Tag: μολών λαβέ

The California DOJ recently withdrew a proposed set of regulations to enforce the State’s new “bullet button” ban. This ban redefines an “assault weapon” to mean any detachable magazine centerfire rifle with two or more features from the naughty list; such as an adjustable stock or a pistol grip on the forearm. While the proposed regulation were an overreach of the law’s intent, they were still rules that could be followed.

The firearms manufacturing community has been introducing new products that would allow Californians to comply with the terms of the law without having to register their rifles as “assault weapons”. (Remember: Registration == Confiscation!) But, by delaying their new rules, the CA-DOJ makes it uncertain which of these new products would actually pass the department’s legal tests. Thus we cannot say with certainty that a “featureless” rifle configuration is really featureless under the law. Nor can we say that a particular magazine release system truly satisfies the requirement that the action of the gun be disassembled to remove the magazine.

One does have to wonder: Is this delay deliberate? Is its purpose to prevent manufacturers from introducing legal products for California gun owners ahead of the ban’s January 1, 2018 enforcement date? Without these products, Californians would be forced to register their legally owned firearms with the State to stay compliant. Or…

Legal News

I’m pretty sure that we warned y’all this would happen. But did you listen? Why start now, right?

Californians, faced with yet another round of unconstitutional gun laws, responded by buying a record number of firearms in 2016. Of course, this happens every time crazy, gun hating liberals roll out new gun laws. Real Americans respond with their wallets.

News

It ain’t fun hearing a bullet whiz past your ear. It means that you almost got your head taken off. On the upside, it does mean that you dodged one that could have taken your head off.

We dodged one of those last night.

Hillary Clinton, possibly the most anti-gun candidate in American political history, came within a hairsbreadth of winning the White House last night. While Donald Trump will come away with a commanding electoral college win (306-ish to 228-ish as I write this), Hillary won a slight majority in the popular vote. 59,408,297 people (as of 8:31 PST), damn near sent that harridan to the Oval Office. Had she gotten to that desk, your freedom to own and use whatever firearms you deem fit for your needs would have flushed down the nearest toilet.

However, this isn’t the time for gun owners to pack up and head home. The battle was won and the end of the war is in sight, but this is the GOP we’re talking about here. If anyone can rescue defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s that pack of creepy clowns. Trump has put forward a list of names for possible Supreme Court justices. Our job now is to vet these and others before they receive the consent of the Senate. (Remember that Souter and O’Connor were appointed by Republicans!) Don’t start thinking that having a little “R” behind someone’s name makes them a friend to your gun rights. We have the opportunity to reshape the Court for at least the next generation.

It’s time for the mopping up to begin.

News Politics

America’s gunnuts are actually on the Left…


From NRA-ILA:

Clinton Pushes Semi-Auto Ban as Public Rejects Gun Bans in Record Numbers

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2016

Is she trying to look like Donald Sutherland?!?

Hillary Clinton has made clear that she would make gun control a top priority of her presidency, and has pointed to a new ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as one of her chief goals. At a June 17, 2014 CNN “town hall” event, Clinton was asked, “Do you think that reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high capacity magazines would do any good?” Clinton affirmed her support for a ban, and stated, “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” Clinton’s team might want to rework this line of attack, as a Gallup poll released this week shows that a record number, and a majority, of Americans oppose a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms.

In a poll conducted October 5-9, Gallup asked 1,017 adults, “Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” An overwhelming 61 percent of respondents answered that they were against such a ban, while a mere 36 percent support the restriction.

Gallup began asking this question in 1996, and has done so several times in the last two decades. The trend in favor of greater respect for gun rights is undeniable. Since 1996, support for a ban has dropped more than 20 points and opposition has risen 19 points.

Moreover, Gallup’s data shows that support for a ban has fallen across both major political parties and independents. Gallup points out, “Currently, 50% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans favor a ban; in 1996, 63% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans did so.” Additionally, support for a ban is well below 50 percent in both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households.

In addition to the question about semi-automatic firearms, Gallup also asked respondents, “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?” As with commonly-owned semiautomatics, the results reveal that Americans are opposed to a handgun ban in record numbers. In the 1980s and early 1990s Gallup measured support for a handgun ban at around 40 percent. Today, only 23 percent support this restriction. 

While Clinton might like use incendiary rhetoric that labels gun rights supporters as a minority that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans, in fact it’s her support for gun bans that is extreme. We’d ask Clinton to stick to the truth, if she were familiar with the concept.


A few take-aways from this:

  1. Hillary Clinton knows what she knows and she’s not going to let the opinions of the “small folk” stand in her way. (Like that’s a surprise!)
  2. Support for an “assault weapon” ban fades away when it’s not called an “assault weapon” ban. Did you notice how Gallup phrased the question? Usually the question is “Do you favor banning deadly assault weapons that slaughter women and children?”. Whether they mean to or not, pollsters push-poll the question with wording like that. One wonders why Gallup did not do so here. Perhaps they’re tired of getting smacked for it by people like us.
  3. Gunnuts, those who obsess over firearms, are on the Left in America. Only people like Hillary get their knickers in a twist over rifles that are almost never used in violent crimes.

News Politics

Virtually all Americans are of the opinion that this is the single worst presidential election in our nation’s history. I submit that the opposite is true.

The candidates of the two major parties are a weasel and a toad. I’ll let you decide which is which! There have never been two more unlikeable characters running for elective office. For every negative thing you can say about Hillary Clinton, there’s something just as bad to say about Donald Trump. Neither can be held up as shining example of virtuous living. But, as TownHall.com columnist Wayne Grudem points out, this makes the election about policies instead of personalities.

Voting for Clinton and her ultraliberal policies is not an option for me as an evangelical Christian. Therefore I am left with two options: (1) vote for Trump, or (2) vote for a third-party candidate whose hopes of winning belong to fantasy, not reality.

And if these are my only two options, then voting for a third-party candidate has the clear effect of helping to elect Clinton, because it is taking my vote away from Trump. That is why the liberal media loved it when I said I was finding it hard to decide.

It also means that my two options are actually this: (1) vote for Trump, or (2) help Hillary Clinton get elected.

Once I put the choice in those stark terms, there is a good way to make a decision. Since I find both candidates morally objectionable, I am back to the old-fashioned basis on which I have usually decided how to vote for my entire life: Whose policies are better? Do I agree more with Trump’s policies or with Clinton’s?

And that is how elections are supposed to be!

Elections in the US (Well… everywhere.) devolve into beauty contests. Who said or did what to whom becomes far too important. What a candidate did in the past is important, but not nearly as important as what they will do once elected. We should, but never really do, look at their policies rather than their wardrobes. But since neither Clinton nor Trump are viewed by the American People in a favorable light, we’re forced to decide based on their policies.

For gun owners, this is a no-brainer. The stated policies of each viable candidate are known. Yes, Trump could be lying about his support for gun rights; but what are the odds that Hillary is lying about her hostility toward your liberties? So unless you agree with Hillary that the 2nd Amendment only protects the National Guard, then you’re left with one and only one option: Donald Trump.

News Politics

Today is your last day to register to vote in California. You can register online here. You’ve been reading about how awful Prop 63 is here and elsewhere for months now. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Even if Prop 63 wins at the polls, the NRA and other groups will fight it in the courts. They will do so on solid legal footing, but there is an undeniable influence that polls have on judges. A resounding victory for Gavin Newsom’s vanity proposition could provide a weak-kneed judge the cover he or she needs to ignore the Constitution and approve the law. If it squeaks by, that’s another story. Your vote matters whatever the outcome!

Don’t let the party elites (in either party!) demoralize you and keep you away from the polls. Register today and vote on November 8.

News Politics

As a gun owner, someone who respects the 2nd Amendment, or someone who wants to see the rule of law defended in this country, Donald Trump is your only choice for president. Fail to make that choice, and Hillary has some definite plans for you

In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. Clinton’s plan would prohibit Americans from selling a “significant” number of privately owned guns without a license, prevent gun purchases by indefinitely delaying purchasers’ background checks, repeal the federal law that prevents gun control supporters from pursuing groundless lawsuits designed to stop gun sales by driving firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business, ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles (and some other categories of guns), ban the possession of firearms by people in troubled dating relationships without due process of law, and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of dealers for unintentional recordkeeping errors.

Are you really going to let the MSM and the Democrat Party fool you with idiotic stories about what Trump allegedly did decades ago? (Stories that were debunked, by the way.) You really need to pay more attention to what Hillary will do come January if you allow her into the White House.

News Politics

We already know that liberals generally get the wrong “takeaway” from 1984. For them Winston Smith is the bad guy and BB is the hero. The mainstream media certainly takes its role as Minitrue seriously. But who knew that they also view Mike Judge’s Idiocracy with the same reverence.

There are many who have voiced suspicions that the deterioration of our education system is planned rather than mere entropy. Are these people tin-foil hat wearing crazies? Perhaps. But they may be correct tin-foil hat wearing crazies…

And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

This is from a hacked email exchange between Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Bill Ivey, the former director of the National Endowment for the Arts. Ivey was appointed to that position by Bill Clinton and remains a “FOB“. It contains two interesting points. One is that Ivey, Podesta, and other liberals have indeed been conspiring “to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry”. (Proles, to use the newspeak term.) The second is that Ivey and Podest have discussed this before. This isn’t a one-off comment from Ivey; one where Podesta could claim he knows nothing of any conspiracies. The concept of furthering an “idiocracy” in America is something that neither man is unfamiliar with. But here, Ivey laments that they may not be the ones in charge once they’ve succeeded in dumbing down the population. They’re supposed to be the ones telling the rest of us that plants do not crave electrolytes and that we should stop pouring Brawndo on them.

For gun owners, this is nothing new. We’re quite used to anti-gun liberals attempting to exploit ignorance to sell their product. We’re used to Minitrue claiming that violent crime is rising (and that guns, therefore, ought to be banned) when, in fact, it hasn’t been this low since the ’70s. We’re used to being demagogued as bitter clingers, terrorists,  and racists. We’re used to these things, sure, but why do we accept them?

The more general growth of an “unaware and compliant citizenry” is a tough nut to crack. But the problem of ignorant gun muggles isn’t. There’s something we can do about it; and it’s loads of fun too!

Take your gun muggle friends shooting.

Who doesn’t want an excuse to go to the range? Here’s your chance. Between now and Election day, take a friend to the range. Let them see that guns and gun owners aren’t the monsters they’ve lead to believe they are. This is your perfect chance to then let them know why gun control in general, and Prop. 63 in particular, is a really bad idea. Let them know how pointless these laws are. Let them know that rank-and-file police oppose gun control. Let them know that law enforcement has come out against Prop. 63. You can post on Facebook or Twitter all you like, but there’s no more powerful argument than letting your friends put a few downrange.

News Politics

When even police chiefs oppose a gun control measure, there’s something wrong with it.

Police chiefs and sheriffs are, by necessity, political animals. It goes with the job if they want to keep that job. Sheriffs are elected and answer to the People. If the voters of their counties support or oppose gun control, sheriffs can be counted on to reflect the views of their constituents. Police chiefs are another matter. They’re not elected; they’re appointed by mayors and approved by city councils. In much of California, that means that they’re serving at the pleasure of Democrat politicians. And that, in turn, means that they had better develop a healthy appetite for more and more gun laws. Thus, it says something when they push their plates away as they have with Prop 63.

The chiefs are narrowly focused on how Prop 63 will affect their officers, so if you were hoping that they had somehow gained even a minimal level of respect for the 2nd Amendment, you’ll be disappointed. But, their fears as to how Prop 63 will hurt law enforcement are mirrored by how it will hurt all Californians.

News Politics

Surprised by Hillary’s October surprise? Surprised that The Donald “went there“? Many things have been surprising this election season. The least surprising is that the Republicans are desperately attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

GOP pearl clutching notwithstanding, the Party’s elites have been itching for an opportunity to openly support their candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton, for a long time now. They’re not outraged by Trump’s stupid remarks about women; it’s all an act. Were they truly concerned about the mistreatment of women, they’d be outraged at Hillary Clinton’s treatment of Bill’s accusers. In point of fact, they’ve been praying for Trump to be defeated. It’s their best shot at regaining ownership of their decrepit party. Even if the GOP never wins another National election, they’ll be in charge and that’s all that matters. So not a peep about how Hillary Clinton actually treats women; just feigned indignation about how Trump once talked about them.

Why does this matter to gun owners? You do, in fact, have a dog in this fight. The GOP is willing to see Hillary Clinton appoint a liberal majority to the US Supreme Court if that’s what it takes to wrest control of the Party away from the rabble that nominated Donald Trump. (And that almost nominated Ted Cruz!) They’re willing to see your right to own and use firearms erased to regain their petty political power.

If you cherish the right to keep and bear arms, you have one and only one choice in this election: Donald Trump. If you’re thinking that the Court can remain split 4-4 until the next President after Hillary is sworn in, then you’re higher than Gary Johnson. If you think that Gary Johnson is a viable alternative who can defeat Hillary, you’re both high and stupid! Your one priority is the Supreme Court and who gets to fill its next 3-4 vacancies.

Don’t let Paul Ryan and the GOPe trick you into sacrificing your liberties for their political gain!

News Politics