Black, white or pea green with purple polka dots, a responsible gun owner has the right to own and possess a firearm under the second amendment of the constitution, and all three should scream bloody murder if that right has someone trying to take it away from you.

Shelba Herring
November 1, 2018
Comment to Banning guns is a white privileged idea
[Minor correction: The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right. See US v. Cruikshank.—Joe]

You quickly learn that the Government is seeking to preclude ATF FATD (Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division) determinations from being used in any way during trial. These determinations appear to have been part of a discovery dispute, which is also sealed and is evidenced by the Government’s statement that “[t]he Government produced the letters under the protection of a protective order that the Court authorized on August 1, 2018.”. For the reasons that follow, I find it extremely comical that the Government actually contended that “ATF FATD letters at trial creates a grave risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury,” but I digress…for now.

…

Mr. Wright has likely incurred tens of thousands of dollars of attorney fees and costs fighting for his freedom – all because ATF decided that it would invent a new interpretation of the law and it did so without notifying the Industry or the public. Let that sink in for a couple minutes…

Joshua Prince, Esq.
October 28, 2018
ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next…
[Think about that for a bit. The government thinks interpretation of firearm law by the ATF and distributed to the public is too confusing for a jury to understand when explained to them by two or more lawyers. And they will prosecute individuals who violate the privately held interpretation of the prosecutor and suppress any interpretation publicly distributed by the ATF.

I think it’s time for some firearms law reform. The new law must be easy to understand by a person of ordinary ability. I would like to suggest:

No government entity shall pass or enforce, directly or indirectly, any arms specific law of any type. Every attempt to violate this shall be punishable by up to 10 years in prison and fined up to three fourths of the net worth of every individual associated with each attempt.

Even the most stupid and/or devious politician should be able to understand that.—Joe]

While some whites were lynched for murder or stealing cattle, there is another important reason many were lynched. Many whites were lynched for helping blacks or being anti-lynching. According to David Barton’s extensively well-documented book, “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” the original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white. The Klan terrorized both black and white Americans not to vote for Republican tickets. “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective.” Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. “Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

Richard Emanuel
September 25, 2017
Many whites were lynched for fighting racism
[The original purpose of the gun control in the U.S. was to protect the Klan from their victims. It should not be a surprise that the primary opposition to private gun owners comes from Democrats.

Extrapolating just a bit we arrive at the following conclusion: Then, as is the case now, one of the primary reason to vigorously hold on to our Second Amendment rights is to protect ourselves from Democrats.—Joe

Update: Barton’s book, Setting the Record Straight is available on Amazon.]

None of us had a grasp of how difficult this would be. We needed more resources, more people.

I would say it was idealistic of us to think that we could get something through at this point.

Matt Gohd
Executive director of Families vs. Assault Rifles
October 23, 2018
‘None of us had a grasp of how difficult this would be:’ Parkland PAC scales back
[From a different article:

At its launch, Gohd, a long-time Democratic donor who has worked at numerous investment firms, told the Miami Herald it had an ambitious goal: to raise $10 million and act as a counterweight to the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful and successful political activist groups in the country. It planned to target politicians who opposed gun safety regulations. So far, it’s only raised $230,000 – much of which came soon after the group was first launched. From July through the end of September, the group took in less than $30,000 and had only $13,000 left in the bank.

…

The group spent roughly half of its money on consulting services, with the biggest chunk going to Empire Global Ventures, a New York based firm primarily focused on corporate clients but whose founders boast political campaign experience.

The group created digital fundraising ads featuring Kasky, but didn’t have enough money to create ads targeting candidates, as had been the initial goal.

I suspect a big part of the problem is they are not able to understand there are people who don’t see the problem, and hence the solution, in the same way as others. They see the problem in terms of “Families vs. Assault Rifles” and, of course, the obvious solution is to get rid of “assault rifles”. The better problem statement is, “Mass shootings must be stopped.” This allows for a much greater range of solutions. Including, in addition to the obvious, things like “Don’t create large groups of people unable to defend themselves.”

Because of the poor problem statements by so many politicians I’m pretty firmly convinced they have an agenda in search of a problem to use as cover for their agenda. This is sad and frustrating because so many lives have been and will be lost because of all these people with their evil agenda.—Joe]

I defy anyone to find a serious, methodologically sound study showing that any gun law reduces violent crime. The National Academy of Sciences, in a literature review a few years ago, could not. Moreover, I reject the phrase “gun crime.” Is it better when homicide victims are killed by baseball bats or knives? The objective should be to reduce crime, regardless of the implement used by the offender.

Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
You asked what to do about gun violence. Now the NC Influencers offer some solutions.
[Just one question.—Joe]

Claims that firearm regulation and gun control laws have any meaningful impact on public safety are dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst. It is simply beyond the scope of legislation to effect the required change in societal norms to have the advertised impact. If that were truly the case, then the prohibition of drugs and prostitution would have stopped the prevalence of those vices. Attempting to change behaviour through the regulation of objects is foolhardy – the causal factors of crime and violence are infinitely more complex than can be addressed by strict gun control. Instead gun control merely succeeds in creating more defenceless victims, and infringes on the civil rights of an entire population. If we can learn anything from Australia, it is that expensive and ever-stricter gun control is doomed to failure.

Gideon Joubert
October 9, 2018
Australia and the NFA – the Truth About Gun Control Down Under
[My experience is that such claims are almost always fraudulent. It’s part of their culture..—Joe]