Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Gun Rights’

Democrats Think Teens Can Kill Babies And Sterilize Themselves But 18 Is Too Young For Self Defense



girl shooting rifle

Unlike committing an abortion or pumping your child full of hormones, the legal purchase or ownership of a gun does not cause anyone harm.

Author Elle Reynolds profile




The same party that wants to raise the legal age for rifle purchases to 21 is also pushing to let minors kill preborn babies and mutilate their own genitals. American adults aged 18-20 already aren’t allowed to purchase handguns (and many states don’t allow them to obtain a concealed carry permit), more or less blocking them from practicing the basic self-defense precaution of stowing a defensive weapon to stop a bad guy with a gun. Now, Second Amendment deniers also want to bar these Americans from owning a rifle, a popular choice for home defense.

But while Democrats want to punish millions of law-abiding, prospective young gun owners for the evil, disturbed actions of a few of their peers, they’re also demanding that kids far younger be allowed to commit infanticide and mutilate their own bodies.

Letting Teens Commit Baby Murder

The radical abortion bill that Democrats renewed after the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade sought to virtually eliminate any restrictions on abortion up to the point of birth. Minors are already allowed to obtain abortions, but the legislation would also nuke state laws mandating parental notification for such young girls. Lest you think this is an incidental inclusion, Democrats have specifically attacked state parental notification laws.

Planned Parenthood’s website doesn’t even try not to sound like a pervert offering kids candy: “If you’re under 18, you may or may not have to tell a parent in order to get an abortion,” it teases.

The ACLU estimates that 350,000 girls younger than 18 get pregnant in America every year, and that 31 percent (or roughly 108,500) of them choose to terminate their babies’ lives. There were 652,639 abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control in 2014; in the same year, the Guttmacher Institute found that 0.2 percent of abortions — or roughly 1,300 — were executed on girls 14 years old or younger.

Fighting for these young, impressionable girls to get abortions doesn’t just push them into the commission of murder, with the likely accompaniment of lifelong guilt, it also subjects them to trauma themselves. Sarah Eubanks, a former abortion facility employee, described one 12-year-old girl whose grandmother brought her in for an abortion:

I remember that look on her face that she just didn’t understand what was going on. She didn’t want to be there. She started moving around and the doctor said, ‘You need to hold her down.’ I did put my hands on her and said ‘You have to settle down, you gotta be still, you’re gonna hurt yourself. You have to be still.’ And within an instant, she pushed her feet out of the stirrups and started running down the hall with the speculum in her vagina with blood running down her legs. The doctor said, ‘I’m not touching this.’ She was that upset. She just didn’t want to be there. She was screaming.

The hundreds of thousands of preborn babies’ lives lost to the abortionist’s scalpel every year haven’t dampened Democrats’ desires to let adolescent girls (or any women) make the decision to take a human life. But at the same time, the left will throw gun death numbers in your face to push their anti-gun agenda, even when firearm-related homicides are a fraction of abortion numbers, and are far outpaced by defensive gun use. Pew reported 19,384 murders involving a firearm in 2020, compared to up to 3 million “defensive gun uses by victims” per year, according to a CDC study.

Not only do Democrats want to let children kill their babies, they want to let children make damaging and irreversible changes to their own bodies.

Letting Children Sterilize Themselves

A report from Florida Medicaid found that “Available medical literature provides insufficient evidence that sex reassignment through medical intervention is a safe and effective treatment for gender dysphoria,” and “the available evidence demonstrates that these treatments cause irreversible physical changes and side effects that can affect long-term health.” As a result, Florida Medicaid found that experimental procedures like cross-sex hormones or surgeries were insufficiently safe for coverage.

The report also listed the irreversible or potentially irreversible effects of cross-sex hormones, including facial and body hair growth, male pattern baldness, a deepening voice, and an enlarged clitoris for females taking male hormones, and breast growth, infertility, and sexual dysfunction for males taking female hormones. The irreversible effects of surgical interventions, such as elective mastectomies or genital amputations, are obviously far higher.

But those concerning effects didn’t stop the Biden administration’s Justice Department from sending an ominous memo to state attorneys general, threatening legal violations for states that don’t offer various damaging interventions to children.

“A ban on gender-affirming procedures, therapy, or medication may be a form of discrimination against transgender persons,” the memo stated. It also had the arrogance to claim that “it is well established within the medical community that gender-affirming care for transgender youth is not only appropriate but often necessary for their physical and mental health.”

The Biden Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs further spelled out just what is meant by “gender-affirming care,” including social treatment of a child as the opposite sex, puberty blockers, artificial pumps of hormones like testosterone or estrogen, or surgeries like elective mastectomies and amputation of reproductive body parts. OPA recommends “social affirmation” for “any age,” puberty blockers at any time during puberty, hormones beginning in early adolescence, and surgeries for adults or “case-by-case in adolescence.” Some parents try to claim their children “came out as trans” as toddlers.

But No Guns for Law-Abiding Young Adults!

These procedures threaten lifelong damage to children who undergo them, yet the Biden administration and other Democrats want unfettered access to them and punishments for health professionals and parents who question them. They also celebrate the idea of teenage girls taking the lives of their preborn babies, with no parental consent and with no consideration of whether a child has the mental maturity to make such a decision — never mind the fact that it’s an act of murder.

But Democrats are all too happy to further erode Americans’ Second Amendment rights by arbitrarily raising the minimum purchase age for a rifle from one adult age to another. Unlike committing an abortion or pumping your child full of hormones, the legal purchase or ownership of a gun does not cause anyone harm. On the contrary, it often protects against it.

Yet Democrats support letting pubescent children abuse themselves and adolescents kill their children, while insisting that an 18-year-old who passes a federal background check can be denied the constitutional right to self-defense. Are 18-year-olds too immature for constitutional rights? Are children and teenagers old enough for a concocted right to harm themselves and others? I would argue it’s neither — but it can’t be both.

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Check Out the Bravest Gun Rights Speech You’ll Ever See



Vikki Buckley

Secretary of State Vikki Buckley welcomed the NRA conference attendees to Colorado with a breathtaking speech on gun rights.

Author Mollie Hemingway profile




The National Rifle Association is hosting its leadership summit in Houston on Friday. Following a mass shooting at a Texas elementary school Tuesday, many corporate media outlets are suggesting politicians should cancel their planned speeches there.

ABC News tweeted:

“Houston Mayor Says He Can’t Cancel NRA Convention After School Massacre,” wrote Bloomberg. “Trump will keep ‘longtime commitment’ to Texas NRA event despite school shooting,” wrote the New York Post.

Why would an organization of law-abiding defenders of the U.S. Constitution cancel an event on account of a horrific school shooting committed by an individual with no regard for constitutional principles, readers might ask. Nevertheless, the pressure from the media and others opposed to gun rights will be intense.

It is reminiscent of a previous attempt by the media and other partisans to blame law-abiding gun owners and their defenders for gun violence. On April 20, 1999, two high school seniors murdered 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The NRA was slated to hold its large convention in Denver just days later.

Everyone in the political and media classes warned the NRA to cancel their convention. Many immediately pushed for gun control as the only valid response to the murders.

President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton immediately called for limits on gun rights, as did many other Democrat politicians. The Democrat mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb, repeatedly told the NRA attendees that they weren’t welcome anymore.

Weak-kneed politicians canceled their planned appearances. More than five dozen Colorado business leaders signed a full-page ad published in local newspapers asking the convention organizers to cancel. Thousands of anti-gun rights activists descended on the convention.

Nevertheless, a few brave gun rights proponents stood strong. Charlton Heston — the actor and civil rights activist who was by then president of the NRA — opened up the convention in Denver on May 1, saying it was “absurd” and “offensive” to act as if supporters of Second Amendment rights couldn’t gather.

But what happened next was breathtaking. The top-ranking Republican in the state at that time was Gov. Bill Owens. He declined an invitation to speak. Secretary of State Vikki Buckley, a black Republican in her second term, welcomed the attendees to Colorado with a breathtaking speech on gun rights. “I greet you as Secretary of State of Colorado and I welcome you to Colorado, a state where some of us believe strongly in the entire Constitution of these United States, including the Second Amendment.”

Buckley was the first black secretary of state in Colorado and the first black Republican woman elected statewide in the Centennial State. The mother of three sons, she had once been on welfare to support them, eventually becoming a clerk typist in the secretary of state’s office in the early 1980s.

Her campaign pitch was to tell people that if she didn’t win the race, she’d have to train whoever did win. She defeated four other candidates for the Republican nomination in 1994 on the strength of a floor speech, even though hardly anyone at the convention had heard of her previously.

Buckley mentored young women and spoke to international women’s organizations about building stronger communities. She helped homeless children and worked to end the scourge of gang violence.

One of the children killed at Columbine was Isaiah Shoels, an 18-year-old black senior. His murderers had used racial slurs before killing him. Buckley had spent time with his parents and quoted Isaiah’s father about the scourge underlying violence.

“Guns are not the issue. Hate is what pulls the trigger of violence,” she said. She talked about “new age hate crimes,” such as raising children “without a value system which places a premium on human life,” or sending children to school “without a value system which teaches the difference between right and wrong.” She listed the ways in which children were not prepared for socioeconomic success, saying, “raise as much heck about that as you did about the NRA, and you will have saved more lives in five years than are taken with guns in a century.”

Buckley then shared the painful story of how she was the victim of gun violence. “I know firsthand the pain and fear–but that experience has not made me an opponent of the NRA or the Second Amendment,” she said. She called for resources to be spent against violence and hate, then said, “But we must stand ever strong against those who would ignore sections of the U.S. Constitution which they do not like. We are a strong democracy because the guiding principles of our Constitution and all of its amendments including the Second must be adhered to in its entirety, not selectively. Thank you and God bless America.”

The thousands of attendees roared to their feet and gave her a standing ovation. You can watch the speech here.

Rabid anti-gun rights activist Jake Tapper — yes, that Jake Tapper — attacked Buckley and her ideas. The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, suggested Buckley was set for greater political heights.

It was not to be. Buckley died unexpectedly of a heart attack just two months later. Her courage and leadership is remembered.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College. A Fox News contributor, she is a regular member of the Fox News All-Stars panel on “Special Report with Bret Baier.” Her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, CNN, National Review, GetReligion, Ricochet, Christianity Today, Federal Times, Radio & Records, and many other publications. Mollie was a 2004 recipient of a Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship at The Fund for American Studies and a 2014 Lincoln Fellow of the Claremont Institute. She is the co-author of Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court. She is the author of “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.” Reach her at

Dems Threaten To Invade Virginia Counties with Military Use If They Refuse to Enforce New Anti-Gun Laws

Written by daniel | December 16, 2019

All over the state of Virginia, citizens, sheriffs, and civil magistrates are stepping up to the plate and standing by their oath to defend both the U.S. Constitution as well as their state constitution after the signing of new anti-gun laws in Virginia.

Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam has proposed seizing firearms from citizens or making them felons and then taking them then after being designated as felons.

According to the NRA-ILA,

Northam’s allies in Richmond have proposed firearm confiscation legislation that would prohibit the sale and possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15. The governor has stated that he intends to push legislation that would ban such firearms but grandfather possession by gun owners who register their firearms with the government.
Banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms under either proposal is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments cannot ban these firearms as they are “in common use” for lawful purposes.
Taken alone, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller is enough to dispose of Northam’s comments. In the decision, Justice Scalia made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”

Thankfully there are men like the ones seen in the video below who are fighting for the rights of the citizens and demanding that their local government sign legislation that would make them a sanctuary county. Such legislation has already been put in place by over 80 counties in Virginia already.

“What we citizens need is your public commitment not to use the power of your office to appropriate any of our tax dollars toward the implementation of federal or state gun restrictions which infringe on the Second Amendment. We cannot wait for months, years or decades while our rights are trampled, in the hopes the (U.S.) Supreme Court might one day put a stop to it,” said one local resident.

Student Attacked For Standing Up For What He Believes In.

Reported by 

URL of the original posting site:

It seems that long have the days passed where students were able to freely voice their opinions. The educational system is so liberal that a conservative perspective is almost considered taboo. That’s what happened to High School student Christian Breault. He didn’t follow the Liberal Anti-Gun narrative and was attacked because he had an opposing opinion. 

The school, Middleburgh Junior/Senior High School in New York, had it’s students watch the Parkland students Anti Gun speech where Emma Gonzalez gave the We Call BS Speech.” The speech was played during an assembly held on the day of The National Walkout. The school also had local authorities come in and talk about safety and what to do if a shooting happened at their school. Breault did not agree with the Anti-gun message and talked to some fellow students, but he was overheard by a student who was wholeheartedly drinking the Liberal Koolaid. His father, Brian Breault, posted about the incident on Facebook.

Today the school my son, Christian, attends participated in the National School Walkout for Gun Control and School Safety. The school held an assembly after the walkout bringing in community leaders and law enforcement to speak. Toward the end of the assembly, they showed an Anti-NRA video vilifying the gun organization and its members (American citizens).

Following the dismissal of the assembly Christian engaged in a conversation with other students who felt the assembly was not handled well. Christian expressed he felt the Anti-NRA video was over the top and he found it offensive. Another student not involved in the conversation threatened him for his view on the video going as far as telling the school nurse that he would punch Christian in the face if he didn’t stop defending the NRA. The nurse told the student he could not say that and no further action was taken.”

But this was not the end of the incident as the anti-NRA student was clearly could not going to allow someone to have an opposing view. So later in the day, according to Christian Breault, the close-minded student attacked Breault. But just as he was strong in his convictions he was equally able to stand his ground in a fight.

Christian defended himself, punching the kid in the jaw, causing him to fall to the floor,” he told PJ Media. “The kid got up and threw an object at Christian, which he deflected.”

Watch The Sum Up Below.

The school suspended both students administering a one day to Christian and a 3-day to the aggressor. But Christian is concerned as he is an early enlistee in the Navy and doesn’t want a bad record to affect his chances.  But his father is upset as he feels it is wrong that his son is being penalized for defending himself. His father is also angry that they pushed a political video at school that slandered the NRA and gun rights.

The superintendent has at least agreed that the video was over the top.

Dear Middleburgh Central Schools community,

On Wednesday, March 14th, the Jr./Sr. High School held a school safety assembly for students. The purpose of the assembly was to give administrators and law enforcement the chance to speak with students regarding how the district handles school safety and answer any questions students may have had. During the assembly, a video was shown that changed the focus of the conversation from school safety to politics. This was not our desired outcome for the event, and we regret and sincerely apologize for that result.

Conversations are happening across America about how we can keep students safe in school. No matter where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that student safety should be our top priority.”

While it is a step in the right direction that the Superintendent apologized for the politically motivated video, the damage is already done. If the school wanted to make it right they should have a pro NRA video played explaining gun rights and why they should not be infringed upon. They should give students a full education on topics as opposed to simply following the Liberal approved agenda. But was Christian Breault in the wrong for defending himself? The school seems to blame him. Why should he be given any punishment for simply defending himself?

Student Suspended for Refusing to Leave Class During Gun Control Walkout

Reported by AWR Hawkins | 16 Mar 2018

URL of the original posting site:

A Hilliard, Ohio, senior was suspended for refusing to leave the classroom while the March 14 gun control walkout occurred. The student, Jacob Shoemaker, wanted to remain in class at Hilliard Davidson High School as a way to keep from being ensnared in the political debate surrounding gun ownership.

The Associated Press reports the school district suspended Shoemaker for staying in the classroom. The district explained the suspension by explaining that “it’s responsible for students’ safety and they can’t be unsupervised.”

Two protests occurred Wednesday—one in support of gun control and one against the gun control movement. Shoemaker did not want to get involved with either side. 

IJR Red reports that a photo of Shoemaker’s suspension letter was published online by another student. The letter said, in part, “Student refused to follow instructions after being warned repeatedly by several administrators. Student not permitted on school property.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at Sign up to get Down Range at

Shaquille O’Neal SHOCKS Liberals With His Unpopular Opinion

Outspoken Celebrities seem to have a tendency to be Liberal, and athletes even more so. It was a surprise when former basketball player Shaquille O’Neal spoke out against Gun Control. The Former basketball player had this to say in a recent interview WABC hosted.

“You’ve got a lot of people talking about getting these guns off the streets. The only problem with that is, there’s 15 million of them out there already on the streets. And then another problem is if you ban them, then you’re going to create an underground market, and the gun collectors, you know, it’s going to become more valuable.” 

O’Neal simply wants to keep kids safe.

“The government should give law enforcement more money, Give more money, you recruit more people, and the guys that are not ready to go on the streets, you put them in front of the schools.”

As you can imagine this perspective from an athlete is unexpected especially with NFL players having such an opposing view with the kneeling and protest of police. But O’Neal has more than just a respect for the men in blue he also is an active reserve officer.

According to The Conservative Tribune.

“O’Neal is a professional basketball player with a well-known respect for the law. He’s been a reserve police officer for Florida in Miami Beach and Golden Beach; for Tempe, Arizona; and for California for the Port of Los Angeles, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

He’s even planning a run for sheriff in Henry County, Georgia, in 2020, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Seeing a successful black athlete who wants to be part of law enforcement probably drives liberals even crazier than O’Neal’s stance on cops in schools.”

See, now this is a real Athlete and someone kids should look up to. Despite making ridiculous money playing basketball he is now working outside of the limelight in a career that is all about serving and protect his community.

Some Facts You Might Need to Defeat Liberals in This Gun Debate

second amendment

Thanks to yet another monster abusing firearms, liberals are again at it and trying to undermine our Second Amendment rights.

Americans innately understand why having the right to bear arms is a good idea, but all too often many lack the historical information and background facts to help them fully understand and argue in favor of those rights. With this I hope to help arm Americans with some of that information they may be missing.

Sadly, there is a consensus among the left-wing and their handmaidens among the media elites that the “right to bear arms” does not really mean we have a right to bear arms. But the truth is, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the founders and their immediate successors in American politics did assume just such a right. The fact is, firearms are not a national plague and the founders did not make an error in focusing on our rights to self-protection.

Of course we all have heard the nonsense that our rights are outdated, or that the founders never meant for them to be taken as individual rights. But, we can go back to the writings of our founders to see what they really meant. What they wrote to each other, in newspapers, and in other statements as they started our country reveals exactly what they meant. The founders spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about the rights of man in the early days and this thinking influenced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the various commentaries on jurisprudence. These ideas and principles directly affect the meaning of the Second Amendment.

A book called Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws, for instance, was a huge influence on the founders and this is what that important treatise on the law said on arms ownership:

“The right of the citizens that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense.” and ” This is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression” and again “To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the citizens are entitled … to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.”

Blackstone’s commentaries were accepted as fact by our founders, not mere theory. So, it is clear that what the founders had in mind was that self-preservation and defense was a natural right to be protected by the laws and the U.S. Constitution they were crafting. To put a finer point on this, looking at one founder in particular, James Wilson, is instructive.

James Wilson was one of only 6 founders who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, he was one of the nation’s first great Jurists, and after an appointment by George Washington, he was one of the first members of the Supreme Court. He spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention 168 times and was one of the most active politicians of his day. Mr. Wilson taught his laws students that the rights secured by the Constitution did not create new rights, but simply reaffirmed old ones.

He said that our documents were meant… “to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to… which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.”

Wilson wasn’t alone in his thoughts on rights. Thomas Jefferson also viewed our Constitution and principles similarly, saying: “Government is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us.” John Adams stated that, “Rights are antecedent to all earthly government; Rights… cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights are derived from the great Legislator of the universe.”

So, what did some of the founders say about firearms specifically now that we have the principles of self-preservation established? Here are a few quotes that you can use:

“The right … of bearing arms… is declared to be inherent in the people.”
Fisher Ames, one of the framers of the 2nd Amendment in the first congress

“The great object is that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to have arms, … it is still far from being the case?”
-Patrick Henry

“And what country can preserve its liberties if its rules are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”
-Richard Henry Lee

“The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation … the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
-James Madison

“A free people ought … to be armed.”
-George Washington

With that established, we can move on to another historical fact liberals abuse so that they can undermine our individual right to own arms. That is the famous “well-regulated militia” line in the Second Amendment. Liberals like to say that “militia” could only mean a standing military organization like the U.S. Army or the various state guard organizations. But that isn’t what the founders meant. The founders meant the militia to be we, the people. Each of us individually is “the militia.”

So, what is this militia? Try these quotes on that topic:

“The militia are the people at large.”
-Tench Coxe Attny. Gen. of Penn. and Asst. Sec of Treasury under Washington

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
-George Mason

“The militia is composed of free citizens.”
-Samuel Adams

“A militia… are in fact the people themselves.”
-Richard Henry Lee

Indeed, the first federal law passed concerning just who a militia member might be, the Militia Act of 1792, states that the “militia of the United States” consists of every adult male in the country. Under that act each adult male was required by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition. In fact, the current law still states, “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 and under 45 years of age.”United States code, title 10 par., 311(a)

That means the “militia” is a description of individuals, not a group.

Additionally, in those days the words “well regulated” only meant orderly. Liberals say “well regulated” invites government regulations. But in that time, It didn’t mean anything like organized “under the law” or under the government. It just meant that the individuals in the militias would be in order and well trained.

Many also claim that “common sense” (and by that they mean gun banning) is a “health issue.” They say that costs are a public issue. But, the proclaimed overwhelming costs of treating gun victims in the country’s health care industry is greatly exaggerated. In an article published in the JMAG in the June 1995 issue, estimates appeared that show health care industry costs for such treatment amounts to about $1.5 billion. That added up to only 0.2 percent of total annual health care expenditures nation wide at the time. You may have seen crazy numbers like $20 to $30 billion is incurred for gun shot victims (most of whom are criminals), but this number assumes a very high lifetime earning rate loss for the victims of gun violence which are added in as a “loss” to the country. Such high lifetime earning estimates assumes that these criminals will suddenly slap their heads, realize the error of their ways and jump into a high paying job market out of the clear blue sky.

Finally, the work of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research has shown that between 25 and 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost to guns. So medical costs saved by guns in the hands of citizens who use them legally and for protection are 15 times greater than costs incurred by the criminal use of firearms.

So, there you have it. Just a few facts, quotes, and passages that might help you argue in favor of our Second Amendment.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s and along with all Breitbart News sites,,, and many, many others. He has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs across the country to discuss his news stories and current events and has appeared on TV networks such as CNN, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and various Chicago-based news programs. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on He is the owner and operator of Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at

Armed Citizens May Be the Solution to Terrorism, Says Interpol Secretary General

waving flagWritten by |Oct. 22, 2013


Open Carry / formatted_dad / photo on flickr

What do you do when terrorists turn from attacking well-protected government buildings and transportation centers in favor of anyplace that people may congregate? Specifically, how do you address bloody scenarios like the assault on the Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya by the Islamist group al-Shabaab, which killed at least 61 civilians? Well, the Secretary General of Interpol, the international police-coordination organization, says you either start providing “extraordinary security” perimeters around anything that might be a target, or else let people carry the means to defend themselves. Surprisingly, he seems to lean toward empowering individuals to take responsibility for their own defense.

In an interview with ABC News, Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said:

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

“Enclaves” translates as “any place people gather,” which could be a mall, a theater, a supermarket, a town square… That’s an awful lot of secure perimeters to set up. No doubt, plenty of police unions and politically well-connected private security companies would love to see that effort made, but are you really going to throw a cordon up every time a few people gather to chat about the weather or have a barbecue? Unusually for a government official (he was the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury, in charge of the Secret Service as well as the ATF), Noble obviously sees that as a bit of a daunting challenge. He adds:

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.”

“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'” 

Ronald. K. NobleInterpolI’d answer that allowing people to proactively respond to threats has always been a better idea that trying to anticipate what assailants might consider to be an easy target. You can’t fortify every gathering on the planet, and each security perimeter will still have potential victims within it for the enterprising terrorist who can penetrate “extraordinary security.”

The Secretary General, by the way, also called for tighter passport controls, so his comments weren’t a totally unmixed bag for those of us favoring personal liberty and autonomy. Travel has become an increasingly bureaucratic ordeal over the past century, and that doesn’t look likely to let up soon.

Noble (pictured at right) was first appointed to oversee Interpol’s day-to-day work in 2000, and his third five-year term is up in 2015. After voicing even measured support for armed citizens in a world where governments have never much liked the idea, let’s see if he makes it to through the full gig.Disarmed Citizenry

Update: Minneapolis police officers may agree, even by accident, with Secretary General Noble. They’re objecting to an NFL policy banning off-duty cops from taking their guns into stadiums. Without their guns, they point out, they won’t be able to respond to attacks.

J.D. Tuccille is a former managing editor of and current contributing editor.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Majority of ANTI-GUN Politicians are CRIMINALS–Here is the List

waving flagBy Rob Morse  Posted on June 10, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

democrat problem

Not all of the anti-gun politicians are corrupt, but many of them certainly are.  Here are a few dozen examples to prove my point.

California Senator Leland Yee authored many anti-rights bills that heavily burdened gun owners.  Yee was named to the Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by the anti-rights Brady Campaign.  Yee was charged with gun trafficking and public corruption.  Yee is now serving time in federal prison.Armed

Dean Skelos was Majority Leader of the New York State Senate.  Skelos helped pass the infamous anti-rights New York SAFE Act.  This legislation required gun registration and was so burdensome that even the New York police ignored it.  Skelos was convicted of federal corruption charges.

Speaker of the New York State Assembly Sheldon Silver also helped pass the New York SAFE Act.  The Brady campaign thanked Silver by name for his anti-gun legislation.  Silver was arrested, tried and convicted on seven counts of corruption.

President of the California Senate, Kevin De Leon is an active anti-rights legislator.  DeLeon is the current author of at least four anti-rights bills this year that limit honest gun owners.  Senator De Leon is also named 47 times in a current FBI probe of corruption and bribery.

Former California Democratic Assemblyman Tom Calderon plead guilty to one count of money laundering in a corruption case involving him and his brother.  His brother is former state Senator Ron Calderon.  The Calderon brothers were consistent anti-rights voters.

Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheen was arrested at a protest in Ferguson, Missouri.  Senator Nasheen has a very strong anti-rights voting record against honest gun owners.  Senator Nasheen was arrested for carrying a gun while intoxicated.

Let me paint with a broader brush for a minute. Some 25 anti-rights mayors in Michael Bloomberg’s group Mayors Against Illegal Guns have been charged with crimes.  The majority of those charged were convicted, though some convictions remain open on appeal.  In contrast, Barack Obama was never charged for selling two thousand illegal guns to Mexican drug gangs.  Hillary Clinton took millions of dollars in foreign bribes.  Clinton also called the NRA the political enemy of which she is most proud.  Clinton is currently under investigation by the FBI for security violations while Secretary of State.

Not all of the anti-gun politicians are corrupt, but that is the way to bet.  No wonder these politicians want to disarm honest civilians.

Hey Leftist Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment… Leaves Millions Furious

waving flagBy: Ben Marquis on April 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site:


One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues. That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away. He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear. In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.Hey Leftist

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government. Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.Criminals and Dictators

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system. Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.Armed

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment. Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama intent to toughen gun laws, with or without Congress’ help

Mourners placed ribbons in memory of the nine people killed at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last Wednesday. The incident has renewed passions on all sides of the debate on gun rights and concealed carry laws. (associated press)
Mourners placed ribbons in memory of the nine people killed at the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last Wednesday. The incident has renewed passions on all sides of the debate on gun rights and concealed carry laws. (associated … more >
In the wake of the shooting deaths at a black church in South Carolina, President Obama sounded as if he has abandoned gun control laws, but his administration is steadily pursuing a wide variety of gun regulations through executive action.

At the state level, gun control advocates are advancing gun regulations in at least 31 legislatures.

Gun rights groups point out that the administration is pushing several restrictions at the Justice Department, ranging from rules on gun storage and high-powered pistols to a renewed effort to prohibit gun ownership by people who have been convicted of domestic abuse.

“Without a doubt, President Obama is making good on his promise to use his ‘phone’ and his ‘pen’ to circumvent Congress and the will of the American people,” said the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action in a statement prior to the church shootings in Charleston. It said Mr. Obama’s attempt “to act unilaterally on gun control is a real and continuing threat to Second Amendment liberties.”tyrants

obama- Marxist tyrantIn late May, the Justice Department said it plans to issue regulations expanding the criteria for barring certain people from gun ownership. The disclosure was in the administration’s Unified Agenda, a semiannual publication of proposed rules that the government intends to implement. For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms and wants to finalize a rule by November to block domestic abusers from owning guns. The proposal pertaining to domestic abuse has been considered periodically since the Clinton administrationPicture1

The ATF proposed a rule earlier this year to ban “M855 green tip” rifle ammo, but withdrew the proposal in March after an outpouring of opposition from gun owners and the manufacturing industry. While the NRA’s lobbying arm said the details of various proposals in the Unified Agenda “are indeed alarming the collection itself is actually a welcome (and rare) bit of transparency” from the administration. “Browsing the Unified Agenda can give Americans a better idea of what federal agencies are doing, plan to do, or have been trying to do but have not yet finished,” the group said.

The administrative actions on guns are taking place even as the president complains with visible frustration about the failure of his gun control efforts. In several comments about the church massacre, Mr. Obama chided Americans for the availability of guns but said the political climate in Washington leaves him essentially powerless to move any new gun laws through Congress. “The politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now,” Mr. Obama said. “Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”culture of deciet

A spokesman for Gun Owners of America said last week that Mr. Obama was overlooking recent gun massacres in other countries, such as the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France, the Anders Breivik murders in Norway in 2011 that left 77 dead and a mass shooting in England in 2010. The group said concealed carry laws could have helped to prevent those attacks and the one in South Carolina. “In each of these cases, the armed perpetrators ignored strict gun control laws in acquiring and carrying their weapons,” said GOA spokesman Erich Pratt. “One of the biggest problems at [the] South Carolina church is that the potential victims were disarmed by law.”Picture2

Mr. Pratt said in the Palmetto State, a concealed carry permit holder can carry a firearm in places of worship with permission from a church official. “Unfortunately, the pastor [the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was killed] was an anti-gun activist,” he said. “As a state senator, the pastor had voted against concealed carry. But the president completely misses all of this. He ignores the fact that this was yet another example where a massacre took place in a ‘Gun Free Zone.’”gun free zone Smart-power-600-LA

Gun control activists say such laws won’t help, pointing to studies such as one by the Harvard School of Public Health indicating that “where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.”

The president’s assessment of Capitol Hill is widely shared: Gun rights groups say Congress is more pro-gun than at any time in recent memory.

The NRA said the appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies approved by the House this month contained several pro-gun measures, including;

  • an amendment to bar the ATF’s “discretion to arbitrarily reclassify ammunition for political reasons”;

  • a prohibition on the use of federal funds for “Operation Choke Point,” a program that curtails some gun shops’ access to banking services;

  • a prohibition on the use of funds to maintain any record or gun registry on multiple rifle or shotgun sales to law-abiding citizens;

  • and a prohibition on the use of funds for collecting data regarding a person’s race or ethnicity when purchasing a firearm.

“All show Congress asserting its role as the peoples’ representatives against a president and administrative state that has embarked on a lawless crusade to suppress the right to keep and bear arms,” the NRA said.

Mr. Obama hasn’t sought major new gun laws since the Senate blocked the administration’s proposal in 2013 to impose background checks on guns sales after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. “We commenced a significant lobbying campaign to Congress, and we fell short,” said White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz. Congress fell short.” Advocates for stricter gun laws say that’s because too many lawmakers are beholden to the gun industry. “The bottom line is Congress has failed to act because it’s filled with too many craven and irresponsible lap dogs for the corporate gun lobby,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a statement to The Washington Times. “They hide behind deceptive and dangerous rhetoric and sell out the safety of the people they are supposed to represent.”Criminals and Dictators Gun Control Supporters cropped

After previous mass shootings, Mr. Obama usually spoke about the need for gun control action in vague terms. Last week he sharpened his rhetoric, saying in America “it remains far too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.” Law enforcement officials say suspect Dylann Roof purchased the weapon used in the shooting at a gun shop in Charleston.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized the president for his anti-gun rhetoric. “This is the M.O. of this administration. Anytime No-weapons-590there is an accident like this, the president is clear [that] he doesn’t like for Americans to have guns, and so he uses every opportunity — this being another one — to basically go parrot that message,” Mr. Perry said. Mr. Perry, a Republican, was criticized himself for referring to the church massacre as an “accident.”

Another 2016 presidential candidate, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, weighed in on the issue Friday by telling supporters that he is “pissed” by congressional inaction on guns. “I’m pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control — laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers — Congress continues to drop the ball,” Mr. O’Malley wrote in an email. Mr. Gross, of the Brady Campaign, said Americans should be pressuring Congress more to enact new gun laws. “It’s up to the American people to make their voices heard and hold elected officials accountable,” he said. “Legislation to expand Brady background checks to online and gun show sales is sitting on the desks of members of Congress. That legislation would not prevent every tragedy, but it would make us all significantly safer by preventing guns from falling into dangerous hands every day. Yet Congress has done nothing.”So making guns illegal

With scant prospect of new gun laws in Congress, gun control groups are taking their fight to state legislatures. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said the most prevalent efforts at the state level this year are bills that would;

  • bar domestic abusers from owning firearms (19 states),
  • would require background checks on private gun sales (11 states),
  • would impose stricter regulations on gun storage (13 states)
  • and would allow families or law enforcement officials to seek gun-violence protective orders for people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others (nine states).

“The states are sending a loud and clear message to Congress: It’s time to finish the job and save lives by expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales,” Mr. Gross said.

hitler who want unarmed citizens The Lower you go freedom combo 2

Works for a living, doesn’t block traffic

Posted by    Monday, January 19, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site:

Comparing Olympia’s gun rights rally to Boston’s #BlackLivesMatter traffic blockage.

LI #12b

I must admit, I had a serious attack of schadenfreude when I learned that the #BlackLivesMatter protesters in Boston were upset by the outrage directed at them after they blocked Route 93. I guess I wasn’t surprised that some protest leaders live at home with their parents in wealthy suburbs.

I guess they were stunned to learn that people trying to get to work felt that their own lives mattered, too.

Let’s contrast this event with another rally by gun rights activists in the blue haven of Washington state. The Washington Firearms Leadership and Activism Group (WAFLAG), Protect Our Gun Rights Washington, and the Gun Rights Coalition hosted Rally for Your Rights against I-594, an “18½-page incoherent, rambling, unconstitutional gun control initiative” that was recently passed by the state legislature.

Given the crowd and the passion, I suspect it will not be the last event.

More than 200 gun-rights activists, most of them carrying firearms, rallied on the steps of Washington’s Capitol Thursday morning to protest the expansive background-check law state voters passed in November.

State legislators and other opponents of Initiative 594′s requirement of background checks on all gun sales and transfers voiced their belief that the new law unfairly infringes on their constitutional rights, and a handful of the protesters carried long guns into the public viewing gallery of the state House of Representatives just as the morning’s brief floor session ended.

A series of speakers urged the crowd outside the Capitol to work to build support to repeal Initiative 594, both by contacting their legislators and by lobbying their friends and relatives. Several I-594 opponents carried signs with messages including “Prosecute criminals not harass us” and “I will not comply” during the chilly morning rally.

….Although the protest was explicitly directed against the new background-check law, a number of speakers and crowd members said their feelings extend to an opposition to gun control efforts in general.cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

But, like the Boston rally, there was some real drama. This video shows state representatives Graham Hunt and Matt Shea making an appearance to discuss some of their proposals to support the rights of Washington’s gun owners, which seems typical of a political rally.


Victory Girl contributor Kit Lange takes us behind-the-scenes, where the action was really happening.

So-called “gun rights groups” organized a “Rally for Your Rights” where folks against I-594 could come and listen to them talk about how they weren’t going to actually fight to repeal this unconstitutional law, but instead would try to offer a compromise to the legislature. These groups also, because they didn’t want to scare or offend anyone, asked that people leave their long guns at home and dress in business attire. Perception! they urged. Curb yourselves because otherwise you’ll scare the undecided legislators and make them not like us or vote the way we want.

They apparently never learned Liberty 101: The moment you allow your rights to be curbed because of someone else’s fear or offense you have lost the fight to keep your rights, for you have just shown the way to take them all.

Some of us, however, remember that lesson well…because we know the fates of those who forgot it. We are not subjects and our rights are not open to interpretation or other people’s feelings. If anything, the legislature should be afraid, because their job security depends on the people they have refused to serve.

So we came armed with long guns anyway.Freedom is not free VOTE

It is reported that the State Patrol officers stayed close to the gun-carrying protesters who had entered the Capitol and that no arrests related to the rally were made. It’s legal to openly carry firearms into the Capitol and the public viewing galleries above the chamber floors.

And while the people of Washington are battling to repeal gun control legislation, a Rhode Island lawmaker is trying to prevent road blockages by protesters in his state.

Rhode Island lawmaker said Friday that he’ll introduce a bill making it a felony to block a highway, like protesters did in Boston a day earlier.

State Sen. Leonidas Raptakis said he supports First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful demonstrations but is concerned some gatherings could threaten public welfare.

Demonstrators alleging racial profiling and violence by police against minorities blocked a busy Boston-area highway used to connect to Providence during the Thursday morning commute and caused lengthy traffic jams, inconveniencing thousands of people and preventing an ambulance from getting through. A similar protest shut down I-95 in Providence for 15 minutes in November.cropped-freedoms-battle-with-heading.jpg

And just because I cannot watch this video too much, here is a replay of Tyree Landrum’s rant against #BlackLivesMatter road blockers in my hometown. Others must have felt the same way: A crowdfunding site wanted to raise $2000 so Landrum could give his kids a great Christmas. The final tally was over $15,000.


It’s good to see hard-working Americans pushing back on those who would infringe upon their need to get to work and their right to bear arms…and seeing it rewarded.Freedom with Prayer

Report: FBI Visiting Gun Shops to Investigate “People Talking About Big Government”

“If you see some Middle Eastern guy come in, you don’t have to be so worried about that”

Paul Joseph Watson
April 16, 2014

Image: FBI Flyer.

FBI counterterrorism agents are visiting gun shops in South Carolina to investigate “suspicious purchases” made by people who talk about “big government,” according to a new report.

Author Brandon Turbeville says he was approached by an individual who works in a Columbia, South Carolina gun shop to relate the story of how an FBI agent entered the store on Monday, showed his credentials, before proceeding to ask a series of stunning questions.

Telling the gun store worker he was tasked with visiting all the firearms outlets in the local area to check on “suspicious purchases” for counterterrorism purposes, the agent then began discussing what in actual fact were “completely normal transactions,” such as, “paying with cash, purchasing long guns, and other similarly innocuous behavior.”

The FBI agent then reportedly made a shocking remark that almost seems too chilling to believe.

“If you see some Middle Eastern guy come in, you don’t have to be so worried about that. What we’re really looking for are people talking about being sovereign such as sovereign citizens or people talking about big government,” the agent reportedly stated.

Before the agent left the store, he handed the employee a flyer which lists paying with cash, buying in bulk, along with other seemingly innocuous behavior as suspicious activity.

While there’s little chance of verifying the story since the FBI would almost certainly deny the claim, the notion of FBI agents charactering innocuous activity as a potential indication of terrorism is firmly established in the federal agency’s own literature and training procedures.

The FBI has also repeatedly labeled those who identify as “sovereign citizens” to be domestic terrorists.

In 2012, we reported on how the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism (CAT) program was instructing businesses that banal activities conducted by millions of Americans on a daily basis were potential indications of terrorist activity.

Flyers for the program being handed out to businesses such as Internet cafes even listed paying for a cup of coffee with cash as a suspicious activity.

A flyer aimed at Military Surplus stores also encourages owners to report people who “make bulk purchases of items to include….meals ready to eat”.

In total, there are 25 different CAT flyers aimed at businesses from across the spectrum – everything from hobby shops to tattoo parlors.

The flyer pictured above which was reportedly handed to the gun store worker by the FBI agent contains very similar language to that used in flyers produced for the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program.

Facebook @
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for and Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.


This article was posted: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 6:07 am



By Jeff Mullen / 25 March 2014

The Bible clearly teaches that we must preserve life–our own lives and the lives of other people.

1 Corinthians 6:19f teaches that our bodies are not our own. Rather, our bodies belong to God. Our bodies are His property, and so we are not permitted to treat or destroy them as we please: v. 19 Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself, 20 for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body. (1 Co 6:19-20 NLT)

Not only are we to take care of our bodies and the life contained. We have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people. Psalm 82:4 even cites an obligation to protect those who are in danger: Psalm 82:4: Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves: “Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to die; save them as they stagger to their death” (NLT).

It says in Ezekiel: “But if the watchman sees the enemy coming and doesn’t sound the alarm to warn the people, he is responsible for their captivity. They will die in their sins, but I will hold the watchman responsible for their deaths” (Ezekiel 33:6, NLT).
If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims. The surrounding verses also say that if the people refuse to heed the warning of the watchman, he is not guilty if they are harmed.

We also see principles in Mosaic law teaching that if we fail to guard the lives of others, we are guilty. In Deuteronomy 22:8, if someone falls from your roof, and you failed to install a safety fence around the edge, you would be held liable for the death of that person.

Likewise, in Exodus 21:29-31, if a man has an ox that is prone to harm people, the owner is held liable if he fails to confine it and the ox harms or kills others. If the ox harms someone, the negligent owner is fined. If the ox kills someone, the negligent owner is to be put to death.

The principle could hardly be stated more forcefully: you must protect your life and the lives of others.


Gun-Rights Documentary ‘Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire’ Reasoned Counter to Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling For Columbine’

By /

“Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire” is a reasoned counter to Michael Moore‘s “Bowling for Columbine” and, as such, a constructive addition to the current national firearms debate.


Director Kris Koenig’s inspired choice of rap star Ice-T as narrator signals the film’s relative finesse in addressing gun owner stereotypes as a way of arguing against most — but not all — firearm restrictions.

We hear from gun owners of all stripes — women, minorities, old-timers, paraplegics, even an LGBT gun group called the Pink Pistols — making the movie’s fundamental assertion that self-protection is a right and, in times when the “thin veneer of civilization” breaks down, a necessity, a defense for the defenseless.

There’s much talk about constitutional rights, no mention of high-capacity magazines or the effectiveness of gun laws in other nations.

For the filmmakers, it’s all about the 2nd Amendment, which, to their thinking, demands a responsibility for one’s own well-being, the “most sacred civil right.”


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: