Fact Check: Ghost Guns … There’s No Such Thing!

H/T AmmoLand.

Ghost Guns a term made up by the drive-by media to scare the uninformed.


USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- As more blue counties and states across the country try desperately to get every gun registered under a “universal background check” system, the term “ghost gun” is being leveraged to its full potential.


The new fake narrative focuses on the success of sheriff departments and other law enforcement taking these so-called “ghost guns” off the streets.

You’ll notice they don’t talk about confiscating weapons from violent felons. If they did, some folks might start asking why those felons were let out of jail. So, never mind that. Their job is to keep you focused on the gun.

Ghost Gun Hoax

The term “ghost gun” was created by Anti-Gunners to scare people who don’t know any better into believing, that these spooky firearms are more deadly than others while re-directing your focus from their every-so-popular, police department de-funding efforts. The term “ghost gun” is nothing more than a nomenclature to describe a firearm that is untraceable but the term brings with it, a new, bone-chilling level of fright. Well, at least that’s what they are hoping for. The two-part plan is to introduce a new type of firearm for the emotionally challenged to fear while encouraging everyone to believe that untraceable firearms are unacceptable. In their pursuit to garner support for more gun restrictions, nationwide firearm registries, and red flag confiscations; the political left is willing to push “ghost guns” to anyone who will listen.

Fear has always been the most important tool for the gun-grabbers. Diane Feinstein capitalized on irrational gun-fear by pushing the term “assault weapon” into the public forum, Obama and Hillary tried using the “weapons of war” narrative, and they all love using the fake term “gun-violence.” Now we are starting to see “ghost gun” take center stage. What’s scarier than ghosts? Be careful, they might possess you or lurk around your house in the middle of the night while everyone is sleeping. Anti-gun legislators, their lapdog media, and well-funded lobbyists will use anything that works to keep their fearful followers on the edge of their seats.

Along with the fearsome will conjure up in response to the new scare-tactic, the idea that all guns “should be” registered with the federal government is implied in this new campaign.

This is the Brady Campaign‘s agenda-correct description of so-called, “ghost guns.”

There are no federal restrictions on who can buy ghost gun kits or parts;
(As it should be.)

There are no federal limitations on how many ghost gun kits or parts someone can buy;
(This statement implies that there should be.)

Ghost gun kits and parts are relatively cheap;
(That’s great. Finally, affordable parts!)

Ghost gun kits and parts are intentionally marketed as unregulated and untraceable to appeal to those who want to avoid background checks and/or are gun traffickers.
(False. They’re not intentionally marketed to appeal to those who want to avoid background checks. This may be a “Brady Projection.” Maybe it’s nobody’s damn business and I just want to make my own gun.

When the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified, there were no serial numbers, background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, or gun-free zones.

People didn’t register their guns with the government? As a matter of fact; the less the government knew, the better. The idea of gun ownership was that it was none of the government’s business. That narrative has been carefully shaped and crafted to represent the exact opposite. It is now the opinion of some that all gun ownership should be regulated and overseen by a federal agency and that all guns should be registered with the government. This is the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted. This rhetoric from the Brady campaign is designed to presuppose that guns “should” be registered. They want people to build an opinion off of a false premise.

Here’s the plan. Scare the Hell out of people with the term “ghost gun,” imply that a gun registry is normal procedure and encourage voters to support the people who promise to keep them safe. Of course, that would be the Democrats. Don’t forget, in order to compile that nationwide gun registry, “universal background checks” must become law. So once they know where all the guns are, what’s next? This is where Red Flag Laws come in. Is it a coincidence that Red Flag Laws have been at the top of the gun-grabbers priority list? In order to confiscate guns, they need to know where they are, right? But before they can do that, they need to scare your neighbors into supporting that registry. Say hello to the “ghost gun.” It’s just another scary term designed to instill fear in people in the push to disarm real Americans.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege.
It’s your right.

Dan Wos
Good Gun Bad Guy
The Loaded Mic

Biden Ad Attacking Trump Plan That Doesn’t Exist Receives 4 Pinocchios in Washington Post Fact Check

H/T Western Journal.

What effect will this have on Joe Pee Pads Biden’s campaign?

The truth is that the Biden campaign lied, according to The Washington Post, which awarded the campaign its maximum rating for untruthfulness over a recent ad.

The ad puts a highly unfavorable spin on President Donald Trump’s executive order that created a payroll tax holiday.

The order did not end the payroll tax, which funds Social Security, but deferred it. Trump’s order was accompanied by comments from the president saying that he would like to see the tax eliminated in the future and that if re-elected, he would seek to make that happen.

The Biden ad claimed: “The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration just released an analysis of Trump’s planned cuts to Social Security. Under Trump’s plan, Social Security would become permanently depleted by the middle of calendar year 2023.

“If Trump gets his way, Social Security benefits will run out in just three years from now. Don’t let it happen. Joe Biden will protect Social Security.”

Well, not quite.

As The Post noted, Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of Social Security, was asked by four Democratic senators to respond to “hypothetical legislation” that would mandate a “zero percent” payroll tax.

The senators wanted to know how long it would take for Social Security to run out of funds if no money flowed into its coffers.

the trust fund reserves would be essentially unaffected by the legislation.”

What this means, according to The Post, is that “Democrats ginned up a letter from the chief actuary to describe a plan that does not currently exist.”

“Trump certainly suggested he might eliminate the payroll tax, but then he pulled back from that idea and reiterated that any diversion for a payroll tax holiday would come out of general funds,” reporter Glenn Kessler wrote.

The ad implies that there is a reality that simply does not exist, he said.

“The ad refers to ‘Trump’s planned cuts.’ But there are no planned cuts,” Kessler wrote.

“The ad cites ‘Trump’s plan.’ But the actuary’s letter says it is referring only to a hypothetical plan sketched out by Democrats.”

The Post pointed out that the Biden campaign ad misrepresents Goss’ letter.

“The ad asserts that if ‘Trump gets his way,’ benefits will run out. But actually the letter says if transfers are made from general funds, no benefits would run out. That, at least at the moment, is what Trump says he would do.

“That adds up to Four Pinocchios,” Kessler wrote. On its ratings scale, no whopper is a bigger lie than one that receives four Pinocchios

The White House and Trump campaign pushed back against the ad.

“The president was referring to making forgiveness of the temporary payroll tax deferral permanent,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Matthews told The Post. “President Trump wants to fully fund and protect Social Security as he has stated numerous times.”

Trump campaign spokesman Zach Parkinson added in a statement: “Joe Biden and his campaign’s scare tactics are a sad attempt to distract from his own record. President Trump and Administration officials have repeatedly said he wants to make the payroll tax cut deferral permanent to help America’s workers.

“The President has been clear: his payroll tax cut will have ‘zero impact’ on Social Security or the seniors that rely on the program. He supports transferring money from the government’s general coffers, protecting the program’s Trust Fund,” Parkinson added.

“America’s seniors can rest assured that President Trump will always protect Social Security, unlike Joe Biden who bragged in the 1990s about his efforts to ‘freeze’ benefits.”

Fact Check, Donald Trump Warns the Left Will, ‘Confiscate Your Guns’

H/T Breitbart.

President Trump is using Joe Pee Pads Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris’s own words against them.

CLAIM: During his Thursday night acceptance speech, President Donald Trump stressed that the left will “confiscate your guns” if given power in the November elections.

VERDICT: True. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have both voiced support for a government-mandated buyback of AR-15s and other commonly-owned semi automatic rifles.

Trump said, “If the left gains power, they will demolish the suburbs, confiscate your guns, and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment and other Constitutional freedoms.”

His claim that they “will confiscate your guns” is born out by statements both Biden and Harris made during the campaigns they ran in hopes of winning the Democrat presidential primary cycle.

On August 7, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Biden voiced support for mandatory buybacks of AR-15s and other commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles during the first Democrat debate of the primary cycle.

Biden said, “Folks, look, and I would buy back [assault] weapons. We already started talking about that. We tried to get it done. I think it can be done. And it should be demanded that we do it. And that’s a good expenditure of money.” [Emphasis added]

RealClearPolitics reported a CNN interview with Biden in which Anderson Cooper asked him about gun owners who were afraid a Biden administration would take away their guns:

CNN: So, to gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns?

BIDEN: Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon.  The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka. You can’t have a flame thrower.

In early September 2019, Breitbart News reported Harris’s support for government-mandated buybacks of AR-15 rifles. On September 6, 2019, Bloomberg reported that Harris had not worked out all the details on how the buyback would work, yet she said, “I think it’s a good idea.”

Her support of a mandatory buyback came weeks after then-presidential hopeful Robert “Beto” O’Rourke pushed for “a mandatory buyback of every assault weapon in our country.”

A government-mandated buyback is not a voluntary buyback, but a government-enforced buyback. It is the kind of buyback VOX reports that Australia implemented over the course of 1996-1997.


Fact Check: The Founding Fathers *DID* Know About Repeating Rifles

H/T AmmoLand.

This is one historical fact the anti-gun left conveniently forgets.


Philadelphia, PA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Many people try to claim that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of repeating rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. However, the story of Joseph Belton and his correspondence with the Continental Congress proves otherwise.

If you’d prefer to watch and learn, the video I made below details the entire event. If you’d prefer to read about it, the story unfolds below.

Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Philadelphia, claimed to have devised a new form of flintlock musket that was capable of firing as many as sixteen consecutive shots in as little as twenty seconds. After the gun had fired its consecutive loads, it could then be reloaded individually like all other traditional firearms of that era. He first wrote to Congress about his new invention on April 11, 1777, letting them know he was available to demonstrate his invention to them at any time.

Intrigued by Belton’s claim, Congress ordered 100 examples of his “new improved gun.” They authorized him to oversee the construction of new guns, or alteration of existing guns, so that they were capable of discharging eight rounds with one loading and that he “receive a reasonable compensation for his trouble, and be allowed all just and necessary expences [sic].”

On May 7, Belton replied to Congress with his terms regarding what he felt to be “reasonable compensation.” In order to determine his fee, Belton wanted to arm 100 soldiers with his invention and demonstrate the capabilities of such armed men to a panel of four military officers – two of Congress’ choosing and two of Belton’s choosing. The officers would then determine how many men they felt Belton’s 100 men were equivalent to when carrying a standard firearm. (For example, 100 specially-armed men were equivalent to 200 regularly-armed men, or more.)

For his ability to double the manpower, Belton felt that he was entitled to £1,000 for every 100 men he armed from a given state. Belton justified his price by claiming that a state could not raise, equip, and clothe 100 men for £1,000, making his 100 men armed as though they were 200 men a bargain. (For reference, £1,000 in 1777 is the equivalent of £150,000 today. If all 13 states outfitted 100 men, Belton would receive £13,000 – or £1,900,000 today.)

Joseph Belton
Belton felt his rate of compensation was “vastly reasonable.” Congress disagreed.

Belton argued that arming 3,000 men or more with his invention created enumerable advantages beyond description on the battlefield, making his compensation “vastly reasonable.” As such, his terms were nonnegotiable. If Congress refused or attempted to haggle in any way, he would withdraw his offer completely. (For those doing the math, 3,000 men armed with Belton’s repeater would mean that he’d collect more than £4,500,000 in today’s currency.)

Belton must have realized immediately that his demands were more than outlandish because the next day, on May 8, he wrote a letter to John Hancock lowering his fee to £500 for doubling, £1,500 for tripling, £2,000 for quadrupling, and so forth.

On May 15, Congress read Belton’s letter to the body. They quickly dismissed it because of his “extraordinary allowance.” (No one saw that coming, right?) Congress considered the matter dropped and didn’t reply to Belton, likely assuming he would take their lack of reply as a refusal.

They assumed wrong.

Having heard nothing from Congress for more than a month, Belton wrote them again on Saturday, June 14. This time, he claimed he could accurately hit targets with his rifle out to 100 yards, and possibly even out to 200 yards. He offered to demonstrate this feat to Congress on the following Monday at 10:00am in the State House Yard.

The same day that Belton wrote this letter, Congress was involved with something that would prove to be far more important. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design for a national flag.

With Congress engaged in more pressing matters, Belton’s letter went unanswered for almost a month when he decided to write again.

His letter from July 10 was not nearly as polite as his previous ones. This time, he tried to rile members of the body by claiming that Great Britain regularly pays £500 for lesser services. If, he mused, the “little Island” could afford such payments, surely this “extensive continent” could do the same.

Rittenhouse, Arnold, and Gates all signed a letter endorsing Belton.

He also enclosed a letter signed by General Horatio Gates, Major General Benedict Arnold (before he became a turncoat), well-known scientist David Rittenhouse, and others, all claiming that his invention would be of “great Service, in the Defense of lives, Redoubts, Ships &c, & even in the Field,” and that they felt Belton was entitled to “a hansome [sic] reward from the Publick [sic].”

Having received the letter immediately, Congress resolved that same day to refer Belton’s petition to the Board of War, made up of five delegates. Among these five delegates were future 2nd President of the United States, John Adams; and Benjamin Harrison V, father and great-grandfather of the 9th and 23rd Presidents of the United States, respectively.

Nine days later on July 19, Congress got word from the Board of War. Much to Belton’s dismay, they dismissed his petition altogether. At this point, he must have finally gotten the hint that Congress wasn’t going to authorize such exorbitant payment for his services. The historic record turns up no more correspondence between Belton and Congress.

Despite the fact that Joseph Belton failed to convince the Continental Congress to outfit colonial soldiers with his repeating rifle, it’s still a very important story. Belton invented his gun in 1777. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until 1791. That means our Founding Fathers not only knew about repeating rifles 14 years before the creation of the Second Amendment, but that they thought highly enough of the idea to pursue further development and implementation of such technology. The fact that it proved to be cost-prohibitive is moot, as it certainly could have been done if Congress and Belton had agreed upon the definition of “reasonable compensation.”

So, the next time someone tells you the Second Amendment was never designed to protect the right to own a repeating rifle, or that it was only meant to apply to flintlock firearms, sit them down and tell them the story of Joseph Belton and his repeating flintlock musket.

About Logan MeteshLogan Metesh

Logan Metesh is a historian with a focus on firearms history and development. He runs High Caliber History LLC and has more than a decade of experience working for the Smithsonian Institution, the National Park Service, and the NRA Museums. His ability to present history and research in an engaging manner has made him a sought after consultant, writer, and museum professional. The ease with which he can recall obscure historical facts and figures makes him very good at Jeopardy!, but exceptionally bad at geometry.