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.
This is a nightmare scenario for the Dems right now. We better pray long and hard that the country is going to be in a f‑‑‑ing depression, because I don’t know how else we find ourselves out of this mess.
They did not specify which “Democratic strategist,” said this. To me, it sounds like something James Carville would say.
No matter.
The important thing is that what this tells us about the Democrat leadership. It tells us that their access to power is more important to them than the wellbeing of the people in this country.
In addition, the bill contains funding for a “buyback program”—which, of course, is a euphemism for the government using the American people’s money to disarm them. To anyone paying attention, this ought not to be a surprise, for, despite its fluffy name and aw-shucks marketing campaign, the GOSAFE Act represents just another attempt at the mass-disarmament of the American people—and an exceedingly brazen one at that.
That these anti-gun members of Congress likely don’t have the votes to get this done now is heartening, but it is also a warning, as they are telling us precisely what they’d like to do if they regain power.
I have no doubt that if they get the votes and control of the Presidency they will pass and sign the bill into law. Constitutional issue protests will be ignored. It would only be via the courts we could get legal relief. And that could take years.
The only way I see this cycle being broken is to create a strong disincentive for these obvious rights violations. The best way I see to accomplish this is to start prosecutions of the politicians presently violating our rights. To let bygones be bygones now is to invite oppression in the future.
This important judgment means that people must maintain their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms when they cross California’s border. Just as people are free to speak or worship in states they don’t reside in, this win makes clear they are likewise free to bear arms for lawful purposes throughout the United States. Unlike Louisiana, which recently repealed their unconstitutional residency requirement following an FPC legal challenge, California’s commitment to tyranny forced us to take this case to a final judgment. FPC will continue to eliminate unconstitutional residency requirements and other bans so that people can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.
At the end of April, I posted about the preliminary injunction in the case. This is the final judgement. Of course, the state may appeal it. Historically, the odds of the 9th circuit siding with the 2nd Amendment are almost exactly zero.
California has 14 days to file a notice of appeal in the case. Today is the 14th day. Check here to see what they decide.
T-Mobile has announced it is the latest company to scrap its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs as it seeks regulatory approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for two new business deals that could significantly expand its customer base.
My contacts at T-Mobile say that nearly everyone they knew with significant DEI involvement was laid off last year. To be clear, there was no official statement that DEI was being targeted—and plenty of others were laid off too.
Then, at a company-wide meeting earlier this year, the CEO announced the cancellation of policies and programs favoring special interest groups. He reassured employees that everyone—even old white guys like himself—would be treated equally. Access to training programs, bonus criteria, raises, and advancement would be based on uniform standards.
The impression internally was that DEI had quietly run its course well before Trump’s election victory. His win merely confirmed a cultural shift already underway.
As Andrew Breitbart put it, “Politics is downstream from culture.”
I am still undecided, but I am leaning towards abolishing them one at a time rather than combining them then trying to abolish the conglomerate. The reason being that while there are votes to be had from across the aisle for the abolishment of the DEA, I think there are more votes to be lost by people strongly opposed to legalized recreational drugs. Abolish what we can, when we can, then look for an opportunity to get rid of other agencies when the time is right.
Gun Owners of America is alarmed, warning such a merger would enable even greater anti-liberty/gun mischief, such as:
*The combined agency would have three times the ATF budget *Four times current ATF tactical (SWAT-like) units *More than 10,000 new employees *Reduced oversight and accountability
The DOJ’s dangerous proposal would consolidate the ATF and DEA into an authoritarian “super-agency” with the combined powers to wage the failed war on drugs and enforce unconstitutional federal gun control laws against all Americans, not just violent criminals and drug cartels. By merging the ATF’s firearms enforcement authority into the DEA, the DOJ is effectively equating peaceable American gun owners with drug cartels, turning millions of law-abiding citizens—as well as their constitutionally protected weapons—into co-equal targets of a militarized federal enforcement regime.
It’s hard to know who is right in this case. There’s no question the ATF has all too often abused its power, serving as an anti-gun enforcer for anti-liberty/gunners rather than a professional, non-partisan law enforcement agency. Too often their enforcement targets have been gun dealers who made innocent paperwork errors, or Americans with no criminal intent charged with made-up crimes. Some in Congress continue to want to entirely abolish the ATF, an idea that could arguably strengthen individual liberty.
It’s also hard to imagine how the legally mandated tasks of both agencies might be combined in a way that would make either more efficient or less costly.
Guns being stolen from cars is a problem…one created by failed government policies and anti-gun corporate rules that coerce responsible gun owners into leaving firearms in vehicles.
The government creates the problem, complains about it, then demands more control.
The framed picture below was given to me a long time ago. I don’t even remember who gave it to me. It probably was one of my children. The packaging has suffered some damage, but the idea is still valid:
Several House Democrats are warning that the Democrat base has become increasingly radicalized in its resistance to the Trump administration. Democrat politicians are frightened by many of their leftist constituents whose growing anger has “morphed into a disregard for American institutions, political traditions and even the rule of law,” according to a new report from Axios.
In the eyes of some liberal voters, Democrats aren’t doing enough to counter the president’s agenda. One House representative said, “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public.” Some have suggested that they need to “be willing to get shot” visiting ICE facilities or federal agencies.
Data confirms that the Left has become increasingly warm to the idea of violence. One recent report found that 55 percent of left-leaning Americans thought political violence could be acceptable, responding that “it would be at least somewhat justified” to murder Trump.
Fifty five percent of left-leaning think political violence could be acceptable! Not, 55% of the most radical, that is 55 percent of the left-leaning. What would the polling numbers be if you asked the committed leftists? Would it be 90 percent?
There is a reason for the calls for violence. It is in their nature:
I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged about my Freshman year of high school. With that one book, second only to Robert Heinlein, she made a very deep, life-long impression on me.
It was between my Junior and Senior years of high school I read my first Heinlein book, Stranger in a Strange Land. During college I read most of Heinlein’s books and many of his short stories. I still remember the vehicle I was driving and where on 116th NE in Bellevue I was when I heard on the radio that Robert Heinlein had died.
It was later when I was in my late 20’s through mid 30’s that I read more of Rand. I didn’t know her other works existed until they were pointed out to me by Susan K. I am still grateful for Susan’s guidance with Rand and George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God.
Over the years I have read all Rand’s books and some of her essays and scholarly papers. Her works still resonate with me. My one big quibble with her is what she apparently believed is the perfect sexual relationship between women and men is repugnant to me. I see it as something closer to rape than a respectful relationship between equals.
I hope her works continue to be an inspiration and philosophical guideposts for people everywhere.
