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.
Video footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol shows a man who now works as an adviser at the Justice Department shouting at rioters to “kill” law enforcement officers responding to the attack and calling them “the Gestapo.”
The footage, from a body camera worn by a Metropolitan Police Department officer, was first published Thursday by NPR. The network joined CBS News and other news organizations in suing to obtain thousands of hours of surveillance footage and court exhibits from the more than 1,000 criminal cases brought by the Justice Department against people who allegedly participated in the Capitol attack.
Among those defendants was Jared Wise, who eventually faced six charges as a result of his alleged actions on Jan. 6. He pleaded not guilty. Wise’s hiring by the Justice Department was reported last month. A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement that Wise “is a valued member of The Department of Justice and we appreciate his contributions to our team.”
Assuming this is a truthful representation of the facts, then one has to wonder how well the current administration is vetting new employees. With friends like these you can make a lot of enemies and lose a lot of friends.
The CBS News story is likely truthful in reporting that body camera footage shows Jared Wise making inflammatory statements during the January 6 Capitol attack, as supported by court records, the FBI affidavit, and corroborating reports from NPR and other sources. His employment at the Justice Department and receipt of a presidential pardon are also substantiated. However, the story’s presentation may carry a narrative bias by emphasizing his actions without fully exploring context, intent, or the broader implications of his pardon and hiring. Without access to the unedited footage, some uncertainty remains about the exact nature of Wise’s statements.
For a definitive assessment, I recommend reviewing the primary body camera footage, if available, or seeking additional court documents related to Wise’s case. If you’d like, I can search for more recent developments or specific footage related to this story.
The Trump administration has bent rules and pushed interpretations in new directions. But after digging into the source evidence, I haven’t seen anything that qualifies as “tyranny.” That said, people shouldn’t ignore the political shifts or assume everything is perfectly fine.
Government should never be trusted. Always be on guard and prepared to respond appropriately.
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.”
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.
Sadly, this account no longer exists. Perhaps it was a bot or something.
Regardless, the distinctions and descriptions resonate with me. And it is a little more polite than the more common, “useful idiots”. This comes in handy when you are discussing politics with your mother-in-law or others with the potential to disrupt domestic harmony.
Name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
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.
I’m certain this is not literally true. But I don’t think is entirely wrong either.
We were headed down that path, but we have reversed course to a certain extent. It will be interesting to see how much our path diverges from the U.K. path in the next few years. And most importantly, is our recent reversal temporary or permanent?
Leave it to gun control groups to suggest that half of the law-abiding population of the United States shouldn’t be considered for gun ownership. And it’s the half of the population that owning a firearm for self-defense benefits the most in time of need.
Sure, in the past, women were not the segment of the population that immediately popped in to mind as being firearm owners. But now in 2025, shouldn’t that be different? Women already have the same rights as men – including the right to keep and bear arms. Firearms are a part of the American culture, enjoyed by everyone of any color, race and nationality. And over the past five years, industry data has shown women are the fastest-growing demographic of gun buyer. It makes sense that firearm industry businesses would pay attention to their customers and cater to their needs.
But that’s not how many gun control activists and gun control groups see it and they are now aghast that lawful firearm manufacturers would cater their advertising and marketing efforts to appeal to women.
If even half as many women as men start voting pro-gun, the anti-gun people will be seriously in trouble in upcoming elections. Violent crime against women will decrease. Fewer women will regard victimhood as a virtue.
In 2019, a gunman shot and killed 12 people in a Virginia Beach municipal building. His semiautomatic weapon was fitted with a silencer, making the gunshots sound, to one survivor, “like a nail gun.”
If the shots had been louder — if the people inside had been given even 30 more seconds of warning — lives could have perhaps been saved. But muffled sounds from the silencer created confusion and, ultimately, death.
Silencers are dangerous. Now, they’re more accessible than ever.
It is very telling that Ms. Young can only cite one instance of a suppressor being used in a crime. Even though there are millions of them in the possession of U.S. citizens suppressors are almost never used it a crime. Even more telling is that even though she is studying “public policy” it apparently does not occur to her that specific enumerated rights are not evaluated on the basis of how they are abused. They are protected and the people who abuse them are punished.
After reading a little bit about what a “public policy” major is, I see the problem. Public policy majors are taught to see the world through the lens of what government can do to improve society. I cannot say for certain, but it looks to me like a “public policy” of limited government powers is not in their playbook. The solution to all problems is always more government control. In other words, socialism and tyranny.
No, thank you. Ms. Young, you may not have my guns or suppressors. Your move Ms. Young. Please choose wisely.
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.
A year ago, I could not have imagined seeing this sort of thing happen. I sometimes think I must be dreaming about how well things are going in the fight for the rights of gun owners. We lived the nightmare for so many decades it is nice to have things turn our way.
The really big thorns in our paws are now:
Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles.
Restrictions on standard capacity magazines.
Permitting of all types.
Waiting periods.
I think these are all relatively easy wins if we can just get them before SCOTUS.
Unsympathetic defendants make for bad precedents. This is what happened in the Rahimi case, where the Supreme Court opened the door a crack, allowing judges to believe they can create more exceptions to Second Amendment rights. Rahimi is cited as the reason for the upholding of the Gun Free School Zone Act in the Fifth Circuit.
This is why we have to be as aggressive as we can in the courts. We need to flood the courts with sympathetic plaintiffs in infringing areas that are relatively obvious wins. Please consider donating to the gun rights organization who are active in the courts.
They’re just finding something to attack him. I mean, that’s it. There is no position. There is no goal. There is no set of ideas. It is just, ‘What can we find a way to attack Trump? How can we say that he’s a failure or what he did is not a success?’ … You start to lose credibility when, on every single instance, you’re just saying, ‘Nope, not good. Nope, not good. Nope, not good.’
So, what happens now? I know some Democrats believe without opposition, “MAGA Republicans will take us into fascism.” Some Republicans, in essence, believe, “We are restoring utopia.”
I think there is a nontrivial risk enough extremists on both sides will drink enough of their own Kool-Aid to think violence is the only way to “save America.”
I’m not anti-gun at all. I’m just for some gun safe common sense. I’m challenged by large-capacity clips in urban centers, weapons of war sometimes outgunning the police. But otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms. I got no ideological opposition to that at all.
The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:
Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.
Additionally, the 28th Amendment will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives.
Emphasis added.
Or the multitude of oppressive gun laws he has signed into law?
Zohran Mamdani’s run for mayor of New York City is a clear and present danger to the stability, economic health, and democratic foundation of both the city and the nation.
His platform is rooted in a radical socialist ideology that has, time and time again, led to failure, repression, and suffering wherever it has been tried.
And thanks to a clip surfacing on social media today, we see that Mamdani is not hiding this. In fact, he has been strikingly open about what he believes and what he plans to do. You can listen to his comments for yourself here.
Speaking in 2021 at the Young Democratic Socialists of America Organizing Conference, Mamdani said his goal is to “continue to elect more socialists” and to be “unapologetic about our socialism.”
He followed that with two key objectives: boycotting Israel and “seizing the means of production.”
The phrase “seizing the means of production” is not some vague slogan—it is the core tenet of Marxist revolutionary ideology. It means that private property, businesses, and industries are taken from their owners and turned over to collective or state control.
