H/T Guns In The News.

Thank you Governor Brad Little(R-ID)for signing a law to protect gun ranges in Idaho.

Governor Brad Little has signed the Shooting Range Protection Act, Senate Bill 1055, into law.  The signing of this legislation is a huge victory for Idaho gun owners, sportsmen, and shooting ranges.  The measure went into effect on March 19th.

Senate Bill 1055 clarifies and enhances the protections on sport shooting ranges under Idaho law.  By adding new definitions, SB 1055 will allow ranges to more easily expand and remain open against frivolous lawsuits attempting to shut them down.

Thank you to Governor Brad Little for signing SB 1055 into law, as well as those legislators who supported this legislation through the whole process.  Also, thank you to NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted their lawmakers in support of this important measure.​

Article by NRA-ILA

Guns, Knives and Accelerant Control? Why the Weapons Are Not Responsible for the Crimes


You do not need to have a gun or knife to commit mass murder.


By Beth Alcazar. August 27th, 2019 USCCA
Article Source

An attacker screaming “Drop dead!” and “DIE!” recently murdered 34 people and injured three dozen more in a brutal attack. This terrible tragedy occurred only a few months after another rampage in which a man attacked 17 elementary school children and two adults — leaving two dead. It followed yet another mass killing in which a deranged individual wrote a letter claiming that “all disabled should cease to exist.” He then went on to murder 19 people and wound 25 more, the youngest 19 years old and the oldest 70, at a facility for the mentally disabled.

The mainstream, anti-gun bandwagon would claim that these are just three recent examples showing the need for “common-sense laws” and stricter gun control. Surely red flag laws and background checks could have played a significant part in thwarting these evil men. If assault weapons were out of the picture entirely and wait lists were enacted, these horrific attacks could have been prevented … and 55 innocent lives would have been saved.

The Location

Oh, but wait. Here’s something you should know: These mass murders did not take place in the USA. These terrible atrocities occurred in Japan, a country considered one of the world’s safest. According to a United Nations’ global study on homicide, fewer than one person is murdered for every 100,000 in the population of Japan (compared to 4.8 in the United States and 445.7 for Belize). Business Insider reported that Japan’s murder rate has been declining since the 1950s. It is often attributed by some researchers to “a greater chance of detection (according to police data, 98 percent of homicide cases are solved), the rejection of violence after the Second World War, the growth of affluence without the accompanying concentrations of poverty common in many highly developed countries and the stigma of arrest for any crime in Japanese society.”

The Weapon

There’s more. These horrible mass murders were not carried out with firearms. The 34 dead and 30+ injured? The weapon was fire. The 41-year-old attacker from this sickening crime went to an animation studio in Kyoto, Japan, doused the place in flammable liquid and set it ablaze. The New York Times reported that within minutes, the studio “was a scene of horror: a man hanging from a ledge as flames licked the walls; a pile of bodies on a staircase leading to the roof; a barefoot woman so badly burned that all a bystander could do was spray her with water and wait for help.” A BBC Report called the attack “one of Japan’s worst mass casualty incidents since World War II.”

The 19 injured and two dead? The weapons of choice in this terrifying scene were knives. A 51-year-old man wielding blades in both hands stabbed 16 schoolgirls and two parents as they were waiting for the school bus one early morning in Kawasaki near Tokyo. According to witnesses, the suspect slowly approached the children and shouted, “I’m gonna kill you.” Police retrieved two knives at the scene and found two more in a backpack believed to belong to the suspect.

And the 19 dead and 25 wounded at the facility for the disabled? That was also a violent act carried out by an attacker with knives. The 26-year-old murderer claimed he had the ability to kill 470 disabled people in what he called “a revolution.” He targeted innocent lives at his former place of employment, going on a 40-minute killing spree in which he slashed the patients’ throats, claiming them a “mercy killing.”

The Response

You may be wondering why you didn’t hear about these terrible mass casualty events. Well, the U.S. media did not pay much attention. They couldn’t point to these examples as reasons to demand strict accelerant-control laws or blame knife violence. In these cases, they couldn’t demonize guns. And sadly, those 55 innocent lives went mostly unnoticed.

James Alan Fox, Northeastern University professor of criminology, law and public policy (who is NOT pro-gun, by the way), has commented that while the tragedies themselves are atrocious, what should not be overlooked is that “whatever the reason, the lesser attention given to mass killings that do not invoke guns is disrespectful to the victims whose lives are tragically cut short. Is the crime any less serious if there were no gunshots? Are the victims any less dead? In fact, victims of burns, suffocation or stabbing often suffer a much slower and more painful death than gunshot victims.

“It is surely fruitless to assess the relative severity of mass killings on the basis of weaponry. Our sense of outrage and concern for the victims should be the same whether they died from a firearm or fire.”

About Beth Alcazar

Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.

Man Gets 33 Months For Stealing 55 Firearms

H/T Bearing Arms.

The thief only 33 months for stealing 55 handguns is a sweetheart deal.

If there’s one legitimate gun problem in this country, it’s stolen firearms.

Regardless of who they stole them from, gun thieves turn around and sell firearms to some of the worst people imaginable. They don’t care about what comes next, unlike legitimate gun dealers who will refuse a sale to anyone who appears suspicious. They’re arming other criminals, and they know it.

When a thief robs a gun store, he often has access to all the firearms he can carry.

Recently, a man was sentenced for a theft where he took off with 55 firearms.

A man was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment after admitting to stealing 55 handguns from a popular outdoor adventure sporting goods store along the Northern California coast.

According to a plea agreement before a U.S. Senior Court judge, the man admitted he cut the power lines to disable the store alarm in the early morning hours of Aug. 8, 2015.

“He then climbed on the roof and broke through a skylight to gain access to the firearms.  He broke into a cabinet containing firearms and then carried 55 handguns out of the store in a backpack, forcing open a roll up door to exit the store.”

The man stored the guns for an undisclosed amount of time before he began selling the firearms.

The stolen firearms have been recovered in places as far as Oregon and Georgia. At least one was used in a murder.

For all that, he got less than three years in prison.

Folks, this is how criminals get guns. They buy them on the black market. We know this for a fact. They get them from people who either stole them directly or obtained them from thieves for later sale. Stolen guns are the tools generally used for crimes throughout this country.

I’m sorry, but I think 33 months amounts to a slap on the damn wrist. I’m guessing we’re looking at $22,000 worth of merchandise at least, and I’m pretty sure he’d have gotten the same sentence if he stole a couple of laptops.

Of course, laptops aren’t used to rob, murder, or otherwise terrorize the population as a whole. They’re not sold to people who commit acts that are then used to justify disarming the rest of us.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think this scumbag deserves a whole lot more than 33 months.

“Oh, but he cut a deal.”

Yeah, he did. He cut a deal. Unless he gave up some serious heavyweights in the criminal world, I honestly don’t care.

We’re fighting an uphill battle to preserve our Second Amendment rights, desperately trying to block every single anti-gun measure being crammed down someone’s throat, and it’s been justified by the acts of the type of people this jackwagon provides guns to. There are probably people pushing for anti-gun measures right now because of acts carried out with the guns this moron stole.

Yes, I’m taking it as a personal affront. I take every gun theft as a personal affront.

I want the book thrown at these people. They deserve it.

Booker Back With More Gun Control-This Time Disguised As Suicide Prevention

H/T The Lid.

Cory Spartacus Booker sees his campaign for president sinking faster than the Titanic and he is desperate to stay afloat.

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Cory Booker, the New Jersey Democrat who wants to be president, has expanded his recently-announced gun control plan by adding “suicide prevention” to the mix, prompting a leading national gun rights advocate to suggest his scheme faces the same hurdles as he does in his quest for the Oval Office.

“Booker has about as much chance of passing his gun control agenda as he does of being elected president.,” quipped Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Last week, Booker announced a sweeping gun control package. This week, he’s peddling a suicide prevention program that has, at its centerpiece, the implementation of a federal licensing program.

“Cory’s proposal for gun licenses would make it more difficult for those at risk of suicide to purchase a firearm,” says his latest pitch. “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to own a gun. Securing a federal license would require a background check, firearm safety training, and an in-person appointment — steps that combine to keep individuals in a moment of acute crisis from acting on their suicidality. Cory’s license plan builds on what works: according to a recent academic study, Connecticut found a 15.4 percent reduction in firearm suicide rates after passing its gun permit law, while Missouri saw a 16.1 percent increase in firearm suicide rate after it repealed its state licensing law.”

Once again, Booker is likening a constitutionally-protected right with a government-regulated privilege.”

He also wants to require “safe storage” of firearms and to “incentivize extreme risk laws.” However, such “red flag” laws are coming under increased scrutiny because critics argue that they suspend due process and consider someone guilty of a crime until they prove their innocence.

Booker may think he’s gaining some traction by championing gun control, but he’s up against California Congressman Eric Swalwell in that arena.

Booker is making some hay with his threat to “Bring the fight to the NRA.” On that subject, he may need to take a number and stand in line, considering the tidal wave of bad publicity the National Rifle Association is receiving lately. There’s been the release of several finance-related documents raising questions about expenditures by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. And now there is a report in the Florida Bulldog about former NRA President Marion Hammer, the veteran Florida-based gun rights advocate who has been a legislative battler in Tallahassee for more than two decades as head of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has launched an investigation and issued subpoenas, according to CNN.

Some observers believe the controversy could severely weaken the organization heading into the 2020 election cycle, which will be crucial for American gun owners and their Second Amendment rights. President Donald Trump has been appointing scores of conservative judges to fill vacancies on the lower federal courts, and he has successfully named two conservative associate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

NRA Director Lt. Col. Alan West (ret.), the former congressman from Florida, has called upon LaPierre to resign, asserting, “There is a cabal of cronyism operating within the NRA, and that exists within the Board of Directors.”

NRA officers fired back, according to the Washington Free Beacon. In a joint statement, NRA President Carolyn Meadows, First Vice President Charles Cotton and Second Vice President Lt. Col. Willes Lee (ret.) had this to say: “It is unfortunate that certain board members have resorted to making false and misleading public statements about proceedings of the NRA board of directors. As those board members know, we are not at liberty to discuss the particulars of the board of directors meeting that occurred in executive session on April 29. However, every board member was afforded the opportunity to speak openly about any issues of concern to them. To suggest otherwise is dishonorable.”

As things stand, Booker’s gun control scheme may be the least of NRA’s worries at the moment, but his proposal could cause headaches for Second Amendment activists if it gathers momentum.

What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Guns

H/T Gunpowder Magazine.

Fortunately here in Indiana many of us hunt and own guns so this is not a problem.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) in 2015. You can read the original piece and supporting documents here.

By: Tim Wheeler, MD

Have you had the experience of going to your doctor for a particular problem, let’s say headaches, and been surprised by the doctor asking you about a completely unrelated subject — whether you have a gun in your home?

It’s no accident that doctors’ or health plans’ questions about guns in your home have become routine. In the 1980s and 1990s medical professional organizations declared a culture war on gun ownership in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed an official policy urging pediatricians to probe their young patients’ parents about guns in their homes.

Claiming only to be concerned about “gun safety”, the latest code term for gun control, the AAP pushed its member doctors to advise families to get rid of their guns. One of the authors of the original AAP anti-gun policy, Dr. Katherine Christoffel, was quoted in an AMA journal as saying “Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) have also mounted aggressive and highly publicized campaigns against gun ownership and advised their member physicians to pressure their patients to get rid of their guns. Other physician specialty groups have done the same.

Many people are rightly outraged by this unprofessional behavior of some physicians. Several states, most notably Florida, have passed laws to stop doctors and other health care professionals from misusing their patients’ trust to push a political agenda of gun control. Such abuse of authority and trust by a physician is called an ethical boundary violation.

You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:

• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.

• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.

• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.

Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a doctor who casually talks with you about guns out of a common interest you both may have. If you and your doc get to comparing notes about your favorite hunting rifles or latest trip to the gun range, that is a world apart from a calculated effort to prejudice you against gun ownership.

So what can you do when your doctor or your health plan starts asking you about guns in your home?

Your doctor may very likely just be going along with the guidelines of his or her gun-hating medical organization, such as the AAP or ACP. One survey showed that although many doctors agree that guns are a public health problem, only a minority feel it’s right to ask their patients about guns in their homes. Many doctors sense that it’s wrong and don’t allow themselves to be recruited as gun control activists by their medical organizations.

A range of options is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades:

  1. Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.
  2. If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.
  3. If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on the Department of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.
  4. If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.
  5. Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are, and RateMDs.
  6. Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.
  7. If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.

Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:

• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms

• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business

• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.

Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.

Timothy Wheeler, MD is the founder and former director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and a retired head and neck surgeon.


2020 Dem Cory Booker Made It Clear: ‘If I Had the Power’ to Ban Guns ‘I Would’ (WATCH)

H/T Flag And Cross.

Hey, Corey, there is this document called the Constitution that has a thing called the Bill Of Rights in said Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms uninhibited by the government and tyrants like you.

Oh, Cory Booker.

The New Jersey Democrat Senator can’t seem to catch a break in the polls, which has to make you wonder why he even made a bid to begin with.

Back in 2000, Cory said something very interesting about guns.

Either he’s never heard of the Second Amendment or doesn’t care about the United States Constitution.

Both of those things can be true.

From Daily Caller:

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate made the comments during a July 2000 appearance on CSPAN’s “Washington Journal.” At the time, he was a member of the Newark, New Jersey Municipal Council.

When asked if he would “ban guns,” Booker replied: “I am very much one that is against handguns. And I know, in my urban environment, I see little to no need for guns at all, and I think that the availability of guns and the ease with which even young people can get their hands on them is just horrendous, and I would, if I had the power to do so, I would. In fact, we’re even looking towards making, doing some local level handgun legislation. I’m going to take every step I can to get guns of the hands of those who commit crimes or those who might commit crimes.


Biden: ‘There’s a Rational Way to Deal With the Second Amendment’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

The most rational way to deal with the Second Amendment is by not infringing on it.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said there was a “rational way to deal with the Second Amendment” during a campaign address in Nevada Tuesday.

Biden recounted the massacres in Las Vegas (2017) and Newtown, Conn. (2012) that have prompted calls in the Democratic Party for stricter gun control laws. He said it’s hard to be in Nevada and not think of the Las Vegas shooting, in which more people died and were injured than in any other shooting in American history.

“All the lives that were lost, all the families that were [forever] changed, created by senseless gun violence,” he said. “They’re moments you never forget … I just want to say to you that we don’t have to have—there’s a Second Amendment, but there’s a rational way to deal with the Second Amendment.”

Biden, like the rest of the 2020 Democratic field, sharply differs from President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, who have made protecting Second Amendment rights a cornerstone of their platform.

Former President Barack Obama has cited inaction on gun control as one of the biggest frustrations of his administration, and Biden has frequently invoked his friendship and work with Obama on the campaign trail.

Biden quickly established himself as the early frontrunner in the crowded 2020 Democratic primary field after entering the race late last month. He supported the assault weapons ban in the 1990s and said in 2016 that opposition to gun control “borders on irrational.”


Study Refutes Claims That Armed Teachers Make Schools Unsafe

H/T Bearing Arms.

This study by John Lott shoots holes in the arguments by the anti-gun crowd that armed teachers make schools and students unsafe.

Anti-gun zealots continue to trip over themselves to illustrate how unsafe arming teachers is. Fortunately, disputing their so-called studies hasn’t been exactly difficult.

Poking holes in studies is one thing, but creating a study to look at the real concerns is quite another, and that’s where John Lott comes in.

Lott specializes in conducting studies to look at real problems. He took a look at the issue of armed teachers since we have several states that have allowed teachers to be armed, and found the fears to be unfounded.

John Lott’s latest study refutes claims by anti-gunners that the presence of firearms on school campuses increases the chances of gun violence. President of his Crime Prevention Research Center, Lott’s study answered two questions raised by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Giffords Law Center and others: 1) Does letting teachers carry a firearm on campus and in the classroom increase the chances of gun violence?; and 2) Does the presence of those teachers carrying legally deter mass shooters?

The study, released last month, found: “We don’t need to guess how the policy would work. There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns” since at least January 2000. Fears that a student might grab a firearm from a teacher and use it to commit gun violence are groundless as well, said Lott’s study: “Students obtaining teachers guns have not occurred at all.” Appropriately, Lott entitled his study: “Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe.”

On the other hand, shootings on campuses where teachers and staff are prohibited from carrying concealed have “increased significantly — doubling [in number] between 2001 and 2008 versus 2009 and 2018.”

In his study Lott collected the data on all K-12 shootings that took place on school campuses between the hours of 6 a.m. and midnight on school days. He found 306 cases. But 48 of them were suicides so that left 188 shootings. In those instances, 193 people died and 267 were either wounded or injured. But none of them occurred on any of the more than 1,000 school properties where teachers and staff were permitted to carry a sidearm. In fact, the only shooting that took place on a campus where teachers were allowed to carry occurred after hours, and no one was injured.

And let’s be honest, 6 a.m. to midnight encompasses a lot of hours when no one is on campus anyway. It was a broad time period within the day, and yet even then he found almost nothing.

Funny, huh?

The truth of the matter is that while anti-gunners are fearful of armed teachers, they’re often fearful of anyone who has a gun in their possession regardless of circumstance. Yes, I’d argue that includes police officers to some degree.

Right now, the idea of armed teachers terrifies anti-gunners because they can’t imagine someone with a gun not flipping out and killing everyone. Considering the violent rhetoric I’ve seen out of some anti-gun advocates, I’m inclined to think a fair bit of this is projection.

Regardless, it appears that while schools can be violent places, arguments that guns will somehow turn the sainted teachers into homicidal maniacs is completely unfounded.

More guns. Less Crime.

As per usual.


Jews and Christians Must Stop Murders in Their Places of Worship by Taking Up Arms

H/T Godfather Politics.

It has been said before and I will say it again, “It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun!”

By Paul Dowling“In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.  Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.  When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.  You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.  The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.  The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.”  —Marko Kloos

A Synagogue Shooting in Poway
When a shooting attack commenced at the Chabad Passover services in Poway, California, according to Breitbart News, an armed congregant gave his firearm to an off-duty Border Patrol agent, in the belief that his gun in the right hands might save many lives.  And apparently he was right.  The Border Patrol agent not only shot back but pursued the villain out of the synagogue.  There is a lesson here to be had: Armed Jews shooting back definitely minimize casualties and likely discourage future attacks on their communities.  Perhaps a warning sign might be in order, to be posted at the entryways of places of worship: “This worship community values the protection of innocent life and is, therefore, protected by armed defenders.”  To add value to the sign’s verbiage, it could be issued by an organization like the National Rifle Association or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

Civilized People Carry Guns to Banish Violence & Promote Peace
Mark Kloos has pointed out that only two ways exist for individuals to convince others to do what they want; the first way is by reason and the second is by force: “Every human interaction falls into one of these two categories, without exception.  Reason or force, that’s it.”

Because the use of any physical force is an illegitimate act in places of worship, and because its use is, therefore, so unexpected in the context of worship services, the faithful often do not anticipate the possible need for the employment of justifiable violence in defense of the innocent lives of their fellow congregants.  Unfortunately, there is always the risk that a criminal invader may seek to employ deadly force against what he likely suspects to be a disarmed community of worshipers.

But there was a time when most worship communities in America were heavily armed, thus safe from attack in most cases.  In fact, the disarmament of America’s worship communities, mainly by infringement of their rights under the Second Amendment, along with the loss of life that has resulted, is immoral.  It is not only immoral on the part of an attacker to launch a bloodthirsty attack upon innocents; it is also immoral on the part of every leader who has worked to disarm a potential community of victims from taking up arms in the face of a known danger—especially with the rise of Jew- and Christian-hatred that has been encouraged by America’s political Left in recent years.

The Anti-Semitic, Anti-Christian Left
The truth is that Progressive Democrats nowadays vote, on the international stage, for anti-Semitic, anti-Christian treaties (such as the Iran Deal) to empower murderous jihadist states to build nukes, while also supporting Sharia-finance-embracing trade deals (like the Trans-Pacific Partnership) which could usher anti-Constitutional Sharia Law into the US Constitution by treaty, thus granting the anti-Semitic and Christian-hating Koran and Sunna special protections.  Democrats also have unanimously supported the Udall Amendment, which would alter the Bill of Rights in the arenas of speech and religion by amending the First Amendment to allow government to decide what kind of “political” speech is acceptable; but, of course, since any and all speech can be defined as political, in the world of the Left, this really means all speech would be rendered subject to government regulation and control.

What should also not go unnoticed is the relentless assault by the Democrat Party on the Second Amendment, despite the fact that prominent Democrats themselves own guns for their own personal protection, such as Kamala Harris, who has said, “I am a gun owner, and I own a gun for probably the reason a lot of people do—for personal safety.”  It is also true that California State Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat, smuggled guns from the Philippines to criminal gangs in America, while supporting the immoral agenda of victim-disarmament.  With all the corruption afoot among members of the political class, it probably makes sense that politicians would want to empower criminals by disarming the law-abiding, since this would serve to facilitate many of their illegal pursuits to enrich themselves—such as drug running, gun smuggling, and human sex-trafficking.  It is why Democrats—and some Republicans—have, in the past, almost universally opposed securing the border against the Mexican cartels.

Trump Appears on the Scene to Fight Corruption & Preserve the Constitution & Bill of Rights
Thank God for President Donald J. Trump, who has acted to protect Jews and Christians, since taking office, by standing up to the Democrats and their libelous fake-news media, which Trump refers to, accurately, as “the enemy of the people.”  Only days before the recent anti-Semitic assault on Hassidic Jews, during Passover worship services in Poway, California, the Leftist New York Timespublished what has been characterized as a “brutally anti-Semitic cartoon” depicting a blind President Donald Trump sporting a yarmulke and walking a dog that wears the face of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Facebook’s anti-Semitism is evident in its promotion of the imagery of the brutal murder of a Jewish baby on its “F*ck Israel” page.  This is the kind of thing which has created an environment that is so welcoming to anti-Semitic violence.  The author of this article is not arguing that anti-Semitic free speech should be banned, but is merely suggesting that it is immoral for The Gray Ladyand Facebook to promote anti-Semitic speech, while, at the same time, banning the religious speech of those political conservatives who are philo-Semitic and pro-Christian.  In a sense, by not being even-handed, the Leftist media have been working on a consistent basis to silence philo-Semitic and pro-Christian voices, so they are unable to fight back against their haters.  (This writer has already been shadow-banned by Facebook and blocked from trying to post Shay Charka’s cartoon poking fun at the Jew-hating New York Times.  As a Constitutional Conservative and a Jew, censorship of this writer’s posts is perhaps doubly to be expected from the virtual book burners at Facebook, yet it is a civil rights violation—especially since Facebook’s business model depends on the selfsame Internet which everyone’s taxes helped pay to develop—including the tax dollars of Conservatives and Jews.)

Ensuring Morality: An Armed Society Is a Polite Society
In a moral civil society, people always choose persuasion to get what they want.  Physical coercion or violence has no place.  Robert A. Heinlein once famously said, “An armed society is a polite society.  Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”  When temple members carry guns, it becomes risky indeed for armed terrorists to invade their sanctuary.  Not every member of a worship community needs to be armed.  Indeed, the world recently saw the effectiveness of just one effective good guy with a gun in Poway.  When the evildoer’s gunfire was returned, he departed in flight from his armed pursuer. The only argument against being fired upon is to be heard in the report of a firearm returning fire.  Shooting back is a moral act, since armed defense protects the lives of good people in worship communities against the aggressions of anti-Semites and Christian-haters.

Of course, there will be calls for victim-disarmament in the Leftist media.  This stands to reason, since those who control the media—mainly the Democrat Party and the Left—are anti-Semitic and anti-Christian in every aspect of their politics, even to the extent that they promote the murder of babies after birth as a form of fourth-trimester abortion.  There is absolutely no sanctity of life on the Left. How can a Democrat Party, that believes the lives of babies should not be defended, be expected to support self-defense rights for any living soul?  Not only is this the same Democrat Party that voted against the bill to protect the lives of babies after they are born; it is also the same Democrat Party which, only a while ago, cheered The Death of Klinghoffer, the cruelly anti-Semitic musical play about a Jew shot by terrorist members of the Palestinian Liberation Front aboard the passenger liner Achille Lauro and dumped from his wheelchair into the Mediterranean.  Klinghoffer was murdered for being Jewish.

Guns Make Worshipers Safer
If a preacher in South Carolina had not forbidden defensive gun use in his worship community, Dylan Roof never would have been able to murder nine congregants in Charleston on June 17th, 2015. Guns are the great equalizer.  They make weak old women who know how to shoot just as lethal as strong young men.  It is said that “God created men and Sam Colt made them equal.”

Obviously, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein of Poway, California, knew it would be unwise to prohibit guns in his synagogue, lest any possible shooting turn into a massacre.  It would seem that this wise man knew that California’s stringent victim-disarmament laws put his worship community more at risk, rather than making it safer.  It is interesting to note that, despite California’s ban on so-called “assault rifles,” the attacker of the Poway synagogue used an “AR-type assault weapon” anyway.  (It should be noted, for the sake of accuracy, that AR-15 rifles were made for civilian use, not for the military, and that the A and R do not stand for “assault rifle” but are merely the first two letters in ARMALITE, the company that originally manufactured the weapon; an AR-15 is, with regard to its functionality, just a common semi-automatic rifle.)

Guns, when they are easily obtained and in common currency among the populace, act as a check against evil interference by criminal or government bad actors, since the large majority of the people using them are good people.  It is only when gun bans are put in place—which are obeyed solely by the law-abiding—that the equation changes in favor of the bad guys, for it is only then that the gun-wielding evildoers outnumber armed good guys.  Marko Kloos has observed the following: “People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.  A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.”  But while such a monopoly may exist in California and other victim-disarmament states, this is not the reality in the State of Texas and many other states that believe in freedom and the rule of law.  In free states, the equation does not so easily balance in favor of the wicked.

Guns Save Lives
It is time to fight back against Leftist plans for victim-disarmament.  A worldview that would sacrifice the innocent to the guilty, by disarming the very people who did not commit any crimes, flies in the face of the ethic of Equal Protection and the Rule of Law in America’s free republic.  And it is high time that Jews and Christians alike take advantage of their civil right, under the Second Amendment, to arm their worship communities against those who would murder their congregants.  No worship community should be a gun-free zone.  To disallow defensive gun use by armed congregants against evil aggressors would be an immoral policy that could potentially cost innocent lives.

When the moral citizens of a free republic bear arms in greater numbers than the evildoers, the very presence of firearms everywhere there are people saves innocent lives.

How AOC Joins Choir Of Anti-Gunners Calling For Things In Ignorance

H/T Bearing Arms.

Alexandria Occasional-Cortex running off at the mouth about things she knows nothing about.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t exactly setting the stage for her elevation to the ranks of elder statesmen. If there’s anything most folks expect from her, including many Democrats, it’s stupid comments.

The aftermath of the shooting at a California synagogue is, of course, no different as radio host Michael Knowles points out that AOC joins the ranks of anti-gunner stupidity.

So [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] tweets out, right after this happens, quote “heartbroken to hear of the San Diego synagogue shooting particularly so on this final day of Passover. We have a responsibility to love and protect our neighbors. The longer the Senate delays holding a vote on H.R. 8 the more we put Americans at risk.”

“Heartbroken to hear about this. We should protect our neighbors.” If you don’t vote for the very specific gun control legislation that I want you to vote for, you are basically responsible for shooting up a synagogue — that’s an inappropriate way to respond to a tragedy — inappropriate way to respond to a shooting in part because it’s just not true.

H.R. 8 is some more gun control legislation to expand background checks. No evidence whatsoever that this would have prevented this shooter from getting a gun. No evidence whatsoever that this would have prevented any of the other mass shootings that we have seen in recent years.

So, we ask ourselves, “How could we have prevented this shooting? How could we have stopped this, more gun control?” No. There is no evidence that any major gun control law that’s been proposed would have stopped any of these things. How about if law enforcement had somehow caught this guy earlier? I guess that would have stopped it, but how would they have caught the guy? The guy who did it had no prior contact with law enforcement…Maybe if we were able to catch mental illnesses earlier. Again, there’s no evidence this guy has a mental illness.

The killer in Poway, California had a plethora of gun control laws that did nothing to prevent him from obtaining a firearm, nor did it stop him from using that firearm in service to an evil cause. Claiming that federally-mandated universal background checks would have somehow prevented the senseless slaughter in the name of bigotry is only slightly less ignorant than the ideology that drove the murders in the first place.

California already requires background checks on every purchase.

Further, so far nothing in the killer’s background has shown any reason why he would have failed such a background check. Something might be there, but I haven’t seen it so far, which suggests there isn’t. In other words, he’d have passed any background check given.

Ocasio-Cortez–or Occasional Cortex, as she’s known amongst my crowd–is spouting stupidity in the name of advancing an agenda. Hardly surprising.