We Had No Idea These Celebrities Served In The Military

H/T War History OnLine.

I knew some of these celebrities served some I never heard of or knew they served.

When it comes to celebrities who have served in the military at some point in their lives, there are usually two separate types: famous veterans, and veterans who are famous. The former are people who became famous for their military exploits, like “Chesty” Puller, while the latter are people who became famous through other means but served in the military at one point, like Elvis Presley. There are actually many high-profile celebrities who did a stretch in the military.


This is a list of a few celebrities whose military service may surprise you.

MC Hammer

MC Hammer smiles while holding microphone
Photo Credit: Rich Polk/Getty Images for Capitol Music Group

MC Hammer, or Stanley Kirk Burrell, is an American rapper who shot to celebrity status in the 1980s and 1990s with the release of a number of popular songs.

Before his entry into the music scene, Burrell had tried to achieve his dream of becoming a baseball player, but failed when he did not make it through tryouts. After this, he joined the U.S. Navy, where he served for three years. He was a Petty Officer Third Class Aviation Store Keeper at the time of his honorable discharge.

Charles Bronson

Celebrities Charles Bronson and David Carradine relaxing with a cup of coffee, Cannes Film Festival, 1977
Photo Credit: Heinz Browers/United Archives via Getty Images

On top of speaking three different languages, legendary actor Charles Bronson served in the U.S. Air Force during WWII. He entered the service in 1943 as part of the 760th Flexible Gunnery Training Squadron.

In 1945, he served in the 61st Bombardment Squadron which operated from Guam in the Pacific. Here, he flew 25 missions as a B-29 Superfortress tail gunner and even received a Purple Heart for his battle wounds.

Adam Driver

Adam Driver attends the European Premiere of Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Photo Credit: Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images for Disney

Adam Driver is most famous for his role as Kylo Ren in the Star Wars franchise, but he’s less well-known for his time in the U.S. Marine Corps.

He enlisted after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and joined the 1st Marines as a mortar man. After two and a half years in the Marines, he had a mountain biking accident and fractured his sternum just before he and his unit left for Iraq. “To not get to go with that group of people I had been training with was…painful,” Driver said.

Gal Gadot

Photo Credit: Frazer Harrison/Getty Images
Photo Credit: Frazer Harrison/Getty Images

After earning the crown for Miss Israel in 2004, Gal Gadot served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Service in the IDF is mandatory for all Israelis over 18 including women, where they must serve for two to three years.

In the IDF, Gadot taught gymnastics and calisthenics, a position that gave her the ideal skills to perform in action movies: “You give two or three years, and it’s not about you. You give your freedom away. You learn discipline and respect.”

Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris in a scene from 1984's Missing in Action
Chuck Norris in 1984’s Missing in Action. (Photo Credit: Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images)

Probably the least shocking on this list is Chuck Norris. Norris is a legendary American film producer, actor, martial artist, and the only person to have counted to infinity, twice. Prior to his time as a movie star and the subject of internet memes, he served in the U.S. military.

He joined the Air Force in 1958 as an Air Policeman on Osan Air Base in South Korea. Here, he discovered his interest in martial arts, something that would propel him through his career. He was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 1962.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Celebrities Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sally Field pose for photo, Arnold curling his biceps
Photo Credit: Bettmann / Getty Images

Schwarzenegger has a list of achievements that could fill multiple libraries. He is the most famous bodybuilder in history, and once he retired from that sport, he tried his hand in Hollywood, again reaching the top of his field as one of the most famous stars ever — and for a time, the highest-paid. He managed to squeeze in the time to become the governor of California too.

Born in Austria, Schwarzenegger served a year in the Austrian Army in 1965, which was compulsory for all males over 18 at the time. While in the Army, Arnold snuck off his base to participate in the junior Mr. Europe bodybuilding competition.

He won the competition, but upon his return, he was placed in a military prison for a week. “Participating in the competition meant so much to me that I didn’t carefully think through the consequences,” Schwarzenegger said.

Morgan Freeman

Morgan Freeman, one of many celebrities to serve in the military
Photo Credit: Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic

Freeman is well known for his interesting characters, deep voice, and calming persona. After leaving high school in 1955, he turned down a partial drama scholarship and instead chose to join the U.S. Air Force.

In the Air Force, Freeman served as a radar technician: “I took to it immediately,” he said. “I did three years, eight months, and ten days in all, but it took me a year and a half to get disabused of my romantic notions about it.”

Freeman left in 1959 and began his career in drama

Anti-Asian Violence Driving Asian Surge In Buying Guns

H/T Bearing Arms.

For some reason, there’s been an uptick in anti-Asian violence. I know they say it’s supposedly people lashing out about COVID, but that’s absolutely ridiculous. First, not every Asian is Chinese. Second, even if they were, Asian-Americans aren’t responsible for the failures of the Chinese government.

Honestly, the whole thing is just stupid.

Of course, hating an entire ethnicity for any reason is pretty stupid in and of itself, so what did I expect?

Because of this uptick in violence against Asians, a lot of Asian-Americans are doing the smart thing. They’re arming up.

After months of rising anti-Asian hatred, many others like Kim are having a change of heart about firearms. Tired of relying on bystanders for aid that sometimes never comes, more Asian Americans are bucking entrenched cultural perceptions of guns and overcoming language barriers to help fuel a spike in U.S. gun ownership. While there is no official data on firearm purchases by Asian Americans, a survey by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) indicated that Asian Americans bought 42% more firearms and ammunition in the first six months of 2020 than they did in the same timeframe the year before. At Jimmy’s Sportshop in Mineola, N.Y., where guns and pepper spray have been flying off the shelves since the pandemic, gun purchases by Asian buyers have surged 100% due to recent fears of attacks, according to Jimmy Gong and Jay Zeng, the shop’s Chinese-American owners.

“It was a turning point when I saw that people just randomly got attacked based on their race.”

“Everybody got paranoid,” says Gong, 47, adding that some might have good reason to feel that way. Several customers have walked into the business, saying they were targeted in robberies, home invasions and assaults. “Some guys come in with black eyes,” Gong says.

From March 2020 to March 2021, reported hate incidents against Asian Americans nationwide jumped 74% to more than 6,600, according to Stop AAPI Hate, a reporting database created at the beginning of the pandemic. Anti-Asian hate crimes in 16 of America’s largest cities increased 149% in 2020, according to an analysis of official preliminary police data by the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. The sustained violence has shaken Asian-American communities, particularly in New York and California, where the majority of the hate incidents have unfolded and where assaults on the elderly have sent shockwaves across the world. Terror grew on March 16 after a white gunman killed eight people, including six Asian women, at Atlanta-area spas.

“I’ve never seen this level of fear,” says Chris Cheng, 41, a professional sport shooter in San Francisco, who has been fielding numerous questions from relatives, friends and strangers about buying guns.

Now, let’s be clear, the shooting in Atlanta doesn’t appear to be a hate crime. This was the act of a loser who paid for sex at “massage parlors,” couldn’t quite, and lashed out at the parlors. The fact that the victims were Asian was ancillary.

However, anti-Asian violence does appear to be a thing. It’s not surprising that a lot of Asian-Americans are buying guns. While the anti-gunners can claim that the police are there to deal with that, some of these folks are discovering that when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.

If you’re lucky.

So, they’re taking their own safety into their hands. Good for them. I hope they also get some good training so they know what they’re doing with those firearms.

Once they do, I suspect we’ll start to see anti-Asian violence decline significantly as more and more Asian-Americans get guns, learn to use them, and start carrying them.

Guns don’t make people violent. Guns can stop people from being violent, though.


Below The Radar: The PISTOL Act

H/T AmmoLand.

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- A while back, we discussed the difference between the ideal and the achievable. It is a conundrum that many Second Amendment supporters have, whether it is legislation or candidates. Our enemies often have the same problem, so we can take some small comfort.

Just as Dianne Feinstein has introduced a fallback measure to the semiauto ban she really wants, the same approach is being taken with regards to the Biden-Harris regime’s attack on AR-15-type pistols (among others). We have discussed the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act on multiple occasions, and it is the ideal solution to address that attack.


However, as Second Amendment supporters have often learned, the ideal solution isn’t always possible.

In this case, removing short-barreled rifles from the purview of the National Firearms Act may not be possible at the present time. In fact, to be very blunt, seeing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act become law in this Congress is a pipe dream, given who controls the committees and subcommittees.

This is not to say it’s a bad idea – introducing legislation and tracking the cosponsors is a good way to gauge what sort of support there is for efforts to restore our rights. That makes having a fall-back option a good idea. Enter HR 3823, the PISTOL Act.

What this bill, introduced by Representative Bob Good (R-VA), does is to maintain the status quo by stating that firearms like the AR-15 pistols with a stabilizing brace may not be placed under the National Firearms Act. This would end the present threat for the short term – provided that anti-Second Amendment extremists don’t increase their numbers in Congress.

This doesn’t come without trade-offs.

On the one hand, if the PISTOL Act were to be passed into law (say as an amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill), it may make it more difficult to pass the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act in the future. But given the realities that surround passing legislation, even taking a majority in the future won’t make passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act a given.

For one thing, the same filibuster that currently is preventing anti-Second Amendment extremists from packing the court and ramming through extreme legislation will be wielded by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Chris Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-Second Amendment extremists to block pro-Second Amendment legislation. It cuts both ways, and before Second Amendment supporters contemplate nuking the filibuster to pass such improvements, remember that Harry Reid’s use of the “nuclear option” for nominations backfired to the tune of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on SCOTUS.

The fact is, the PISTOL Act may be a suitable incremental measure in lieu of passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and polite urge them to support this legislation. However, it is no substitute for defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

How McDonald’s Beat Its Early Competition and Became an Icon of Fast Food

H/T History.com.

Looking back at the origins of McDonalds.

The future fast-food giant started out as anything but swift, serving up slow-cooked barbecue. How did it become the behemoth it is today?

New Hampshire brothers Richard and Maurice McDonald opened the very first McDonald’s on May 15, 1940, in San Bernardino, California. Their tiny drive-in bore little resemblance to today’s ubiquitous “golden arches,” but it would eventually come to epitomize the fast-food industry, thanks to a pioneering system for food prep. 

The first McDonald’s started slow, but caught on fast

The first McDonald’s—located at the corner of 14th and North E Streets, just off Route 66—started out serving up barbecue slow-cooked for hours in a pit stocked with hickory chips imported from Arkansas. With no indoor seating and just a handful of stools at its exterior counters, the establishment employed female carhops to serve most customers who pulled into its parking lot. The brothers’ business quickly caught on. Sales soon topped $200,000 a year.

Richard "Dick" and Maurice "Mac" McDonald. (Credit: McDonald's)


Richard “Dick” and Maurice “Mac” McDonald.


After World War II, drive-in competition in San Bernardino grew, and the McDonald brothers discovered something surprising about their barbecue restaurant: 80 percent of their sales came from hamburgers. “The more we hammered away at the barbecue business, the more hamburgers we sold,” said Richard McDonald, according to John F. Love’s book McDonald’s: Behind the Arches.

McDonald’s grew thanks to its ‘Speedee Service System’

The brothers closed their doors for three months and overhauled their business as a self-service restaurant where customers placed their orders at the windows. They fired their 20 carhops and ditched their silverware and plates for paper wrappings and cups so that they no longer needed a dishwasher. According to Love, they simplified their menu to just nine items—hamburgers, cheeseburgers, three soft drink flavors in one 12-ounce size, milk, coffee, potato chips and pie.

“Our whole concept was based on speed, lower prices and volume,” Richard McDonald said. Taking a cue from Henry Ford’s assembly-line production of automobiles, the McDonald brothers developed the “Speedee Service System” and mechanized the kitchen of their roadside burger shack. Each of its 12-person crew specialized in specific tasks, and much of the food was preassembled. This allowed McDonald’s to prepare its food quickly—and even ahead of the time—when an order was placed. All hamburgers were served with ketchup, mustard, onions and two pickles, and any customers who wanted food prepared their way would have to wait. 

Original McDonald's


The original McDonald’s restaurant, featuring a ten item menu built around a 15 cent hamburger, in San Bernadino, California, circa 1955.

CSU Archives/Everett

“You make a point of offering a choice and you’re dead,” Richard McDonald told The Chicago Tribune in 1985. “The speed’s gone.”

According to Love, the first customer at the newly reopened McDonald’s was a 9-year-old girl ordering a bag of hamburgers. The retooled restaurant struggled at first, though, and fired carhops heckled the brothers. Once McDonald’s replaced potato chips with french fries and introduced triple-thick milkshakes, however, the business began to take off with families and businessmen drawn by the cheap, 15-cent hamburgers and a low-cost menu

The Real Colonel Sanders

McDonald’s begins to franchise 

With labor costs slashed and revenue growing to $350,000 a year by the early 1950s, the McDonald brothers saw their profits double. They had already established a handful of franchises in California and Arizona by the time a milkshake mixer salesman named Ray Kroc visited San Bernardino in 1954. Kroc couldn’t understand why the McDonalds could possibly need eight of his Multi-Mixers, capable of making 48 milkshakes at once, for just one location until he set eyes on the operation.

Seeing the potential in the business, the salesman quickly became the buyer. Kroc bought the rights to franchise the brothers’ restaurants across the country, and in 1955 he opened his first McDonald’s in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The First McDonald's


Exterior view of the first McDonald’s fast food restaurant with its neon arches illuminated at night, in Des Plaines, Illinois, circa 1955.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The relationship between Kroc and the McDonald brothers quickly grew very contentious as the aggressive salesman and the conservative Yankees had different philosophies about how to run their business. Kroc chafed at the requirement that he receive a registered letter from the McDonalds to make any changes to the retail concept—something the brothers were reluctant to grant. “It was almost as though they were hoping I would fail,” Kroc wrote in his 1977 autobiography, Grinding It Out.

Ray Kroc becomes the owner of the company 

In 1961, Kroc purchased the company from the McDonald brothers for $2.7 million. While the name of the chain may have been McDonald’s, the face of the restaurants quickly became Kroc’s. Plaques with his likeness were mounted on the walls of many franchises with a description of how “his vision, persistence and leadership have guided McDonald’s from one location in Des Plaines, Illinois to the world’s community restaurant.”

Roy Kroc of McDonalds


Fred Turner and Ray Kroc the executive leaders of McDonald’s Corporation looking at blueprints of future restaurant in 1975.


The brothers who lent their name to the business and pioneered the fast-food concept faded to the background. After selling the business, the founders kept their original San Bernardino restaurant, to the annoyance of Kroc, which they renamed “Big M,” with the golden arches on the marquee sharpened to form a giant letter “M.” To gain his revenge, Kroc opened a McDonald’s around the block that eventually drove the brothers out of business.

The original McDonald’s was torn down in the 1970s and later replaced by a nondescript building that housed the San Bernardino Civic Light Opera. In 1998, it became the headquarters of a regional fast-food chain, Juan Pollo Chicken, which operates a small unofficial museum with McDonald’s artifacts inside.

The Extra-Long History of the Hot Dog

H/T History.com.

Hot Dogs either you love them or hate them.

From ancient Roman sausage to Nathan’s Coney Island hot dog, the history of tubular meat may stretch back millennia.

The hot dog, a quintessential American summer grill food, has origins that may go back millennia.

Historians believe its beginnings can be traced to era of the notorious Roman emperor Nero, whose cook, Gaius, may have linked the first sausages. In ancient Rome, it was customary to starve pigs for one week before the slaughter. As the legend goes, Gaius was watching over his kitchen when he realized that one pig had been brought out fully roasted, but somehow not cleaned. 

He stuck a knife into the belly to see if the roast was edible, and out popped the intestines: empty because of the starvation diet, and puffed from the heat. According to legend, Gaius exclaimed, “I have discovered something of great importance!” He stuffed the intestines with ground game meats mixed with spices and wheat—and the sausage was created.

After that, the sausage traveled across Europe, making its way eventually to present-day Germany. The Germans adopted the sausage as their own, creating scores of different versions to be enjoyed with beer and kraut. In fact, two German towns vie to be the original birthplace of the modern hot dog. Frankfurt claims the frankfurter was invented there over 500 years ago, in 1484, eight years before Columbus set sail for America. But the people of Vienna (Wien, in German) say they are the true originators of the “wienerwurst.” 

No matter which town might have originated this particular sausage, it’s generally agreed that German immigrants to New York were the first to sell wieners, from a pushcart, in the 1860s.


Most Iconic Cars in TV History


Two boys greedily eat hot dogs.


Credit: Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images

The man most responsible for popularizing the hot dog in the United States was, however, neither German nor Austrian. His name was Nathan Handwerker, a Jewish immigrant from Poland. In 1915, Handwerker worked at a hot dog stand at Coney Island, where he made a whopping $11 a week slicing buns. The hardworking Handwerker lived entirely on hot dogs and slept on the kitchen floor for a year until he’d saved $300, enough to start a competing stand. He was a savvy businessman: Knowing his former boss charged 10 cents apiece for dogs, Handwerker charged only 5 cents. Customers flocked to him, his competitor went out of business, and Nathan’s Famous was born.

By the Depression, Nathan’s hot dogs were known throughout the United States. In fact, they were so prized as delicious, all-American eats that they were even served to royalty. When President Franklin Roosevelt hosted King George VI of England and his queen at a picnic in Hyde Park in 1939, first lady Eleanor decided to make grilled hot dogs part of the menu, a choice that received much press coverage at the time. 

One month before the picnic, Mrs. Roosevelt mentioned the hubbub in her syndicated newspaper column. “So many people are worried that the dignity of our county will be imperiled by inviting royalty to a picnic, particularly a hot dog picnic!” Ultimately, the hot dogs proved to be a great hit: The king enjoyed them so much he asked for seconds.


Major League 2A Foul Means Olbermann Should Be Benched

H/T AmmoLand.

Come to think of it Olbermann is a poor excuse for a sports caster and even more of an  poor excuse for a human being.


U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Ride the pine. Relegated to the minors. Missed the cut. All of the above. Former sportscaster turned failed progressive political mouthpiece Keith Olbermann took a swing at what the Second Amendment says and means and whiffed so badly he created a wind advisory.


Before last week’s Major League Baseball All-Star game, police arrested four individuals who brought firearms into a Denver hotel nearby, suspecting the possibility of a tragedy during the game. Olbermann, no stranger to moronic Twitter takes, pounced and posted a video to his Twitter account saying with no evidence an All-Star game tragedy was averted. He attempted to mock gun owners and their supporters by posing the question, “Consider again the holy Second Amendment to the Constitution and ask yourself this question. Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment have the word ‘own’ in it? Why does it not say the right to own guns or a synonym for own?”

The FBI subsequently said there was no All-Star game plot. Olbermann should stick to sports, but that roster’s already full.

Step Into the Swing

It could be said for all the flaws contained in Olbermann’s rant, he’s not wrong. The word “own” doesn’t appear in the Second Amendment. The words “keep and bear arms” are there, however, enshrining the inalienable right of Americans to possess firearms – no ifs, ands or buts about it. Olbermann doesn’t have to look far to find the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing and upholding that right.

2008’s landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, removes any doubt. The decision explains the Second Amendment enshrines a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms. This right is pre-existing, and yes, in order to keep something, it must be owned.

Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards caught sight of Olbermann’s tweet and had a field day. “The FBI said that there is no evidence of a mass shooting plot connected to these arrests, and Scalia addressed the inane argument about ‘keep’ vs. ‘own’ in the Heller decision. Starts about halfway down on page 7. Go try to save a dog instead of peddling this nonsense.”

Double Play

Edwards wasn’t the only one calling foul on Olbermann. The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski went to bat against Olbermann’s logic. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” doesn’t refer to people owning guns. Instead, it refers to the regulation of state militias? This is the argument you bellowed out with such confidence and condescension?”

Bearing Arms’ Tom Knighton did so too, observing, “This is the dumbest argument I’ve heard since people tried to say the Second Amendment only applied to muskets.”

Chris Loesch, Dana Loesch’s husband, and a Second Amendment advocate chimed in. “This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever listened to. I mean it’s utterly moronic.” There were plenty of additional responses stuffing Olbermann in his locker.

Call Up Relief

Olbermann might fit, but recent polling shows Olbermann is out in left field. Since Olbmann’s a statistics guy, here are some interesting numbers. Gallup shows support among Americans for more gun control has dropped by at least 10 points to the lowest levels in years. That includes more than five percentage points lower among self-described Democrats. Washington Post/ABC News polling shows similar trends.

These surveys align with what’s going on now. Americans in historic numbers have purchased (that’s “own” for Olbermann if he’s reading this) firearms in record numbers over the past 18 months, and are continuing.

Talking heads like Olbermann can keep barking from the cheap seats about firearms and their flawed and utterly discredited understanding of the Second Amendment. If Olbermann were to ever take a minute to stop adoring himself on Twitter, he’d see that the game changed and the bases aren’t the only thing that’s loaded.

Americans won’t stand for it and may send them back to the minors.  Maybe Olbermann should be sacked for this egregious error. Wait, I’m wildly mixing my sports metaphors. How about Twitter just censor him for spreading misinformation?


U.S. Lawshield Educates South Carolinians On New Open Carry Law

H/T AmmoLand.

Educating people about the new law.


Houston, Texas – -(AmmoLand.com)- U.S. LawShield, industry leader and America’s largest provider of Legal Defense for Self-Defense coverage, assists South Carolina gun owners by offering multiple “Must-Know Law for Gun Owners 101” workshops across the state in July, August, and September of 2021. Presented by U.S. LawShield’s Independent Program Attorneys, the sessions cover the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s new “Open Carry with Training” legislation requirements. The new law, which takes effect August 16, 2021, allows South Carolinians with training and concealed weapons permits to carry their firearms openly.


“Gun owners are eager to satisfy the new stipulations for open carry in South Carolina,” said U.S. LawShield CEO P.J. Hermosa, “and we stand at the ready to help them exercise their Second Amendment rights according to the conditions of the recently passed legislation. Our classes answer all their legal questions, including reciprocity and more.

“Everyone is welcome to attend these educational sessions, regardless of membership in U.S. LawShield,” said Hermosa. “Our commitment extends beyond protecting our members when they need it to our broader mission of arming and educating firearms owners across the country with the information they need to keep up with new legislation,” he added. The events are led by U.S. LawShield Independent Program Attorneys, firearms instructors, members of law enforcement, and experienced professionals in all areas of self-defense.

“Must-Know Law for Gun Owners 101”

U.S. LawShield Independent Program Attorneys Scott Joye and Dan Farnsworth will walk attendees of “Must-Know Law for Gun Owners 101” through the particulars required for gun owners in South Carolina to open carry. “These workshops arm folks with the vital knowledge they need to keep them safe and on the right side of the law,” said Hermosa. “And every session features a dedicated question and answer session ensuring people leave with the knowledge and confidence they need to understand the law and how to defend themselves legally.”

Topics include:

  • Legalities of the Castle Doctrine
  • When the use of deadly force is legally justified
  • Where one can legally carry
  • What to expect when law enforcement arrives

As an added value, each attendee receives a free copy of the U.S. LawShield publication When Can I Legally Shoot? The Law of Deadly Force, valued at $19.95. “This useful booklet explains the law of deadly force in South Carolina in easy-to-understand language and helps gun owners understand when they’re legally allowed to pull the trigger,” Hermosa said.

Register for “Must-Know Law for Gun Owners 101”

According to Hermosa, “Seats for the sessions are limited and filling up fast, so register soon to save your spot.” U.S. LawShield has partner facilities across the state of South Carolina, seven of which will feature “Must-Know Law for Gun Owners 101.”

Register for any of the sessions by visiting: www.uslawshield.com/seminar.

July 22, 2021
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Filipino Community Center
North Charleston, SC 29406
Hosted by: Inferno Tactical

July 27, 2021
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
War Tac Defense & Tactical Solutions
Columbia, SC 29223

July 29, 2021
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
South Carolina Gun School
Easley, SC 29642

August 10, 2021
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Holiday Inn Express & Suites
Simpsonville, SC 29681
Hosted by: The Gun Shop and Indoor Range

August 31, 2021
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
The Gun Store & Indoor Range
Conway, SC 29527

September 21, 2021
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Breakfast Optimist Club of Spartanburg
Spartanburg, SC 29302
Hosted by: Sharp Shot Training School

September 23, 2021
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Gignilliat Community Center
Seneca, SC 29678
Hosted by: Sure Shot Firearms

Will The Biden Regime Call Second Amendment Activism Misinformation?

H/T AmmoLand.

Anything Joe Pee Pads Biden will try to discredit Second Amendment Activism will not surprise me.

White House/Silicon Valley – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the course of White House press briefings, Second Amendment supporters got good news, but they also found themselves facing a much greater short-term danger. The good news is that Jen Psaki probably handed enough evidence to prove that Silicon Valley has been acting as a proxy for the federal government to pretty much ensure former President Trump will win his court case.

The bad news is that Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has upped the ante over the short term by claiming that “misinformation” about COVID-19 is “an imminent and insidious threat to our nation’s health.” Of course, Murthy has a prescription that includes “suggestions” for social media companies.

Do you know what else has been described as a “public health” issue? The Second Amendment.

Remember how the Centers for Disease Control were pushing gun control? It was so bad Congress wisely pulled the plug on funding for that pseudo-science, much to the chagrin and anger of anti-Second Amendment extremists like Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), who want to take us back to the bad old days of politicized medicine.

(As an aside, the CDC’s blatant anti-Second Amendment propaganda may be a big reason why they aren’t entirely trusted with regards to COVID and vaccines. Let this be a lesson to Second Amendment supporters who, in this media environment must take a higher level of care about how we come across to our fellow Americans, like avoiding the use of dubious quotes.)

The big question is, of course, whether Murthy would declare activism for our Second Amendment rights as “misinformation” if CDC goes back into the business of being propagandists for gun control. We can’t put that past them, especially given how Silicon Valley censorship has affected things already.

Think about how CDC has suppressed information about the use of firearms for self-defense in the past. Or remember how Arthur Kellerman claimed that a firearm was 43 times more likely to be used to kill you than to be used for self-defense? Right now, if Murthy calls efforts to point out Kellerman’s BS “misinformation,” you can bet that Silicon Valley will be censoring in moments.

As we now know, Kellerman got that figure by only counting those homicides that were ruled self-defense. But as Massad Ayoob – or any other competent self-defense instructor – would quickly tell you, you don’t have to kill an assailant to have successfully defended yourself. Don’t take my word for it: The NRA’s Armed Citizen over the years has examples of armed bad guys fleeing or surrendering when they realize there is an armed good guy, with no shots fired by the good guy at all.

Second Amendment supporters need to urge their Representative and Senators to block any CDC effort to attack the First and Second Amendments in the name of “public health.” In addition, they need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels at the ballot box as soon as possible.

Columnist: If Guns Went Away, Criminals Would Use Something Else

H/T Bearing Arms.

If every gun was to magically disappear criminals would find something else to commit murder and mayhem with.

Good guys like to use guns for protecting themselves and others for one very simple reason. It’s just the best tool out there for stopping a bad person from doing a bad thing to a good person.

However, bad guys like guns because they’re the best way to do bad things to good people.

The thing is, if guns went away, bad guys would still do bad things to good people. They’d just pick up another tool

That’s something columnist Diane Dimond addressed in her latest column.

The White House is launching a new assault to bring down the crime rate. As you’ve likely heard, crime, especially homicide, has exploded in many major hotspot cities over the past year or so. President Joe Biden says he knows what to do, he’s been at this for years and he’s got a plan ready to launch that includes several definitive steps.

“The first of those that work is stemming the flow of firearms used to commit violent crimes,” Biden told a group of reporters as he was about to go into a closed-door meeting with visiting police chiefs and city officials. “It includes cracking down and holding rogue gun dealers accountable for violating federal law.”

The new plan includes five new federal strike forces, agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE), which will embed with local police departments in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Their mission is to disrupt gun trafficking coming into those major cities.

The cold hard fact is this: There are some 470 million guns in civilian hands in the United States right now, with new ones — including untraceable, homemade ghost guns — being manufactured every day. Legal, registered gun sales are at record highs. If by some stretch of the imagination we could magically do away with all the guns belonging to criminals, what do you think might happen? Do you believe hardcore lawbreakers would simply shrug, walk away from their criminal life and go get a nine-to-five job? No. They would find other weapons with which to inflict their terror on innocent citizens. Knives, Molotov cocktails, scissors, an ax perhaps. Criminals aren’t just violent; they are deviously creative.

That’s precisely what would happen.

After all, we’ve seen it happen. In the UK, they put a ban on guns and eventually got rid of enough of them that criminals had a hard time obtaining them. Violent crime, however, didn’t end. Instead, it increased because criminals knew their targets didn’t have guns. Rather than firearms, though, they used knives.

Now, the UK is trying to heavily restrict knives as much as they can get away with it, even talking about taking the points off.

Even that won’t stop the bad guys. They’ll just move over to something like hammers, next.

Only a fool would believe that anything different would happen in the US. The only alternative I’d accept is someone pointing out how it’s virtually impossible to make criminal guns vanish so the whole thing is a waste of time discussing because, well, that’s also true.

Criminals aren’t going to just roll over because all the guns are gone.

What will happen, though, is that good, decent, law-abiding people won’t be armed anymore and will be at the mercy of those criminals like never before. While previously, they could have drawn their own weapons and protected themselves, that’s not likely to happen after a gun ban.

Of course, I’ve long wondered if that wasn’t really the point.

Ohio Woman Arrested Over Gun After SHE Called Police

H/T Bearing Arms.

This is one more reason I like living in Indiana you are not required by law to report you have a License To Carry A Handgun and are armed.

Duty to inform” is a legal obligation on a gun owner to tell police they’re armed during any kind of contact with law enforcement. Some people, especially police officers, like this because it keeps surprises to a minimum. Some gun carriers do it even without a duty to inform because they don’t want officers getting punchy if they see a firearm.

Obviously, there are some who want this to be the law of the land.

I’m not one of them. Frankly, I don’t tell the police I’m a registered voter, or that I exercise my right to free speech on a daily basis, so I don’t see any reason to tell them I’m exercising my right to keep and bear arms. I just also make sure they have no reason to suspect I’m reaching for a firearm, either.

Frankly, I do that whether I’m armed or not.

Part of why I oppose duty to inform laws is that people in stressful situations may well forget to tell the police things. That includes that they’re armed for whatever reason. That seems to have landed one Ohio woman in handcuffs after she called the police herself.

In the fight to change the law regarding the duty to promptly notify a law enforcement officer that one is legally exercising their right to bear arms in the State of Ohio, Buckeye Firearms Association is often asked what harm is the current law actually causing.

Another such example comes to us this week from the city of Warren, where a woman who called police for help in removing a wanted man from her home was charged for having forgotten to notify the officer that she had a concealed handgun license (CHL) and had her firearm in her purse.

From WMFJ (NBC Youngstown):

A Warren woman who called the police to remove a man from her home was cited for failing to tell officers she had a gun in her purse.

Police say they seized the conceal carry permit and handgun from Ashley Heiskell after she had called officers to remove a man who was at her Commerce Street townhouse early Tuesday.

Officers arrested the man after confirming Heiskell’s claim that he is wanted on a warrant out of Cuyahoga County.

One of the officers also asked dispatchers about the 33-year-old woman and discovered Heiskell had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

When the officer asked her about the permit, she showed him a 9mm handgun she carried in her purse.

Asked why she didn’t tell officers that she had the gun as required under Ohio law and taught in CCW classes, Heiskell said she didn’t know she had to do that and didn’t remember much about the classes, according to the police report.

Police issued a summons for Heiskell to appear in Warren Municipal Court to answer a charge of failure to notify. The officer also took Heiskell’s gun and the permit.

This woman was literally charged because she had armed herself when a wanted man was in her home and neglected to mention that fact to the responding officers.

Now, I’m sorry, nothing about this is right and this right here is why I refuse to support any duty to inform laws. While I believe it’s no one’s business whether I’m carrying or not, I also don’t want to see someone get jammed up because they either didn’t know they had to tell police or they simply forgot under the stress of the situation.

Look, I have a lot of respect for the police. However, we all need to remember that while some officers are very pro-Second Amendment, others aren’t. They take an “us versus them” approach to society and will find anything to charge you with that they can. These aren’t the majority of officers, but there are enough of them that you have to be careful.

Removing duty to inform laws simply makes life easier for everyone.