Court Packing Kamala: VP Candidate an Existential Threat to U.S. Supreme Court and Second Amendment

Another week, another Biden-Harris campaign refusal to level with the American voter on the issue of turning the federal judiciary into a second partisan legislative branch of government. At Wednesday’s vice presidential debate, Vice President Mike Pence asked Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) if a Biden-Harris administration would attempt to add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court. Just as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden declined to answer this question during the first presidential debate, Harris did not answer this simple question.

Pence posed the following question to Harris, “If Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, are you and Joe Biden, if somehow you win this election, going to pack the Supreme Court to get your way?” When Harris initially refused to answer, Pence reiterated, “People are voting right now. They’d like to know if you and Joe Biden are gonna pack the Supreme Court if you don’t get your way in this nomination.” Again, Harris did answer the question.

After repeated non-answers from Harris, the debate moderator attempted to bail out the senator from California by moving on to another topic. In response, a polite but forceful Pence noted, “I just want the record to reflect, she never answered the question. Perhaps at the next debate Joe Biden will answer the question. And I think the American people know the answer.”

The Vice President is right. The American people do know the answer. Given Biden and Harris’s steadfast refusal to state their position on such a monumental and unpopular policy measure, it is rational for concerned citizens to conclude the worst.

Further, New York Times reporter Alexander Burns has stated that Harris told her that she was interested in packing the U.S. Supreme Court. Burns was recorded stating, “Senator Harris told me in an interview actually that she was absolutely open to doing that…”

It was a narrow 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that concluded in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. A similarly narrow 5-4 majority also incorporated that right to the states in McDonald v. Chicago. Even with a majority of justices that recognize the proper individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the narrow majority has proven reluctant to vindicate this right when presented with the opportunity.

Second Amendment supporters cannot afford to permit a Biden-Harris administration and Democrat-controlled Senate to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with anti-gun justices. Especially when both Biden and Harris have made clear that they do not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

During a September 2019 “townhall” event, Biden was asked, “Do you agree with the D.C. v. Heller decision in regards to protecting the individual right to bear arms that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?”

Biden responded in part, “If I were on the court I wouldn’t have made the same ruling. OK, that’s number one.”

As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris signed an amicus curiae brief in Heller that argued the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Advocating against the individual right to keep and bear arms, the brief argued,

courts have consistently sustained criminal firearms laws against Second Amendment challenges by holding that, inter alia, (i) the Second Amendment provides only a militia-related right to bear arms, (ii) the Second Amendment does not apply to legislation passed by state or local governments,

According to the document, the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but rather, the lower court in Heller “create[d]” this right. The brief stated,

The lower court’s decision, however, creates a broad private right to possess any firearm that is a lineal descendant” of a founding era weapon and that is in “common use” with a “military application” today.

Anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court’s move in the next landmark Second Amendment case (McDonald), Harris’s brief reiterated that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not be incorporated to the states. Had this thinking been adopted, state and local governments would be empowered to curtail or even extinguish gun rights without restraint. State and local governments would have been able to bar their residents from owning any firearms whatsoever.

There is every reason to believe that any court packing scheme would involve installing a solid anti-Second Amendment majority to the U.S. Supreme Court that would work to eliminate recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms. NRA members and gun rights activists must work to inform their family, friends, neighbors, and other freedom-minded individuals about the dangers a Biden-Harris administration poses to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judge Barrett Picks Second Amendment Case as Her “Most Significant” Ruling

Please Urge the Department of Justice to Rein in ATF’s Arbitrary Determination on “Honey Badger” Pistol

Big Lie Country: Anti-gun Interests Work to Deceive Montanans

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

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Want to Destroy the Second Amendment

While discussion of the Second Amendment and gun control have been noticeably absent from the presidential debates and mainstream media coverage, gun rights are without a doubt on the ballot tomorrow.

On no other issue do the candidates stand in such stark contrast.

President Trump has been a strong defender of the right to keep and bear arms, but Joe Biden wants to destroy the Second Amendment.

This may sound like hyperbole, but Biden’s 47-year history on guns leaves little question as to his position on Americans’ fundamental right to self-defense.

A simple examination of the gun policy page on the Biden campaign’s website reveals that there isn’t a single gun control policy that he doesn’t support.

He supports banning and confiscating millions of lawfully possessed firearms.

He wants to destroy the American firearms industry by allowing frivolous litigation.

He wants to make it impossible for many gun owners to buy firearm parts.

He wants to create a punitive tax on gun owners.

And, with only two days left in this election, Biden reiterated his intent to attack law-abiding gun owners if elected.

While many Americans might expect that our courts would intervene to stop such draconian and unconstitutional policies, Biden has a plan for that too. In numerous appearances, Biden and Harris have both refused to reject the idea of packing the United States Supreme Court to ensure that their unconstitutional polices are not struck down.

Make no mistake, a plan to pack the Court is a plan to destroy the Second Amendment. The justices that a potential Biden administration would add to the Court would undoubtedly be hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Biden and Harris have both made their own position on the Second Amendment clear: they don’t believe law-abiding Americans have any right to possess firearms at all.

With less than 48 hours left in this election, now it’s more important than ever for all NRA members to reject these extreme and unconstitutional gun control polices by voting to reelect President Donald J. Trump.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ATF Continues Rogue Assault on Common Pistols, Rule of Law

Rolling the Dice on New Jersey’s Voluntary Surrender Law

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

More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents

In the USA there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.


How is it that so many kids raised on “Harry Potter”, “The Hunger Games”, “Star Wars”, and all the Marvel action figure movies manage to miss a critical point of the stories? The lesson being: If you want to prevail over evil villains, you must have the proper tools to fight back.

Millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people.

It’s absurd to speak about the right of self-defense in theory but then deny people the tools they need to exercise that right.

Without a gun, most Americans are defenseless at the hands of a violent criminal. How many of us have training in hand-to-hand fighting, the physical strength, and the mental resilience to react in a fight-or-flight situation to repel an aggressive predator, especially someone who attacks us first and is armed with a deadly weapon?

Does a gun guarantee your safety? No, but it gives you the ability to defend yourself against an armed, physically superior, or mentally unstable attacker (or all three).

Why in the world would anyone not want to have the means to protect themselves and their families against criminal predators and lunatics? Worse yet, why would anyone actively lobby their government to deprive themselves and every other law-abiding citizen of the most effective means to protect themselves?

The gun grabbers are convinced that if we shut down the National Rifle Association and take away guns from law-abiding gun owners, then bad people will no longer have the tools to do bad things.

A gun is a tool, plain and simple. You should own a gun for the same reason you install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, purchase fire extinguishers, and buckle your seat belt. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Smart people are prepared. Foolish people bring a knife—or nothing at all—to a gunfight.

The gun grabbers say: “There is no evidence that guns save lives.” The truth: If there is no proof that guns save lives, then why does every American law enforcement agency, including the U.S. Secret Service, carry guns? What’s the point of the guns?

There is an old saying in the world of investing: “Do what the smart money does.” This means that when you personally invest, it makes sense to buy and sell the same investments as the “smart money” people—large banks, institutional investors, hedge funds, and investment gurus like Warren Buffett. The idea is that these industry leaders have a better understanding of the marketplace and better access to information than ordinary investors do. And that is usually true.

What do the “smart money” people do when it comes to protecting lives?

Virtually all professionals carry guns—and lots of them. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the streets you walk on all carry guns. The Secret Service protects the president with guns. The federal Department of Homeland Security, with its $44 billion annual budget, issues its own agents handguns and fully automatic rifles (rifles far more powerful than the AR-15s many gun grabbers don’t want you to have to protect yourself).

So, the smart money in the business of protecting lives chooses guns. That’s right. They choose guns!

But if you don’t want to follow the smart money on guns, then let’s turn to the statistical scoreboard. Does civilian gun use help in self-defense against criminals?

The U.S. Department of Justice investigated firearm violence from 1993 through 2011. The report found, “In 2007–2011, about 1 percent of nonfatal violent crime victims used a firearm in self-defense.” Anti-gun zealots attempt to use this statistic to discredit the use of a gun as a viable means of self-defense, and by extension, to discredit gun ownership in general.

But look deeper into the numbers. During that five-year period, the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved. That equals an average of 67,740 defensive gun uses every year. In other words, according to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. (I suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry to be widespread, the number of instances of defensive gun uses would be even higher.)

Is it significant that at least 67,740 individuals use a gun in self-defense each year? Well, in 2016, 37,461 people died in motor vehicle accidents in the United States; in 2015, the number was 35,092 people. Mark Rosekind, administrator of the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), called those road fatalities “an immediate crisis.” If the NHTSA administrator considers it a crisis that approximately 37,000 people are dying annually from car accidents, then saving nearly twice that many people each year through the use of firearms is simply stunning.

In reality, the Department of Justice findings about defensive gun uses are very conservative. A 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council found that:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence… Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008… On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey…”

The most comprehensive study ever conducted about defensive gun use in the United States was a 1995 survey published by criminologist Gary Kleck in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. This study reported between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.

Ultimately, the number of defensive gun uses doesn’t matter much to the anti-gun zealots. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or anywhere in between, they’ll do whatever they can to dismiss defensive gun uses as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the street rather than those folks who use a firearm to remain standing.

I suspect those people still alive would have a different view.

Reprinted from The Daily Signal

Excerpt from“#Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland School Shooting-and How Gun Owners Can Fight Back”.

COLUMN BY

Florida Man Takes His AR-15 To Disney

A 43-year-old Florida resident from Palm Beach was found bringing an AR-15 and a handgun into Disney World Resorts while on vacation with his family, due to fears about Black Lives Matter protesters, according to a Wednesday report from Newsweek.

The man was seen carrying the weapons inside of the Polynesian Village Resort using a large tennis bag. Once noticed, authorities were called and the police arrived, Newsweek wrote. However, this individual was not arrested due to having the needed firearm permits.

Even though the man was not arrested, Disney confiscated the guns because of their strict policy against weapons on their premises.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was notified of this incident by the manager, who stated that the guns were originally noticed by one of the bellmen that carried the tennis bag containing the guns, according to Newsweek.

When asked by police why he brought the guns, the man explained that it was in self-defense in case of any Black Lives Matter protests or riots. There have been no recorded instances of protests on the resort itself according to Newsweek.

COLUMN BY

JOE MILLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Disney Star Brings Gun To Airport

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

VIDEO: Per Capita Gun Ownership in the United States

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

©All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

11 Times the Second Amendment was Attacked and Prevailed

Infographic by MinuteManReview.com.

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


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

©MinuteManReview.com. All rights reserved.

Political Elite Value Their Own Safety, NOT YOURS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: 5 Reasons Why Violent Radicals Feel Empowered

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

You Must Read ‘Insurrection and Violence’ a Citizens Guide

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

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

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

From the Introduction:

(emphasis is mine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurrection and Violence: A Citizens Guide (PDF)

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

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

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

2nd Amendment Support — Will It Grow This Year?

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

Waning Fear Tactics

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

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

Millions of New Gun Owners

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

Unlikely Support?

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

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

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

Where Do Things Go from Here?

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

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

©Jay Chambers. All rights reserved.

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

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

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

WATCH THE WINDER HAVEN 912 VIDEO HERE

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

Hello to All

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

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

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

LeadFeather Gun Shop and Range stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATCH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

BRADLEY DEVLIN

Reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

DAVID KRAYDEN

Ottawa Bureau Chief.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Alleged Kenosha Shooter Charged With First-Degree Murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

PETER HASSON

Editor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

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

CATHOLICS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Natural rights under attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLUMN BY

Paul Brock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Third Time Isn’t Always a Charm

Gun Control End Game

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

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

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