NY Official Lash Out At Trump Over Pro-NRA Stance

H/T Bearing Arms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, that old, tired refrain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But how was Trump out of line on this?

He wasn’t, at all.

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

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

Response to ‘Gun Control’ Advocates

H/T JPFO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

H/T Flag And Cross.

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

AND HE GOT A SHOUT OUT FROM TRUMP!

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

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

Here’s the scoop…

From AP News:

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

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

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

WATCH:

 

 

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

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

Ryan Saavedra

@RealSaavedra

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

6,568 people are talking about this

Enter President Trump with the shout out:

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

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

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

35.5K people are talking about this

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

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

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

LIES.

From Daily Wire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, Trump is not alone.

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

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

His tweet:

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

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

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

55.3K people are talking about this

WATCH:

 

 

Gun Control Is Re-Branded Gun Violence

H/T 71Republic.com

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

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

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

The Case For Complete Gun Rights

The Constitutional Argument

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

The Natural Right to Resist Tyranny

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

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

The Federalist Papers

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

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

James Madison’s Defense

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

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

The Moral Argument

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

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

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

Practical Arguments

Do Guns Kill?

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

Is Gun Control Possible?

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

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

What Even is an Assault Weapon?

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

For the Full Right to Bear Arms

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

USCCA Reaffirms It Stance Against Red Flag Laws

H/T AmmoLand.

We all should oppose these Deadly Red Flag Laws.

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)-The gun world was once again lit on fire at a miscommunication by the largest concealed carry insurance companies in the country.

The USCCA is the leading provider of concealed carry insurance. The purpose of the insurance is to provide legal service in case a gun owner is forced to defend themselves against an attacker. The USCCA will cover all legal bills from criminal and civil prosecution.

On Monday morning a USCCA member contacted them through Facebook to state their dissatisfaction that the USCCA coverage didn’t include fighting against extreme risk protection orders (ERPO)that are better known as “red flag” laws.

An ERPO is a court order that is issued in a judge in a secret hearing to confiscate the targets guns. All it takes is a family member, or roommate to say you are a danger to yourself or others. These have been controversial since the target of the ERPO are not aware that there is even a hearing. Civil liberties activist claim that these orders and unconstitutional because of the lack of due process.

The USCCA social care advisor responded with the scripted response: “If you are not presenting to be a danger to yourself or others and are acting lawfully, there should be no reason to be concerned that your firearms would be temporarily confiscated from you.”

“This law does not promote ‘gun-grabbing’ but more so keeping firearms out of the hands of people that may be potentially dangerous.”

The social care supervisor approved the canned response, but it went against the official stance of the USCCA on ERPOs. It was a decision by a single employee. The USCCA told AmmoLand that they had counseled the employee and are taking steps to reaffirm their stance internally.

The company’s official stance is that they are against “red flag laws”, the founder and president of the USCCA, Tim Schmidt, took responsibility for the mixup. He acknowledged that the statement was akin to saying “Hey, if you’ve got nothing to hide, then you should be fine with giving up your fourth amendment rights.”

In a video released by the USCCA Schmidt chalked up the mishap to a failure in training. He vowed to make sure that the 24 full-time staff monitoring social media have the correct information.

Schmidt went on the record in January of 2018 stating that he personally believed that ERPOs are unconstitutional. He called them “anti-freedom tactics to seize guns.” He also believes that the majority of ERPOs excutived are unfounded.

In the August 2017 edition of the USCCA official magazine, “Concealed Carry,” the company officially came out against “red flag” laws. With all the history of the USCCA opposition to ERPOs, it isn’t entirely clear on the supervisor came up with the statement.

The USCCA for their part is working on integrating protections against ERPOs into future membership agreements. Schmidt points out that the USCCA Legal Defense Foundation will be there to help out gun owners “who find themselves in the crosshairs of unmeritorious prosecution.”

Schmidt states that he understands the frustration of the USCCA membership over the statement, but has asked those people to look at the history of the USCCA as a whole.


About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

Eric Swalwell Digs In: Assault Weapons Ban, Buyback Plan Is Non-Negotiable

H/T Breitbart.

Representative Eric Swalwell like all of the Delusional DemocRats does not have the brain power to understand   “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

So Damn you and your non-negotiable buyback plan.

Democrat presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell dug in Monday night, tweeting that there is no room for negotiating when it comes to his proposed “assault weapons” ban and buyback plan.

On April 4, Breitbart News quoted Swalwell saying, “We must ban and buyback assault weapons.” On April 8, he made clear that he believes there are 15 million “assault weapons” and he wants every one of them surrendered.

During an April 14 interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Swalwell confirmed that Americans would be jailed for refusing to hand over their “assault weapons,” should his ban be enacted. He did give one option that could spare a gun owner jail time; namely, that they hand their gun over to “a hunting club” or shooting range for storage. Either way, the gun owner has to give up his firearms.

And now, “polling at one percent in two polls,” Swalwell is digging in by stressing that the “assault weapons” ban and buyback plan is not negotiable.

He tweeted, “No more negotiating down on gun safety. Mass shooting after mass shooting and Washington does nothing. Yet, Americans know what we should do. Be bold. Ban and buy back the assault weapons.”

Eric Swalwell

@ericswalwell

No more negotiating down on gun safety. Mass shooting after mass shooting and Washington does nothing. Yet, Americans know what we should do. Be bold. Ban and buy back the assault weapons. Background checks. Gang violence prevention programs.

1,221 people are talking about this

Pete Buttigieg: Gun Control ‘Compatible with the Second Amendment’

H/T Breitbart.

No, Pete the SecondAmendment is not compatible with gun control.

Like all Delusional DemocRats, you do not understand “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Democrat presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg used a question and answer session during an Iowa speech to claim numerous gun controls he supports are “completely compatible with the Second Amendment.”

C-Span published the question and answer session, wherein an audience member stood and read aloud a question centered on school shootings. The questioner identified himself as a millennial, “a hunter,” and “a responsible gun owner.” He asked what “policies and measures [Buttigieg] would take to ensure responsible gun laws.” Buttigieg replied:

 Like you, I come from a place where gun rights are taken very seriously, and that’s okay. The reality is, that the gun safety measures we’re calling for are completely compatible with the Second Amendment and, by the way, are widely popula

Buttigieg then listed gun controls he supports. Those include criminalizing private gun sales via universal background checks and implementing policies pushed by Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun control group of which Buttigieg is a member.

He also used the Obama-era moniker of “weapons of war” to describe certain commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and said, “There are some weapons that don’t belong in our neighborhoods in peacetime in America.” He suggested we already know that banning such firearms is compatible with the Second Amendment; that “we’ve already decided that somewhere between a sling shot and a nuclear weapon we can draw a line.”

Buttigieg has also voiced support for other gun controls. On April 20, 2019, Breitbart News reported that one of those additional controls is reinstating the Social Security gun ban.