Gun Control Activist Wants You To Ask Your Thanksgiving Host If They Have Weapons

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

With Thanksgiving upon us, many are planning festivities which include feasts and gatherings with friends and family. 

But some others, like gun control activists, seek to make your holiday as miserable as possible.

Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, used the trending hashtag #ThanksgivingWeek to call on parents to inquire about guns in homes where their child may be visiting this year.

It’s #ThanksgivingWeek: Have you asked the friends and family your kids are visiting if there are guns in their homes and how they store them? https://t.co/pyvEUh4N3m

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) November 20, 2017

Watts has been fighting against gun owners for years, pushing for gun control legislation, and has encouraged businesses to adopt gun-free policies. She is also the board chair for Rise to Run, an organization focused on encouraging communist young women to run for office.

But once again, proving that leftists are actually the violent ones who wish for the death of those who don’t believe the same fantasies they do, the lemmings who follow Watts were out in full force.

Guns in Trunpist families should be stored as recklessly as possible.

— grailsnail (@grailsnail) November 20, 2017

What most leftists don’t realize is that most gun owners don’t care about their emotions.

They probably will relish a Thanksgiving dinner without the political diarrhea that so many gun control activists spew. If I were asked the question Watts proposed, I would tell the person asking that it’s none of their business and if they don’t like then tough.

Because the cold hard truth no liberal wants to realize, is that gun control will only affect those willing to follow those laws and punishes those who have committed no crime. 

There’s no other way to look at it, and until the communists on the left can realize that, Thanksgiving may be more enjoyable without them.

Personally, I think that liberals and communists have an issue with gun rights because those are the people who can tell them “no” and back it up.  It’s hard to control a person who’s armed when you only bring your feelings to the fight.

Mainstream Media Now Promoting "Gun Confiscation Orders" As Solution To Mass Shootings

Authored by Alex Thomas via SHTFplan.com,

In what many saw coming a mile away in the aftermath of both the Las Vegas Massacre and the Texas Church mass shooting, liberals in the government, with the help of their mainstream media allies, are now pushing what amounts to plans for gun confiscation, outside of normal law, for Americans across the country.

The new push for gun control from the left comes courtesy of ABC News which recently published a piece promoting the use of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) that many believe is nothing more than a thinly veiled confiscation plan that would allow a judge to “issue an ex parte order” for the direct confiscation of an American citizens firearms.

Unbelievably, the order can actually be issued without the firearm owner even being present, which would in turn end with police at the citizens door demanding he hand over his weapons or face violence from the state.

ABC’s Andy Fies, on the other hand, apparently wants Americans to see the orders differently, painting a more friendly picture of the ERPO’s while quoting two different left-wing gun control groups as seemingly unbiased experts on gun violence.

As of now, only Washington, California, Connecticut and most recently Oregon have ERPO laws (while Indiana and Texas have modified risk warrant statutes). Over the past year, however, spurred by a string of mass shootings beginning with the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 in June 2016, legislatures in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have taken up 32 separate ERPO bills for consideration, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control.

 

Everytown’s deputy legal director, William Rosen, told ABC News that list will grow. “We expect to see at least as much interest in 2018,” he said.

 

“There is a growing consensus,” added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, “that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.”

 

Current laws barring gun ownership are limited. Generally, a person with a long history of mental health issues can still legally buy or possess firearms if they don’t fall into specific statutory categories such as having been adjudicated mentally ill or under a domestic violence restraining order. But, as was the case with Texas church gunman Devin Kelley, even these restrictions may not work if the person’s troubled past is not recorded on a background registry.

 

With an ERPO, however, if family members or police can show a gun owner to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, they can force the person to surrender their weapon(s).

Keep in mind that Everytown for Gun Safety is a Michael Bloomberg funded, left-wing gun control group that was created as part of a rebranding effort by the billionaire gun grabber after his previous group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was outed by multiple former members as actually pushing an agenda of full-scale gun confiscation.

The Extreme Risk Protection Orders scheme seems to be nothing more than another attempt at slowly eroding the right of lawful Americans to own firearms.

As AWR Hawkins reported in an April 2017 article about a similar law being pushed in Oregon, “Oregon state Sen. Brian Boquist is pushing a confiscation bill that would broaden the number of prohibited gun purchasers as well as require certain individuals to hand over any guns in their possession.”

At the time, gun rights activist and NRA member Keely Hopkins rightfully described the law as an attempt to remove your Second Amendment rights by using a third-party who would need little evidence to declare you unfit to own a firearm. (Imagine a vengeful ex-wife/husband)

“This bill allows for a protective order to remove your Second Amendment rights, not because of a criminal conviction, but based on third-party allegations using an evidentiary standard that falls far below what’s normally required for the removing of fundamental rights.”

It is also important to note that gun control advocates and the mainstream media are using The Las Vegas Massacre, which the authorities are openly lying about (there were at least 7 different shooters) as a pretext to further take away Americans right to bear arms. This is, and has always been, the modus operandi of the power elite.

Mass Shootings, Mass Psychology, And Self-Defense

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

There is an unfortunate correlation between crises and catastrophes and mass psychology.

For those with a decent long-term memory, you may have noticed that the frequency of attacks and tragedies taking place today around the world is far above and beyond what occurred 10 years ago. So much so that many in the public have moved beyond the point of outrage and have now embraced complacency.

The mass shooting issue, for example, once inspired fevered debate over gun rights. Not so much anymore. While I am happy that the relentless attempts by leftists to exploit every shooting as a tool for their gun grabbing agenda have taken a backseat, I see a trend in another direction which is equally dangerous. That trend is a move towards acceptance that "these things happen," instead of a healthy discussion on real solutions (and no, more gun control is not one of them).

A decade ago the Vegas shooting would have inspired media and social discussion for at least a year. Now, the story disappears in two weeks and is replaced with 10 others. I will be surprised if the latest church shooting in Texas in which 26 people were killed stays on the news feeds for more than a few days.

Where does this complacency come from?

It is a complex problem, but one that I think relates to the state of decline within any particular society. In Carl Jung"s The Undiscovered Self, Jung mentions a consistent element of latent sociopathy and psychopathy within most cultures. Perhaps 10% of people within a society are latent sociopaths and psychopaths, and around 1% or less represent full blown sociopaths/psychopaths. Most of the latent people will never become truly dangerous if they are living within a culture that is healthy and morally balanced. In fact, those with inherent sociopathic traits can become very high functioning human beings who are adept at careers that many other people avoid (surgeons and career soldiers are two examples).

However, in the event that there is cultural rot and a degradation of principles, environmental influences come into play and latent sociopaths/psychopaths have the potential to mutate into something far more dangerous. Jung examines this dynamic as an explanation for the sudden and accelerated decline of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s into totalitarianism and moral relativism. When the mentally disturbed 1% turns into 10% or more, entire nations can be dragged along into the abyss.

As a litmus test I find it valuable to look at popular culture when trying to determine if a society is on the brink of collapse into a singularity of moral relativism, because popular culture often reflects these elements more honestly than the supposed "experts" will. When examining Germany before its fall, I recommend studying the films of Fritz Lang; particularly his movie "M" released in 1931, which depicts a serial killer with a penchant for children being put on trial by a group of underworld criminals, not because they abhor what he does on moral grounds, but because his activities are drawing too much unwanted attention from authorities on their own criminal enterprises. If the dark world of "M" doesn"t perfectly showcase the decline of Germany, I don"t know what does.

Today, we are constantly surrounded by popular culture which leans towards the morally relative; stories in which the heroes must become monsters in order to defeat other supposedly worse monsters.

At another level, our popular culture tells us that it is only the fantastical, the super powered and the government contracted heroes that have the ability to affect change and disrupt disaster.  Underlying all of this seems to be a narrative of defeat; the notion that there is nothing the average person can do.  And, of course, we are also bombarded with stories in which gluttony and decadence are applauded while anyone that takes a more responsible path is portrayed as unhappy or joyless in the long run.

Translate this to the developing trend of mass shootings around the world and the public reaction to them. On one end of the spectrum, in the past it was the sociopathic left that saw mass death as an opportunity to enforce political control over gun rights advocates, with the goal of eventually achieving total disarmament. These people do not care about the dead, let alone logic, they only care about furthering their agenda.  They see government power as the answer to every problem.

If you were to hold up examples like the Paris or Mumbai attacks to gun grabbers and point out that disarmament only makes mass shootings EASIER for criminals and terrorists, they would not listen. Obviously, if any of the citizens including the off-duty police officers had been armed in Paris, the attack might have been stopped much sooner.

In the case of the church shooting near San Antonio, that attack WAS interrupted by an armed neighbor of the church who used his rifle to fend off Devin Kelley, forcing him to escape in his vehicle. Had that neighbor not been armed, the massacre might have gone on much longer. Had one of the people within the church been armed, the attack might have ended in seconds, as we saw in Denver in 2007.

Now, as I said earlier, there are sociopathic members of the political left that seek to take advantage of these scenarios, but these people have fallen by the wayside recently.

On the political right, sadly, I have seen another brand of sociopathy rising, with some arguing that all the people within the San Antonio church that were unarmed "deserved to die." This is just as dangerous a mentality as the exploitations of the left. If the liberty movement itself sets aside empathy and resorts to sensationalist or morally relative methods to drive forward a political agenda, then we are only hastening the fall of our culture, not protecting it. And, we become no better that the leftist disarmament thugs we abhor.

In between these two extremes sits a coagulated mass of people who simply don"t care much as long as a particular disaster doesn"t involve them. These are the folks who are uninterested in solutions and don"t really want to hear anything about it. It is these people who tend to become wreckage floating on the tides of history; their lack of concern eventually comes back to haunt them in the future.

So, if these are the wrong ways to approach the mass shooting problem, then what are the right ways?

I think it is vital that Americans in particular maintain our care and concern for the victims of these events. The solution to mass shootings is clearly a responsibly armed populace.  According to all the stats on active shooters, defense by citizens is the only factor that seems to make much difference. But to convince more and more people of this requires a level of conscience and empathy that inspires confidence, and perhaps brotherhood. When people know that you give a damn and aren;t simply pursuing an agenda like the political left does, it is more likely that they will listen to what you have to say.

As I noted in my article How To Stop All Future Mass Shootings, the Vegas attack was organized by someone who was smart enough to avoid a point-blank engagement in a city and state in which concealed-carry firearms are more common. Point-blank attacks are by far the most common because they are generally attempted by people who have minimal training or because the attackers are relatively certain that their victims will be disarmed in the area they have chosen (gun free zones).

The Vegas attacker (or attackers) chose to use sniper-like tactics to prolong the massacre. However, what this shows is that an armed citizenry is a factor or barrier in how an attack is planned. With properly trained and armed security overwatching major events along with an armed population, there may never be another mass shooting again.

This is what Americans should be talking about, yet, there is no practical discussion on solving the problem. Is this a symptom of impending collapse within our society? Possibly. If there was ever an honorable task for the liberty movement today, it is to inspire solutions and to maintain moral balance. These shootings and other crisis events should not be forgotten within a week. They should at the very least be a learning process, a means by which we evolve our way of life and become more self reliant and by extension more safe.

If you are not a conceal- or open-carry proponent, then you should be. If you understand that the majority of shooting events that are stopped are stopped by average citizens that are armed, then it should only follow that you should become one of those armed citizens. In the meantime, it is not for us who are consistently armed to admonish disarmed victims as if they "deserve what they got." Their failure is our failure as well. For if we are not working diligently to convince others of the importance of citizen self defense, then we have contributed to the conditions that led to these massacres taking place.

There are methods of stemming the tide of social collapse. There are in fact solutions. They begin with each individual acting in small ways and big ways everyday. Complacency and zealotry are the enemy, as well as those that would encourage such mentalities.

Two Americas

Authored by Michael Owen,

No amount of statistics or facts will sway either side in the gun control debate, because they are all looking for simple solutions to complex problems.

The facts of those complex problems are uncomfortable and nobody really wants to come to grips with them.

For example, we don’t really have a single America with a moderately high rate of gun deaths.

Instead, we have two Americas, one of which has very high rates of gun ownership but very low murder rates, very comparable to the rest of the First World democracies such as those in western & northern Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Korea. The other America has much lower rates of gun ownership but much, much higher murder rates, akin to violent third world countries.

The tough questions are those like, why do we have these two Americas?

But that’s an uncomfortable discussion to have. So instead those on the left favor simple minded restrictions that target first world America, with its high gun ownership but very low murder rate, but don’t address the root causes of third world America’s violence at all. Meanwhile those on the right correctly feel their civil rights are constantly threatened, so they are constantly in a state of “better stock up before they finally ban it” and the guns and ammo fly off the shelves. The left’s constant gun control rhetoric is the greatest thing ever for arms manufacturers.

Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, while the number of guns in private hands has doubled, the murder rate has dropped by half. The left are constantly prattling about “assault weapons” which are almost never used to commit murders (about 1% of gun murders; all rifles combined are around 3%). More murders are committed with baseball bats than “assault rifles”; the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns, but it’s easier to sell restrictions that target “assault weapons”, even though such restrictions, even if 100% effective, would make no detectable change in the murder rate (especially because of substitution effects). They favor ridiculous measures such as bans on “high capacity magazines”, as if magazines weren’t cheap and easily swapped out in a fraction of a second.

The uncomfortable fact is that roughly 80% of the US homicide rate is associated with the drug trade, and the drug trade is violent because the drug war reserves it for violent criminals.

We have a system in place where the government subsidizes poverty in urban areas, imposes economic blight in those same areas through heavy taxes and regulations, renders the residents permanently unemployable via the “criminal justice” (sic) system, and creates a lucrative black market in drugs by restricting supply (not to mention increasing demand as people are desperate to escape their circumstances by getting high), meaning the only game in town is often entering the drug trade. The drug trade is violent because those in it have no access to courts to settle disputes. Powerful industries lobby to keep the drug war going; the top spenders are law enforcement unions, the prison industry, big alcohol, tobacco, and pharma.

Guns are not the proximate cause of gun violence in the US. Childlike magical thinking and simple “fixes” to complex problems will not work. But it is comfortable, and self-righteousness feels so good. So I expect it to continue indefinitely.

The Less We Believe Them About Las Vegas, The More They Want Our Guns

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Once again, there has been a mass shooting in the United States and the usual script is in play.

America’s ‘gun culture’ is to blame!

  Before the blood was dry gun control advocates had trotted out their standard list of remedial measures, none of which would have prevented what had just taken place.

Since the Las Vegas massacre we have been regaled about evil guns by factually ignorant buffoons like Bill Maher, Colin Jost, Michael Che, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, and John Oliver – the last two not even Americans. Anyone who disagrees is just wrong and callous about the loss of innocent life. We now import foreigners to insult us and our institutions and pay them outrageous salaries to do it.

Las Vegas was a bit different from previous mass shooting in at least two glaring respects.

First, the inability of law enforcement to discover a motive remains the biggest mystery. Admittedly, these same authorities in the US – and even worse in Europe – typically find themselves scratching their collective head in puzzlement after a murderer shouting “Allahu Akbar” kills a bunch of people. (What did he mean by that? Maybe that’s Arabic for “Merry Christmas”! We’re still trying to figure out why he did it, but we’re sure it had nothing to do with Islam. And anyone who says it did is a racist.) At this point, the actions of the person identified as the Las Vegas killer (whose name will not be mentioned here to deny whatever immortality he may have sought) are attributed to mental instability. That’s not good enough. Subjectively, even maniacs think they are doing something. Even a total lunatic who believes he is, say, fighting Martians or chopping potatoes, intends that outcome. But here, supposedly, someone stockpiles weapons for months, meticulously plans a murderous onslaught – and maybe had contingencies for attacks elsewhere – and there’s not a hint of what he thought he was up to. That’s simply not plausible. (Repeated claims by Daesh that the Las Vegas killer was one of their “soldiers” have not yet been substantiated but authorities were lightning-quick to dismiss the possibility. Meanwhile, despite a total lack of evidence, multiple “RussiaGate” investigations of the Trump Administration roll on and on. Let’s not be hasty, some connection to the Kremlin might eventually turn up . . . )

Second, there’s the money. The individual in question, as confirmed by his girlfriend as well as by his brother and other family members, was quite rich. Supposedly his initial wealth was made via savvy real estate deals (possible) but later was sustained by being really, really good at video poker at Las Vegas casinos, where he was a welcome regular “comped” by the House with food, drinks, hotel rooms, and other goodies. That’s not just implausible, it’s virtually impossible. As Ann Coulter points out, the fact that he was “was treated like royalty by the casinos . . . means he was losing... Anyone who plays video poker over an extended period of time will absolutely, 100 percent, by basic logic, end up a net loser.” If anyone would know this, it’s police in Los Vegas, where casino operators are pillars of the community and gambling is the major industry. It’s clear to anyone with half a brain that the killer was laundering money – from somewhere yet to be disclosed. In our age of digital financial surveillance, casinos are among the last places someone can anonymously churn large amounts of unsourced cash, no questions asked. Maybe the police and FBI haven’t figured out where the money was coming from, or maybe they have and are protecting someone.

In any case, the inability to get a straight answer to the questions, or even to ascertain simple facts like whether a hotel security guard was shot before or after the mass killing began, or when the first call was made to police, feeds public distrust and speculation as to what the hell is really is going on. That is turn prompts establishment gatekeepers like Snopes to denounce as “conspiracy theorists” (mainly of the “far right” variety, because the existence of a far left is itself a conspiracy theory) folks trying to make sense of the nonsense we’re being force-fed.

At least Las Vegas has shined a light on one deception that has long been standard in the American media: the notion – no doubt believed by many outside the US – that Americans routinely run around with machine guns shooting each other. This impression is fed by false claims of gun-control advocates that “assault rifles” – semiautomatic guns (where one trigger-pull equals one round fired) – are “weapons of war.” What makes them not like contemporary weapons of war is that they are not fully automatic (hold the trigger down for multiple, rapid rounds), which is why gun control advocates abuse the trick designation “military style” – they look scarier than semiautomatic hunting rifles because of cosmetic features like pistol grips and folding stocks. Fully automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns) have been virtually impossible acquire legally in the US for decades. The evident use in Las Vegas of a so-called “bump stock” to allow a semiautomatic to fire in a manner similar to a machine gun has forced even our fake news outlets to note the distinction. It’s a rare breakout of actual facts.

Ironically, when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms, was adopted, ordinary civilian guns really were equal to weapons of war. In fact, they were sometimes better. Think of how the standard British “Brown Bess” smoothbore was outclassed by the far more accurate Pennsylvania Rifle – perfect for picking off Redcoat officers at long range.

Advocates in gun control in America are always saying they just want “common-sense gun control” laws, like “closing the gun show loophole,” having stricter background checks, limiting the size of magazines, restricting the number of weapons or amount of ammunition someone can buy, and other seemingly innocuous measures. Each is a fraud.

For example, closing the so-called gun show loophole would be basically a ban on private transfers from one citizen to another – such as a man selling, or giving, a pistol or rifle to his cousin – without all the reporting and red tape federally licensed arms dealers must deal with. This is despite the fact that none the notable killings that supposedly justify more controls was carried out with a weapon from such a sale or would have been prevented if the demanded reform had been in place.

Meanwhile, the real American slaughter continues in cities where gun laws are as strict as those in any country in Europe, and it is virtually impossible for an honest citizen to acquire and carry a legal weapon.

For example, last month Chicago reached its 500^th homicide so far this year, and by New Year’s Day 2018 is on track to rack up a total exceeding ten times that of the Las Vegas massacre.

What’s the solution? Evidently to infringe on the constitutional rights of honest, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who are armed and increasingly distrustful of what they are being told by their supposed betters.

"Don't Ask Me To Pray For Victims" - Harvard Professor Calls NRA A "Domestic Terrorist Organization"

Authored by Emily Hall via CampusReform.org,

A Harvard University professor called the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization” Tuesday morning, adding that “Congress must act” on gun control.

“We have to have the courage to call the NRA exactly what it has become - a domestic terrorist organization that places profit above the lives of the American people,” Dr. Jonathan Walton declared during Morning Prayers, according to a blog post by The Memorial Church at Harvard.

Anticipating that “gun rights defenders will accuse me of politicizing this tragedy,” he proceeds to substantiate the accusation, speculating that mass murder “is what the NRA, weapons makers, and all who financially profit from this country"s pain desire” because “weapons sales increase and gun stocks rise following each mass shooting.”

“This nation is sick. Our cultural anxiety, toxic masculinity, and racial, religious, and ethnic bigotries are eating away at the soul of this nation,” Walton said later in the sermon.

“It even caused us to elect a madman to the presidency that embodies the worst aspects of our country’s cultural disease.”

He then decried the fact that Congress has not enacted further gun control measures, proclaiming that “if Congress is unwilling to act, then this nation should just own [its] sick and twisted reality,” rather than continuing to publicly mourn the victims.

“Mass shootings will just become a part of the quotidian fabric of American life - a sad, but an unsurprising event,” he continued.

“Thus, don’t ask me to pray. Don’t ask me to hold a vigil for victims. Nor will I light any more candles.”

Walton is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister of the Memorial Church, as well as a tenured Harvard Divinity School Professor of Religion and Society.

He was arrested in September, along with a group of other professors, for protesting President Trump’s decision to repeal DACA by blocking the flow of traffic through Harvard Square.

The “Morning Prayers” page on the Memorial Church’s website notes that “a daily service of Morning Prayers has been kept at Harvard since its founding in 1636. Held Monday through Friday during term, the service consists of music, prayer, and a brief address given by a member or friend of the University.”

Campus Reform reached out to Walton for elaboration on his remarks, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

And then Nancy Sinatra piped in helpfully...

The murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad. https://t.co/5ceuMvk5Tl

— Nancy Sinatra (@NancySinatra) October 3, 2017

Why Gun Sales Have Declined Under Trump

Authored by Gun News Daily"s Sam Becotta via Free Market Shooter blog,

Many of us welcomed Trump to the Presidency with a sense of pride. However, there is one group for whom the new (ish) president has brought some bad news – gun store owners, and gun manufacturers.

This is because gun sales have seen a significant drop since the election of Trump. But don’t worry – this does not indicate waning enthusiasm for people to own guns. Quite the opposite. It appears that demand has dropped because people feel that their rights to own guns will be protected under the new administration.

The extent to which this is true remains to be seen. While Trump seemed to be pro-gun during the election campaign, and though his campaign eventually won the backing of the NRA, it is not clear that there is a concrete policy position on gun rights. Like a lot of issues raised by the new administration, Trump’s stance on gun rights is frustratingly vague and lacking in details.

Of course, doing nothing to further erode our Second Amendment rights would be a welcome change from the Obama regime. The constant attempt to ban and / or limit ownership of assault-style weapons, though ultimately defeated, was a source of worry for people don’t want their rights to be further limited, or who rely on these guns for their livelihood.

Sales of these weapons peaked, therefore, during the Obama presidency, and specifically during those periods where the president was talking about banning them. There is, of course, a deep irony in this – that a president who was perhaps more anti-gun than any other in our recent history managed to create a huge demand for guns.

Now the Republicans are back, it seems that people are taking it more slowly when it comes to buying weapons. Instead of rushing to purchase a gun before it is banned, people now seem to be taking their time, secure in the knowledge that they have at least 5 years to get the gun that they want.

And so while the drop in gun sales seems like a bad thing on the surface, it is actually a sign of a gun enthusiast community in excellent health.

That is not to say that the recent drop in demand is good news for everyone. Gun store owners tend to be some of the most politically and economically savvy of all small business owners, and so before the election they looked at the prediction of who would win. With almost every major commentator predicting a Clinton presidency, these businesses stocked up, expecting the increased demand for guns to continue.

Many of these businesses now have a glut of product, and are finding it difficult to sell it. With many local gun stores having closed in recent years, this is worrying news, because ongoing low demand could lead to the closure of more of these businesses. On the other hand, of course, there has never been a better time to buy an assault-style weapon. With a huge oversupply, AR-15s and the like can be picked up for next to nothing.

The decreased demand is also bad news for investors. Share prices in gun manufacturing companies have seen a significant drop over the past year, with those in the industry predicting that decreased demand will continue for some time.

There has also been another worrying development. Gun sales are undoubtedly down on a national level, but at the same time some groups are buying more weapons than ever before. Groups and organizations who cater to LGBT and black gun owners have actually seen a spike in interest over the past year, and it seems that more liberals than ever are looking into gun ownership.

The reason for this trend is also related to the Trump presidency. It has been reported that both LGBT and black groups are increasingly worried about violence, and are taking steps to arm themselves. Whilst we are all for more people, whatever their color or creed, owning and learning how to use weapons, we should hope that these groups are not merely buying guns, but are also educating themselves to be responsible gun owners like the rest of us.

Overall, we are faced with a deeply strange situation. We now have a president who is assumed to be pro-gun, though the details of this remain sketchy at best. This has led to a decrease in gun sales, which is simultaneously good and bad news. We don’t wish to see any more local gun stores go to the wall, of course, but if you have been thinking about getting an AR-15 for a while, now is definitely the time.

Decentralize The Gun Laws

With a Republican in the White House, the anti-gun-control lobby smells a bit of blood in the water. Now is the time, they suggest, to pass national gun-licensing reciprocity laws forcing gun-restrictive states to recognize permits issued by gun-permissive states.

It is time for there to be national reciprocity for concealed carry permits, instead of the patchwork of laws governing reciprocity that vary by state. Virginia, where the [recent shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise] happened, has reciprocity for some states’ concealed carry permits, but if members would have brought their guns back and forth from D.C., they would have been breaking the law. It should never be a crime to be responsibly prepared to defend yourself in any possible situation.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would allow legal gun owners and concealed carry permit holders nationwide to responsibly arm themselves no matter where they are. 

The way this is phrased sounds nice and totally unobjectionable: this bill sounds like it"s just saying people should be left alone. 

The problem, however, is that the drive for mandated reciprocity is essentially a drive to increase federal involvement and federal control in the realm of gun policy. 

Schmidt is right in the sense that, of course it should never be a crime to defend one"s self. The question remains however: should the federal government be the agency that guarantees that right? Should the feds have the power to overturn state and local laws that limit gun ownership?

This issue can be addressed from both a legal and Constitutional standpoint, and from a general philosophical decentralist view. 

The Constitutionalist View

Suzanne Sherman at the Tenth Amendment Center has already weighed in against the idea on Constitutional grounds, based on two main arguments: 

1. Reciprocity laws are compacts made among the states, and are not imposed by the federal government.

2. The Bill of Rights Doesn"t apply to the states. 

On the first matter, Sherman notes that the proposed legislation would impose reciprocity on the states. This, Sherman notes, is a departure from what we usually mean by reciprocity, which denotes compacts that two or more states have voluntarily entered into. 

Sherman writes:

Many advocates of forced National Reciprocity point to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” found in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution. Such application is likewise problematic because it deviates from the original intent of the clause, lifted directly from the Articles of Confederation without any change to its meaning. This clause, as ratified, simply ensured citizens in one state could own land or property in another with the full rights of a citizen of that state. It in no way implied that one state had to recognize the institutions or licensing of another state. Driver’s licenses are acceptable for passing through various states, but it is, like CCW licensing, by mutual assent of the states. In other words, there is no federal statute mandating that one state must honor another state’s driver’s licenses.

In other words, the sort of "reciprocity" imagined by the backers of nationwide forced reciprocity is a new kind of reciprocity that substitutes federal policy for decentralized state-level policy. 

The enormous downside to this is that it federalizes what has long been recognized as largely the domain of state and local governments. Further federalizing gun policy may look like a fine idea right now, but as Sherman notes, it only takes a couple of new anti-gun appointments to the Supreme Court for the whole idea to blow up in the faces of pro-gun advocates. It"s far more prudent, Sherman contends, to work against any increase in federal involvement in gun policy. 

The Bill of Rights Was Never Meant to Apply to the States 

Sherman"s second point is one that Constitutionalists and decentralists have made for years. Namely, that the Bill of Rights is properly understood as a document that limits the federal government, not state governments. 

Sherman writes: 

When he introduced the proposal for a Bill of Rights to Congress, Madison wanted some of the provisions to be made applicable against the states. He argued that was where liberty would be most likely threatened. Again, he was defeated unanimously. The Bill of Rights was never understood to be applicable against the states. There is absolutely no historical evidence of the Bill of Rights being made enforceable against the states. Even nationalist John Marshall, in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, was forced to admit this when he said that the first ten “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."

...It was not until 1925, in the case of Gitlow vs New York, that the Supreme Court magically “found” the authority to apply the Bill of Rights against the states supposedly hidden away in the 14th Amendment..."

Sensing that things are going their way, it has become fashionable for some gun-freedom advocates to push for more federal control over state and local gun laws. One example is the recent case of Mcdonald vs. the City of Chicago which finally declared that the Second Amendment — like other portions of the Bill of Rights — applies to the states. Nevertheless, by pushing for more federal control in this case, gun-rights advocates are only pushing for more federal control over the states.

Even those who have no particular affinity for the current American Constitution have noted this as well. 

Lew Rockwell writes: 

[T]he purpose of the Bill of Rights was to state very clearly and plainly what the Federal Government may not do. That"s why they were attached to the Constitution. The states, under the influence of skeptics of the Constitution"s limits on the central power, insisted that the restrictions on the government be spelled out. The Bill of Rights did not provide a mandate for what the Federal Government may do. You can argue all you want about the 14th amendment and due process. But a reading that says it magically transforms the whole Bill of Rights to mean the exact opposite of its original intent is pure fantasy.

In other words, appealing to the 2nd Amendment as a means of limiting state and local gun laws is based on newly invented federal powers that have no basis in legal or historical facts around the Constitution as written. Thus, it is ironic that many conservatives — who often fancy themselves to be "strict constructionists" and "local control" people — have suddenly made peace with the idea of using the Bill of Rights to boss state governments around. 

The Decentralist View

The Constitutional arguments are all well and good, but the US Constitution should never be viewed as the final word on any matter. The current constitution has always gone much too far in terms of centralizing political power in the United States, and the United States should never have been anything more than a loose military alliance and customs union. It"s no more necessary that the federal government regulate gun laws than it is necessary to define marriage or prohibit prayer at school sporting events.

In fact, gun policy, like abortion policy, wage policy, land-use policy, and everything else, should be relentlessly decentralized. 

In his article "What We Mean by Decentralization," Lew Rockwell explains the various reasons why decentralization is a mroe effective check on power than handing everything over to a Supreme Court or other federal "protectors" or rights. 

Rockwell lists five reasons for this:

First, under decentralization, jurisdictions must compete for residents and capital, which provides some incentive for greater degrees of freedom...

Second, localism internalizes corruption so that it can be more easily spotted and uprooted....

Third, tyranny on the local level minimizes damage to the same extent that macro-tyranny maximizes it....

Fourth, no government can be trusted to use the power to intervene wisely...

Fifth, a plurality of governmental forms—a "vertical separation of powers," ... prevents the central government from accumulating power. Lower governments are rightly jealous of their jurisdiction, and resist... 

Also key to this equation is the fact that decentralization offers a multitude of choices between different regimes in the face of government restrictions and persecution. If only one huge government has been granted the power to protect rights, to where will one go when the government fails to do its prescribed task? On the other hand, when a wide variety of smaller governments are charged with protecting rights, the failure by one regime is not nearly as catastrophic since the offending regime can be far more easily avoided through emigration and boycott than can a large centralized regime. 

Thus, it might sound nice to put the federal government in charge of protecting gun rights, but the potential downside is immense given that federal policy can change easily, and then be imposed nationwide. 

This isn"t to say that small, decentralized government are a cure-all either. Ideology always plays an important role, and in a world where the majority wants all private citizens disarmed — well, that will happen regardless of what level of decentralization exists.

However, if what we desire is a governmental landscape that offers more choices for residents and more limitations on state power, decentralization is the proper path, and handing over gun policy to federal "protectors" is a terrible idea.

This New Piece Of Legislation Could Demolish State Gun Control Laws Across The Country

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Over the past century there has been one undeniable trend working against gun rights. Put simply, as time goes on, it’s harder for a law abiding citizen to own and use a firearm, largely due to the proliferation of state and federal gun laws. A hundred years ago, one could own pretty much any firearm without restriction, and buy a firearm without even a background check (though of course one argue could that a few of these laws are a good idea). Now it’s a heavily regulated industry.

And sure, there have been some victories for the Second Amendment. A few decades ago there were only a handful of states where it was fairly easy to attain a concealed carry permit, and even many deeply conservative states didn’t issue these permits at all. Now that situation has completely reversed, and continues to improve. However, when you look at gun rights on a long enough timeline, it’s obvious that the Second Amendment has lost more than it has won, as state and federal laws have chipped away at our rights little by little.

Fortunately there is a new piece of legislation that could significantly roll back the worst of these laws on the state level, in particular the laws that were put in place under the Obama administration. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, which was recently proposed by New York Congressman Chris Collins, could prove to be the most significant attack on gun control laws that we’ve seen in generations. According to a press release issued by Collins’ office:

“This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,” said Collins.

 “I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”

SAGA would provide an intimidating bulwark against gun control advocates in blue states. In a nutshell, it would prevent these states from passing restrictive laws that exceed the scope of federal gun laws.

In the Collins’ bill, States or local governments would not be able to regulate, prohibit, or require registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, “rifle or shotgun” includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

Under this legislation, any current or future laws enacted by a state or political subdivision that exceeds federal law for rifles and shotguns would be void. Should a state violate this law, and a plaintiff goes to court, the court will award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee in addition to any other damages.

For decades, gun owners living in certain states have had their rights slowly stripped away by legislative bodies that repeatedly passed laws which are in violation of the Second Amendment, and they’ve done so almost completely unopposed. It’s the perfect example of what the Founders hoped to prevent in our society. They feared that the rights of the minority could be taken away by the majority, which is exactly what gun owners in leftists states have had to contend with.

But if SAGA passes, state governments will no longer be able to bully gun owners with their onerous and unconstitutional laws. Gun owners will finally have the same right to bear arms in every state of the union.

Republican Lawmaker Wants To Make It Legal To Carry A Gun In DC... But Only For Congressmen

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

When it comes to gun control, no one is more hypocritical than liberal celebrities and politicians. While these people promote the end of gun rights for ordinary Americans, it’s often the case that they are protected in public and in their homes, by cadres of highly trained and armed bodyguards. They reap the benefits of the Second Amendment, while treating the rest of us like children who can’t be trusted with a gun.

However, it’s not just prominent liberals who are hypocritical when it comes to gun rights.

Republican Congressman Mo Brooks, who survived the recent shooting in Virginia that left Congressman Steve Scalise severely injured, has been promoting a new bill that will allow lawmakers to carry a gun anywhere in the country, including Washington D.C., regardless of local laws. The only exceptions, are when lawmakers are in the US Capital building, or in the presence of the President or Vice President.

“I’m going to be introducing legislation this week … to allow congressmen to carry a sidearm, should they so desire,” Rep. Mo Brooks said in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Members of Congress are “high-profile targets,” the congressman said, adding that they have “absolutely no way to defend ourselves because of Washington, D.C.’s rather restrictive gun laws,” the Alabama congressman said.

“I want congressmen to be treated as if they were law enforcement,” Brooks said, “given that we are high-profile targets for the bad guys, the lone wolves, the terrorists.”

That makes sense. Politicians are high-profile individuals who routinely face death threats from members of the public. They should absolutely have the right to arm themselves in public.

But what about everyone else? What would it say about our country if this bill passes? That lawmakers should have a special right to carry a gun wherever they want? That they are above the local and state laws that keep millions of Americans from protecting themselves in public? Politicians are supposed to have the same rights as us. They’re not special in that regard, but some of Brooks’ recent statements might suggest that he thinks otherwise.

Brooks said the measure doesn’t include any particular training requirements for members.

In an interview with WHNT News 19 Tuesday afternoon, he said members are capable of deciding on their own if they need any firearms training.

“I defer to the judgment of our elected Congressmen and Senators,” Brooks said. “They are adults. They are targets, they are high-profile targets of terrorists and lone wolf attackers, and as such they are in a position to make their own decision about how much training they believe is necessary.”

But our judgement can’t be trusted?

Last I heard, most Americans have to undergo some form of training if they want to receive a conceal carry license. But congressmen suddenly don’t need training? Sorry, but I could think of a few politicians who would make me nervous if they were packing. If they’re mature of enough to make that decision themselves, then so is every other adult American.

The point I’m trying to make, isn’t that this bill is wrong. I do think politicians should be allowed to arm themselves in public, and I don’t think they should have to beg the government for permission to carry a gun. But neither should the rest of us. That’s exactly what millions of Americans have to do if they want to conceal carry. Depending on where they live, they need to pay fees, obtain permits, go through background checks, and undergo training before they can carry a gun. They have to convince the government that they are responsible adults, before the government gives them a permit to exercise their rights. They don’t get to decide for themselves if they have enough training. It would be absolutely sick if the political class didn’t have to jump through the same hoops that many of us have to jump through to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The bottom line is this. Whether you’re a politician or a private citizen, no law abiding American should have to beg the government for permission to carry a gun in public. It’s a right that should be taken away from citizens who abuse it (criminals), but nobody should need permission in the first place.

Congressman Brooks, if you really support the Second Amendment, as you so eloquently claimed after the shooting in Virginia, then you’ll promote laws that enhance everyone’s rights, and not just the rights of your colleagues.

Firearm Background Checks Soar To New High In May Despite NRA-Endorsed President

For the past decade, gun sales have spiked massively ahead each of the past three presidential elections as people have feared that increasingly "progressive" liberal candidates, from Obama in 2008/2012 to Hillary and Bernie in 2016, would enact stiffer gun reforms that would make it nearly impossible to purchase firearms.  That fear of future regulation turned out to be one of the biggest boons for gun manufacturers in history as everyone (and their mothers) suddenly realized they had a pressing need for multiple AR-15s.

Obama even won "Gun Salesman of the Year" for pretty much 8 consecutive years.

Of course, when Trump shocked the world with his win last November, the election of the first NRA-endorsed President in nearly a decade was supposed to mark the end of perpetually soaring gun sales.  In fact, Sturm Ruger"s share price crashed over 25% in just a matter of days as investors feared that the "pulling forward" of gun sales was about to reverse "big league".  That said, those gun sales declines never materialized and RGR"s shares are right back to pre-Trump levels...

...and, as the Washington Examiner points out today, FBI firearm background checks in May 2017 soared to yet another new high. 

So what"s going on here?  Well, at least according to one of the largest gun dealers in the United States there has been no slowdown in purchases of guns from new buyers at all, a phenomenon they attribute to the growing number of terrorist strikes around the world in recent months.

At the one of the nation"s largest gun stores, Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, N.C., sales are up in reaction to safety concerns.

"We are continuing to see brisk sales of self-defense and concealed carry firearms. We"re also continuing to see new gun buyers," said Hyatt Marketing Director Justin Anderson.

"People are nervous about their safety, and rightly so. It"s a dangerous world we live in and American citizens know that we"re not immune to terrorist attacks. They"re taking the necessary steps to defend themselves. Frankly, the most recent terrorist attack in London underscores the importance of an armed populace. Remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away," he added.

Of course, the ultimate cause for the continued strength in gun purchases can be attributed to any number of factors, not the least of which is continued gridlock and complete uncertainty in Washington DC, despite a Republican controlled government.

So what say you, continuation of a long-term bull trend in gun sales or continued pull forward of sales related to increasing terrorist threats and international political uncertainty.

Citizen Militia Experiences Explosive Growth Following The Last Election

Submitted by Daniel Lang via SHTFPlan.com,

Until the 1990’s, civilian run volunteer militias weren’t all that common in the United States. They were the fringe of the fringe in our culture. But after Waco and Ruby Ridge, their ranks swelled and they became a common subject in the news and in pop culture.

Their numbers fell again under President Bush, and then grew to new heights under President Obama.

It’s an obvious pattern. Conservative militias multiply like crazy under Democratic presidents, and for good reason. When Democrats take the reigns of government, they always threaten to restrict gun ownership. They then decline under Republican administrations, when conservatives don’t feel as threatened.

However, there may be a new trend emerging. CBS Atlanta recently did a piece on a militia called the Three Percenter Security Force (which obviously showed them in slightly negative light, given the source).

CBS46 News

The organization is run by Marine Corps veteran Chris Hill, who says that their membership has grown from a few dozen, to roughly 400 members since November.

The Marine told CBS that the militia would protect the Second Amendment under any administration, and that “The government or law enforcement agencies, disarming people, it’s a constant threat.”

That doesn’t sound very different from the stated objectives of any conservative militia that has emerged since the 90s. So why is this militia’s membership growing so drastically during the early stages of a Republican administration? What’s different this time? The answer may lie in how the Left has responded to Trump being elected. According to Hill:

“The level of violence I see coming from these protests is alarming, I think that creates more of a need for people like us to be there,” Hill said.

Hill says, just as anti-Trump supporters have a right to organize and protest, his group wants to show their presence.

“We have a duty to protect, our freedom, our liberty, our constitutional Republic.” Hill said. “That responsibility can’t be deferred to you know Congress.”

So radical leftists and conservative militias are experiencing explosive growth at the same time, and neither of them are afraid to present themselves in the streets of America. While I do support the rights of militias, I have to say that this probably won’t end well.

"Lines Out The Door": How Americans Respond When Liberal States Restrict Their Gun Rights

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

The window is closing on freedom in the Golden State, as liberal government leaders and increasingly bureaucratic laws are being used to strip away the rights of the people.

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a slew of new laws, seen by many as unconstitutional, that will make it incrementally more difficult for Californians to keep and bear arms.

But in response to new restrictions on owning so-called “assault weapons” and certain types of semi-automatic firearms, millions are lining up to make purchases during the last legal time frame to do so.

While the state tramples on freedom and bites back at the spirit of the founders who abhorred such bureaucratic tyranny, these patriots are sending a message that they won’t take it lying down, and will do all they can to hold onto their American heritage – and pass it down to future generations.

Government passes stupid laws, and the people respond reasonably.https://t.co/yLbwB5F00x

— Eric Scott (@EricScottUSA) December 20, 2016

As of today, people can no longer legal purchase under the new laws taking effect, due to the 10-day waiting period law already in place.

via The Blaze:

Gun sales in California have skyrocketed during the second half of 2016 after California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed into law earlier this year a sweeping new set of gun control laws that are set to take effect Jan. 1.

Brown signed into law six measures, including one that requires California citizens to allow the government to confiscate their “high capacity” magazines, a law that requires a background check for ammunition sales, in addition to a “bullet button law.”

So-called bullet buttons are devices on semi-automatic rifles that allow a user to easily eject and insert a new magazine. You will still be able to own rifles that have a bullet button in California, but you’ll no longer be able to purchase a firearm that has one, according to the Los Angeles Times.

However, citizens who own firearms with the “bullet button” will have one year to register the gun with the state of California as an “assault weapon.”

[…]

The new guns laws have led to a run on firearms in California… Joshua Deaser, the owner of Just Guns in Sacramento, told the Times, “When Gov. Brown signed that bill, the first 30 days in July were just insane. It died down for a while but now we are back with everyone trying to get what they can before the end of the year.”

“We have people lined up out the door and around the block,” Terry McGuire, owner of the Get Loaded gun store in San Bernardino, added.

And they aren’t stopping there.

Breitbart is reporting that Californian lawmakers are planning an attempt at all-out ban of semi-automatic weapons in the coming year.

How that will play out remains to be seen, but the continued assault on the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans trapped inside the country’s most populous state:

In a recent conversation with Breitbart News, Gun Owners of California’s (GOC) Sam Paredes told us to be ready for an all-out ban on semi-automatic long guns in California’s coming legislative session.

Paredes suggested the “assault weapons” ban and the “bullet button” ban have both been part of an incremental move…

“These laws are the tip of the iceberg here in California. We expect they are going to introduce legislation to totally ban semi-automatic long guns in California. They will do this because they know we will come up with a new way to beat their latest ban–the ‘bullet button’ ban–if given time.”

Eventually, a chaotic world will attempt to take away all the rights of the individual to self-defense.

California to ban all semi-automatic guns, confiscate guns & limit ammo saleshttps://t.co/YO32Eo7NNl#gunrights #2ADefenders #GunsSaveLives pic.twitter.com/49IRTajToD

— DrSueDVM?????????for???????? (@DrSueDVM) December 21, 2016

If there wasn’t so much push back, it would surely be overnight.

Never mind that it opens up big cities to unrestricted violence and an overall diminished quality of life and access to opportunity.

This is a system that wants control, and to achieve that, they will stop at nothing short of a totally-disarmed population.

Read more:

The Watchlist Gun Bans Begin: Obama Enlists Governors to Bypass Congress: “By Executive Order”

Are You Designated As A “Super Gun Owner” And Will You Soon Be Targeted For Disarmament?

Texas Police Chief Warns Obama That Gun Control Will “Cause A Revolution… You’re Not Our Potentate, Sir”

Confiscation Is Coming: Obama To Issue Executive Order Targeting 4.2 Million Retirees With Massive Gun Ban

The Push For Full Disarmament of America Has Begun: “Outright Gun Ban and Mass Confiscation Once and For All”