Brett Kavanaugh’s View on the Second Amendment

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

I think Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will be a great asset for the Second Amendment and gun owners.

Trump’s Supreme Court pick says ‘text, history, and tradition’ key to determining the constitutionality of gun laws.

Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to replace retiring justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, has ruled on a number of gun-related cases in his time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including a written opinion that comprehensively explains his approach to determining whether or not gun laws are constitutional.

Kavanaugh was involved at several points in the years-long fight over Washington, D.C., gun carry laws. In September 2015, he dissented in the appeals court’s decision to stay a lower court ruling striking down the city’s restrictive gun-carry law. In Grace v. D.C., he indicated that he believed the city’s law should not be reinstated while the case continued to play out in federal court. In September 2017, Kavanaugh was among the judges who rejected a request for a full panel hearing in the same case, leaving the decision striking down the restrictive “good reason” clause in place.

Before those cases, Kavanaugh was involved in another gun-rights case, in which he wrote a detailed account of how he views the landmark Heller and MacDonald precedents affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In that 2011 case, Dick Heller again challenged D.C.’s gun laws. This time he argued that the city’s ban on many semiautomatic firearms, including the popular AR-15 rifle, and their restrictive firearm registration system were unconstitutional. The majority ruled against him.

Kavanaugh, however, dissented from the majority and agreed with Heller.

“In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller,” he wrote. “In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semiautomatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic rifles, like semiautomatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses.”

“Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semiautomatic rifles are. It follows from Heller‘s protection of semiautomatic handguns that semiautomatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)”

“D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, ‘longstanding’ gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns—as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory recordkeeping by gun sellers—has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history- and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.”

After analyzing the city’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and its registration requirements, Kavanaugh turned his focus to explaining what standard he believes the Supreme Court’s Heller and MacDonald precedents demand. He argued at length that the High Court requires a “text, history, and tradition” test rather than any sort of analysis that balances government interests against constitutional rights.

“In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny,” he wrote. “To be sure, the Court never said something as succinct as ‘Courts should not apply strict or intermediate scrutiny but should instead look to text, history, and tradition to define the scope of the right and assess gun bans and regulations.’ But that is the clear message I take away from the Court’s holdings and reasoning in the two cases.”

He addressed a number of critiques of the test in his opinion including what to do about regulation of firearms that did not exist when the Second Amendment was first adopted. He argued that constitutional principles do not change because technology advances. Instead, he said, those same principles should continue to be applied to gun laws like they are to other areas of law affected by the passage of time.

“When legislatures seek to address new weapons that have not traditionally existed or to impose new gun regulations because of conditions that have not traditionally existed, there obviously will not be a history or tradition of banning such weapons or imposing such regulations,” Kavanaugh wrote. “That does not mean the Second Amendment does not apply to those weapons or in those circumstances. Nor does it mean that the government is powerless to address those new weapons or modern circumstances. Rather, in such cases, the proper interpretive approach is to reason by analogy from history and tradition.

“The Constitution is an enduring document, and its principles were designed to, and do, apply to modern conditions and developments. The constitutional principles do not change (absent amendment), but the relevant principles must be faithfully applied not only to circumstances as they existed in 1787, 1791, and 1868, for example, but also to modern situations that were unknown to the Constitution’s Framers. To be sure, applying constitutional principles to novel modern conditions can be difficult and leave close questions at the margins. But that is hardly unique to the Second Amendment. It is an essential component of judicial decision making under our enduring Constitution.”

Kavanaugh said the “text, history, and tradition” test is not necessarily the most stringent possible test for gun laws and may actually allow longstanding gun laws to remain in tact where other tests may strike them down.”

“The Court in Heller affirmatively approved a slew of gun laws—machine-gun bans, concealed-carry laws, felon-in-possession laws, and the like—without analyzing them under strict scrutiny,” he wrote “The Court approved them based on a history- and tradition-based test, not strict scrutiny. Indeed, these laws might not have passed muster under a strict scrutiny analysis.”

While Kavanaugh’s opinion in the 2011 Heller case is detailed on the matter of how the Supreme Court’s gun-rights precedent ought to be applied and has, in large part, earned him the endorsement of the leading gun-rights groups, it isn’t a guarantee that Kavanaugh will bring the same point of view to the High Court where he will sometimes be setting precedents instead of always abiding by them. In his opinion, Kavanaugh notes that “our task as a lower court here is narrow and constrained by precedent.” He went on to say that, as a longtime resident of D.C., he wasn’t convinced that gun registration and regulation are necessarily bad policy.

“This is a case where emotions run high on both sides of the policy issue because of the vital public safety interests at stake,” he said. “As one who was born here, grew up in this community in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and has lived and worked in this area almost all of his life, I am acutely aware of the gun, drug, and gang violence that has plagued all of us. As a citizen, I certainly share the goal of Police Chief Cathy Lanier to reduce and hopefully eliminate the senseless violence that has persisted for too long and harmed so many. And I greatly respect the motivation behind the D.C. gun laws at issue in this case. So, my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semiautomatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind.”

Kavanaugh said, however, that fidelity to the Constitution and the highest court in the land are more important than how he feels about any given policy.

“But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy,” Kavanaugh said.


Congress Renews Push to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Group

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The Muslim Brotherhood should be designated as a Terrorist group because that is what they are.

Rep. DeSantis: ‘The Muslim Brotherhood is a malevolent force, and American policy needs to reflect this truth’

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are renewing a years-long push to designate the international Muslim Brotherhood organization as a terrorist organization due to its support for terror organizations that threaten U.S. security interests across the globe, according to conversations with U.S. officials spearheading the effort.

The congressional effort to target the Muslim Brotherhood will kick off early Wednesday, when lawmakers on the House’s Subcommittee on National Security gather for a hearing to “examine the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates pose to the United States and its interests and how to most effectively counter it, including potential next steps for U.S. policy,” according to the committee.

The hearing is expected to set the stage for Congress to follow through on efforts that begun in 2015to convince the Obama administration to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group following its violent, and eventually failed, takeover in Egypt.

The State Department has opposed formal designation of the Brotherhood for some time due to efforts by the Obama administration to make diplomatic overtures to the group, particularly during its coup in Egypt. Although the Trump administration has designated various offshoots of the Brotherhood as global terror groups, the organization as a whole has escaped U.S. scrutiny.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), the National Security Subcommittee’s chair, told the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. policy has failed to address the Brotherhood’s radical behavior and support for terror groups. Multiple countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, have already designated the Brotherhood as a terror group.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a malevolent force, and American policy needs to reflect this truth,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon. “Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization is overdue.”

Key U.S. allies such as Turkey and Qatar continue to work alongside the Muslim Brotherhood, sparking concern among lawmakers such as DeSantis who view these countries as working at a crossroads with the Trump administration as it works to eradicate radical forces in the Middle East.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist organization that has generated a network of affiliates in over 70 countries,” the House committee notes on its website promoting the upcoming hearing.

In addition to hearing from Muslim Brotherhood experts on the group’s ongoing support for radical terror groups, lawmakers participating in the hearing will keep a close eye on exposing the roles that both Qatar and Turkey play in bolstering the group’s radical ideology, according to those briefed on the hearing.

While the Trump administration, as early as January 2017, indicated that it was considering a terror designation for the entire Muslim Brotherhood, little action has been taken, motivating Congress to lead the charge.

Past efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood failed to gain traction during the Obama administration due to its explicit policy of working with the group in Egypt, a policy that was met with much protest in the region.

U.S. Muslim advocacy organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have galvanized their supporters to oppose a Muslim Brotherhood designation.

In early 2017, groups affiliated with CAIR and its supporters launched a series of attacks on Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who, at the time, was pushing his own effort to formally designate the Brotherhood as a terror entity.

Video: For Those Who Don’t Believe Guns Save Lives … Watch This!

H/T Clash Daily.

This story could have had a very sad ending if the employee had not been armed.

Just one day after her boss gave her the green light to carry at work, it saved her bacon.

A disgruntled customer went on a rampage, stormed into the kitchen, and started throwing hands.

The first kitchen worker was hurt pretty badly. She had a concussion.

The second worker was ready for him and stopped him in his tracks.

The footage was obtained by Milwaukee Alderman Bob Donovan, who released it to the public on Friday in an attempt to identify the suspect.

‘It is sickening to see this unsuspecting worker assaulted so brutally by this individual,’ he said, adding that the victim now faced thousands of dollars worth of medical bills.

‘One can only imagine what might have occurred if that employee had not pulled out her weapon. Sadly, she quit her job shortly afterward,’ he added.

‘This is just sickening and I am tired of this c*** happening in my district and in too many other neighborhoods across Milwaukee.’
Source: DailyMail

The attack happened at a Milwaukee restaurant, George Webb, and only one-day earlier her boss had given her the OK to carry at her workplace since her paperwork was in order.

The customer (who, to nobody’s surprise was ‘known to police’) was upset with his service and decided the “right” way to handle his disappointment was to throw his weight around and attack a couple of apparently defenseless women. Emphasis on the ‘apparently’.

Turns out that large aggressive men unwilling to listen to reason or common sense will listen to a woman with a gun.

He stood down and walked away.

And that’s the point. That’s why we support the Second Amendment right.

Guns allow little people to stand up to big people.

Guns turn defenseless people into empowered people.

If someone would explain that to Emma Gonzalez, that would be greatly appreciated.

Home Invader Shot At North Little Rock Home

H/T AmmoLand.

 Arkansas homeowner stopped the invasion of his home with a firearm.

USA –-( Arkansas Online reports 02-20-18 in North Little Rock, Arkansas, local police said a suspected intruder was shot Tuesday morning around 11 a.m. while breaking into a home.

The 34-year-old resident was watching a movie with a female guest when heard an individual kicking his front door.

The resident grabbed his handgun and told the intruder, “Stop kicking the door. I’ve got a gun.” The warning was ineffective as the kicking continued until the door was forced open according to police reports.

The report goes on to say the homeowner fired two shots from the kitchen as the intruder, later identified as 37-year-old Maumelle resident, entered the living room.

The intruder then stumbled back out of the home and fell into a pile of leaves in front of the house.

When officers and paramedics arrived shortly after he was transported to Baptist Health Medical Center-North Little Rock, where he received treatment for a gunshot wound to the torso, police said.


The resident gave verbal warnings, used cover across the room, didn’t drag the intruder back into the house and called 911 right away.

Clearly self-defense, they don’t get better than this!

Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

Bob Irwin, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

Bob is retired after 30 years of ownership of The Gun Store & Indoor Range in Las Vegas. He continues his 2A issues show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” on YouTube and on KLEY 1230 AM, The Nevada Talk Network on Saturdays at 9 a.m.

This is 8 Nevada stations. Streamed world wide. As a firearm instructor of Concealed Firearm Applicants, Armed Security Officer and Law Enforcement Academies over his career, Bob appears frequently as an expert witness for firearm & use of force cases in Federal, State, and local courts.


Child molester beaten to death by 19-year-old inmate in California prison, officials say

H/T Fox News.

   Andres Ayon made Agustin Duran a good child molester by killing his sorry ass.

Agustin Duran, 66, was pronounced dead a day after he was beaten to death in Wasco State Prison. (Megan’s Law)

A convicted child molester was beaten to death by a 19-year-old inmate in a California prison less than a week after the 66-year-old began serving his time at the facility, officials announced Wednesday.

Agustin Duran was pronounced dead just before 5 p.m. Sunday, a day after inmate Andres Ayon pummeled the 66-year-old at Wasco State Prison, located about 30 miles northwest of Bakersfield, prison officials said in a news release.

wasco state prison

The attack occurred at Waso State Prison in California.  (Google Maps)

Ayon allegedly began punching Duran in the face and upper torso until correctional officers intervened and used a pepper spray grenade on the 19-year-old. Duran was airlifted to the hospital where he later died.

Duran had only been at the prison for five days before he was beaten to death. He was serving a 55-year sentence for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14.

Ayon was in prison serving a 6-year sentence for second-degree robbery and use of a deadly weapon. He has been at the prison since June 22.

Ayon was treated for minor injuries and placed in the facility’s administrative segregation unit. Wasco State Prison officials said it will be investigating the incident as a homicide.

Caught on Camera: Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Liberalism is built on a mountain of lies and if they tell the truth about their true agenda they will never be elected.

Upstate Dem a gun grabber at heart: ‘I said they should be banned and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that’

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York’s 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won’t say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

“When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?’ And I said they should be banned,” Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. “And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that.”

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

“And she said, ‘Well, I want you to’ and I said, ‘I won’t win,'” Cobb said. “I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'”

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb’s campaign website features a page on “Addressing Gun Violence” detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb’s comments are disqualifying.

“Tedra Cobb knows that she’s wildly out of touch with the district, so she’s desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters,” Martin said. “First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she’s being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.”

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

“I was meeting with some young people who were speaking about their very real fear of gun violence in their schools,” Cobb told the paper. “I told them the truth — that the inability of our political system to talk about issues and practical solutions without politics getting in the way is why Washington has not made any progress to protect them. Even on things we agree on — like universal background checks and prohibiting the mentally ill from getting a firearm.”

Cobb said she does not support an assault weapons ban despite what she said on the video.

“There are a lot of common-sense things we need to do right now to make our kids safer without getting stuck on a stalemate issue like an Assault Weapons B an (sic) that would not pass this Congress and would not get signed by this president,” the statement said. “It’s a moot point, and voters in the North Country know that. Let’s talk about the things where there is common ground, where we can make progress right now. Our kids deserve no less.”

UPDATE July 11, 3:10 P.M.: This post has been updated to include a statement the Cobb campaign made to another news outlet in response to this story.

One Could Argue That Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg Totally Screwed Over Liberals On SCOTUS

H/T Town Hall.

About now liberals are hoping that Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg will live forever.

I hope Ruth Buzzi(Bader) Ginsburg retires from the Supreme Court so her spot could be filled by judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg totally screw liberals on the Supreme Court? Yeah, she might have, or at the very least placed the liberal wing in a very shaky position. Conservatives are in a solid position to direct the course of the court for the next generation with a solid 5-4 majority. Given Ginsburg’s age, 85, and the notion that Trump winning a second term is not insane, it’s possible that another vacancy could open up. The 60-vote threshold on SCOTUS nominees is no more.

Now, Sens. Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME) could give their own party heartburn. Barring a defection from at least one red state Democrat, if both defect, the game is up. Yet, the odds still favor confirmation for the still-to-be-named nominee. The strategic failure of Ginsburg to not retire under Obama was touched upon by law professor Jonathan Turley last year (via The Hill):

Maya Sen@maya_sen

Unpopular opinion 1: I get liberal prayers for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health, but, guys, she really can’t help you as part of a 4-5 minority.

Unpopular opinion 2: Her choice not to strategically retire under Obama made her a cool & hip lady but was actually very bad for liberals.

At 84, “running out of gas” was obviously not a reference to the danger of creeping fatigue. For Ginsburg, of course, it was always a difficult decision. After all, she remains intellectually active and fully engaged on the Court. Her opinions continue to be powerful and probing treatments of the law. The precedent at risk is in no small degree precedent of her making. Yet, many justices time their retirements with an eye to who would appoint their replacements. Some have admitted that they try to engineer an appointment by one party or the other to preserve the balance of the Court.

Had Ginsburg retired early in the second Obama term, it is likely that her seat would have been filled even by a Republican-controlled Senate. Any resistance would likely have been further reduced with the second vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. While Scalia’s seat may have stayed open, it is likely that Ginsburg’s would have been filled by an Obama nominee.

Now Ginsburg’s gamble on Hillary Clinton being elected could have sweeping impact on precedent that she played a major role in creating. With the elimination of the filibuster, the next nominee is hardly likely to be nuanced. Without the filibuster, Republicans have no excuse to compromise on a moderate. There is nothing standing in the way to appointing someone who is openly opposed to cases like Roe v. Wade. There is no plausible deniability based on the need to get to 60. In other words, the market has changed and the stock went bust.

Had Ginsburg left the liberal wing could have at least maintained its position with a vibrant and much younger centrist who could have avoided the lurch to the right under President Trump. That being said, maybe a gift basket is in order. Looking at the 2020 Democratic field, it’s full of candidates who resonate with the liberal northeast, but not much elsewhere. It’s very rigid concerning geographical appeal. With a booming economy, record low unemployment, the highest marks in consumer and small business confidence in years, and three million jobs created—Trump has a solid record to run on, especially with conservatives, who not only got tax reform and cuts to regulations from his White House, but also two Supreme Court justices. It’s very likely—at this point—that Trump wins a second term and could add another justice to the court with Ginsburg’s departure. Talk about a liberal meltdown: that’s a 6-3 conservative majority. If you want to see a thermonuclear explosion of outrage from the Left, when RBG leaves SCOTUS, Trump should nominate Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy.

Border Patrol Catches Another MS-13 Member Claiming ‘Asylum,’ Illegal Aliens With Child Sex Abuse Records

H/T Town Hall.

These arrests of the MS-13 thugs and these sexual predators are very valid reasons to separate children from illegals crossing America’s borders.

Customs and Border Protection have arrested a slew of illegal aliens, including MS-13 gang members claiming ‘asylum’ and men with records of sexual abuse against children. They were detained after attempting to enter the United States illegally. Many have been previously deported.

Here’s the list of recent activity from the Rio Grand Valley (bolding is mine):

On Thursday, July 5, Weslaco Border Patrol agents arrested a Honduran national near Edinburg, Texas. It was later discovered the man had a previous conviction for sexual assault of a child and had been ordered removed from the United States.

Simultaneously near Hidalgo, Texas, Weslaco agents apprehended a Salvadoran national who made a claim of fear to being deported back to his native country. During processing, it was confirmed the man is an member of the MS-13 gang.

On Friday, agents arrested a Mexican man near Rio Grande City, Texas as he attempted to enter the United States illegally. The man’s criminal history revealed a previous conviction for having sex with a minor and was sentenced to 100 days confinement and 36 months’ probation. Furthermore, the man was previously removed from the United States.

Saturday, Kingsville agents arrested a Salvadoran national near Sarita, Texas. Record checks confirmed  that he is an MS-13 gang member.

On Sunday, Weslaco agents arrested a Mexican man near Progreso, Texas, whose record checks revealed he was linked to the Zetas cartel and spent three years in prison for his involvement in the murder of a Mexican national.

Later that day, agents encountered a group of 15 illegal aliens attempting to circumvent the checkpoint south of Sarita, Texas. During processing, it was discovered that one of the subjects, a Mexican national, is a member of the 18th street gang.

Current U.S. law does not allow ICE to immediately deport illegal alien gang members unless they are from Mexico or Canada.

Dear Gun Control Advocates: Please, Stop Treating Female Gun Owners Like Victims

H/T Town Hall.

The anti-gun crowd will never admit that a gun can be used to stop a crime or save a life.

The anti-gun crowd will always treant female gun owners as victims unable to defend themselves against rape or other violence.

Over the weekend I had an interesting exchange on Twitter with a gun control advocate who volunteers for Moms Demand Action. It got me thinking, very in-depth, about how anti-gunners are quick to label gun owners, especially female gun owners, like myself.

Here’s how the conversation went:

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

works. Laws matter.



Replying to @Everytown

A 2017 study of Connecticut’s Red Flag Law found the law has already averted an estimated 72 suicides. Red Flag laws empower family members and law enforcement to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns when they pose a danger to self or others. 

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

Evidence > Fear + Ignorance 

Rebutting the ‘Criminals don’t follow laws’ and ‘Gun Control only hurts law-abiding citizens’…

Myth “The bad guys, the criminals, don’t follow laws and restricting more of America’s freedoms when it comes to self-defense isn’t the answer.” – Sarah Palin “…The challenge with gun laws is that …

Anti-gunners would rather us be unarmed and take the chances of becoming the victim of a crime. After all, what better way to defend yourself than with a whistle? Surely someone will hear your cries (or at least you can hope)! It didn’t work for me but maybe you’ll have better luck than I did.

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

That you were raped is horrifying; that you think a gun would have prevented it shows the twisted rhetoric of finding yet another way to blame women for their rape. You are not at fault, and not having a gun probably saved your life. 

Guns Are Bad for Women

The NRA says guns can prevent rape. This is not true.

Translation: You don’t agree with gun control therefore you’re confused and haven’t come to your senses. Don’t worry. It’ll happen in time. Here! Drink some of the anti-gun Kool-Aid by reading these articles.

Beth Baumann@eb454

A gun would have made me more safe when I was raped in college. But please, tell me how I’m safer being unarmed.

Beth Baumann@eb454

Also, sharing someone’s OpEd about why they think guns are dangerous for women doesn’t make it fact.

Aren’t lefties supposed to be all about empowering women? Or is that only selective empowerment?

The Left claims to be in favor of empowering women, of building them up, yet they would rather us be unarmed, and defenseless. You know why? Because empowered women don’t vote for Liberals. They vote for Conservatives. Leaving women defenseless creates a perpetual cycle of need and reliance on others, specifically the government, to protect them.

Remember: Liberals are all about choice, as long as it’s about abortion, not self-defense.

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

Empowered women don’t manipulate other women to live in fear. I gave you two articles, with citations. Those are just a drop in the bucket. Gun sense isn’t “right” or “left”: it’s based in FACTS and EVIDENCE and supported by police, veterans, teachers, students, and gun owners.

Apparently wanting to have a say in what happens to me and my family causes me to manipulate other women? No. It’s not manipulation. It’s called being realistic. The reality is we live in a dangerous world where people want to hurt one another. We live in a world where not everyone is good. There are people out there who want to cause others harm. Instead of hoping and praying (again) that I’m not the victim of a violent crime, I choose to be proactive. I choose to carry a firearm to defend myself.

The difference between pro-gun and anti-gun women is this: pro-gun women want every woman to have every option on the table when it comes to self-defense. Anti-gun women want women to be helpless, defenseless even. They’re so gung-ho on firearms that they would rather see a woman get raped than to have her use a gun for self-defense.

But remember, women like me are anti-woman (except we can’t be labeled that because we’re females ourselves).

Beth Baumann@eb454

I’m empowered to make my own decisions on how to defend myself and my family. I choose to do that with a firearm. Just because I don’t agree with your conclusions doesn’t mean that I’m weak or trying to manipulate other women. It means I won’t ever be a victim again.

Instead of viewing pro-gun women as women who “haven’t come to their senses” or as someone who is “uneducated” or “uninformed” it would mean a hell of a lot more to us if women on the other side would respect our decisions, even if they disagree with us. It would mean more to survivors, like myself, if they took the time to listen to what we’ve been through and why we choose to arm ourselves instead of dismissing us.

At the end of the day, the only person who can protect myself is me. Not my husband. Not the police. And not the government. I take that responsibility seriously. And so should you.