Common sense dictates that the right to bear arms requires a right to acquire arms, just as the right to free press necessarily includes the right to acquire a printing press, or the right to freely practice religion necessarily rests on a right to acquire a sacred text. Legal interpretation follows that common sense….
The burden imposed by a cooling-off period is brought into sharper focus when considered in the context of other constitutional rights. A carte blanche one-week cooling-off period to publish news stories? Unconstitutional. Temporary closures of churches during COVID-19? Unconstitutional. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” If a criminal defendant had to wait thirty days after his arraignment before he could seek legal counsel so that he would not unduly resist his prosecution? Unconstitutional, of course. See Rothgery v. Gillespie Cnty. (“[C]ounsel must be appointed within a reasonable time after attachment to allow for adequate representation at any critical stage before trial.”). The Second Amendment is no different.
As Justice Thomas said in June of 2015, “Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document.”
I am seeing more and more evidence that the lower courts are getting a clue. It took, metaphorically, a clue by four to get their attention but they are starting to come around.
Today, March for Our Lives is in disarray. Funding shortfalls and a rift between its board and younger staffers… have strained the organization. And a recently filed federal lawsuit accuses the board of racism and retaliation.
On March 20 of this year, just before the seven-year anniversary of its celebrated rallies, MFOL terminated 13 of its 16 full-time employees.
As I said the other day, our recent progress has to be putting pressure on donations.
At this point MFOLs has to be rendered powerless to cause us any damage. I think it is extremely unlikely they will recover. They are just dust in the dustbin of history.
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
Reality is tough. And when reality contradicts what you firmly believe, it is even harder to see and accept. I have to give Libresco a lot of credit for this.
If there is such a thing as a good shoot, it is really just one of the least bad outcomes, this is one of them:
An Illinois mother shot and killed a man accused of breaking into her home at night, police say.
The break-in happened at about 10:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 15, the Joliet Police Department said in a news release.
According to police, the woman heard what sounded like someone forcing their way into her home, so she hid in an upstairs bedroom closet with her baby, and armed herself with a gun.
When the man went into the bedroom, she opened fire, hitting him in the head, police said.
Officers arrived to find the man “unresponsive,” and he was confirmed dead at the scene, according to the department.
The man was wearing gloves and had a screwdriver, police said, adding that there were “signs of forced entry.” The woman told police she didn’t know the man.
Even with the early retirement, someone made a very poor career choice that night.
Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.
The anti-gun people have to be getting very depressed. Not just because of the lost ground but because this is going to reduce donations. Why donate money when progress toward a full gun ban is completely blocked?
On the other hand, our side should be donating money to the groups most effective in the courts. The momentum is on our side. Let’s push this as fast as we practically can.
Permitting laws are nothing less than a burdensome tax on law-abiding citizens who wish to self-defend. Having North Carolina become the 30th permitless carry state is something these lawmakers should be proud of. We appreciate Representative Penny’s leadership in committing to an override, and we salute all the other legislators who are resolved to end a policy that’s deeply rooted in a racist past.
Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment. Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.
In the movie Tremors Burt Gummer was originally supposed to have an NRA sticker on his truck however his actor Michael Gross objected not because he refused to play an NRA member but because he said Burt was WAY too pro gun to be in the NRA
Yes, the claim appears to be true based on available information. Michael Gross, the actor who played Burt Gummer in Tremors, reportedly objected to an NRA sticker on Burt’s truck during the film’s production. His reasoning was that Burt Gummer’s extreme pro-gun stance and extensive arsenal went beyond what the NRA would typically endorse, especially in the context of the 1990s. Gross believed Burt’s character was too radical in his gun enthusiasm to align with the NRA, which might have been seen as more mainstream or cautious in comparison. This sentiment is reflected in posts found on X discussing the matter.
However, without direct confirmation from Michael Gross or primary production sources, this should be considered plausible but not definitively verified.
Back twenty years ago the quiet conversation at the gun range or late in the evening after the “women folk” had gone to bed it was commonly said, “If the politicians think dealing with the NRA is bad, they really aren’t going to like who they will have to deal with if the NRA fails.”
If there were a gun show loophole and an AR-15 chambered in 22 LR capable of doing this that could be pulled though the loophole into reality, then it would have a high-powered rail gun projectile velocity booster with a nuclear power plant for the power source. And even then, the projectile would be vaporized at anything more than a range of a few yards. Still, a lead oxide cloud at some small fraction of c might make for an interesting variation of a shotgun.
Last weekend, a man walked into a Walmart in Traverse City and stabbed 11 innocent people in a random, brutal act of violence. The scene was horrifying—but thankfully, everyone survived.
The media covered the initial shock. The politicians issued generic statements. But something’s missing — something that always seems to go missing when the narrative doesn’t fit: no one is talking about “knife control.” Why is that?
…
This is an important moment in Michigan and across the United States. It’s time to stop pretending the tool is the problem and start focusing on the truth: dangerous people are the threat. And guns, in the hands of the right people, save lives.
They aren’t talking about knife control because at this point in the game they are playing it sounds absurd. But had we continued down the path outlined by the most recent Democrat administrations we would have seen our future in England.
I think that is an appropriate initial negotiation position. I could see allowing for a small amount of compromise if there push back to the point of not being able to get a majority vote.
The most fundamental requirement for a legitimate legal regime is that a person must be able to know what the law requires before being held accountable to it. As a recent case out of New Jersey shows, however, the state’s oppressive laws for gun businesses no longer meet even this minimal threshold.
New Jersey arguably has the nation’s strictest gun control laws; it is difficult even for well-meaning people and businesses to thread their way through them to exercise their Second Amendment rights. On top of those laws, in 2022, the state enacted new requirements for each “gun industry member” to “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun-related products.” These “reasonable controls” are supposed to be geared toward preventing bad outcomes from the diversion and misuse of the industry member’s products by criminals.
Yet just what is expected, on top of the mountain of explicit requirements these businesses already face, is not explained. Gun industry members are supposed to figure that out for themselves. The price for guessing wrong, moreover, could be ruinous litigation from the state’s anti-gun office of the attorney general (AG).
…
In resolving the case, in fact, the superior court washed its hands of trying to untangle what reasonable controls the law actually required of Butch’s Gun World in making the sales in question. Instead, it simply held that because the shop hadn’t imposed any additional measures (beyond following explicit statutory laws) in making the sales, the reasonable controls statute must have been violated in some fashion.
You might ask, “Isn’t this unconstitutionally vague?” From the same article:
The court similarly washed its hands of the shop’s contention that the reasonable controls statute violated due process by not explaining its requirements: “This Court is not positioned to determine whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague and will not do so.”
There are some people that need to be prosecuted. This prosecutor and judge are on that list of people.
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles.’ But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
It is not huge, but it is another brick in the wall. Each time a case is concluded our team learns a little more. The arguments are tuned to match the precedents of the previous wins. The reluctant judges are herded into corners by the previous decisions on less important cases. They have fewer and fewer options to rule in favor of the dark side. We are winning but it is still a long hard grind to something approximating a total victory.
The US is an awful place to compare anything too. They have a ridiculously high murder rate for a developed country and most of it is gun related.
And the whole constitutional thing is ridiculous. Their president is a pedophile who has broken countless constitutional laws. If it actually came to a showdown with between the army and gun owning civilians, the civilians would be massively under powered
It appears to me that UnicornForeverK chose their name well. They have only a tenuous connection to reality. The lack of a solid connection to reality shows in their struggle with creating a coherent line of thought.
I could have spent way more time that it was worth to fisk this, but with a little coaxing Copilot did a decent job:
🧨 Debunking a Lazy Narrative: Guns, Murder, and the Myth of Military Supremacy
Let’s break this down and inject some reality.
🔪 “The US is an awful place to compare anything too. They have a ridiculously high murder rate for a developed country and most of it is gun related.”
Yes, the U.S. has a higher murder rate than most wealthy nations—but it’s not “ridiculously high” in a global context. According to 2023 data:
Country
Total Murder Rate (per 100k)
Jamaica
49.3
Ecuador
45.7
Haiti
41.1
Honduras
31.4
Mexico
24.9
United States
5.76
Canada
1.98
UK
1.15
Germany
0.91
Japan
0.23
Singapore
0.07
Source: World Population Review
The U.S. ranks high among developed nations, but far below many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. And yes, most U.S. homicides involve firearms—about 4.42 per 100k—but that’s not the same as saying “most murders are gun-related” globally.
📜 “And the whole constitutional thing is ridiculous.”
This is a vague dismissal of a foundational legal framework. The U.S. Constitution has shaped democratic governance worldwide. Criticizing specific interpretations is fair game—but calling the entire system “ridiculous” is like calling the wheel a bad idea because you don’t like traffic laws.
🧑⚖️ “Their president is a pedophile who has broken countless constitutional laws.”
There is no credible evidence to support the pedophile claim. It’s defamatory and baseless.
As for constitutional violations, presidents from both parties have faced legal challenges. Examples include:
Trump: Birthright citizenship EO, inspector general firings, funding freezes5
But “countless” is hyperbole. Most alleged violations are contested in courts and resolved through judicial review—not proven breaches.
🪖 “If it actually came to a showdown between the army and gun owning civilians, the civilians would be massively under powered.”
This is the most interesting—and historically naïve—claim.
🇦🇫 Afghanistan Case Study
The Taliban, with ~85,000 fighters, outlasted the U.S. and NATO over two decades. They used small arms, guerrilla tactics, and local knowledge—not tanks or drones—to win through attrition and ambiguity7.
🇺🇸 Now extrapolate to 100 million armed U.S. civilians:
Wealth & Education: Civilians have vastly more resources, technical literacy, and access to logistics.
Veteran Expertise: Millions of former service members with tactical training.
Infrastructure Access: Civilians live inside the systems the military depends on—power grids, telecom, transportation.
Cyber Potential: Insider threats could exploit vulnerabilities in command networks, spoof IFF systems, or jam communications10.
Friend vs. Foe Chaos: Identifying adversaries becomes a nightmare when they wear no uniform and share cultural ties.
Suppressing such a population wouldn’t be a military operation—it would be a civil war. And history shows that civil wars are rarely won by the side with the biggest guns. They’re won—or lost—by legitimacy, endurance, and the ability to navigate chaos.
🧠 Final Thought
This quote isn’t just wrong—it’s dangerously simplistic. It ignores history, misrepresents facts, and underestimates the complexity of power, resistance, and governance. If we’re going to have serious conversations about violence, politics, and the Constitution, we need to start with facts—not slogans.
Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Brown v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Debt and crime ridden Labor controlled Victoria has borrowed another 13 million dollars to roll out “machete bins”
Yep. They honestly believe an African wondering down the street with a machete down his duds will see these bins and think, Oh fuck man, I better put my machete in the amnesty bin.
Make me laugh, you pack of total fuckwits. What the hell is wrong with lefties. They must have shit for brains.
The mask finally comes off. And we told you, they knew it. We knew it. Everybody knew it. However, they finally decided to say the quiet part out loud as the journey from Democrat to socialist communistic gun grabber is complete. In light of the tragedy that happened in New York 2 days ago, they’ve just jumped the shark on anything because they’ve got to defend their precious gun laws. And what’s the solution, my friends? It’s obvious. Take all the guns from anybody. Anything that can used on a battlefield. Oh, we’ve got all of it. where Democrats and socialists have become one in the biblical sense.
To be fair, for many years the bad guys let people believe long guns were okay. That changed in 1994 with the “assault weapon” ban. They were successful with that line of attack for many years, and to a certain extent they still are. And they don’t say much about handgun bans these days. But it is only because they have an easier time with the evil black rifles.
And now, as should be no surprise, as described in the video, some of them are open about attacking essentially all guns.
The bottom line is they have been telling us for decades what they will do if they can. We should believe them. And most importantly, we should prepare and respond appropriately.
