Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted cert in two huge Second Amendment cases, agreeing to hear
@2AFdn‘s challenges to the “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. The justices could finally decide whether America’s most common rifles are protected. Huge. #2A#SCOTUSViramontes v. Cook CountyGrant v. Higgins
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR TWO SAF “ASSAULT WEAPONS” CASES!
History was made today.
After years of litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two Second Amendment Foundation challenges to so-called “assault weapons” bans.
Today, the Court agreed to hear two of our cases at once, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins: our challenges to the so-called “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Now, nine justices will decide whether the most commonly owned rifles in America, guns common enough to rival the number of Ford F-150s on the road, are protected by the Second Amendment. Whatever they rule becomes the law in every state in the country.
The fight gun owners have waited decades for has officially begun. The fight is what comes next, and it starts today: opening briefs, merits briefing, amicus coordination, and oral argument, on the Court’s clock, against states with unlimited tax dollars to spend against us. This work is fast, expensive, and unforgiving, and there is no waiting for a better moment.
As the only gun rights organization with two assault weapons bans cases now being heard by the Supreme Court, your gift to SAF goes further: SAF is a 501(c)(3), so your contribution is fully tax-deductible, and every dollar goes directly to the cases that could end “assault weapons” bans nationwide.
This has taken so long. It is long past time to make this part of history.
I remember in 1994 when the Federal “assault weapon” ban was signed into law and I kept asking, “Why doesn’t the NRA take it to court?” There was more than one correct answer to that question. And some of them are even pretty good answers. But I was impatient and didn’t really believe the answers.
I remember after the 2008 Heller decision, at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, Alan Gura told a bunch of gun bloggers something to the effect of, “Don’t expect this to change anything overnight. This is just the start of something that people will still be working on 20 years from now.” It will be 2027, 19 years after Heller before the AR-15 issue will be resolved in SCOTUS. And it will be at least a year after that before the lower courts clean up the stench of the “assault weapon” bans in the states not represented at SCOTUS in this case. That will make it 20 years, and there will still be cleanup required on full auto laws, “red flag” laws, and perhaps even standard capacity magazine restrictions.
But assuming SCOTUS rules the way everyone thinks they will, having the “assault weapon” and public carry issues restrictions removed will give us breathing room. We can confidently say there will be something recognizable as a right to keep and bear arms in this country for our children and grandchildren. That will be our true historic landmark.
Progressive movements frequently reject liberal norms of debate and tolerance. Once politics is understood as an endless series of contradictions that must be resolved through struggle, the goal is no longer peaceful coexistence or mutual accommodation, but the permanent transformation of society through continuous agitation. The dialectic has proven remarkably effective precisely because it offers both a method of analysis and a justification for never-ending conflict.
There probably is some truth to this. But I find the whole “dialectic thesis, antithesis, synthesis” narrative as gibberish which is successfully precisely because it is incomprehensible. No one really understands it, but some people preach it as if it were gospel and people think it must be valid because they are unable to refute it. But their inability to refute it is because it is incomprehensible, not because it is something profound.
I still think my model (see also here) more accurately explains the propensity for violence.
Communism through (my) ages: 1) When I was 15, a teacher told me “It isn’t as bad as they say, and makes a lot of sense.” 2) At about 19, college friends, “Socialism isn’t communism.” 3) At 20, on meeting my grandfather-in-law, “They are evil. We escaped in 1949.” 4) At 30, “China is a wonderful developing Democracy” 5) At 35, I was sent to communist China on business. It was a crowded, smelly, dirty, factory of despair and hopelessness. This I saw with my own eyes. 6) At 36, “China doesn’t count. Successful socialism is in northern Europe.” 7) I moved to northern Europe when I was 40. It was much nicer than China, but also felt like I was living in the past. I had to wait 6 months for a hernia operation. 8) When I was about 45, the migrant crisis began. The socialist/globalist/pacifist allowed them entry into every country, regardless how many crimes they committed along the way. Just 20 minutes from my house, in Calais, I was shocked to see migrants jumping onto trucks, breaking open the doors, scattering the contents across the highway, then climbing in. They went through the Chunnel and got out in England. 9) At 52, the soft socialism around me had transformed into globalism. I was told I had to call people by their preferred pronouns, though it was a lie, and even if I didn’t know what the preferences were. I quit. 10) I returned to the US, and am now 60. “Socialism” is no longer a dirty word here. People openly espouse the virtues of it. Politicians run as socialists and win.
Socialism has taken many forms, from the Bolshevism of Russia, to the CCP in China, the Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, and the many forms of it found in Latin America. It is one of the two most destructive ideologies on earth. It is designed to deprive, despirit, and murder everything that comes in contact with it.
Socialism is a great lie at every level. It helps no one, not even those who benefit the most. This is because the cost is the imposition of one’s will on everyone else, and that destroys the soul of the usurper and the life of the oppressed.
Socialism always fails on its own, but only after destroying almost everything in its train. It can also be conquered. Those are the options.
Elon created $4tr in wealth for himself, his investors and employees. Politicians have created $39tr in debt for you, your children, and all the whiners complaining about Elon. Which is preferable?
Socialism kills, fast or slow. But on the way there, it makes people into dumb animals posturing and killing for no good reason.
The enemy is collectivism. The enemy is welfare. The enemy is turning humans into dependent zoo animals.
None of which will be solved by doing the same, but harder, and with different colors of skin as the all precious must be coddled.
All it will do is destroy the little that is still functioning. And make it harder to come back.
I beg you with tears in my eyes to believe civilization is worth saving. It is socialism that must be torn down. Please start working towards civilization.
As I read it, the main point of her post is that there is a bunch of crap going on all over the world and that includes the U.S.A. A lot of people, of most any political persuasion, try to distill the problem down to skin color. That isn’t the real problem. To use an example of hers:
It’s not the skin color, you see. If it were Abigail Spanberger would be a firebrand for freedom and Clarence Thomas would be communist. Or if you prefer, replace those with Bernie Sanders and Thomas Sowell. The parallel stands. And it remains crazy.
I’ve said this before, judge people as individuals, not as a group. If you judge people as an immutable group you, in some sense of the word, are a collectivist. This will not yield optimal results. You will lose the ideas and influence of people like Colion Noir, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell.
Embrace the ideas and accept the contributions of the people that make meaningful advances in our fight against socialism in all its forms.
In order to make people equal, you have to treat them differently. If you treat people alike, the result is necessarily inequality.
More quotable and easier to understand, but not quite accurate.
Useful ammo when dealing with people demanding reparations, affirmative action, DEI, etc. The point being is that if they insist upon equality, they are demanding discrimination.
The Democrat governor of Colorado signed into law one of the most restrictive gun bans ever adopted in the United States. The law bans the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic firearms. This is on top of the liberal state’s existing ban on high-capacity magazines. That’s just crazy.
…
So, to all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question to you is simple. Do you want to move back to America?
To all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question for you is simple: do you want to move back to America? pic.twitter.com/JTiQdbmCGJ
— Governor Greg Gianforte (@GovGianforte) April 23, 2025
Good question. It is not just the gun industries either. Look at the “wealth taxes” and “millionaire taxes” and high regulations being implemented in the Democrat socialist run states. Business and people are leaving because the further you can distance yourself from such toxins the better your life, community, and future.
At 10:01 a.m. on June 12, 2026, Graham Platner, the freshly minted Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine, posted the following on X:
“Elon Musk just became the world’s first trillionaire.
Let’s make sure he’s also the last.”
No policy proposal. No discussion of tax brackets, carried-interest loopholes, or regulatory reform. Just a flat, public declaration that the existence of a single individual who has accumulated more wealth than any human in history is an intolerable moral emergency that must be prevented from ever happening again.
The sentence is not a critique of monopoly power, regulatory capture, or government favoritism. It is a death sentence pronounced on the category of human being who creates at scale.
It is the purest distillation of socialist psychology yet uttered by a major-party Senate candidate in the United States: Excellence has occurred. Make sure it never occurs again.
This is not an aberration. It is the logical endpoint of everything Platner has signaled since he entered the race.
…
The correct response to “Let’s make sure he’s also the last” is not a technocratic defense of marginal tax rates.
It is a full-throated defense of the right of human beings to achieve without limit and without apology. It is the recognition that the alternative to Musk-scale creation is not a more equitable distribution of existing goods.
It is a slower, poorer, grayer world in which the best anyone can hope for is to be slightly less mediocre than their neighbors.
Maine does not need another politician who resents the existence of greatness.
It needs a political culture that treats the creation of a trillion dollars of value as evidence of national vitality rather than moral emergency.
The man who can make reusable rockets routine, who can force the automotive industry to electrify faster than it wanted to, who can put global communications infrastructure in orbit while governments dither…this man is not the problem. He is the proof that the problem is elsewhere.
Graham Platner’s tweet is a window into the soul of a politics that has given up on creation and now contents itself with the management of decline.
The only question left is whether the voters of Maine…and eventually the country…will ratify that surrender or reject it with the same ferocity that built the civilization now under attack.
The first trillionaire exists.
The question is not whether we can prevent another. The question is whether we still have the will to produce one.
Plaintiffs request the following relief from this Honorable Court:
a. Enter a declaratory judgment stating that the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a), and all other related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, violate the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants’ enforcement or application of the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a), and all other related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, because it violates the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
d. Award Plaintiffs such other legal and equitable relief as is just and appropriate and as necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment.
I am so pleased this area of 2nd Amendment law is being pursued. It seems like it should be a real slam dunk. If someone can travel to another state and buy weed, get an abortion, or go to church, then why shouldn’t buying a self-defense tool be a no-brainer, “Hell yes, of course!” That’s just from the philosophical viewpoint.
The legal viewpoint is even stronger. The ban on purchasing handguns depending on which side of a line your feet are resting on is obviously an infringement on the plain text of the 2nd Amendment. And, as pointed in this filing:
Bruen reiterated that, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17. And a court may “[o]nly” conclude that the conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s protection if the government can “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 24.
This Court already conducted the type of historical analysis that Bruen requires in Mance. The Court observed that “the earliest known state residency restrictions on the purchase or possession of firearms” occurred in 1909. 74 F. Supp. 3d at 805 (“Defendants have not presented, and the Court cannot find, any earlier evidence of longstanding interstate, geography based, or residency-based firearms restrictions.”). Given this history, the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban must be enjoined again.
My view is that it is low hanging fruit that should gathered first. It creates a slippery slope that will create momentum, make it easier to win difficult cases like AR and even machine gun bans, and, figuratively, result in the anti-gun movement making a high velocity splat in the history dumpster where they belong.
In the impersonal offices of North American education in the 1970s, a Canadian educator named Laurence J. Peter observed with clinical irony how hierarchies devoured talent. He saw systematic promotions: the excellent teacher became a mediocre principal, the competent principal a clumsy bureaucrat, the bureaucrat a disastrous civil servant. From that observation emerged the Peter Principle, published in 1969: “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence.” Promotion is based on prior success, not on aptitude for the new role. The result is that organizations end up filled with people who no longer master what they do, but who can no longer be demoted without breaking the system.
…
The left’s social engineers, eternal dreamers of planned paradises, respond to the disaster they themselves generate by demanding more hierarchy, more State, more positions for their faithful. When the machine clogs with incompetents, the solution is never to shrink the monster’s size; it is to inject it with more militants and more budget. The cycle is inexorable. Loyalty over competence, failure over correction, excuses over reality. And in the end, as always, the bill is paid by those at the bottom, while the red Peters keep rising, with beatific smiles, toward their next level of catastrophe.
The original post was in Spanish, the English translation was by X.
While I’m sure the above is an important component of socialism disasters and government in general, there are other issues as well. As I have brought them up many times before (and here are but two examples) I will not dilute the current observation.
SCOTUS decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. NJ is huge. Despite the iconic SCOTUS decision in NAACP v. Alabama, and the more recent decision in Americans for Prosperity Fdn v. Bonta, many lower courts have continued to insist that compelled disclosure of one’s affiliations is not a harm that can even support a challenge to the government’s actions.
Yesterday the Supreme Court firmly rejected that approach: “Demands for private donor information … ‘chill’ protected 1st Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not ‘the general public. …
“An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. And our cases have long recognized that demands for a charity’s private member or donor information have just that effect.”
This is a huge win for privacy and freedom, a huge blow to those who seek to “cancel” individuals or intimidate them from participating in public debate with threats of government retaliation, direct or indirect.
This is great news. For years the anti-gun people wanted the NRA membership list. This should at least slow them down. Of course, pro-gun people cannot get the anti-gun organization lists either. But then, that is only a few thousand people compared to the millions of people who belong to the CCRKBA, FPC, GOA, NRA, SAF, etc. And the anti-gun people are becoming less and less relevant.
This video is worth the watch. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
This is what single issue voters finally find out. Your vote should be about policy, not the person. Identity politics only goes so far before it all unravels.
This video is worth the watch. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.
This is what single issue voters finally find out. Your vote should be about policy, not the person. Identity politics only goes so far before it all unravels.
Democrats do not have a monopoly on tribal loyalty over policy. Republicans talk a good talk about economic freedom and gun owner rights, but don’t really do much about it, they opposed gay marriage and grudgingly tolerate it now. And they are downright hostile to social freedoms such as freedom from religion, recreational drug use, social nudity, and sex work.
But freedom loving people cannot fight on all fronts at the same time. If we have the backing of Republicans and a chance to fix the wrongs of Democrat policies, then help them out. And when there is a chance to undo wrongheaded Republican policies, take advantage of that momentum too.
Wake up and align yourself against government overreach. The policy is important. The party and the people are not.
People on the right who have been mentally modelling the world since they were kids, constantly updating and revising their mental model so that it’s able to reliably anticipate basic functioning of the world around us, so we can navigate the world without being blindsided all the time; have trouble internalising this:
leftists don’t abide by the principle of non-contradiction
they do not understand the world through abstract or ideal first principles which they then apply universally, in a predictable and stable manner
like situations are therefore not alike
everything is its own thing & has no bearing on anything else
noticing patterns is racist hateful and evil so they stopped doing that a long time ago, pattern recognition is haram
Every position they hold is a unique stance that they imbibed from the media. They don’t start from an abstraction and think critically to rach their conclusion. They literally watched Colbert and had it drilled into their brain. They don’t have first principles or universal values. They do what they are told. Because it benefits their coalition to do so. That’s it.
That’s their whole worldview and it’s why they don’t flinch when they contradict themselves. They don’t have an “ideology” arrived at through abstract reasoning or critical thinking, they’re part of a cult that does everything humanly possible to prevent them from ever thinking about anything for any reason. They regurgitate the party line and experience affirmation and inclusion from their peers when they do. So they keep doing it. It’s that basic. They are Pavlov’s dog.
I can see this being true for a high percentage of the people on the left. Those who are also known as “useful idiots”.
But there are also those who are rational, deliberate, and carefully choose their words and actions. These are the Lenins, Castros, Pol Pots, Mao Zedongs, Sanderses, Schumers, and Clintons of history — the folks who promise progress but somehow always end up needing more of your land, your money, and your compliance, all enforced under pain of death.
On Dec. 1, 2025, Washington reported 706,046 active CPLs. On April 1, that number had plummeted to 696,015. The alarming decline has been explained by many gun owners, saying they’ve either left Washington for more Second Amendment-friendly environs in Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma and elsewhere, while others have decided to carry without a CPL because they refuse to pay the state to exercise their right to bear arms, which is specifically protected by both the state and federal constitutions.
I think the Washington state gun laws will be straightened out by the Federal courts in less than five years. But the taxes and crime situation will probably continue to deteriorate. So, with that in mind I am working on an escape plan. I can’t leave right now because I need to save up money for retirement. Underground bunkers in Idaho are expensive.
The underground bunker be completed soon (only a few more days of work). I will then start counting the days until I can retire and have the option to leave Washington state as well.
Are you thinking of fleeing the tyranny of your state too? I’m giving free tours of my underground bunk to people attending Boomershoot this year (the first weekend of May). It would give you something to think about…
Less than 30 years later, they’re being arrested for Facebook posts.
That’s not “safety.” That’s the speed of tyranny once a government knows its citizens can’t push back.
When people are disarmed, the state no longer fears the people. And when governments have zero fear of the people, they do whatever the hell they want.
The average American today lives better than John D. Rockefeller did in 1926. That is not an exaggeration. It is a fact.
Rockefeller could not fly across the country in five hours. You can for $200. He could not video call his family from another continent. You do it for free. He had no antibiotics, no MRI, no air conditioning in July. He could not carry every book ever written in his pocket. You are reading this on a device that does all of that and more.
Americans throw away 30-40% of their food. Not because they are wasteful, but because food is so abundant that waste is affordable. Your car has climate control, navigation, and safety systems that did not exist at any price a century ago. Your home has heating, cooling, refrigeration, and entertainment that emperors could not have imagined.
None of this was voted into existence. None of it was redistributed from the rich. It was created by free minds operating in what remains of a free market. Every comfort you enjoy today is the product of a man who thought, invented, produced, and traded voluntarily.
This is what the remnants of capitalism still deliver, even while it is being dismantled. Imagine what a fully free society could build.
The FBI is buying up information that can be used to track people’s movement and location history, Director Kash Patel said during a Senate hearing Wednesday.
And with your location information they know things about you even your closest friends do not know. Even if you are couch surfing trying to avoid giving up your location, they know where you live. They know if you were in the vicinity of that January 6th riot. They know if you were scouting the house where four University of Idaho students were murdered. They know you visit the gay bath house a couple times a month when you tell your wife you are working late. They know you are part of the “Underground Railroad” for slaves/wetbacks/Jews/dads-with-child-custody problems.
One of the planned new features in 6G is called Integrated Sensing and Communication, or ISAC.
“It’s the big talking point that’s getting the most attention right now. ISAC means that we will no longer see the mobile network as just a way to transport data. Instead, radio waves will be transformed into a sensor, a kind of radar. The network can ‘see’ and measure distance, speed, and movement with centimeter precision without the devices needing GPS or cameras. This opens doors for everything from traffic monitoring to fall detection in healthcare,” says Mikael Gidlund, professor at Mid Sweden University.
The idea that all mobile phone masts could be able to sense their physical surroundings and detect presence or movement may sound like science fiction — and also like a nightmare from a privacy perspective. This is something Mikael Gidlund is well aware of.
“This is one of the most important technical challenges that must be solved for the technology to gain acceptance. The goal is to design the system according to the principle of ‘privacy by design.’ ISAC works like a radar, not a camera. It works with anonymous point clouds rather than biometric data. We can see that someone has fallen and needs help, but not who it is. By allowing data processing to take place locally in the mast and building technical barriers to identification directly into the standard, we can actually increase privacy by replacing cameras in sensitive environments. Anonymization is not an option — it is a technical prerequisite for trust.
They are saying some of the right words and phrases. But if they have centimeter resolution, it probably means this tech will enable the detection of people who carry guns. If they can tell if someone has fallen, they can tell if two or a group of people are having sex.
I find it telling they enumerate some potential benefits, but then lump all the downside into “privacy.” And just because they don’t know who someone is, if they can detect a person who as fallen, then I’m almost certain they can track an individual person. And if they can be tracked, privacy just disappeared.
As a first step, what needs to be done is to enumerate all the ways this technology could be abused and apply “privacy by design” to those use cases. My intuition tells me there will not be much left in the benefits category once they have eliminated the potential for abuse.
