Gun rights

MSNBC: Voters ‘selfishly’ expect Second Amendment rights to ‘stay the same’

The hosts of “MSNBC Live” told viewers on Thursday that President Trump’s support continues to be strong due to an abundance of “selfish” Second Amendment supporters. Co-anchors Stephanie Ruhle and Ali Velshi mulled over the White House’s solid support as the midterm elections near and concluded that self-centered Americans are to blame. “While we could find or do find the president’s constant lying or lawlessness or reprehensible behavior morally unacceptable, a lot of people vote pretty selfishly, and they say, ‘What’s going to give me more money in my pockets?’ ” Ms. Ruhle told billionaire Tom Steyer. “Or what’s going to make abortion illegal, or what’s going to make sure that my Second Amendment rights stay the same, and clearly, that adds up to enough people that the president still has something akin to 40 percent of the electorate in polls,” added Mr. Velshi. Mr. Velshi added that it was “fascinating” but difficult to talk about the kind of voter who demands lawmakers follow the official amendment process when changes to constitutional rights are sought. The Washington Free Beacon noted that Mr. Steyer, who claimed that “80 percent” of Americans are not benefiting from the nation’s economic boom, gave more than $90 million to support Democratic Party causes in 2016.

And this is why MSNBC and CNN have NO clue why their ratings continue to tank.  They simply don’t get it…and by calling voters “selfish,” they’re alienating half of the electorate.  Over 62 MILLION people “selfishly” voted for Donald Trump in 2016; many of them sick and tired of self-righteous, arrogant, and out-of-touch liberal media personalities like these tools over at MSNBC.

French: Corporate Gun Control Might Be the Worst Threat to Gun Rights

Let’s be honest. If you own guns or you’re a gun-rights supporter, and if you’re concerned about government restrictions on your Second Amendment rights, the future looks bright. The elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court may well represent the death knell for draconian forms of gun control — including bans on so-called “assault weapons” and bans on standard-capacity magazines in semi-automatic pistols and rifles. Moreover, meaningful federal gun control has been blocked for a generation, and red-state legislatures are moving almost uniformly to liberalize state gun laws. Witness, for example, the steady spread of “constitutional carry” in red states across the land. But another threat looms, one that can stretch across the entire American landscape, is immune to the filibuster, and is largely sheltered from judicial review. It’s a threat that can choke off financing for the gun industry, stifle speech about guns, and lock the gun-rights community into offline (and small online) ghettos that restrict their ability to communicate. So, what’s happening? Titans of American banking and communication are taking steps to restrict the use of their funds or platforms by gun makers, gun-rights advocates, and others. The threat is just now emerging, but it may be as great a danger to gun rights as it is to the culture of free speech in this nation, and indeed the two are linked. A short, non-exclusive survey should help paint the picture. Citigroup struck one of the first blows, taking action in March: “Citigroup is setting restrictions on the sale of firearms by its business customers, making it the first Wall Street bank to take a stance in the divisive nationwide gun control debate. The new policy, announced Thursday, prohibits the sale of firearms to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21. It also bars the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. It would apply to clients who offer credit cards backed by Citigroup or borrow money, use banking services or raise capital through the company.” Not to be outdone, Bank of America has acted against assault weapons. Here’s the beginning of a New York Times story from April: “Bank of America will stop lending money to gun manufacturers that make military-inspired firearms for civilian use, such as the AR-15-style rifles that have been used in multiple mass shootings, a company executive said Tuesday.” While the banks’ actions apply to the manufacture and sale of firearms, there are considerable unfolding online threats to speech about guns. Consider the actions of these titans of tech: Facebook has recently restricted any links to a website called codeisfreespeech.com, which contains downloadable plans for a number of entirely legal firearms, including the 3D-printable firearms at the heart of the lingering Obama-era case against Cody Wilson. The site includes plans for weapons such as the Colt 1911, a weapon so common and so basic that its plans date back to, well, 1911 (actually before). You can even buy the plans on a t-shirt. YouTube has its own restrictions on speech about firearms and prohibits any content that “intends to sell” firearms or provides instructions on “manufacturing a firearm.” The latter prohibition is broad enough to (if YouTube wishes) include information on assembling a firearm from its component parts — a necessary part of firearm cleaning and maintenance. Reddit has banned certain gun forums and updated its policies to forbid using Reddit to “solicit or facilitate” (extremely broad terms) transactions or gifts involving firearms. Its policy applies to gun sales, drug sales, prostitution, stolen goods, personal information, and counterfeit official documents. One of those things is not like the other. The keeping and bearing of firearms is an explicit, enumerated constitutional right. The rest of the list largely deals with criminal activity. The list just keeps going. Amazon Web Services has reportedly removed codeisfreespeech.com from its web servers, and Shopify just updated its free-speech policies to deny space for “the kind of products intended to harm.” It also placed on its “restricted items list” all semi-automatic weapons packaged with detachable magazines “capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.” It also reportedly deleted the accounts of a number of weapons retailers, including Spike’s Tactical and Franklin Armory. Let’s keep in mind that these actions represent not the culmination of a gun-control campaign but the front edge of a wave of corporate censorship and suppression.

Exactly!! Thanks to attorney, and Army Reserve officer (Major), David French for this excellent op/ed.  For more, click on the text above.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.

Opinion/Analysis: Media Should Refrain from Naming Any Mass Public Shooter

Ever wonder why mass public shooters commit their horrible crimes? Prosecutors in Broward County, Fla., released on Wednesday the Parkland high-school shooter’s cell-phone videos, in which he bragged, “It will be a big event, and when you see me on the news, you will all know who I am.” What makes these mass public shooters different from most criminals is that they want glory and fame, and we need to stop giving it to them. The media coverage of these videos also fails to draw any lessons about how we can stop these attacks in the future. If anyone missed the Parkland killer’s motivation, he repeated it three more times in his video rants, which totaled two minutes and 26 seconds. He tells viewers: “From the wrath of my power they will know who I am,” “with the power of my AR you will all know who I am,” and “you will all know what my name is.” To get this attention, the killer understood that he had to kill a lot of people: “My goal is [to kill] at least 20 people.” The Parkland killer feels that he benefits from coverage of the attack even if it doesn’t mention his name. The more well-known the attack, the more people will ultimately learn who he is. Sadly, the Parkland killer is all too typical. Killers like him want to commit suicide and want to do it in a way that will bring them notoriety. This isn’t a motivation just for lone-wolf shootings; we also see it in coordinated terrorist attacks. The Sandy Hook killer spent two and a half years putting together a report on mass public shootings. Law enforcement described “a sickeningly thorough 7-foot-long, 4-foot-wide spreadsheet with names, body counts, and weapons from previous mass murders and even attempted killings.” One anonymous law-enforcement veteran remarked, “It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research.” The killer also collected information on media coverage for each killing. He observed that attacks with more deaths received greater media coverage. The Sandy Hook killer may have been mentally ill, but he clearly knew what he wanted to accomplish and how he was going to do it. CBS Evening News reported that he wanted to kill more people than did Anders Breivik, a Norwegian man who killed 77 people in July 2011. The Connecticut shooter targeted the “nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School because it was the ‘easiest target’ with the ‘largest cluster of people.’” The Batman movie-theater shooter in Aurora, Colo., was also mentally ill. But William Reid, a state-appointed psychiatrist who performed Holmes’s sanity evaluation, testified that the subject carefully planned every detail to maximize the number of possible victims and get more attention. Over and over again, these killers are highly driven to realize their goal of more publicity. They invest a lot of time and energy into planning their attacks, often starting a year or two in advance. Mass public shootings have rarely involved less than six months of planning. It is clear: If you want to stop these attacks, stop giving news coverage to the killers and their crimes.

Agreed!!  To read the rest of this outstanding op/ed by economist Dr. John R. Lott, click on the text above.  Excellent!!    🙂

Student launches walkout in support of Second Amendment to give voice to ‘the other kids’

As Will Riley watched students stage this year’s walkouts for gun control, he grew frustrated with the message that his generation was somehow united against the Second Amendment. “I’m seeing people saying, ‘We need to do something, we’ve got to enact some kind of legislation because this is for the kids.’ Well, I’m also the kids, and I don’t like that,” Mr. Riley told the Washington Times. “And there are other people like me. The other kids haven’t spoken yet.” The 18-year-old senior from Carlsbad High School in Carlsbad, New Mexico, decided to do something about it by launching Stand for the Second, a May 2 school walkout designed to give a voice to “the other kids,” namely those who support the Second Amendment. “We’re getting generalized. Our generation’s being defined,” said Mr. Riley, whose website is StandfortheSecond.com. “And I think we have an obligation to define ourselves.” Stand for the Second comes as the first national student walkout aimed at supporting gun rights in the aftermath of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which touched off a wave of campus gun-control activism. Mr. Riley is encouraging students to stage 16-minute walkouts on campus after coordinating with local police and working with school administrators to make sure the protests don’t conflict with testing. So far, walkouts are being planned by students in about 300 schools from 42 states, based on the online map operated by Tea Party Patriots, which is helping Mr. Riley with organization.

South Carolina lawmakers introduce bill to begin secession debate

South Carolina debated seceding from the Union more than 150 years ago, one of the opening salvos of the Civil War. Now, the topic has come up again, amid a national debate over firearms and gun rights. A trio of state House Republicans on Thursday quietly introduced a bill that would allow lawmakers to debate seceding from the U.S. “if the federal government confiscates legally purchased firearms in this State.” Rep. Mike Pitts, the measure’s chief sponsor, acknowledged Friday in an interview with The Associated Press that the bill has no chance of passage this year but pledged to continue to raise the issue based on what he described as a defense of the Bill of Rights. “Without a Bill of Rights, our nation is not what it is,” Pitts said. “I see a lot of stuff where people even talk about totally repealing the Second Amendment, which separates us from the entire rest of the world.” Pitts, an ardent supporter of gun rights, said he had been mulling such a proposal for a while and felt it was necessary to bring the bill forward. He said he wasn’t spurred by recent comments by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who recently wrote in an op-ed that a repeal of the Second Amendment “would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.” South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union before the Civil War…

Opinion/Analysis: Parkland Gun Control Activists Driving Americans Toward 2nd Amendment

As Parkland gun control activists and their surrogates mock the idea of arming teachers, march for gun bans in D.C., and call for new gun controls via Twitter, they risk driving Americans toward the Second Amendment instead of away from it. They run this risk via their in-your-face gun control hubris, especially when that hubris is directed toward docile actors. For example, on Monday Rep. Steve King (R-IA) addressed Parkland students who want to raise the minimum age for gun purchases by asking, “If you are a teenager & believe you won’t be responsible enough to own a gun until 21, why should you vote before 21?” That is a reasonable question when one considers that voting and owning guns are both constitutional rights. Yet the responses to his question varied between things too vulgar to print and pronouncements that his political career is over–that he is a pawn of the NRA and is going to be voted out office. Or consider David Hogg, one of the most frequent spokesmen for Parkland gun control activists. He put out a PSA one week before the student march for gun control and asked, “What if our politicians weren’t the bitch of the NRA?” And it is not just the way he talks about the NRA, although that runs the risk of motivating the group’s five million-plus members to show up and vote. It is also the way he appears to set himself apart from other Americans in general. Take his March 22 Axios interview as an example. In that interview he talked of how his teachers are “very understanding” when he has to skip school for gun control events and appearances. He even talked of how he was recently supposed to take a math test but just said, “Nah.” This gives the appearance of special rules for the philosopher king, rules and opportunities that cannot be enjoyed by others. One cannot be blamed for sensing a similar, conflicting set of rules in gun controllers from Hollywood and D.C. If, by chance, you still do not see the hubris, then look at Parkland gun control activist Cameron Kasky, who spends time rejecting the idea of arming teachers to defend students when he is not making fun of Americans’ abiding conviction that we need to be armed to repel a tyranny. On Tuesday he tweeted: “To all people who think they need an assault rifle: I can not promise this, but I truly do not believe the redcoats will be coming for any of us any time soon.” And we have not even mentioned how the gun control activists treated Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch during the CNN gun control town hall. It was just a few short months ago–October 19, 2017, to be exact–that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was urging his colleagues to drop gun control until after the November 2018 election. He worried that the incessant, post-Vegas gun control push was going to hurt Democrats in the midterm elections. Yet the gun control push from Democrats has only escalated since Schumer voiced his concerns, thanks to the Parkland activists and others. Meanwhile, the NRA PAC took in February donations that were three times higher than it received during January. This could mean that people had spent months saving in a coordinated effort to give money to the NRA in February or…it could mean that Schumer was right and all the gun control rhetoric is rallying Americans to the standard once more. And that standard is the Second Amendment.

Agreed..  Author AWR Hawkins has a great point here…one I heard someone echo last night.  Each time there is an overreach for guns by anti-gun, liberal politicians, there is a political backlash against them by we-the-people.  That said..  If you’re thinking about getting a firearm, NOW is the time to do that, and stock up on ammo while you can.  You just never know..  Also, take a minute and join the NRA or renew your membership online.  If we all do it, it’ll send a powerful message to the politicians in D.C.

NRA Memberships Surge in Wake of Anti-NRA Protests, ‘Media Bias’

National Rifle Association memberships surged in the wake of the anti-NRA protests and “media bias” that followed the February 14 Florida school shooting. The Daily Mail reports that Google searches for “NRA membership” rose “4,900 percent” since the Florida attack. That rise occurred at a time when many Democrats, media personalities, and Hollywood celebrities were denouncing the NRA as causal in the shooting that took 17 lives in a gun-free zone. The Hollywood attitude was epitomized by writer-director Judd Apatow, actress Mia Farrow, and comedian Chelsea Handler, all of whom responded to the Florida school attack by calling out the NRA to drive a wedge between voters and pro-gun legislators. For example, Handler tweeted: “We have to elect candidates that are not funded by the NRA in November. We have an opportunity to elect candidates who won’t allow kids to go to school and get shot. It is disgusting how many times this has happened and Republicans do nothing. You all have blood on your hands.” CNN’s February 21 gun control town hall highlighted the media’s animosity towards the NRA, as it featured survivors from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting confronting Republicans over NRA affiliation. The Guardian reported that one student spoke to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), asking, “Can you tell me right now you will not accept a single donation from the NRA?” In addition, more than a dozen companies severed ties with the NRA in the wake of the school attack, ending discounted rates and fares for NRA members. But a large swath of the American populace is equating these various attacks on the NRA with attacks on the Second Amendment, and others see the attacks as proof of “media bias.” The result is an explosion in NRA memberships. The Daily Mail quoted Cleta Mitchell, a former NRA board member and former Oklahoma lawmaker, who said, “There is no one. NO ONE. Who joins the NRA for a discount on a rental car. You can rest assured that the NRA will not lose a single member as a result of this. If anything, it should spur people to join the NRA as a means of demonstrating that we who believe in the Second Amendment will not be bullied by these left wing multi-billion dollar corporations.”