Beto’s Back, Along with His Gun Ban

H/T AmmoLand.

Robert Francis O’Rourke does not stand a snowball’s chance becoming the Governor of Texas.

U.S.A. -( Everyone’s least favorite adrift office-seeker is back in the national spotlight. On November 15, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke announced his candidacy for Texas governor. Should the work-shy politico secure the Democratic nomination, it would likely set up a 2022 showdown with two-term Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R). In 2018, the perennial candidate failed in an attempt to unseat U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas). In 2019, Beto ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and dropped out before securing a single delegate.

Gun owners are most familiar with Beto for his flamboyant support for gun confiscation.

During the September 12, 2019, Democratic debate, Beto was asked about his proposal to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Beto responded in part by saying, “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15!” The Beto campaign would go on to sell t-shirts with the anti-gun slogan.

Less than a week later, Beto reiterated his call for gun confiscation on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time. During an interview, Chris Cuomo asked Beto, “All right, so let’s state the proposition. Are you, in fact, in favor of gun confiscation?” Beto responded with “Yes.”

In addition to confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, Beto has endorsed all manner of other gun restrictions.

In September 2019, Beto demanded that banks and other financial services providers stop doing business with firms that manufacture commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Moreover, Beto demanded that these financial institutions prevent the prospective gun purchasers from using their own credit or money to purchase lawful products. Specifically, Beto commanded,

Banks and credit card companies must:
1Refuse to take part in the sale of assault weapons.
2. Stop processing transactions for gun sales online & at gun shows without background checks.
3. Stop doing business with gun & ammo manufacturers who produce or sell assault weapons

Illustrating how out of step Beto is with the Lone Star State, in June, Texas lawmakers enacted S.B.19. The law is aimed at preventing financial institutions from discriminating against companies that produce products that help Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights. Specifically, the law prohibits governmental entities from contracting with financial institutions that discriminate against “a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, supplier, or retailer,” a sport shooting range, or a firearm trade association.

Beto was also the only presidential candidate to endorse the gun control “Peace Plan” put forth by David Hogg and his associates at March for Our Lives. The plan’s tenets included, “reexamine the District of Columbia v. Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment,” annual gun licensing, a federal ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, and “a reduction of our domestic firearm stock by at least 30%.”

The two-time failure hasn’t backed off his gun confiscation stance since announcing his gubernatorial bid. Speaking with the Texas Tribune for an item to coincide with his campaign announcement, Beto stated, “I think most of us also understand that we should not have military-style weapons used against our fellow Texans.” The candidate also criticized recent changes to Texas law that respect the rights of law-abiding Texans to carry a firearm for self-defense without having to acquire government permission.

In addition to Beto’s seeming desire to extend his political losing streak, some might also be confused by how Beto has the time to run for office. After all, voters were promised that Beto would have an important role in tackling guns for the Biden administration.

At a March 2, 2020 campaign rally in Dallas, Beto endorsed Biden for president. Sharing the stage with his former rival, Biden stated, “I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee you this is not the last you’ll see of this guy.” Biden went on say, “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on ya.”

Following the campaign event, Biden and Beto went to local burger chain Whataburger, where the septuagenarian continued to heap praise on Beto’s anti-gun advocacy. Speaking about Beto and gun control, Biden stated, “This guy changed the face of what we’re dealing with regarding guns, assault weapons… and I just want to warn [Beto’s wife] that if I win I’m coming for him.”

Of course, Biden never came for him. That could reasonably be chalked up to the befuddled president’s waning memory. It might also be the case that given the strong opposition to Biden’s radical ATF Director nominee, gun control lobbyist David Chipman, posting an even more toxic figure to an administration post would have proved even more untenable.

Going forward, NRA-ILA will continue to follow Beto’s splashy but shallow political career. Moreover, NRA-ILA will work to inform Texans as to the perennial candidate’s history of support for radical gun control, lest they be made to suffer this egotist’s tenure.

Letter Writer Clueless About Gun Rights

H/T Bearing Arms.

It is frightening how many people clueless when it comes to guns and gun rights.

When our Founding Fathers penned the Bill of Rights, they didn’t intend for them to be all-encompassing. Instead, they preserved a handful of key rights with the belief that those would preserve the rest.

However, it seems many people don’t seem to understand much about rights.

Take this letter to the editor:

Regarding the Nov. 19 article on ”Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges,” I strongly disagree with this acquittal, as I firmly believe that when you bring a gun into a public space, then it means you intend to commit premeditated murder.

I am so tired of gun owners claiming they have infinite rights, and it is time to infringe on their rights. Owning a gun is not a part of your body like in reproductive rights, sexual orientation, gender identity, skin color, ethnicity, age, or disability, and therefore does not deserve the same legal protections. I agree with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said we need to repeal the Second Amendment so we can enact more gun-control laws and sue gun sellers and manufacturers. Holding gun owners accountable begins with barring anyone under the age of 21 from accessing a gun, just like we bar those under 21 from purchasing alcohol.


I notice the author is very into the idea of things that make up an individual, things like reproduction, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. It’s funny that the letter writer would value these things, believing them worth certain legal protections, all while believing that the individual’s right to protect themself isn’t nearly as important.

The author, a woman, is very much against the idea of privately-owned firearms and believes that gun owners somehow need to be held accountable for the actions of others, even though we haven’t done anything wrong. This is collective punishment, in essence, where you punish an individual for the actions of another.

Communists and other totalitarian regimes are really big on this sort of thing.

Here in the United States, we’re not. Take Loudon County, Virginia, for example. The schools are at the heart of a firestorm because of a sexual assault case. In that case, a transgender female teen sexually assaulted a female student. If we were to apply the author’s “logic” across the board, we’d punish other transgender students for the actions of this one. We’d treat all of them with the same level of suspicion as we would this student.

I somehow doubt she actually would want that.

See, what she doesn’t understand about rights is that they apply equally and any infringement on one right is used to justify infringement on another. If you start treating all gun owners as if they’re criminals, then don’t be surprised when other groups begin to be treated as if they’re all criminals as well.

Of course, the author would object to that. She’d claim that guns are different, that they’re dangerous, but dangerous is relative. Ideas like communism have killed over 100 million people throughout the 20th century. Accidental shootings by firearms don’t even make up a fraction as much over that same timespan. Hell, even the American murder rate pales by comparison. Is communism so dangerous that free speech should be restricted so as to stop the spread?

She’d likely say no, but that’s just the point. Gun rights are no different than any other rights. She can agree with a former Supreme Court justice if she wants, but invoking his name as if that lends any gravitas to her argument ignores that the Second Amendment is part of our Constitution and unless she thinks she can rally two-thirds of the states to her away of thinking, she might as well just grow up.

Americans with guns are safer than the gunless


Alex Baldwin is a classic example of having zero concept of gun safety.

Hidden by mass media and public schools, guns are good
The Bill of Rights once again proves more valuable than many people realize

One drawback of the mass media’s overt bias and lack of objectivity is the negative cast it puts on gun owners—women, people of color, poor people, disadvantaged of every description, in fact, all good decent citizens who choose to exercise their natural right to be legally armed.

By refusing to report on all the good that guns do—crimes stopped, lives saved, rapes prevented—Americans have lost a critical perspective. People who bear arms are far safer and more judicious than the general gunless population. It’s true. The enormous responsibility of owning and bearing arms, even without a lot of formal training, forces these citizens to take crime-avoidance steps, act responsibly, treat arms with the respect they deserve, learn more about the vast social utility of firearms and stay on the good side of the law.

Gunless people in contrast, often harboring blind terrifying untreated medical-level fear of firearms, act irrationally about weapons and people who exercise their rights. In a comfortable halo of ignorance and exposure, they have a net deleterious effect on the social fabric. They quell their fears by attacking people who exercise civil rights, push for unconstitutional laws, and most of all, have zero concept of gun safety. With schools refusing to teach that, and pushing an agenda of helpless disarmament, they hurt the very heart of our nation. Gunless people are dangerous, more dangerous that those who are armed and help deter crime and incivility.

Statistics bear this out. Citizens justifiably shoot more criminals in the act than police. The public, true first responders, are at the scene when it happens, instead of responding later to pick up the pieces. Real heroes, moms and dads and even kids, are all around us, but this is hidden by hoplophobic mass media. That will and must change.

Giffords Unveils Gun Violence Memorial In Los Angeles

H/T Bearing Arms.

Another thing that being shot was to transform Gabby in to a  anti-Second Amendment liar.

Gabby Giffords was a member of the House of Representatives before a mentally unstable man with a fixation on her tried to kill her and shot a bunch of other people as well. It was a horrible incident that changed Giffords.


We can all get that.

But while Giffords would often try to portray herself as pro-gun before the incident, now she’s gone full-on anti-Second Amendment type. She formed a group named after herself and has worked to pass new gun control laws throughout the nation.

And part of her strategy is to trigger emotions, which is all her latest stunt is designed to do.

Fighting is something former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords of Arizona has been doing since she suffered a severe brain injury after being shot in the head while publicly speaking to her constituents in 2011.

At Exposition Park Tuesday, she unveiled a new memorial to bring awareness to the thousands of lives lost to gun violence every year. The display of well over 3,400 vases with white flowers represents a Californian who lost their life to gun violence in 2020.

The former Congresswoman made the stop in California as part of a national tour featuring a gun violence memorial installation from state to state.

She unveiled a memorial at the National Mall in Washington earlier this year, which displays 40,000 flowers in remembrance of those killed by guns in the U.S. each year.

Of course, Giffords won’t mention that two-thirds of those “killed by guns” are suicides, meaning they took their own lives by their own choices.

But that doesn’t really help the narrative. If folks found out that homicides were much, much lower than that, they’d likely be less inclined to support gun control, so Giffords just doesn’t mention that part out loud.

The annoying thing is, though, that this kind of thing works on some people. They see this display and it somehow makes it feel more personal. Gun control can’t win based on the facts, so it has to win based on emotion, and the anti-Second Amendment types are great at playing with emotions.

What the gun rights side needs to do is counter this with an installation of our own. One with something marking each defensive gun use that takes place in the United States each and every year.

Let people see just how many more times guns are used to defend life than to take it. Make an impact with just how much the Second Amendment matters when it comes to things like personal safety. Make it clear that guns aren’t just something criminals use, but that millions more ordinary Americans protect themselves than the handful of criminals who misuse firearms.

Do that and make it stick and see just how fast Giffords has to find a new tactic to elicit an emotional response.

Make no mistake, things like this do sway people. Maybe not a ton, but enough that we would do well to remember that and to work to counteract it.

Unless you want to eventually find yourself disarmed, that is.

Smith & Wesson Issues Safety Recall For M&P12 Shotguns

H/T American Rifleman.

Let’s spread the word about this recall by Smith and Wesson.

On Monday, Oct. 18, 2021, Smith & Wesson issued a safety recall on its new pump-action, bullpup, M&P12 shotgun. The company decided to issue the safety recall after it received two reports of cracked barrels on the M&P12 in the field. As a result of these findings, Smith & Wesson is implementing this safety recall on all M&P12 shotguns manufactured prior to Oct. 15, 2021. The company is doing so in order find and fix any other M&P12 shoguns which might also have barrel anomalies or conditions, to ensure the safety, function and performance of the shotguns for customers.

In light of these issues and due to the two field reports, Smith & Wesson asks that all current owners of M&P12 shoguns stop using them immediately. Smith & Wesson also asks that all current M&P12 shotgun owners contact the company via phone at (833) 957-3476, or by email at for instructions as well as a prepaid shipping label to return their shotgun to the company for safety inspection.

The M&P12 was first announced in August 2021 and is the first firearm of its type to be introduced into the Smith & Wesson M&P product category. Chambered for 12-gauge, the unique bullpup-style design of the M&P12 uses two two separate feeding tubes, which are fed through an opening at the bottom of the lower receiver behind the grip and trigger. There are also several other features and accessory capabilities with the M&P12 design, which were covered in greater detail by American Rifleman in a news release.

For more information on the Smith & Wesson M&P12 bullpup shotgun or for the safety recall concerning it, visit  

California Goes After Gun Shows

H/T Americas 1st Freedom.

Now he has won the recall vote Comrade Newsom thinks he can go full speed ahead with his anti-gun agenda.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently signed legislation targeting law-abiding citizens, specifically gun shows, while doing nothing to address the rise in violent crime we’ve seen over the past year.

The bill, S.B. 264, “prohibits officers, employees, operators, lessees, or licensees of the 32nd District Agricultural Association from entering into any agreement to allow for the sale of any firearm, firearm parts, or ammunition on property that comprise the [Orange County] Fair and Event Center, or properties in Orange County and Costa Mesa that are owned, leased, operated, or occupied by the District,” as reported by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).

Transfers of firearms at gun shows in California must be processed through a licensed dealer, and are subject to a background check. For that matter, all transfers of firearms in California—whether at a gun show, a gun store, or between private citizens—are subject to the same requirement. In reality, this is just another blatant action that restricts the exercise of Second Amendment rights by cynical politicians who wish to portray gun shows as yet another bogeyman that must be eliminated.

“This imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction to prevent officials from deciding how to use venues. In addition, this prevents businesses from renting taxpayer-funded venues for lawful activities,” wrote NRA-ILA.

Of course, none of this actually addresses the real cause of violent crime that has surged in the past year. Gun shows, it should be said, are not the cause of violent crime, but none of that matters to the likes of Newsom and politicians of his ilk.

According to John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, “Multiple surveys done of criminals find that virtually no criminals obtain their guns from gun shows. In 1991 and 1997, only 0.6% and 0.7% of criminals obtained guns from gun shows. [A] 2016 survey conducted during the Obama administration found that number was still only 0.8%.”

Despite the fact that a statistically insignificant number of firearms obtained at a gun show are used in crime, FBI data shows that 2020 saw more than a 5% increase in violent crime—with the homicide rate rising nearly 30%–as riots plagued the nation and anti-law-enforcement rhetoric abounded. Predictably, guns have been blamed by the Biden administration, and the recent action from Newsom is just another offshoot of this misguided and dishonest train of thought.

It’s no wonder that over 21 million background checks were conducted for the sale of a firearm last year, with more than 8 million of those estimated to be for first-time gun owners. Second Amendment-supporting Americans know gun shows are not to blame for crime—violent criminals are—but that hasn’t stopped politicians like Newsom from deceptively labeling and targeting them anyway.





Warnock Spends Big On Personal Security While Pushing Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

Another question that needs to be asked is where did Warnock get the kind of money he is spending hiring private security on what a U.S. Senator makes?

Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock has long been a believer in criminalizing the right to keep and bear arms. Back in 2014, years before officially entered politics, the reverend was lobbying against removing restrictions on the right to carry, and he’s been a reliable supporter for gun control since he took office in 2020. In fact earlier this year he called for “reasonable gun control” after the shootings in Atlanta-area spas, though he was vague about specifics.

We need reasonable gun reform in our country,” he said without specifying what measures he would like to see passed. “This, this shooter was able to kill all of these folks the same day he purchased a firearm.”

“I think that suggests a distortion in values when you can buy a gun and create this much carnage and violence on the same day, but if you want to exercise your right to vote as an American citizen, the same legislature that should be focused on this is busy erecting barriers to that constitutional right,” he said in reference to ongoing efforts by Republicans in the state to restrict absentee ballots.

The suspect in these cases passed a background check before purchasing the gun that he used in the killings. The “distortion in values” that Warnock is talking about has nothing to do with buying a gun and creating carnage on the same day. It’s about creating carnage. Would Warnock have been relieved had the accused killer actually purchased his handgun several months before his rampage? Of course not. He would have complained about “high capacity” magazines or the need for some other gun control law, but he would have still ignored the actual individual responsible for the crimes in favor of calling for new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

But while Warnock believes that you being able to protect yourself with a firearm is a bad thing, he apparently has a very different idea when it comes to  armed, private security.

Federal Election Commission filings released last Friday show that Warnock’s campaign paid $603,161 between October 2020 and September 2021 to Executive Protection Agencies, an Atlanta-based private security detail company. The company, according to its website, provides executive protection that comes with a “keen eye with a thorough knowledge of the venue through threat assessment” for its clients.

In the third quarter alone, Warnock spent $159,791 on personal security. By comparison, “Squad” members, including Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Cori Bush of Missouri, spent a fraction on personal security when compared to Warnock. Combined, the four representatives spent almost $100,000 collectively on security over the past three months.

A spokesperson for Warnock did not immediately respond to a FOX Business request for comment.

Now I don’t really have an issue with Warnock paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to be protected by guys with guns. If he believes he needs that level of security and his campaign can afford it, he has every right to surround himself with a phalanx of armed guards.

My issue is Warnock’s double standard. Most of us, after all, can’t afford to pay six figures every three months in order to hire a team of bodyguards to stand watch while we’re out in public. Our personal security is just that; personal. It’s up to us to protect ourselves and our loved ones, and outsourcing the job to a professional just isn’t an option.

On some level, I have do doubt that Warnock understands that. I just don’t think he cares. Maybe he justifies his hypocrisy by telling himself that he’s a public official with special security concerns, unlike the average citizen who merely has to be worried about becoming the victim of a carjacker, armed robber, rapist, or home invader. Perhaps he’s convinced himself that it really isn’t hypocritical at all to surround himself with armed protection while trying to make it harder for the average citizen to protect herself with a firearm. Or maybe he’s simply embraced the idea that he’s special enough to deserve protection, while the average citizen should simply depend on police to keep criminals at bay.

No matter what lie Warnock’s told himself to justify his double standard, the fact remains that the Georgia Democrat is working to make it harder for you to protect yourself while paying big money to ensure that he himself is defended by armed security. I expect that Georgia gun owners will have plenty to say about that next year when Warnock is up for election to a full six-year term, particularly if he decides to make “commonsense gun reforms” a focus of his campaign.


Gun Control’s Racist Roots Exposed in Supreme Court Brief

H/T AmmoLand.

Understanding the racist roots of gun control should help the Supreme Court that gun control is a failure.

U.S.A. –-( As the Nov, 3 date for oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen looms, Reason magazine is highlighting one of the many amicus briefs filed in support of the case, not only because it comes from “a coalition of public defense lawyer organizations,” but because it cuts to the bone of racial and ethnic discrimination at the root of New York’s firearm licensing requirements.

The 35-page brief, which may be read here, comes from the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services, and more than a half-dozen New York county public defender offices. They waste no time getting to the point.


Arguing the state’s licensing requirements are unconstitutional, the brief observes, “They allow New York to deny Second Amendment rights to thousands of people, and to instead police and criminalize them for exercising those rights. Such a policy is the type that ‘the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes . . . off the table’,” quoting the 2008 Heller ruling.

Writing at Reason, Senior Editor Damon Root observes, “It’s possible that such arguments will resonate with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s leading critic of over-policing and related law enforcement abuses. As the public defenders make abundantly clear in their brief, a Supreme Court decision against New York’s gun control scheme would be a victory not only for the Second Amendment but for criminal justice reform too.”

The brief includes accounts of people whose lives have been turned upside down because of heavy-handed and narrow-minded enforcement of the state’s gun laws.

The importance of this case cannot be overstated. In an article at The Trace—a pro-gun control news organ—Jennifer Mascia quotes law professor Adam Winkler, University of California, Los Angeles, who explains, “This is one of the great questions: Does the Second Amendment extend outside the home, and if so, what kind of permitting is allowed for concealed carry?”

Perhaps Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, already answered that question some weeks ago when he announced SAF has filed its own amicus brief, which is joined by the  New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Illinois State Rifle Association, Florida Carry, Inc., Grass Roots North Carolina, Louisiana Shooting Association, Tennessee Firearms Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Sportsmen’s Association for Firearms Education, and Virginia Citizens Defense League.

“A right limited to someone’s home is no right at all,” Gottlieb stated, “and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.”

He pointed to the language of the Second Amendment, which clearly states the people not only have a right to “keep” arms, but to “bear” them, and that certainly must extend “beyond the confines of one’s home.”

The NYSR&PA case has brought together an interesting combination of supporters, making it impossible for the gun prohibition lobby or the radical left to pigeonhole this coalition as merely a bunch of right-wing groups.

And The Trace is careful to hedge about the potential outcomes of the case, offering different scenarios.

The story quotes Prof. Eric Ruben at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, who explained that a broad ruling, striking down discretionary “may issue” permitting schemes, “would say that modern-day gun problems are irrelevant when trying to decide whether or not a law is constitutional.”

The Trace believes it is “unlikely” the high court will simply uphold New York’s law, a notion that would make no sense, because if the court had that intention, it would not likely have taken the case at all, but simply declined review and allow the New York law to remain in place.

A rights-affirmative ruling would jeopardize similar gun control laws in seven other states, everyone seems to agree. But as Winkler told The Trace, “Most of the states are not going to simply just say, ‘The Supreme Court struck down a similar law, let’s just give up on our concealed carry policies. So they’re going to force people to file lawsuits. I imagine those states are likely to fight until the bitter end.”

Such is the stubborn nature of the gun control mindset. Anti-gunners never acknowledge their gun control schemes have failed, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Instead, they simply push for more restrictions.

It is not likely the court will hand down a ruling until late next June. Traditionally, the court holds its most controversial decisions until the final days of its session. This one is guaranteed to be controversial.

Elite Media Can’t Stop Lying About American Guns


The lies in the drive-by media about guns and gun owners is why I only watch the local media for the weather forecast then I shut the drive-by media off.

The mainstream media lies to us. They feed us propaganda. They don’t want us to know that gun ownership is widespread and that armed defense is common. I was at a conference for minor-media this weekend. There, an associate talked about being turned away from most of his local news stations because “we don’t run pro-gun stories. No self-defense.” Let me show you where the propaganda starts at the top.

Dr. John Lott looked at the five largest newspapers in the US. They ran 1 self-defense story for every 270 stories of criminal activity with a gun. (more here)

The good news, and there is some good news, is that we know better. We have data that comes from outside the media bubble. We caught major US newspapers lying to us. This time, we can actually measure the amount of media distortion.

We use a firearm for defense far more often than the thugs use guns during a crime. We legally defend ourselves about four times more often than a criminal uses a gun to threaten or injure us (467 thousand criminal incidents vs 1.4-2.3 million defensive gun uses).

We can quantify the media exaggeration. Honest reporting would tell us when we were attacked and also tell us when we defended ourselves. That isn’t what we get from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, or the Wall Street Journal. Each time it occurs, these major US newspapers were over 5 thousand times more likely to run a story of victimization than defense. Distortions of that magnitude can’t be an accident. That censorship is the result of deliberate editorial policy.

Let’s look at media distortion another way. Suppose the media covered a gun incident every day. If they did so in proportion, then they would describe self-defense Monday through Thursday, and run a single story of a criminal using a gun on Friday. That isn’t what they do. If they ran a self defense story today then they would only describe the criminal use of a gun for the next nine months. The media doesn’t want us to know that guns save lives. That is propaganda.

This is serious. This biased reporting distorts public perception of violence and defense. It twists public policy, and it isn’t an accident. Media propaganda isn’t a fault, but a deliberate feature that was bought and paid for.

Anti-gun billionaires paid millions of dollars to twist the news. They ran “educational” conferences for the media on how to report self-defense as “gun violence”. They also pay propagandists to recommend movie and TV scripts that distort the truth about civilian self-defense.

You can prove it to yourself. We defend ourselves more often than the police, and ordinary citizens make fewer mistakes with a gun than the police. So, when was the last time you saw an honest portrayal of armed defense on the TV cop dramas where an ordinary person used a firearm responsibly? I couldn’t find a single one.

Media apologists have said that self-defense isn’t news. I disagree. The biased media buries armed defense stories even in incidents where armed citizens stopped mass murder. Again, the media was too busy lying about us and our neighbors to report the truth.

I’m reminded of the Chinese immigrant who said he never watched the news when he was in China because he knew the news was filled with lies. Again, let me close by sharing some good news. We’re walking away from the lying media. CNN lost half its viewers in the last year.

Find real news and listen past the lies.

Model self-defense laws are spreading nationally to:

Make Life More Dangerous for Violent Felons


Men women and yes even children that use a firearm for protection should never be treated like a criminal.

Laws must be hard on evildoers, and clearly protect good folks
The idea that violent criminals get to walk, while innocents suffer, must end

We’ve reached a point where too many decent women and men are afraid to use their firearms for the intended purpose of self-protection and defense of hearth and home. This must change—the Second Amendment and its usefulness cannot be watered down to placate misinformed progressives and protect criminals from harm. Judicious use and legal threat of deadly force are well established deterrents to crime. While everyone is screaming to do something about crime, JPFO is acting. We have a plan.

Working with preeminent self-defense attorney Mitch Vilos, author of Self Defense Laws of All 50 States, JPFO is distilling the best essence of gun-owner protection laws to serve as a model for the nation. Not every state is empowered to “throw the book at” bad guys, especially when innocent women, men or even children use guns to stop vicious crimes. Too often the law is aimed at the innocent victim. That’s simply wrong. The public needs protection from that sort of legal abuse. At this point, people are armed and ready. Now it’s time to protect them better when they are forced by criminals to use firearms for legitimate purposes. Contact and join our effort.

Moving forward we, in association with other civil-rights groups, will be developing and promoting National Model Self-Defense Laws. While federal bureaucrats are hard at work trying to disarm the public—which is illegal infringement and banned—we’ll counter that with: victim empowerment, use-of-force review boards for pre-trial exoneration when appropriate, and strong presumption of reasonableness if victims defend themselves against known or new felons and their heinous acts.
Safety first. Rights before trial. Provide deterrence like police used to. Stop criminals cold.

Support JPFO, speaking truth to power

“Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is America’s most aggressive civil-rights organization, dedicated to destroying the notion of ‘gun control’ as any kind of credible public-policy position. So-called ‘gun control’ does not control guns and doesn’t control criminal behavior. What it does is disarm the innocent, leaving them helpless in the face of criminals, tyrannical governments and genocide. History repeatedly proves this fact. Founded in 1989 by Aaron Zelman as a response to the Holocaust, JPFO speaks with the moral authority and tenacious commitment of survivors of persecution, and knows that surrendering your personal and family safety to government protection courts disaster. You don’t have to be Jewish to fight by our side, you just have to love liberty.”