Category Archives: Politics

If it concerns your Second Amendment, or other policy driven content, you’ll be able to find it in our politics section

Feminist Author Branded As Racist After ‘Confusion’ Over African American Man In BMW With NRA Sticker

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Stereotypes are at the heart of racism. Get a load of this one… READ MORE

SOURCE: Fox News, NRA News

In a quickly-deleted tweet, Kimberly Johnson, HuffPost contributor and feminist author, was baffled over something she saw, and what she wrote about it intersected race, politics, and gun rights.

“Out on the road the other day I saw an affluent black man driving a BMW with two bumper-stickers,” said Johnson. “One was pro-NRA and the other one was a Tea Party sticker that read, ‘Don’t tread on me.’ This left me very confused.”

After Twitter lit up with responses, many accusing Johnson of being racist, the story of her “confusion” became a talking point across conservative media sites including The Blaze and Red State, then was expounded upon by The Daily Mail and Fox News. NRA News commentator, Colion Noir, extended an open invitation talk about the issue on his program and told Fox the tweet offended him at first but then provided an opportunity to have a discussion about race and assumption.

As for Johnson, the self-avowed feminist and advocate, returned fire on social media saying she deleted the tweet because, “I do not see the GOP working in the best interests of people of color or women. I never said anyone should vote any particular way. I said it confused me.”

 

Editor’s Note: I live in a small town in Mississippi. There are many, many African Americans here who shoot, hunt, and are concerned for their personal protection and safety with respect to the 2nd Amendment. That might just shock people like Kimberly Johnson who clearly don’t get out into the real world often enough.

Too Young or Too Old… To Own a Gun?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control” seeks to restrict gun ownership with age limits on “both ends.” READ MORE

gun rights denied

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A common theme among anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Rather than admit that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.

In the 70s, the goal was to ban handguns. Since they could be carried concealed for personal protection, they were seen as being “too small.” That argument fell out of fashion as more and more states passed Right-to-Carry laws that recognized the right to personal protection.

One subset of the anti-handgun hysteria included inexpensive handguns (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), which were deemed “too cheap.” When NRA and others pointed out this was an obvious attempt to disarm lower income citizens (who are often at higher risk to being victims of violent crime), the term “Saturday Night Special” faded from the gun-ban lexicon.

Another subset of the attack on handguns came with the introduction of Glocks, and other handguns that used polymers as part of their construction. These were falsely claimed to be able to pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines undetected, and, thus, “too invisible” to be screened where firearm are prohibited (think airports). Of course, this canard was quickly dispelled.

Ammunition has been attacked as “too lethal,” “too untraceable,” “too bad for the environment (lead),” “too inexpensive (so tax it),” and any number of other “toos.”

Rifles have been called “too powerful,” “too modifiable,” “too accurate,” “too similar to actual military arms,” and the list goes on.

Boiled down to its essence, after wading through myriad “too this” and “too that” arguments, the just-right “Goldilocks” of guns would likely be a break-action .22 rifle, although finding acceptable lead-free ammunition might be a bit difficult. But anti-gun extremists can still claim they don’t want to ban “all” guns.

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control,” though, seems to be focusing less on what you can own, and focusing more on who can own firearms. And we don’t mean people with criminal records.

After the horrific tragedy that took place in Parkland, Florida, this year, age became the new battle cry for those seeking to limit gun ownership. Rather than focusing on the obvious failures at various levels of government to identify the copious warning signs exhibited by the alleged perpetrator, extremists decided to focus on the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment when they reach the age of 18. Although responsible young adults regularly leave home, join the military, get married, and begin voting at this age, the anti-gun community has decided this age is too young for one to exercise the right of gun ownership.

Eighteen-year-olds have not been prohibited from purchasing and possessing rifles and shotguns at the federal level, and in the vast majority of states, since the founding of our country. Nonetheless, because of the violent acts of one individual, we have seen an onslaught of legislation throughout the country that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase and/or possess rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. Because common sense has taken a back seat to raw emotionalism in today’s gun control debate, some of these efforts have seen success.

But being deemed “too young” to own firearms isn’t the only threat to face the pro-Second Amendment community. There may be a new approach beginning to form. You might soon be deemed “too old.”

An article by JoNel Aleccia and Melissa Bailey, published by Kaiser Health News (KHN) and PBS NewsHour, has begun making the rounds with a number of media outlets, such as CNN, and it discusses the issue of gun owners who may be suffering from dementia. Sort of.

Dementia can be a devastating disorder. It is a category of diseases, including Alzheimer’s, that affects the brain, and its impact on individuals varies widely. Mild forms can lead to simple cognitive declines, such as slight memory loss, that are little different than one would experience during the normal aging process. More severe and advanced cases of dementia, on the other hand, can lead to dramatic changes in those afflicted that would require professional health care, and perhaps even commitment to a dedicate healthcare facility.

Of course, discussing the problem of dementia is a conversation worthy of having. Unfortunately, the KHN/PBS article is riddled with language that sounds like it came straight from one of the gun-ban groups being funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. We can only presume it is likely to be used to promote anti-gun policies that focus on prohibition, and ignore reason and constitutional considerations.

The tone of the article (a lengthy one) is set early, when it inaccurately describes our nation with the all-too-commonly heard inflammatory claim that, today, “America copes with an epidemic of gun violence….” In fact, America’s murder rate has fallen to a near all-time low. If anything, we have been doing remarkably well since the violent crime peak in the early 90s, with violent crime and murder rates decreasing by about half.

But repeating anti-gun rhetoric is just the start.

Aleccia and Bailey go on to refer to an analysis of Washington state survey data that claims approximately 54,000 residents who are 65 and older have “some cognitive decline” as well as a firearm in the home. Is this really important to note? No, because two key facts are ignored.

First, cognitive decline is common among the elderly, and can manifest itself as simply slight memory loss. It does not mean dementia is present. In fact, the epidemiologist who analyzed the survey data even “cautions that the answers are self-reported and that people who’ve actually been diagnosed with dementia likely are unable to respond to the survey.” So now, rather than dementia being the concern, it’s simply old age.

Second, the story refers to these people (again, likely just elderly folks with no known mental disorder) having “access to weapons,” as if that is a concern. However, they may not even have access. The survey apparently asked if there was a firearm in the home. The person surveyed could very well be living in a home that has firearms in it, but not have access to the firearm. A son or daughter who takes in a parent, for example, could be the person who owns the firearm in the home, and may not allow others access to it.

The authors also seem to lament, “Only five states have laws allowing families to petition a court to temporarily seize weapons from people who exhibit dangerous behavior.” These are the so-called “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” laws that are being promoted nationwide. They generally lack sufficient due process protections necessary for deprivation of a constitutional right and are often rife for abuse.

Furthermore, dementia is not a “temporary” disease. It has no cure. If an individual is exhibiting “dangerous behavior,” it is, in all likelihood, going to continue, and probably increase. All states have a process to seek to have someone’s competency adjudicated or be involuntarily committed, which could result in a more permanent firearm prohibition. And, these laws generally protect due process by allowing individuals to put on their own defense and challenge the allegation before having their rights infringed by the state.

To make matters worse, Aleccia and Bailey also spoke with long-time anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute, as part of their parroting of the false argument that NRA has stopped “public health research into the effects of gun violence.” Wintemute is the director of the anti-gun University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, so it is clear that there is research going on.

Ultimately, while the subject of treatment for dementia patients is a very serious issue that deserves more scientific inquiry, using such a terrible disease as a pretext to preemptively disarm elderly Americans is unacceptable. As we have said many times before, NRA supports any reasonable steps to fix America’s broken mental health system. But if the debate is going to move towards one more Goldilocks argument suggesting that just getting “too old” is reason enough to confiscate firearms, as this article might suggest, then that is a debate we will not bear.

Anti-gun Efforts to Expand U.N. Regulations to Ammunition Continue

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

United States stands firm in its goal to exclude ammunition from PoA agreement. Read all about it HERE

UN gun control

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Shortly before 4:00am July 7, the two week long Third Review Conference (RevCon3) on the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA) finally came to an end.

Entering into the meeting several critical issues were on the agenda, none of which was more significant than attempts to include ammunition into the fold of the PoA. Getting ammunition into the PoA has been at the top of the anti-firearms agenda since the PoA’s inception in 2001, as it opens the door for calls to mark, trace, limit and require global register of its users. To understand this, you must recognize that everything at the U.N. must be viewed not in the present, but in the future, and just like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) it is never about what is in the document when it is initially adopted, but what that language will allow it to become. Ammunition was the real issue at RevCon3, as including it in the PoA would mark an even more significant step forward in the anti-firearm agenda of the U.N. than the adoption of the ATT.

It is for this reason that the United States’ policy has always been to object to attempts to include ammunition, and why this meeting, more so than any other on the PoA in the past, was so critical. Review conferences provide a forum for enacting change, and while RevCon3 was the third time such a review had taken place, it was the first time a united front had been assembled to push for ammunition’s inclusion. Regrettably, even with a strong U.S. delegation staying true to the original red lines established by former U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, nothing could have been done to stop the final outcome.

For the United States, trouble began during the first week of the conference. While the meeting started with the U.S. position receiving support from roughly half a dozen nations, the tide began to shift as the President of the Conference, French Ambassador Jean-Claude Brunet, emerged from the shadows of supposed impartiality to openly encourage the anti-firearms agenda represented by the majority in the room.

The critical turning point occurred mid-week, following statements from anti-gun group Civil Society, when the supposedly neutral President stopped the meeting and left his podium under the purported purpose of thanking those from Civil Society for their attendance. But instead of thanking everyone he pushed past the pro-firearm groups to have his picture taken with only those representatives supporting his shared anti-firearm agenda, a picture he proudly posted to his official Twitter account.

Brunet was sending a message, “I am on your side and will do what I can to help.” This message was clear and repeated throughout the remainder of the meeting, with his official Twitter account retweeting the messages of the anti-firearm groups in attendance and even carrying his own messages of support, including a picture celebrating wearing orange against “gun violence” and publicizing his closed meeting with the groups. Had his actions been limited to Twitter they might have been easier to swallow, but instead they carried onto the floor and began to impact and influence the course of the meeting. Brunet was supporting their calls to include ammunition in the PoA, and he was going to do whatever he could to help them achieve that goal.

As the body worked through five draft outcome documents, it was clear that the objections being noted on the floor were not being reflected in the progressive drafts. By the time the meeting had advanced to draft three, explicit calls to exclude ammunition from half a dozen countries, including the United States, had failed to be reflected.

Picking up on the President’s unwillingness to adhere to the objections from the floor, a coordinated effort focused on the most outspoken of the ammunition opponents, the United States, began to take hold. Challenges that should have been directed at all those who opposed the inclusion of ammunition instead became directed attacks, and while others remained in opposition it became far too easy for them to go silent and allow the United States to become the punching bag.

Round after round the onslaught continued, with the United States defending its position countless times. But the United States would not bend. At no point was this more clear then when the delegation took the floor to make three short, succinct points: ammunition was specifically not a part of the PoA when it was adopted in 2001, there has never been consensus on ammunition in any subsequent meeting of the PoA, and, as far as the United States was concerned, there never will be. As bold and direct as this was, the two paragraphs in every draft outcome document pushing for its inclusion remained, and it was clear the fight was going to go the distance.

By the second to last day Brunet and his cohorts were beginning to panic. The United States had not budged on the issue and was showing no signs that it would. This was not a delegation operating under the marching orders of our past administration, but instead a firm and solid team holding line.

Attempting to use the clock to his advantage, Brunet took the meeting late into the night on Thursday, hoping exhaustion might encourage compromise. But by 11:00pm he finally called the meeting, providing him with just enough time to strategize with his minions, and by Friday, the last day of the meeting, a plan was in place.

Working alongside Ghana and over 60 other countries pushing for the inclusion of ammunition, and utilizing the German delegation to work the floor to garner support, a coordinated attack was launched. Ammunition would be mentioned, requiring the United States to object, at which time the President would call for a break. During the break, proposals for alternate language would be quietly negotiated throughout the room, and then the meeting would reconvene for open discussions on the new language. Every time the result would be the same; no compromise. But this was expected. Brunet was trying to wear out the United States.

As the circus continued, by around 2:00am frustration started to set in with the President. Brunet had made the United States out to be a villain, the only country holding up consensus on the document and preventing everyone from going home, but the only way to end it was for the U.S. to call for a vote, which the United States was holding out on. In an effort to expedite the process he attempted to pass a motion by bringing the gavel down at almost the exact moment he finished speaking. The meeting had now gone from bad to ugly, and the United States was not having any of it.

In the U.N., it is never looked upon fondly to be the one to break consensus, after all, delegates are trained to compromise, but knowing the United States would not back down from this issue allowed Brunet to use it to his advantage. Finally, the United States made the call for the vote, and Brunet and his staff could implement their plan.

Up for vote were two paragraphs. The first, and less controversial of the two, called from the regulation of surplus ammunition stockpiles. The second, and far more significant, acknowledged States apply the PoA and other, undefined “relevant international standards” to ammunition. Again, a seemingly innocuous statement, but one that opens the door to full incorporation of ammunition into the PoA and its associated International Tracing Instrument, providing justification for later calls to globally regulate ammunition through such requirements as marking, tracing, stockpile limitations and registration.

Even before the votes were cast, it was clear the United States would not win, but it was a matter of principle. Majority rule does not apply to a consensus document, and the United States had to break consensus to keep ammunition out.

The results of the vote read like something out of the Human Rights Council (before our withdrawal); the United States and Israel on one side, 63 third world and Latin-American countries on the other, and 28 who supported our position but abstained nonetheless.

On to the second paragraph, or what would better between described as the second act of Brunet’s circus, but not before a two hour strategy session. When the meeting resumed, and before the vote could be cast, a motion was made and Brunet’s gavel was struck. No time for discussion, no opportunity to object. In what was clearly a coordinated effort, the original language on ammunition was reinserted into the document and passed at almost the exact moment the reading of it finished, forcing the vote to now be on language even more pervasive on the issue than that with which the U.S. had called to a vote. In other words, Brunet had got the ammunition language he wanted in, knowing full well that the voting results would be the same.

As the clock inched towards 3:00am the votes were cast and the results were are almost identical as the first. The United States and Israel on one side, 62 on the other, and 29 abstentions. Ammunition was in the final draft. All that was left now was for the remainder of the document to be adopted and the meeting to adjourn, but the show was not over. The circus had an encore.

In the push to get ammunition in the outcome document, a lingering issue with Syria remained. Syria had objected to the inclusion of references to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, and specifically any in excess of target 16.4 since day one. The SDG’s are a collection of 17 global goals encompassing 169 targets the U.N. established in 2015 in order to promote their agenda of sustainable development, ranging from gender equality to significantly reducing illicit arms flows. They are used to push agendas far outside the scope of specific meetings.

Regrettably, the hour was late and the room was exhausted, so when voting was finally opened most were half asleep or too busy celebrating their “win” on ammunition to take note. Even Syria itself failed to object, but that was not the end of it for them.

Syria continued to express their issues with the document, noting that it could not be adopted because there was no consensus. But in a bizarre twist, they failed to express their own objection to it or call for a final vote. When all was said and done, Madagascar took the floor, called for a vote, and the final draft outcome document was adopted, albeit with the U.S. reinforcing its objection to the two paragraphs including ammunition.

What we were left with as the hour approached 4:00am and the meeting came to a close was a very dangerous document and even worse precedent having been set. The requirement for consensus had been set aside, and a document containing references to ammunition was adopted; a document that will form the backbone of future calls by anti-gun proponents to regulate and restrict ammunition globally.

While there are others out there reporting on this meeting, a lot of what they take issue with in the outcome document is simply the reassertion of language contained in the PoA. Furthermore, they have selectively excluded any limiting language included, such as that contained in the introductory language to each section. Make no mistake, ammunition was the real issue at RevCon3. They would have also recognized that the United States’ objection to ammunition resulted in a document that does not conform to the PoA’s consensus requirement, and for this we sincerely applaud their efforts. The attacks they faced were ugly and while they held firm and kept true to their red lines, nothing more could have been done to stop the U.N.’s anti-gun agenda from moving forward short of withdrawing from another U.N. farce incapable of adhering its own requirements.

D.C. Political Comedian Robbed At Gunpoint Changes Stance On Guns

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“That level of fear and that level of helplessness that you feel, it doesn’t compare to anything else I’ve felt in my life…” READ MORE

tim young

SOURCE: WUSA9.com, Dori Olmos

Political comedian Tim Young was heading to The Wharf, one of D.C.’s newest hotspots, when his life changed.

He was walking down a well-lit section of M Street at about 7:45 p.m. on a Wednesday when two men approached him — one of them had a gun.

“Terrified. You know, when I talk to people about this…you’re scared. There’s no man card involved. I was defenseless,” explained Young, who’s a political comedian and host of ‘No Things Considered’ at the D.C. Examiner. The men stole his cell phone and then ran off.

Check out Tim Young’s tweet HERE

Young said that 6 to 7 people witnessed his attack, but no one tried to help him while it was going on. Two people called 911 after it was over and the “rest of the folks walked off.”

Young: “They just stood by and watched as I was yelling for help. ‘Help, I’m being robbed!’ They stood by and watched…”

Young grew up in Southwest Baltimore and said that he had been in some bad places in his life, but nothing ever happened to him then. He assumed things would continue to go that way. Now, he said he absolutely plans to apply for a concealed carry permit in D.C., but that’s not easy; D.C. is one of the toughest places in the country to get a concealed weapons carry permit.

Young: “When you’re in an instance where there’s a gun is pointed at you and your life is being threatened for your property and no one’s going to help, and now I know that no one’s going to help, I want to feel more secure. I want to feel safe, and I have something to defend myself with.”

He addressed people who are against conceal carry permits by saying they’ve probably never been in his position.

“I think a lot of those people who are opposed to having a conceal carry permit and being able to own a weapon have never had one pointed directly at them when they have nothing on them,” Young said.

Read the whole story HERE

 

A Royal Pain: UK Malcontents Throw Tantrum over Prince George’s Toy Gun

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Big trouble over the Royal Squirt Gun. Folks, this true! READ MORE

royal squirt gun

S0URCE: NRA-ILA

The United Kingdom’s legions of miserable-scolds are at it again. A mere two weeks after admonishing an English national team soccer player for a firearm tattoo, the anti-gun whiners have found a new target. This time the killjoys have deemed it their station to lecture the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on proper parenting.

The sad controversy erupted on June 10, as Kate Middleton, Prince George, and his sister Princess Charlotte watched Prince William participate in the Maserati Royal Charity Polo Trophy in Gloucestershire. During the match, four-year-old George was pictured playing in the grass with an orange-tipped toy revolver and a toy knife. According to an account from Gloucestershire Live, the revolver was a squirt gun the future king won as a carnival prize.

Soon after, the UK’s notoriously loathsome tabloid press got busy stoking a toy gun debate. The Mirror declared, “Outrage as Prince George plays with toy gun and knife on family day out amid surge in violence.” The Mirror cited a Twitter user who saw fit to judge the preschooler and his entire family by stating:
“Sad to see George playing with a gun when the whole country has a gun/knife crime situation. Maybe in training for killing wild life in later years. Thought he was a sensitive child. Better if he was seen playing with a toy car or football. Sadly the royals will never change.”

Another tweeted, “This isn’t okay anymore…” adding, “No child in this day and age should look at any gun as a fun toy.”

Thankfully, some of the more sensible UK subjects have come to the royals’ defense with the facts. The Independent interviewed trained UK Psychotherapist Sarah Ockwell-Smith who explained:
“I understand why gun play worries parents, however research shows that any aggression demonstrated while engaging in ‘war play’ is not carried over into real life. ie: kids who play with guns become no more violent than those who don’t.”

Then adding:
“…even if parents restrict gun-toys, it incredibly likely that children will fashion their own, from a stick for instance. For this reason, combined with the evidence, I see no issue with letting children play with guns and happily allowed my own children to do so.”

This is similar to what U.S. experts have said and written on this topic. Moreover, as NRA-ILA has previously reported, concerns about toy guns appear to be rooted more in the political prejudice of adults rather than any legitimate concern for childhood well-being.

When clinical psychologist and best-selling author Michael G. Thompson, Ph.D. was interviewed for a WebMD article titled, “Toy Guns: Do They Lead to Real-Life Violence?,” he explained, “There’s no scientific evidence suggesting that playing war games in childhood leads to real-life aggression.” University of Nevada Las Vegas researchers Jennifer L. Hart, M.Ed and Michelle T. Tannock, Ph.D. addressed this matter in a chapter on aggressive play and war toys for the Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. The pair wrote, “If playful aggression is supported, it is highly beneficial to child development.” Going further, the researchers noted, “Educators who hold a foundation of understanding will be better able to communicate the importance of not only allowing playful aggression but also supporting it with the inclusion of war toys in early childhood programs.”

Rather than criticize the royals’ parenting, or wholesome fun with a water pistol, a more reasonable course of action might have been to commend the royals as role models for outdoor play. The Centers for Disease Control has noted, “Research increasingly suggests that children benefit from the opportunity to play outdoors, where they can explore and enjoy natural environments.” A 2012 survey of the research on outdoor play published in the journal Health & Place explained, “encouragement of outdoor play and fostering an environment of movement among children improves the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive health of children…”

Much like in the U.S., polling shows UK children are not getting outside enough. According to the Guardian coverage of one 2016 poll, “three-quarters of UK children spend less time outside than prison inmates.” A 2016 UK government study found that more than 10 percent of UK children had not been to a natural environment (including urban parks) in the past year. A 2016 survey from the UK’s National Trust found that the country’s children spent only half as much time playing outside as their parents did.

If history is any guide, this won’t be the last time Prince George or the royals face firearms-related criticism. Despite the family’s significant conservation efforts, animal rights activists have targeted the royals for their proud hunting tradition. In 2016, anti-hunting critics took issue with Prince William’s articulate defense of big game hunting. Prince Philip and Prince Harry have also been the targets of anti-hunting animus.

Given the political disposition of many of his future subjects, Prince George can probably expect a lifetime of criticism should he follow his family into the shooting sports. On a positive note, the four-year-old already appears to be more mature than his most vocal detractors.

D.C. Area Witches Unite for Gun Control, Hurl Curses at the NRA

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Gun control advocates can now boast of a new group of allies joining their dubious coalition: witches. This is true! READ MORE

witches

S0URCE: NRA-ILA

It kind of makes sense.

We all know that gun control is based mainly on magical thinking.

Its advocates, after all, ask us to believe we’re just a few more “commonsense safety measures” away from a world in which evil people who are otherwise determined to kill others refrain from doing so for fear they might violate a gun control law somewhere along the way.

A related premise is that gun control advocates hold the keys to ending violent behavior once and for all, if only the NRA would release its stranglehold on elected officials and taxpayers would pony up the money for “studies” to substantiate their agenda.

According to website wildhunt.org — which features “modern pagan news and commentary” — “documentary filmmaker” Patrick J. Foust has captured a “spellbinding on Donald Trump and the NRA” led by self-described witch David Salisbury.

Foust said he was inspired to make the film, which he’s dubbed The Binding, after seeing news footage of witches conducting a similar ritual on President Trump shortly after his inauguration.

The Binding’s titular event features Salisbury and seven other witches surrounding a table festooned with, among other things, a cauldron sitting atop a pentacle, as well as “a five-dollar bill painted red — to symbolize blood — and a piece of paper with the huge block letters ‘NRA.’” Salisbury stridently hurls curses at those he characterizes as “merchants of mayhem, profiteers of pain, dealers of death,” who “fatten on the blood of innocents and feast like demons on their corpses!” He continues, “May your thoughts and prayers turn to poison in your mouths.”

Foust hopes to promote his 14-minute film on the festival circuit and then make it available on the Internet. He describes himself as a “hardcore liberal Democrat” who “felt like the whole world came crashing down around us” on November 9, 2016. “I saw the Trump Tower binding,” he told Wild Hunt, “and realized there was this tremendous opportunity to tell a story about how this election of Donald Trump has affected spiritual beings, affected all of us really.”

Internet research led Foust to Salisbury, who the article describes as “an activist Witch with a social justice bent” living in Washington, D.C. Salisbury claims to use “the Craft to promote social justice and empower marginalized communities.” He explained, “Gun violence in America is something I’ve always felt kind of helpless about,” but “[i]f there is anything I can do at all that’s even remotely effective, that might be magic.”

Foust admitted that he didn’t know much about witchcraft when embarking on the project, but he had at least been exposed to Paganism and the occult through books and films such as Outlander. “[B]ut as far as what daily life looked like for a modern-day Witch, I really didn’t know too much,” he acknowledged. He hopes his film will allow viewers “to see that we’re all kind of the same.”

Good luck with that.

The film has yet to be released, although the ritual it depicts was apparently conducted during Samhain 2017 (Oct. 1 through Nov. 1). It’s unclear from the Wild Hunt article whether the spellbinding was supposed to take effect immediately or at a later date, but we can report that the NRA has not experienced any uptick in paranormal activity or supernatural suppression of our affairs in the interim.

We are, on the other hand, experiencing record levels of support from people who understand better than ever from recent events that those who are determined to disarm law-abiding Americans will stoop to any tactic and exploit any perceived advantage to advance their prohibitory agenda. That includes, so it seems, attempting to use magic spells to accomplish what they have failed to achieve through other means.

As for the NRA, we’ll leave it to the gun control movement to appeal to Hekate, Queen of Witches. We prefer the more down-to-earth channels of education, political activism, and grassroots organizing.

Besides, an NRA membership is still a lot more economical, and far more effective, than trying to bargain with the spirit world.

The ONLY Way to Stop Kids from Shooting Up Schools

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

We all know it’s not guns, so what is it? Jason Anderson shares his thoughts on some root causes for these tragedies. READ MORE

troubled teen
It’s not easy being a kid nowadays. Pressures from bullies, social media, and more mean we must pay close attention to our children.

 

by Jason Anderson

Any time a child loses their life… Especially at the hands of a murderer, it’s a horrific tragedy.

But, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that gun control is not the answer. (Unless you want to give up your freedoms and end up living in a place where only criminals have guns, or under a communist regime like North Korea.)

So, how in the world can we stop these school shootings then?

Well…the other day, I read about two young women who were sentenced to jail for smuggling drugs around the world. Apparently, some rich guy paid them to carry the “cargo” to different places.

One of the young women said she did it to increase her Instagram followers so she could have pictures of her jet-setting all over the world.

My point is, these days, our young people are tremendously influenced by social media. Back in the day, if there was a bully, you got in a fight in the cafeteria and that was that. But now, people can tease and harass each other on Facebook and all of the other social media sites so these poor kids can be tormented 24-7, even when they leave school.

Case in point: When I was in high school, I tried out for the basketball team. On the night of tryouts, I had the flu and was really sick. But, I wanted to tryout so badly I went anyway.In the middle of tryouts, I suddenly threw up all over the basketball court. (I’m talking large chunks everywhere.) I ran to the bathroom to clean up and they wouldn’t let me finish the tryout. Of course, some kids made fun of me for puking everywhere and I think it lasted for probably two days and that was it.

But, imagine if that happened today.

No doubt, someone would have videotaped me puking all over the court. It would be put on YouTube and Facebook. It would probably have a gazillion views by now of me puking and then running to the bathroom. I would probably be reminded of my puking event for weeks upon weeks. (There goes my high school dating life.)

Geez, it’s rough to be a kid today, don’t you think?

The thing is, since social media isn’t going anywhere, parents have to monitor their children more closely. They’ve got to monitor Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, and text messages. They need to take a more active interest in their kids’ lives.

When someone says: “The shooter showed no signs they were going to do this…” I find it hard to believe. There’s always signs, always cries for help, as small as they might be.

No parent wants to believe their kid could be a murderer (and I don’t think my kids could be either). But, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to check their web browsing history or their phone when they’re teenagers. While they might not be preparing to do a school shooting, I still want to make sure they’re not doing drugs or other bad things. That is my obligation and responsibility as a parent. Remember, you’re their parent first, and their friend second.

The bottom line is, I do wish kids treated each other better. But, I don’t see that changing because since the beginning of time, kids have been bullying and teasing each other.

So, parents need to step up to the plate more and watch their kids and help them when they can see their kids are struggling.

I wish there was a “magic” pill or better answer to solve this problem.

But, I can assure you, to maintain our freedoms, taking away gun rights is not the answer and never has been.

Remember, the Second Amendment isn’t a suggestion… It’s a right.

Jason Hanson is a former CIA Officer and New York Times bestselling author of Spy Secrets That Can Save Your Life. To get a free copy of his book, visit www.SpyEscape.com.

Texas Gov. Introduces “School and Firearm Safety Action Plan”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Texas Gov. recently released his “Action Plan” in response to the Santa Fe incident. READ MORE

Gov. Abbott

SOURCE: texas.gov.com, AP

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced a 44-page plan intended to keep schools safer. The focus is on increased law enforcement presence, more armed school personnel, better threat assessment, and better mental health interventions.

“This plan is a starting point, not an ending place,” said Governor Abbott. “It provides strategies that can be used before the next school year begins to keep our students safe when they return to school. This plan will make our schools safer and our communities safer.”

Abbott’s “School Firearm Safety Action Plan” resulted from a series of roundtable discussions hosted by the governor following the Sante Fe TX shooting on May 19.

The primary focus for the recommendations are on school security, but also suggests 5 firearm-specific measures, including fortifying criminal reporting that might influence NICS background check.

The plan also addresses Texas’ Safe Firearm Storage Law, which has recently come under scrutiny. Currently, the law only allows prosecution of parents for what’s deemed unsafe storage if their child is under 17 years of age. This absolved the father of the Santa Fe shooter from liability.

Abbott seeks to raise the age to 18, and increasing the penalty level to a 3rd-degree felony when access results in death or serious bodily injury, plus seeks to remove the “readily dischargeable” statutory definition.

The plan also encourages the state legislature to “consider the merits” of allowing courts to issue “red flag” or “extreme risk” protective orders. This would allow law enforcement, a district attorney, a school employee, or a family member to file a petition seeking the removal of firearms from a person suspected to be dangerous to himself or to others. Governor Abbott insists that such a law must follow due process by providing the person both a notice and a hearing, and that any such protective order would be for a limited duration of time, provide for mental health treatment, and offer a clear path to the full restoration of rights and return of firearms when the person is no longer deemed to be a danger.

Regarding proposed school measures: the plan outlines several measures which include increasing law enforcement presence, implementing behavior threat assessment programs, addressing the means to provide more secure school infrastructure, and active shooter and emergency response training.

Abbott’s “Action Plan” includes a section outlining how the school marshal program might be expanded, and also provide training that focuses more on firearms use. This program allows school districts to identify and train personnel, including teachers, to respond to active shooter situations with firearms. Under current law, school marshals who have direct contact with students are required to store their firearm while on campus, making the weapon hard to access and use in the event of a crisis. The proposal seeks to change this and allow marshals to keep their firearms on their person.

Abbott says he has identified nearly $110 million in total funding, including $70 million that is already or will soon be available.

READ Gov. Abbott’s proposal HERE

Trump Administration’s Proposed Rulemakings a Win-Win for America’s Firearms Industry, National Security

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New propsals seek to “build a taller fence around a smaller yard,” and the upshot will benefit American sportsmen, and the industries that provide for them. READ HOW

trump

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On Thursday, May 24, the Trump Administration published two rulemakings designed to enhance the competitiveness of American companies in the firearms and ammunition sectors, remove burdens for small businesses, and modernize export controls for the post-Cold War era. The moves will benefit both the domestic firearms industry and improve national security. The publication of the proposals also triggered a 45-day comment period during which members of the public can provide feedback on the plans and share their own experiences with the underlying regulations.

The rulemakings are part of a larger, longstanding project to modernize America’s export regime for military and “dual-use” equipment and technology. Dual-use items are those considered to have both military and civilian applications. The governing philosophy of the project is to “build a taller fence around a smaller yard” by strengthening controls on the most militarily sensitive items while allowing less sensitive material with well-established civilian uses and markets to be subject to a more business-friendly regulatory climate.

They two big players overseeing U.S. exports are the State Department, which administers the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the U.S. Commerce Department, which handles the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The items regulated by the ITAR are on what is known as the U.S. Munitions List (USML), while those subject to the EAR are on the Commerce Control List (CCL).

Whether on the USML or CCL, however, the items are still subject to close government oversight, including the requirement in most cases that any person or entity wishing to export them to any foreign nation get a federally-issued license to do so.

Nevertheless, items on the USML controlled under ITAR are generally treated more strictly, with national and international security considerations trumping all other factors in the granting of licenses. Any business that manufactures an item on the USML, or even just a part or component of such an item, also has to register with the State Department and pay an annual fee, which is currently set at $2,250. This registration is required even if the manufacturer has no intent to ever export the items. Compliance fees, including for licenses, are also generally higher for USML items, given the complexity of the regulations and the more stringent vetting given to license applications.

Manufacturers of items on the CCL, or their parts or components, do not have to pay an annual registration fee to the Commerce Department. Moreover, regulation of these items is more flexible to promote the goal of increasing U.S. manufacturers’ and businesses’ worldwide competitiveness.

By properly apportioning export control between the two lists, the government will be able to apply maximum resources to overseeing the most consequential and sensitive equipment, while giving American businesses who manufacture consumer products a larger footprint in international markets. The result is greater security and a more robust U.S. economy.

Currently, most firearms and ammunition (with the exception of certain sporting shotguns and shotgun shells) are controlled under ITAR and the USML. This has led to a host of problems for gun-related businesses in the U.S. and made it more difficult for U.S. businesses in this sector to be competitive internationally.

First, many American firearm businesses are small operations that do not export their products and never intend to do so but still have to pay annual registration fees to the State Department because what they do is considered “manufacturing.” So if a U.S. company that manufacturers springs wants to branch out into magazine or recoil springs for firearms, for example, it has to pay the State Department’s registration fee, even if those springs are exclusively sold in the U.S.

On the other hand, if a foreign company wanted to use those springs in the firearms it manufactures abroad, it would have pay more for doing so because of all the ITAR red tape the U.S. spring maker would have to go through to export the springs. This makes the U.S. springs a less attractive option.

Two other problems that arose with the ITAR during the Obama administration concern what is considered controlled “technical data” and who is considered a regulated “manufacturer.”

As we reported at the time, part of building the “taller fence” for export control involved an initiative to tighten up rules for the “export” of “technical data.” In practice, this meant that publishers of technical information about firearms and ammunition – including exploded parts diagrams, gunsmithing tutorials, and handloading information – risked being swept up into the ITAR’s regulatory scope, particularly for items posted online.

Obama’s State Department also issued a confusing “guidance” document that expansively defined firearm “manufacturing” to include various common gunsmithing operations performed on existing firearms. This drove many smaller gunsmiths to limit or quit their business activity for fear of triggering the ITAR’s registration requirements or of incurring inadvertent violations that could bring ruinous penalties.

All of these problems would be alleviated if the Trump administration’s rules were enacted as proposed, as most non-automatic firearms of .50 caliber or less, as well as their parts, components, accessories, and magazines of up to 50 rounds capacity, would be moved from the USML to the CCL.

Another Obama-era ITAR change made it much more difficult for private individuals to travel abroad with personally owned firearms for lawful purposes such as hunting or competition because of an added requirement to document the “export” through an official website designed for commercial exporters. That requirement, unfortunately, would persist under the current version of the Commerce Department proposal but might be changed if affected parties explained their concerns during the comment period.

A further basis for comment could include the rules’ treatment of sound suppressors. Although these items are very common among hunters and recreational shooters both in the U.S. and abroad and do not provide the U.S. or its allies with any special military advantage, the published proposals would leave them on the USML.

The easiest way to file comments is through the U.S. government’s online regulatory portal, Regulations.gov. The State Department’s proposed rule and comment form are available at this link. Use this link for the Commerce Department’s proposal.

President Trump promised to be a friend to America’s gun owners, and these proposed rules show him making good on that pledge. Your input will encourage the Commerce and State departments to see these rules through to final enactment and help guide the process in the most positive direction possible. The NRA has long advocated for these changes and is extremely pleased to see progress being made toward that end.

PUBLIX Part Two: Publix Suspends Political Contributions Amid Statewide Protests

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Publix caves to shock-tactics orchestrated by David Hogg. Read what happened… MORE

david hogg die in

SOURCE: Tampa Bay Times

The supermarket giant acknowledges its support of Adam Putnam has “led to a divide in our community.”

Publix, facing consumer boycotts, student protests, and threats to its wholesome image for its generous support of Adam Putnam’s bid for governor, announced May 25 it is suspending all corporate campaign contributions immediately.

The popular retailer, facing a rapidly escalating public relations crisis fueled largely by social media and the debate over guns, issued a statement at the start of the three-day Memorial Day holiday weekend acknowledging the “divide” that it has caused by its unprecedented financial support of Putnam’s campaign.

“At Publix, we respect the students and members of the community who have chosen to express their voices on these issues,” the company said. “We regret that our contributions have led to a divide in our community. We did not intend to put our associates and the customers they serve in the middle of a political debate. At the same time, we remain committed to maintaining a welcoming shopping experience for our customers. We would never knowingly disappoint our customers or the communities we serve.”

The company’s action suggested that the furor over its contributions was having a significant effect as the 2018 political campaign attracts growing attention from Florida voters.

David Hogg and other students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the scene of a February shooting, organized a 4 p.m. “die-in” Friday at a Publix parking lot in Coral Springs.

Students drew chalk outlines of human bodies and lay still on the floor for 12 minutes.

Moments before the protest began, Publix released its statement.

Several dozen protesters followed through with the protest. Some held sunflowers as they lay sprawled on the floor of the grocery store. They were flanked by a smaller group of counter-protesters chanting “NRA” and “Trump,” but the demonstration was peaceful. Officers with the Coral Springs Police Department stood by during the event.

Publix is Florida’s largest private employer with more than 175,000 employees. The company has stores in seven southeastern states.

Publix Supermarkets, Publix executives and family members have donated at least $670,000 to the campaign of Putnam, the elected state agriculture commissioner and an opponent of new gun restrictions who called himself “a proud #NRA sellout” last year.

Check out ADAM PUTNAM HERE