Giffords Gun Group a New Attempt at an Old Divide-and-Conquer Tactic

H/T AmmoLand.

You can put lipstick on a pig and you still have a pig.

You can change the name of an anti-gun group and call them pro-gun but they will still be anti-gun.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “[F]ormer Representative Gabrielle Giffords went to Minnesota to announce the creation of a gun safety advocacy group,” The New York Times publicized approvingly. “The group’s agenda is predictable … Its composition is not: The members are all gun owners.”

“Gun owners join the push for common sense gun laws.” The editorial board of the Minneapolis Star Tribune follows up. “Some are rejecting the NRA and making their voices heard in the state debate — and just in time.”

You see what’s going on here: Gungrabby Gabby et al. are attempting to make people, and especially politicians, believe gun owners support citizen disarmament. Some do. We call them “Fudds.”

The group, deceptively calling itself “Minnesotans Gun Owners for Safety,” is the second state chapter to form so far, the first being in Colorado.  For now, the goals are being presented to appear modest and reasonable, at least to the uninformed” universal background checks” and “extreme risk protection” laws. That the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice has concluded “Effectiveness [of UBCs] depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration,” and that “red flag laws” allow the state to confiscate guns from citizens not even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one, and presume “guilty until proven innocent,” is left unmentioned.

What’s clear from their web page is that they do nothing to promote actual safe practices for guns, but instead call for infringements and call that “safety.” For now, Giffords is enjoying the free publicity from supportive media, but keeping information about membership close to the vest, making it fair to question if they only have a handful of virtue-signaling Democrat “sport shooters,” oblivious to the reality that they’re being exploited as the useful idiots they are.

“It’s possible to prevent gun violence while also supporting the Second Amendment,” they claim, clueless that the way you do that is by not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms with gun bans and insane “gun-free zones.”

It’s not the first time we’ve seen gun-grabbers create what became known as “Astroturf” gun groups. We’ve seen them come and go over the years, and they all share two things in common: Outside special interest funding and a lack of any appreciable grassroots support.

One notable example of such a fraudulent operation was the now-defunct American Hunters and Shooters Association, a group bankrolled by a gun-hater that failed after five years because it couldn’t  attract a critical mass of “sportsmen.” I wrote extensively about them at the time.

They had a list of positions they advocated, including: “AHSA is committed to supporting the right to keep and bear arms, protecting our homes, and preserving our liberties,” and “Hunting and sport shooting are American values AHSA will vigorously defend.”

That was out of one side of their mouths. Out of the other, they claimed: “an overwhelming majority of hunters support proposals like background checks to purchase guns, keeping military style assault weapons off our streets and the elimination of cop killer bullets.” They advocated that “the FBI should be given reasonable access to National Instant Check System (NICS) purchase records” and promoted “legislative efforts to regulate .50 caliber BMG sniper rifles in the same manner as machine guns.”

AHSA’s president John Rosenthal founded “Stop Handgun Violence,” and was as big a gun-grabber as you would find. Their Board of Directors included honchos from Crime Guns Solutions, ex-BATF careerists who supported suing gunmakers. AHSA had ties with a Democrat consulting group, DCS, whose clients included Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

That would be the same Nancy Pelosi who years later would endorse an incremental “slippery slope” for gun grabs. And that’s what Gabby’s gunkapos either fail to realize, or more likely, know full well but are hoping those they’re swindling out of their rights don’t catch on to.

Any hunter who truly believes they can throw EBRs under the bus and their scoped “sniper rifle” won’t be next is a fool. Anyone who believes “progressives” won’t be coming after their “blood sport” when the time is right has not been paying attention.

But don’t take my word for it.  Instead, I’ll ask you to believe a committed anti-gun zealot (and a George Soros protégé at that), Rebecca Peters, who was Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) from 2002 to 2010:

“Peters states that civilians should not have ‘rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example. There needs to be a much greater degree of proportionality in the firepower that’s available.’ Clearly, she said ‘single-shot rifles and shotguns’ are all anyone needs to go hunting, one of the few lawful uses of firearms which she recognized. During the debate, she showed little concern for the Britons who had lost their right to compete with modern rifles and handguns. That’s just too bad, Peters said. ‘So get another hobby,’ she advised.”

For some of us, it’s not a hobby.

By dividing gun owners, those bent on disarmament are trying to conquer all, but in stages, one specialized gun owner interest group at a time. I’m reminded of a story from The Odyssey when the Cyclops Polyphemus promised he’d eat Odysseus last.

He still intended to eat him. The only way out was by banding together and fighting with everything they had, like their lives depended on it.


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Georgia DA’s Comments Raises Serious Gun Rights Questions

H/T Bearing Arms.

These comments by Macon Judicial Circuit District Attorney David Cooke shows the ignorance of the laws of his own state.

If there’s a knock on the door in the wee hours of the morning, especially if I’m not expecting company, I don’t answer without a firearm in my hand. People don’t drop by after midnight without either a damn good reason or nefarious purposes.

I also know that I’m not alone in that. I suspect most of us have a similar policy.

A Georgia citizen was shot by police after the man answered the door with a firearm in his hand [emphasis mine]:

On Friday, a Peach County jury acquitted Lonnie Shaw on all charges.

He was charged with aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, after he allegedly pointed a gun at a Peach County deputy when he knocked on Shaw’s door around 3 a.m. one morning.

The deputy shot Shaw, but Shaw was ultimately charged, even though he claimed he never pointed the gun at the deputy.

The jury didn’t buy the prosecution’s case.

After the not guilty verdict came down, Macon Judicial Circuit District Attorney David Cooke released a statement that seemed to suggest Shaw shouldn’t have had the gun with him when he answered the door.

That statement read, in part, “Mr. Shaw is fortunate to have his freedom, and that his injuries weren’t more severe after he chose to answer the door holding a gun knowing police officers were on the other side.”

However, Georgia law disagrees.

Georgia is a Castle Doctrine state, which means a man has a right to defend his home.

Cooke’s arguments stem from two particular claims. One is that Shaw knew the police was on the other side of the door and the other is that he pointed a gun at police.

Unfortunately for Cooke, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Shaw pointed the gun at anyone. Now, I can’t say definitively because I wasn’t there, but a jury found insufficient evidence to convict Shaw. That suggests that Shaw may well be telling the truth on this.

The other argument that Shaw knew it was the police on the other side is a bit more interesting to me.

You see, the police failed to identify themselves as law enforcement. Cooke’s confidence that Shaw knew it was the police was his belief that Shaw’s wife saw it on a video feed. Shaw, however, testified that he heard nothing of the sort from his wife. All he knew was that there was someone at the door at 3 a.m.

Cooke admits that what Shaw did–minus the claim of pointing a weapon at police–was legal.

“Legally, you can have a weapon in your hand when you encounter the police,” said Cooke. “I don’t recommend it for the safety of yourself, for the safety of the police, or anyone in gunshot range of you.”

But Cooke said regardless of its legality, he thought it was a poor choice. “There are many things that are legal that are nonetheless foolish and can lead to someone else dying,” said Cooke.

Generally, I’d agree.

However, I also think that a knock on the door at 3 a.m. is a far cry from having a gun in your hand when you approach a police officer on the street, especially when officers fail to identify themselves as police at such an ungodly hour.

Cooke’s comments are a problem because it suggests that gun rights may be all fine and well, but the presence of a police officer somehow negates our right to defend our home, even if we don’t realize it’s a police officer at the door.

Frankly, I think the police should be glad that Shaw didn’t listen to Joe Biden’s advice of blasting a shotgun through the door. That would have gone badly for everyone.

 

NY Official Lash Out At Trump Over Pro-NRA Stance

H/T Bearing Arms.

Little Andy Cuomo is upset at the NRA because they highlight the faults of their fell good gun control ideas and how they are a failure.

If there is anything state officials in New York dislike more than the NRA, it’s probably President Donald Trump. The progressive state officials are part of the Democratic Party, and it’s part and parcel for the party to despise everything the president does just because it’s him doing it.

While the state has been a thorn in the NRA’s side, it has stepped it up as the state’s attorney general is calling for the IRS to yank the NRA’s non-profit status.

President Trump has thrown his lot in with the NRA, however, and that infuriates officials in New York.

New York’s governor assailed President Donald Trump on Monday for backing the National Rifle Association in its dispute with the state, accusing the U.S. leader of being afraid of the powerful gun lobby.

Two days after a gunman sprayed a California synagogue with bullets, killing a worshipper, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo urged Trump to do more to stop gun deaths.

In a statement directed at the president, Cuomo said 74,600 Americans had died from gun violence since Trump was elected in November 2016.

“You have done nothing but tweet about it,” Cuomo said. “Unlike you, President Trump, New York is not afraid to stand up to the NRA.”

Oh, that old, tired refrain.

Ever notice how people like Cuomo seem to believe people like President Trump would back gun control if they weren’t afraid? They can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with them about the solution to gun violence.

Then again, this is someone who spouts numbers that include suicides committed with a firearm as if they’re the same as murders. They’re not.

State Attorney General Letitia James on Saturday confirmed her office had issued subpoenas as part of an investigation related to the NRA. The New York Times reported the probe involved the group’s tax-exempt status.

Trump, a Republican, shifted the spotlight on Monday to Cuomo and James, Democratic officials in his home state, after divisions within NRA leadership surfaced.

“The NRA is under siege by Cuomo and the New York State A.G., who are illegally using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization, & others,” Trump wrote on Twitter without providing evidence.

“It must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting,” Trump said of the NRA.

And he’s right. This isn’t a good time to battle one another.

But how was Trump out of line on this?

He wasn’t, at all.

The truth is that Cuomo has set himself in opposition to the president in pretty much every way. If Trump personally discovered a cure for cancer, Cuomo and folks like him would lash out at all the oncology department jobs that would be lost as a result of his discovery. Trump siding with a political ally isn’t exactly unconscionable, especially since it’s not like Cuomo is unbiased in this debate.

Cuomo’s so far up the posterior of groups like Everytown For Gun Safety that he doesn’t need to cast aspersions on anyone being beholden to any organization. He can pretend his motives are pure all he wants, but I’m not buying it. For him, it’s personal.

Response to ‘Gun Control’ Advocates

H/T JPFO.

It sounds so simple. Pass reasonable gun laws and the mass shootings will end. In the twentieth century, more than a hundred million unarmed civilians were murdered by their own government. “…an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Thomas Jefferson. Gun-free zones guarantee unarmed victims.

Everyone in the gun control debate cherry-picks statistics. Some comparing us to small countries use absolute numbers, larger countries percentages, or cultural definitions that make the data fit the opinion.

America is a complex country. Of 196 countries on Earth, only three have larger area, and two have larger populations. China has a mostly homogeneous population: 91 percent Han Chinese. The Chinese have known revolution, genocide, famine and invasion but never liberty. Multi-ethnic Russia, like China, has never known freedom as we understand it but only as having nothing left to lose. Russians have survived revolutions, genocide, invasions, four hundred years of Tsars, 80 years of communist dictatorship and 20 years of kleptocracy. Democratic India — aka Hindustan — 79 percent Hindu, has only known self-government since 1947. The people in most frequently cited gun-safe developed-countries have a history of being obedient subjects.

In Latin American, only Brazil is of comparable size; Latin populations are multi-ethnic. Many have a dominant minority caste of mostly European origin and an evangelized underclass descended from slaves and indigenous people. Most have strict gun laws and lots of crime.

Our population is unusual. While shamelessly slaughtering native peoples, America became a magnet for malcontent immigrants from around the world. Early policies limited immigration to northern Europe, but gradually opened to most countries. Africans were “admitted” prior to 1808.

America has been selectively populated by people who were not content with their status and were willing to take significant risks in the hope of betterment. My ancestors, for example, after lifetimes of oppression, packed up their meager possessions and walked many miles to get on a cattle boat going to a place they had only heard of, hoping it existed. They took the risk. My mother’s brothers were born in Russia, England, steerage class and Philadelphia. They worked, survived the Depression and wars — not that unusual. Family that stayed in Europe probably did not survive the Holocaust.

Natural selection by emigration has evolved Americans reluctant to accept what has always been. Baron Von-Steuben commented that American soldiers were different. They would not follow orders until they were told why. Once they understood why, they followed. We’re people whose ancestors took action. Alexis de Tocqueville noted in 1835 that Americans differed from Europeans in that they would not wait for a bureaucrat to remedy a problem, like a pothole or a troublemaker, but would deal with it directly. General Rommel said he had never seen soldiers more ignorant than Americans or that learned more quickly. Many people imported as indentured labor become entrepreneurs.

If you eliminated all guns, would America be as peaceful as Tibet, as orderly as Japan, or as genocidal as Rwanda, where 70 percent of the Tutsis were slaughtered without firearms? No-one knows, probably somewhere between. On Wikipedia’s list of recent murder rates in 219 countries the US ranks 126th. Not all countries have the same method or criteria for reporting. Some low rates may indicate no objective reporting system. Deaths by police or military may not be counted. What about the “disappeared?” Many countries that outlaw firearms have high criminality, including killing.

Sadly there will always be bullies, and other miscreants who need to be restrained. Sometimes the culture keeps them in check; in some countries it’s law enforcement, or armed responsible citizens. Sometimes the bullies are the government. Tajikistan and Iran have low murder rates — but would you want to live there? Costa Rica has twice our murder rate, yet many Americans retire there. As you read this unarmed civilians are being terrorized by their governments, or other criminals. The Mujahidin say “A man with a gun is a free man.” Be careful what you wish for.

 

CONFIRMED: Off-Duty Border Agent Prevents Synagogue Shooting From Becoming A Massacre

H/T Flag And Cross.

A classic example of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun and saving lives.

AND HE GOT A SHOUT OUT FROM TRUMP!

On Saturday morning, a shooting took place at a San Diego synagogue.

Three people were injured. Unfortunately, one was killed during the Jewish holiday.

Here’s the scoop…

From AP News:

A 19-year-old man opened fire inside a synagogue near San Diego as worshippers celebrated the last day of a major Jewish holiday, killing a woman and wounding three others Saturday, authorities said.

President Donald Trump and other elected officials decried what they called an anti-Semitic attack exactly six months since 11 people were killed at a Pittsburgh synagogue in the deadliest assault on Jews in U.S. history.

The man, whose name was not released, used an AR-type assault weapon to shoot worshippers at Chabad of Poway, San Diego County Sheriff William Gore told reporters.

WATCH:

 

 

It was then learned that an off-duty border patrol agent jumped into action:

BREAKING: NBC San Diego reports that an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent who was in the Poway synagogue opened fire on the suspect and prevented the attack from being significantly worse.

Ryan Saavedra

@RealSaavedra

BREAKING: NBC San Diego reports that an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent who was in the Poway synagogue opened fire on the suspect and prevented the attack from being significantly worse.

6,568 people are talking about this

Enter President Trump with the shout out:

Sincerest THANK YOU to our great Border Patrol Agent who stopped the shooter at the Synagogue in Poway, California. He may have been off duty but his talents for Law Enforcement weren’t!

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Sincerest THANK YOU to our great Border Patrol Agent who stopped the shooter at the Synagogue in Poway, California. He may have been off duty but his talents for Law Enforcement weren’t!

35.5K people are talking about this

Brandon Judd is the president of the National Border Patrol Council.

According to him, the United States has never faced a border crisis quite like the one we’re witnessing today.

And yet, Democrats continue to insist there is no problem at the border.

LIES.

From Daily Wire:

In a radio interview on Tuesday, National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said that U.S. Border Patrol agents are facing the “worst crisis” the agency has ever seen since its formation in 1924.

When asked about the 20,000 migrants that Mexico warned are presently approaching the border, Judd said there is not much Border Patrol can do.

Judd noted, “We ultimately end up letting them go. They cross the border illegally and then we give them what we call a ‘notice to appear,’ and we release them on their own recognizance and what that means is they promise us that they will return for all of their proceedings, but we know that they never do…They know this, that’s why the numbers are so large.

He added, “This is the worst crisis we have ever faced in the history of the Border Patrol, and we’re going back to 1924. In my twenty-one year career as a Border Patrol agent, I’ve never seen it like this.

Judd concluded, “It’s never been like this before this is the worst it’s ever been and if we don’t do something, it’s going to continue to get worse.

President Trump has had it up to here with Mexico when it comes to immigration.

He’s tired of seeing America’s southern neighbor allow migrants from Central America to stroll through Mexico and into the United States.

Obviously, Trump is not alone.

However, 45 has the authority to do something about it.

POTUS is now warning that he may shut down the southern border entirely.

His tweet:

Mexico is doing NOTHING to help stop the flow of illegal immigrants to our Country. They are all talk and no action. Likewise, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have taken our money for years, and do Nothing. The Dems don’t care, such BAD laws. May close the Southern Border!

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Mexico is doing NOTHING to help stop the flow of illegal immigrants to our Country. They are all talk and no action. Likewise, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have taken our money for years, and do Nothing. The Dems don’t care, such BAD laws. May close the Southern Border!

55.3K people are talking about this

WATCH:

 

 

NRA Leadership Meltdown: Cut Out the LaPierre & Ackerman McQueen Cancer

H/T AmmoLand.

A good man in Lt.Colonel Oliver North is stepping down as NRA president.

If this matter isn’t settled soon the NRA will be destroyed from within.

Opinion
Editor’s Note: As reported first on AmmoLand News the NRA leadership is deep in the process of upheaval as the current Board of Directors works to extract the member organization from a disaster of poor management and corrupt vendors.

Wayne LaPierre
Wayne LaPierre

USA – NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre could’ve prevented the Ackerman-McQueen embarrassment/scandal twenty plus years ago…. but, he probably didn’t know any better and most likely thought he was acting in the best interest of gun rights.

Somewhere along the way, he got caught up in the greed and scheming of PR agency of record Ackerman McQueen (AM).

I believe Wayne LaPierre was honestly a naive pawn in the 90’s. I’ve said that Ackerman McQueen has been the tail wagging the dog for the last 20 years many times. At some point, Wayne lost credibility with me and many others… that point was different for different people. For me, is was around 2013/14.

More importantly, at some point, Wayne must have known that he made a mistake and that the relationship he allowed was detrimental to the NRA and our cause.

At that point, and every day after that, he had to face the option of admitting his mistake and cutting off the incredibly lucrative situation that existed. Instead, he and his inner circle have doubled and tripled down over the last handful of years. They have recklessly given more and more responsibility and money to Ackerman McQueen and its NRATV, influencer programs and talking heads (Noir, Dana, Et Al…) and the disaster that was CarryGuard.

Wayne has now become the front man for a dysfunctional, dare I say “corrupt” (at least in the moral sense, if not legally), regime. They enriched themselves and their friends at great expense to the gun community and the cause of gun rights. They stopped lobbying and became professional panderers… fundraisers focused on the most potentially lucrative segment of American Gun Owners. Nothing more.

Now, that the nefarious alliance between Wayne LaPierre & Ackerman McQueen are falling apart, they are at each other’s throats, and Wayne is desperately trying to appear to be on the high ground while AM tries to manipulate the outcome to protect their cash cow.

Last night, Thursday 04/25/2019, Wayne LaPierre was given another opportunity to depart with some dignity and not force the gun community to pay for this ugly divorce that is going to play out in public.

Granted, the NRA would still be saddled with Ack-Mc pulling the strings in the background, be that through current President Oliver North (who currently benefits from a million dollar+ AM contract), or NRA employee and Ackerman McQueen’s pawn Josh Powell or whichever one of their selected board lackeys might appear to be stepping in to “fix things” in Ackerman McQueen’s favor.

Wayne LaPierre, Ackerman-McQueen and all of their high placed front people, executives, hand-picked Board Members, scripted spokespeople, and vendors need to be excised from the fight for our gun rights. They have proven to be unworthy and unable to be the representatives of American Gun Owners.

I was stopped by more NRA Members (including board members) and industry leaders than I could count today on the floor of the 2019 NRA Annual Meeting. Not one of them had a word of criticism in regard to my ever more direct and specific condemnation of the Wayne LaPierre/Ackerman McQueen situation. In fact, many of them thanked me specifically for being willing to say the things that they “can’t”… I reminded them that more and more people in our community are realizing every day that they can and must speak up… especially those of us who have been on the inside.

Join us!

Defund the NRA… divert any NRA dues or donations directly to programs you support to other National or State Pro-2A Organizations. The Second Amendment Foundation is my first suggestion. The faster the profit motive is taken away, the faster we can get past this ugly moment in NRA history. Does the NRA “need money” to fight the anti-gun movement? If so, they have plenty to find in the bloated vendor contracts, and ludicrous salaries, bonuses, and expense accounts their executives have enjoyed for far too long. This will get worse before it gets better, but it will not end well for Wayne LaPierre or those who insist on remaining loyal to their regime.

If you’re still not convinced, keep watching. As they fight with each other, more and more of the real story will come to light. Be wary of the spin in a letter “leaked” to the public today and be skeptical of that which seems to fit a convenient narrative.

Rob Pincus
Executive Vice President, 2AO.org

Wayne LaPierre’s “Leaked” Extortion Letter Complaint NRAAM 2019

 

Gun Control Is Re-Branded Gun Violence

H/T 71Republic.com

Re-Branding a skunk a rose does not make it smell any better.

Re-Branding gun control as gun violence does not make it any less tyrannical.

On January 9th, 2019, Dianne Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons ban of 2019 to the United States Senate. In the authoritarian left’s endless attempt at complete social control, Feinstein has made it her goal to ban guns as small as the Ruger 10/22. Feinstein and her supporters justify this in the name of safety. While one may have sympathy for one’s desire for safety, basic logic refutes this claim. In fact, there is nothing that could make a physically weak person safer than a gun. It must be made clear that all gun laws are infringements. There is no compromise on fundamental rights.

The Case For Complete Gun Rights

The Constitutional Argument

The Second Amendment reads as follows: “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.” Many anti-gun authoritarians make the claim that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militias to have weapons, this is not the case. The Second Amendment is divided into two clauses. The first clause states that a militia is needed for a free state to be secure. The second clause is the WHY of the first clause. If asked why the right of the people to bear arms exists, it is because it is the duty of the people, not the government, to keep themselves safe and free.

The Natural Right to Resist Tyranny

Also, this is not a right that the government bestows. It is a right that exists in nature. The most important words in the Second Amendment are “the” and “people.” “The” demonstrates that this is a right that exists beyond government. Whether the government recognizes it or not, you do have the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not a government institution. Next is “people.” One does not have to be in a militia to have this right. It is a right that all human beings have. The reason this right is so important, however, is because of the idea of a militia.

The Founding Fathers concluded a war against a tyrannical government fewer than 10 years before the ratification of the Second Amendment. The Founders were aware of the dangers of a standing army. To give the state a monopoly on security is to ensure violations of liberty in exchange for “security.” With that in mind, the Founders stated the importance of a militia, a private entity that fights against both foreign and domestic threats; this includes their own government.

The Federalist Papers

Assuming one does not concur with the argumentation above and believe the Second Amendment has a different meaning, one has to look no further than the Federalist Papers to see the truth. In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton explains the importance of the militia:

“By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the state shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

James Madison’s Defense

James Madison elaborated on this in Federalist 46, making it quite explicit that the militia is a private entity that relies on private individuals using their right to bear arms:

“Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

The Moral Argument

The constitutional argument is not enough. Not all people are constitutionalists. Some people would argue that the Constitution is outdated. I disagree, but even if they are right, the right to bear arms is still legitimate. As stated before, governments do not create rights. This includes gun rights. Your rights exist whether the state agrees or not. Regardless of the Constitution, you have the moral right to bear arms.

Owning a gun violates no one’s rights. I could have as many weapons as I please. So long as I did not steal these weapons and I do not use them against an innocent, I am within my rights. A gun is just like any other item. Ownership of the item alone does not cause any harm. In other words, the ownership of a gun (or any weapon for that matter) does not constitute as aggression per se.

Because the ownership of a gun violates no one’s rights, one cannot ethically call for the prohibition of a gun or any other weapon. It is your right to do as you please so long as you do not violate the rights of others. If someone does not want guns on their property, it is their right to ban them on their property alone. If you choose to enter that property with a gun, you are trespassing. This is a violation of people’s rights. Owning a gun does not violate rights. Carrying a gun on property that doesn’t prohibit them doesn’t violate rights. Regardless of the consequences, it is your right to own a gun.

Practical Arguments

Do Guns Kill?

Anyone can kill anyone with a gun. That is one of the purposes of weapons. It is important to realize, however, that guns have saved far more lives than they have ended. Studies show that there are anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses per year in America. The threat of immediate lethal force is a powerful deterrent to crime. In an overwhelming majority of these defensive gun uses, no one died or suffered injuries. The mere presence of a gun is enough to stop a violent crime. People with guns save lives. Anytime someone talks about gun homicides (approximately 35,000 gun deaths occurred in  2017 with 22,274 of these were suicides and many of the homicides being self-defense) and gun injuries (approximately 90,000 gun injuries occurred in 2017), they are lying if they do not talk about how guns save lives.

Is Gun Control Possible?

Even if this bill passes, gun control will still fail. First and foremost, no criminal willing to commit murder or assault would follow a gun prohibition. If this person is willing to murder, what makes you think they will follow gun laws? This speaks to the intentions of Feinstein and other gun grabbers. It is so obvious that criminals don’t follow the law, that it shows that safety isn’t the goal of gun control. The goal is disarming citizens so they cannot defend themselves from an overreaching government. Gun control cannot possibly achieve safety.

Up until recently, gun control could only achieve safety for government agents. Now, even they can’t do that thanks to the work of Defense Distributed. Thanks to the 3D-printed firearm, gun control is finished. No one can enforce this gun ban. It is literally impossible.

What Even is an Assault Weapon?

Since this is a response to Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban, it is important to consider that “assault weapon” is a charismatic term with no meaning. It is a term that invokes fear among the public to vilify gun owners. It is a frame that puts pro-liberty individuals at a disadvantage. Calling a gun an assault weapon is entirely illogical.

For the Full Right to Bear Arms

You have the right to own a weapon. You do not have a right to harm someone with a weapon. This goes far beyond guns. You have the right to own anything so long as you do not violate the rights of others with it. This includes rocket launchers, artillery, explosives, nuclear weapons and all the rest. If there is any restriction on the right to bear arms, there is a precedent to eliminate the right to self-defense. In order to have the right to defend yourself, you must have the right to own whatever gun you want without exception. Repeal all weapon laws and restore liberty.