with doing so, but at least that proposal has some relationship to crime: Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders in 2016 as all rifles combined.

Amazingly, even the Swalwellian New York Times admitted this in its 2014 piece “The Assault Weapon Myth.” The paper pointed out that in 2012, only 322 people were killed with rifles of any kind and that even prior to the 1990s Assault Weapons™ ban, such firearms were used in only 2 percent of the nation’s gun crimes (this hasn’t changed). Moreover, credible studies show that the ban did not serve to reduce gun violence, the Times also informed.

The point? Do you think leftists would stop at banning a class of weapons (AR-style ones) used in almost no crimes and not move on to a class (handguns) used in most gun crime? As admitted by Esquire editor Dave Holmes in a recent article titled “Okay, Now I Actually Do Want to Take Your Guns” and by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens when he proposed in March repealing the Second Amendment, the Left ultimately wants all firearms banned. They just plan to accomplish this via incrementalism, stealing away our freedoms inch by inch.

They generally don’t admit this, though, because they’re Swalwellian — which is another way of saying they’re liars.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Santa Fe, the Human Heart, and the Need for God

It was one of the last pictures ever taken of Christian Garcia. With the sun on his face, the Santa Fe teenager leaned his head on the wooden slats that would one day be his bedroom. On the framing of the house he’ll never live in, Christian had taken a sharpie and written Psalm 46:10: “Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations. I will be exalted in the earth.”Today, those words echo across a Texas town in desperate need of the reminder that God is still there. For the 10 families who never dreamed they were saying their last goodbyes Friday morning, the pain of another school shooting is a raw and profound reminder of how desperately our world needs the Savior. Wrapped in a grief familiar to too many communities, a heartbroken Santa Fe turned, as it always has, to faith. Moments after the first shots rang out, phones started buzzing. “Please pray,” came one text after another. Cars started to pour into church parking lots; prayer chains sprang into action. In a city that just survived the worst of Hurricane Harvey, everyone knew what direction to look in tragedy — up.Now, as the first bodies of those eight students and two teachers are laid to rest, America returns to the question burned on everyone’s mind: why? Angry outsiders demand gun control. Others lay the blame at the feet of the NRA. And while the rest of the country debates what our country could have done differently, Texas’s top officials try to return the conversation back to the heart of the problem — the heart. “We have devalued life in this country,” Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said plainly. “We threw God out of school… We have families that are broken apart, no fathers at home. We have incredible heinous violence as a game, two hours a day in front of their eyes. And we stand here and we wonder why this happens to certain students.”

In Sunday services across Texas, teary parents seemed to have the same response. At Arcadia First Baptist Church, one grandmother’s eyes welled up just thinking about her grandson, who was supposed to be in the art room where the shooting started. “We need God back in our schools,” she said. For Santa Fe, where students still pray before football games and some teachers still hold lunchtime Bible studies, “thoughts and prayers” aren’t throwaway words when heartbreak strikes. They’re a way of life. “This is not,” Patrick insisted, “about guns. This is about us, as a culture and a nation. Who are we?”

Who we are is a broken country in dire need of the God we keep pushing away. “The world has never been a nice place,” Matt Walsh pointed out the Daily Wire, “but it got quite a bit meaner when we abandoned religion. That is no coincidence.” It’s human nature to want to blame something, but the problem has never been guns. Are there policies we could strengthen? Absolutely. But mankind has had instruments of destruction dating back to Cain and Abel. The real crisis is the moral vacuum left behind when society kicked religion — and with it, morality — out of the public space. Violence, relativism, promiscuity, and suicide didn’t get their start when God was expelled from school. But they’ve certainly been given a culture in which to thrive now that we’ve removed the Judeo-Christian foundation that anchored the country. Walsh warned:

“The nightmare we have lived since the turn of the previous century has been the direct result of the world’s rejection of God. We fled from His embrace and what we found out here in the wilderness, in our ‘freedom,’ is evil and despair on an unimaginable scale. We have become an empty country, an empty generation, an empty world. ‘They withdrew from me, went after emptiness, and became empty themselves,’ God says through the Prophet Jeremiah. He speaks as much to us as He spoke to the people of Jeremiah’s time.”

Of course, some liberals don’t want to have a discussion about the underlying problem, because it would mean acknowledging the fallen nature of man. That, not stricter gun laws, is what’s keeping us from finding real solutions as a nation. We can talk about limiting access to guns, but if we’re truly concerned about violence, let’s also talk about expanding access to God. Until we’re willing to address both — the instrument and the motivation – nothing will change. A spiritually sick society that embraces violence instead of values needs God.

Maybe a community as deeply sincere about their faith as Santa Fe can help the nation understand that. Looking across the rows of empty school chairs, they know better than anyone — Guns don’t steer men wrong, hearts do.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


At Graduation, No Tassel without Tussle over Faith

A Pop of Colyer Protects Adoption in Kans.

Bank of Un-American Activities

Bank of America (BoA) has taken a uniquely un-American position on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. It appears that BoA does not believe in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Anne Finucane, Vice Chairman of the Bank of America.

In a letter to a BoA client Anne Finucane, Vice Chairman of the Bank of America, writes:

We operate in and support communities throughout the United States. Our employees have been touched directly and indirectly by mass shootings from military style firearms in many of those communities.

[ … ]

Firearms with military characteristics have been used in many of these recent tragedies, including in schools in Florida and Connecticut.

[Emphasis added]

Bill Little explains how this false narrative impacts every American’s civil right to self-defense:

BoA is focused on the weapon of choice of the criminal rather than the facts. The most recent FBI data shows that knives, clubs, fists and feet account for 75.8% of all the weapons used during “aggravated assaults.” The BoA and VP Finucane don’t have their facts straight, nor are they focused on actually reducing crime in communities. Disarming law abiding citizens in “the communities throughout the United States” they serve is a disservice.

Finucane goes on to state in her letter:

We have firearms industry clients who do not manufacture this type of firearm. But we are engaging the limited number of clients who do, to learn their plans to keep this type of firearm from being used in mass shootings. In those discussions, we have indicated it is our intent that we will not finance the manufacture of this type of firearm for non-law enforcement, non-military use. We want to understand what those clients are doing to end mass shootings, and what we can do to help. [Emphasis added]

Manufacturers of firearms are not responsible for the misuse of their products in criminal activities. Just as auto manufacturers are not responsible for the use of their cars in a bank robbery, hit and run or use in a terrorist attack.

The responsibility lies with the individual who commits the crime. That is why we have laws against murdering others.

So who is really responsible for planning to keep others from murdering? Where was the real breakdown?

In a Daily Signal column titled “Same Policies That Failed to Stop Florida Shooter Exist in School Districts Nationwide” Jonathan Butcher concludes:

Broward County officials must now explain to grieving families that the school discipline strategy they called “the most comprehensive thinking available to address socially unacceptable or illegal behavior” failed to stop a school shooting.

Meanwhile, dozens of school systems around the country are following the federal guidelines. This widespread adoption and the terrifying failure of PROMISE makes the White House’s call to rescind federal guidelines that mirror PROMISE a timely and fitting response to Parkland.

So government, not manufacturers, created this culture of mass murder. But you see government never wants to take the blame. They are happy when companies like BoA shift the blame and blame the blameless.

RELATED ARTICLE: FBI Releases Sandy Hook Docs That Puts Giant Hole In Media’s Official Story

RELATED VIDEO: Violence of Lies.

Broward County Sheriff’s Office Training Materials Say First One or Two Officers on Scene should ‘Confront the Shooter’

‘Remember, every time you hear a gunshot in an active shooter incident; you have to believe that is another victim being killed.’ 

Four Officers on Scene at February 14 Parkland Shooting Did Not Enter School Building 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released Broward County Sheriff’s Office training and operation materials that specifically dictate that the first one or two officers on the scene of an active shooter incident “will immediately go to confront the shooter.”

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office’s Standard Operating Procedure and lesson plans for an active shooter incident were obtained by Judicial Watch via a Florida Sunshine Act records request.

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office confirmed that armed school resource officer Deputy Scot Peterson was first on the scene of the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, but he did not enter the school to confront shooter Nikolas Cruz.

Three other deputies also arrived on the scene but did not enter, the sheriff’s office said. The Broward County materials direct that if four officers are on the scene of an active shooter incident they are to form a “Quad” formation and enter the building.

The lesson plan instructs officers to immediately confront a shooter:

History shows when a suspect is confronted by any armed individual (police, security, concealed carry person) they either shoot it out with that person or kill themselves. Either way, the shooting of innocent bystanders must stop. Now, the first officer or two officers on scene will immediately go to confront the shooter. Military tactics work well in this situation. The two man “bounding overwatch” is our response.

Using lessons learned from Columbine (the 1999 high school massacre where officers waited for a SWAT team and allowed two shooters to continue) the first four responding officers are directed to form a “Quad” and approach from all directions:

During Columbine, the response to an ongoing shooting situation was to contain the suspect. After Columbine the International Chiefs of Police addressed the problem with the response and came up with the “Quad” or diamond formation. With the quad, the first four officers to respond entered the building with coverage in all directions. This was critical to address the concerns of officers who previously would not enter and just wait for SWAT.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said during a news conference that “What I saw was a deputy [Peterson] arrive … take up a position and he never went in.” Israel said Peterson should have “went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”

The lesson plan clearly states: “If you are on scene or in the area and hear gunshots, you should immediately access what you have and prepare to respond. Remember, every time you hear a gunshot in an active shooter incident; you have to believe that is another victim being killed.”

The training materials also state that the first officers on the scene will “engage the suspect,” which Peterson did not do. “There are now three teams during Active Shooter Incident [Contact, Extraction and Rescue Task Force]: Contact Team: Is first on scene, 1-4 deputies, they will be actively engaging/searching for suspect (HOT ZONE).”

The lesson plan lists “priorities of life” as: 1) Hostages/victims; 2) Innocent Bystanders; 3) Police/deputies; and 4) Suspects. “If in doubt about going through the door after a suspect, think about the victims and where they stand on the list.”

The importance of a fast and effective response is emphasized: “Time is critical in each of these incidents. This is like no other crime. The motive is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Why? Because the bad guy knows ‘we’ are coming.”

An exercise designed for a lone deputy on the scene of an active shooting is intended to “get the deputy moving towards the gunfire, passing dead students and others running by him.” However, “there is no reason to give up a good position of cover” if the shooting has stopped. “Remember the cavalry is on their way, so it’s better to hold, than to expose yourself to unknown threats.”

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office Standard Operating Procedure states:

“If real time intelligence exists the sole deputy or a team of deputies may enter the area and/or structure to preserve life. A supervisor’s approval or on-site observation is not required for this decision…. If the situation turns to a barricade or hostage situation the response team will contain, isolate, communicate and wait for SWAT.”

Records obtained by Judicial Watch also show that Sheriff Israel is the second highest paid of Florida’s 67 sheriffs at $186,631 for Fiscal Year 2017/18. The sheriff was eligible for $2,000 in supplemental pay for completion of a 20-hour training course. In 2016, Israel received a warning letter that he had not successfully completed the course and his supplemental pay was being withheld.

“These Broward County Sheriff’s Office documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the law enforcement agency failed the victims of the Parkland shooting,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Lives were lost in Parkland because the Sheriff’s Office personnel were either poorly trained or failed to follow training protocols.”

Andrew Cuomo’s Fatwa Against the NRA [and Gun Owners Like You]

fatwa (proclamation) has been issued by the State of New York against the National Rifle Association (and gun owners like you): “I urge companies in New York State to revisit any ties they may have to the NRA and consider their reputations, and responsibility to the public,” tweeted the Ayatollah Andrew Cuomo, aka the Governor of New York State. Conservative firearm advocates “have no place in the State of New York,” declared Ayatollah Cuomo.

After you have bowed and faced Albany, you are instructed to read NYS’ holy website: Anti-gun sharia is imposed upon insurers and banks.

Defy NYS’ sharia law, a company could pay Jizya, a tax: Just review the press release on the Lockton Consent Order; and press release on the Chubb Consent Order. The risk is too great for Lloyd’s of London.

Roll-up the anti-gun prayer rugs: the NRA has filed a lawsuit to stop NYS’ establishment of an implicit censorship regime; retaliating against the NRA based on its speech; conspiracy; and violations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process, as well as Article 1, section 8 of the New York Constitution.

Blame the bogeyman

Who do you blame when things aren’t going well?

Blame the Jews, according to MuhammadHitler, and current regimes of IranHAMAS and its counterpart in the United States: CAIR.

Blame the Christians, according to Nero, President Obama, and Pope Francis.

Blame the NRA and gun owners, according to Michael Ian BlackDebbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Alyssa Milano.


Without weapons for self-protection:

Live as slaves: Jews in Egypt; Blacks in Southern United States; or Women for sex and children for labor throughout the world today.

Live as second-class citizens: Jews in Nazi ghettos; or Christians in Muslim-majority countries; indeed, any Kafir (unbeliever) must live in Dhimmitude.

Make it difficult to have or use a firearm

What part of the Second Amendment’s “…shall not be infringed” did legislators not understand?

You think you need a gun for self-defense, but in some jurisdictions, you must get approval first from a local sheriff.

Limit the size of gun magazines, despite that it takes seconds to reload a magazine; and criminals use several firearms.

The Catch-22: Liberals want gun-owners to have insurance, but NYS bans it.

Liberals want a national tax on sales of guns and ammunition. California now requires citizens to buy ammo in-state.

Liberals seek to take your guns

Gun registries will lead to gun confiscation, as illustrated by AustraliaCanada, and Germany; as well as the United States: CaliforniaIllinois, and the heart of liberalism: New York City.

National gun confiscation has been proposed by liberals including Rep. Eric Swalwell (2018); the NAACP (2018); and Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate (2016).

Admit it, liberals, you really do want a total ban on firearms.

While liberals keep their armed security

Celebrities had 500 police officers at the Oscars.

At anti-gun marches, armed guards protected Sen. Bernie Sanders; and Alyssa Milano.

Armed guards surrounded Ayatollah Cuomo at a “die-in” protest.


“[I]t … seems wrong for [a government] agency to put “pressure on an industry … to achieve policy results the administration has not been able to achieve through normal legislation or regulation,” wrote the Washington Post’s editorial board in response to the HUD Gun Suit by Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of the federal Housing and Urban Development in 1999. That sentiment anticipates “themes that would continue to characterize Cuomo’s gun-control efforts over the next nineteen years” through today. [See the NRA Complaint’s ¶15, fn.7]

Attention Islamic Jihadis: I will NEVER submit to Sharia law. You want 72 virgins? Fine. I’m “locked and loaded.”

Gerald Lostutter is a Florida licensed attorney, college professor, journalist, and Life Member of the National Rifle Association.

EDITORS NOTE: This  column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

VIDEO: Fighting the ‘Violence of Lies’ with the ‘Belt of Truth’

In April of 2018 the National Rifle Association (NRA) released the below video titled “Violence of Lies.” The video features Dana Loesch who is a gun owner and member of the NRA. Those opposed to the Second Amendment took issue with Ms. Loesch’s use of the phrase “fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.”

David Hogg, leader of the anti-Second Amendment “We Call BS” movement.

The clenched fist has been used as a symbol by various groups including: the Black Panthers, The New Black Panthers, the Resistance, ANTIFA, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-Second Amendment We Call BS and Black Lives Matter movements.

It appears using the “clenched fist” metaphor is only permissible for those who actually do violence.

Perhaps the NRA should redo this ad and use the words found in Ephesians 6: 10-17:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

You see with belt of truth buckled around your waist you cannot lose.

We are fighting against “the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

It is time to pick up the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Oops, we just like Ms. Loesch committed a thought crime.


They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.


The Top 20 Uncontested Absurdities of Today

So They’re Not Coming for Our Guns, Eh? We call BS.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Dan Carlson. Twitter: @dan_carl5on.

FBI Acknowledges Life-Saving Potential of Armed Citizens

“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives. The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

Those are the final lines in the conclusion of the FBI’s Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Gang and drug-related shootings are excluded. “The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.”

Ten active shooters were confronted by citizens. In four incidents, the responding citizens were unarmed; these heroes include school staff, the shooter’s girlfriend, and a man who intentionally struck the shooter with his car. Six shooters were confronted by armed citizens. Four shooters were stopped by lawfully armed citizens. One citizen was wounded as he confronted the shooter. “In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting.” Unsurprisingly, it seems that these criminal cowards preferred targets incapable of defending themselves.  “Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives. The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

Anti-gun politicians, celebrities, and organizations deride the idea that citizens can successfully defend themselves, their families, or those around them. They prefer that law-abiding gun owners be disarmed – a position they advocate from behind the safety of armed security. We’re fortunate to have real leaders who understand that Americans should be trusted to take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities, and that the quickest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The FBI’s latest report affirms that ability.

RELATED VIDEO: Violence of Lies.

Hard Times for Dick’s as Second Amendment Supporters Respond to Company’s Anti-Gun Bent

We have recently been reporting on the bizarre anti-gun activism of one of the nation’s larger firearm retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods and its affiliated Field & Stream stores. First, the company announced it would stop selling most centerfire semi-automatic rifles at its stores, carry only limited capacity magazines for semi-automatic guns, and ban firearm sales to certain legally eligible adults. It then took the further step of declaring it would destroy its inventory of the newly-restricted firearms at company expense. And if that weren’t enough, the news also recently broke that the company had hired expensive D.C. lobbyists to push for gun control measures on Capitol Hill.  

Dick’s, in other words, was positioning itself as a rising star in the field of corporate gun control activism, in obvious contradiction of its own financial interests. 

Now, however, the pro-gun community is parrying Dick’s gun control thrust with their own countermeasures, while customers appear to be eschewing Dick’s to search for bargains elsewhere.

Last week, the Board of Governors of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries – voted unanimously to expel Dick’s Sporting Goods from membership in the organization. While the NSSF noted it supports the rights of its members to make individual business decisions, it determined that Dick’s new polices do not “reflect the reality of the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners” and constitute “conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation.” Law-abiding gun owners, the company added, “should not be penalized for the actions of criminals.”

Meanwhile, members of the firearms industry have also begun withdrawing their products from Dick’s and Field & Stream outlets. 

First, Illinois-based Springfield Armory – maker of several lines of highly-popular rifles and pistols — announced early this month that was “severing ties” with the two retailers. In announcing the decision, Springfield Armory stated, “we believe in the rights and principles fought for and secured by American patriots and our founding forefathers, without question.” It concluded, “We will not accept Dick’s Sporting Goods’ continued attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow Americans.”   What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all. Its business with Second Amendment supporters in particular may well grind to a halt.

Iconic shotgun maker O.F. Mossberg & Sons followed up this week with its own announcement that it will “not accept any future orders from Dick’s Sporting Goods or Field & Stream” and is “in the process of evaluating current contractual agreements.” Mossberg’s press release on the decision cited its own “staunch support[] of the U.S. Constitution and our Second Amendment right” and its disagreement with “Dick’s Sporting Goods’ recent anti-Second Amendment actions.” 

MKS Supply, marketer of Hi-Point Firearms and Inland Manufacturing, LLC, has now become the latest supplier to cut off Dick’s and Field & Stream. Its president, Charles Brown, justified the decision on the basis that “Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, have shown themselves, in our opinion, to be no friend of Americans’ Second Amendment.” He went on to cite several “wrong” moves by Dick’s in recent months, including “villainizing modern sporting rifles in response to pressure from uninformed, anti-gun voices” and “hiring lobbyists to oppose American citizens’ freedoms secured by the Second Amendment.”  

This industry pressure on Dick’s comes at a sensitive time for the company. Its shares took a steep 6.3% dive in March, amid what analysts described as a “downbeat outlook.” Indeed, its own CEO Edward Stack admitted his new investment in gun control “is not going to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales standpoint.”

How that assessment squares with his own obligations to the company and its shareholders is unclear. Profits, after all, are where the rubber meets the road in any business enterprise. 

What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all. Its business with Second Amendment supporters in particular may well grind to a halt.

Should that happen, Dick’s will have no one to blame but itself, and especially Mr. Stack. Dick’s example should serve as a warning for other businesses in the firearm sector that would hope to find common cause with activists who are seeking nothing so much as to put gun sellers out of business for good.

The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women

New York City and other leftist cities and states are making it almost impossible for a woman to purchase even the most minimal of defensive measures — leaving them exposed and at the mercy of violent, stronger male criminals with no way to even the odds.

This may not be the intent, but the recoiling of leftists at allowing Americans to own anything that might resemble a weapon is creating the perverse result that women have a hard time finding any defensive tools.

This is where the nonsense notion of keeping all “weaponry” out of the hands of law-abiding citizens has gone — and it is led there by the overwrought reactions to guns.

A friend whose daughter recently graduated from college in New York and moved into the City, realized she was not in a very good neighborhood. She wanted to find some way of protecting herself, so she tried to order online some mace or pepper spray — anything of that nature — and was told they cannot deliver to New York City. Mace is illegal period. Pepper spray is not totally illegal, but New York makes such items very difficult to get through myriad regulations.

There are few things as inherently defensive in nature as pepper spray. Yet it turns out there are several states that have the same types of laws in place, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and New Jersey. This list also includes cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia — all of which have high rates of violent crimes being committed by men and yet leave their women in challenging situations to protect themselves.

Because again, pepper spray is not only inherently defensive, it is largely purchased and carried by women for self-defense. And yet the loudest paragons of the #MeToo movement put up major roadblocks for women to obtain such basic self-defense.

So this talented, pretty young woman moving to NYC is completely at the mercy of men (armed or not) bent on evil, and on the response time of police — once they are called. Like so many other women in all these cities and states, she too easily can find herself at the mercy of powerful criminals, and her own government deprives her of the reasonable ability to defend herself.

There are many examples of vulnerable women in these cities turning to wasp spray and other items for defense, despite the bulky size of those canisters. That’s how desperate they are to be able to defend themselves. Of course by reporting this, places like New York may decide that only licensed pest control professionals can buy and operate wasp spray.

Even if you grant the best of intentions by the Democratic lawmakers running these states and cities, it’s almost as though they purposely ignore the most obvious weapon most men have on women: superior size and strength. If every weapon of every kind were magically removed from planet, most men would still have the ability to physically take advantage of most women at any time.

The leftist retort to this is the police. Well that thin blue line that stands between the bad guys and the rest of us is imperative and most of them do yeoman’s work. But they are definitionally not for individual self-defense unless there is a cop for each person. They are by necessity reactive. It’s what 911 is for. You call, they respond.

So the police cannot be the self-defense that women need, meaning most women are left defenseless in these cities and states.

The equalizers for women have always been weapons, from guns to mace to pepper spray. Yet these equalizers are either banned or made very difficult to obtain.

These items are not protected by the Second Amendment, so they can be — constitutionally, if foolishly — banned or made very difficult to obtain. Guns cannot be banned. But they can be made so difficult to obtain that they are practically speaking banned — for law-abiding residents.

That will be Part II: One man’s ultimately fruitless journey into the endless bowels of obtaining a gun permit in New York City.

PLEASE READ: The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women (Part II)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is of  Corelle Owens posing for a portrait in Decatur, Ga., while holding a Glock 40. Owens is a 45-year-old resident of Mableton, Ga., and flight attendant. She’s among the ranks of the nation’s black women who are learning how to use a firearm, deciding to go to the range and learn how to shoot after her car, phone, tablet and wallet were stolen in March. She’s thinking of purchasing a revolver, considering it an ideal firearm for home protection. Thieves, she said, “they’re armed too so what are you going to do if you don’t have a gun?” She’s intent on perfecting her skills and learning as much as she can on the safest ways to handle a firearm. “I work in a job where safety is paramount and I want to do it the right way.” (AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane). Please subscribe to The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube channel.