A Modest Proposal

The Complementary Spouse and I were watching Sharyl Attkisson's Full Measure news program this morning. She had a story on about waste and fraud in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and its security forces. That is irrelevant to my modest proposal. However, seeing Afghan police carrying AK-47s got me to thinking - why are they carrying ComBloc firearms when they could be carrying firearms made in the good old USA.

The US firearms industry has an inventory problem. They overbuilt before the 2016 election on the presumption that we would have a President Hillary which would cause a mad rush to buy while the getting was good. Instead we have President Trump and the pipeline is full of ARs that manufacturers and distributors are trying to clear out. Tam called it a "gun glut" today in a post.

You only have to see the emails and flyers from companies like Palmetto State Armory and CDNN to see that prices have plummeted.  The subreddit /r/gundeals is full of posts about great buys on anything AR. The deals are not just on any old no-name AR. They include stuff like the Colt LE6920 for $799 and the S&W MP15 for $499. Conversely, it doesn't look like the prices of AKs have fallen anywhere as much. Romanian Wasrs are still over $600.

President Trump campaigned on "buy American" and issued an Executive Order  in April which seeks to maximize the procurement of American-made products by Federal agencies. The Department of Defense and the State Department both provide security assistance to Afghanistan.

While it is somewhat counter-productive to my own selfish interests, I would propose that DOD and the State Department begin buying up much of this surplus inventory at these bargain prices. It would then be used to replace those ComBloc AKs with good, American made, semi-auto AR15s. While as a consumer I would miss being able to buy good quality AR lowers for $50 or less, I also recognize that I have a greater interest in seeing firearms companies - especially the smaller specialty ones - survive as going concerns. The average Afghani cop isn't going to care if he is issued a Del-Ton, a Colt, or a Spike's Tactical. He's just going to be happy that he has a new rifle. Reequipping the Afghanis with AR15s will also provide opportunities for training companies to instruct the Afghanis on the use, care, and maintenance of their new rifles.

I'm sure the media would portray this as a sop to the NRA and the firearms industry. Nonetheless, it helps an American industry, it fulfills a campaign promise to buy American, it ties the Afghanis to us for training, spare parts, etc., it could be done at bargain prices, and it helps preserve the smaller companies. My modest proposal is, at least to me, a win all around.

From NSSF's #Gunvote

The National Shooting Sports Foundation's #Gunvote has released a new video after Hillary Clinton's "reinterpretation" of the Heller decision.

From their Government Relations Update email:

During the last Presidential Debate of the 2016 Election season on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton was asked by moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News to explain her statement from a year ago that "The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment." Specifically, Wallace asked her to explain her problem with the reasoning of landmark Heller decision.

Once again, the American public saw Mrs. Clinton's general election strategy play out of providing lip service to the Second Amendment while soft peddling what are her true strong gun control sentiments. This time, she surprised observers by saying, "I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them." An Associated Press Fact Check termed that claim a "misstatement." See and share the #GUNVOTE video.

To save you some time, I have embedded the video below.

New NRA Ad Coming To A Battleground State Near You

The NRA is releasing another ad urging voters to defeat Hillary Clinton. According to the news release below, they will be spending upwards of $5 million airing their message.

I fully expect to see it on the airwaves here in North Carolina shortly. We are one of the few key states that very close and that must be won on the way to 270 electoral votes. Our early voting started yesterday across the state.

From the NRA-ILA:

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association has launched a new ad using Hillary Clinton's own words to expose her repeated lies regarding her views on the Second Amendment. The new ad, entitled “Classified,” began airing last night on national cable and on broadcast in key battleground states. The $5 million ad buy will run through Oct. 31.

The ad played out in real time on the debate stage last night when Clinton once again lied to the American people by saying she respects the Second Amendment, but then totally mischaracterized and confirmed her opposition to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Heller ruling guaranteed the right of an individual to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense.

“Hillary Clinton cannot tell the truth when it comes to the Second Amendment," said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. "It is clear from the debate last night that Hillary Clinton lies about her support of the Second Amendment and believes Americans do not have a right to keep a firearm at home for self-protection. Her argument that the Heller decision was just about protecting toddlers was ridiculous.”

Last night was the second time Clinton has publicly said she opposes Heller. At a recent closed door event, Clinton was recorded sayingthe Supreme Court “is wrong on the Second Amendment.” If elected president, Clinton will nominate at least one anti-gun Supreme Court justice who will vote to overturn the right of a law-abiding citizen to have a firearm in the home for self-protection.

“We cannot trust Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has lied about her emails, she has lied about Benghazi, and she lies about the Second Amendment. She will say whatever it takes to get elected, but the NRA remains committed to exposing her lies. Defeating Hillary Clinton is critical to protecting the rights of America’s law-abiding gun owners,” concluded Cox.

You can see the 30 second video below:

Lawsuit In Connecticut Against Remington Et Al Dismissed

A lawsuit brought by some of the families of children killed in Newtown, CT has been dismissed. The lawsuit sought to find Remington, their distributor Camfour, and the dealer Riverview as having been guilty of "negligent entrustment" for selling the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the killer. Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis found that the claims put forth by the plaintiffs did not meet one of the six exceptions found in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. She issued her ruling on this past Friday afternoon.

The basis of the lawsuit was on the legal theory of negligent entrustment. That is, did the defendants give, sell, or "entrust" their product knowing full well that it would be misused or had the high potential to be misused. An example of negligent entrustment would be loaning your car to a friend to pick up some more beer when you knew he had been drinking. In this case the plaintiffs argued that an AR-15 was so dangerous and so "assaultive" that it should never have been sold to "civilians".

In determining her decision, Judge Bellis examined whether the actions of the defendants constituted negligent entrustment under Connecticut state law and then pursuant to the PLCAA. After first examining the history of negligent entrustment and relevant court cases both in Connecticut and outside of it, she first concluded that the actions of Remington and their fellow defendants did not give rise to negligent entrustment.

In the present case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants' entrustment of the firearm to the respective entrustees was negligent because the defendants could each foresee the firearm ending up in the hands of members of the an incompetent class in a dangerous environment. The validity of the argument rests on labeling as a misuse the sale of a legal product to a population that is lawfully entitled to purchase such a product. Based on the reasoning from McCarthy, and the fact that Congress has deemed the civilian population competent to possess the product that is at issue in this case, this argument is unavailing. To extend the theory of negligent entrustment to the class of nonmilitary, nonpolice civilians - the general public - would imply that the general public lacks the ordinary prudence necessary to handle an object that Congress regards as appropriate for sale to the general public. This the court is unwilling to do.

 Accordingly, because they do no constitute legally sufficient negligent entrustment claims pursuant to state law, the plaintiffs' negligent entrustment allegations do not satisfy the negligent entrustment exception to PLCAA. Therefore, unless another PLCAA exception applies, the court must grant the defendants' motion to strike.

McCarthy, which Judge Bellis references, was a case brought by Carolyn McCarthy against Olin for selling Black Talon cartridges. Her husband's murderer had used these Winchester cartridges in his killing spree on the Long Island Railroad. The McCarthy case was dismissed under the PLCAA.

Though Judge Bellis did not need to consider whether the defendants' actions constituted negligent entrustment under the narrower definitions set forth by the PLCAA given they failed to meet the broader standard set under Connecticut state law, she did so in the "interest of thoroughness" and to provide further support for her decision.

After examining the plaintiffs' case in the light of the more limited definition of negligent entrustment, Judge Bellis concluded that the immunity provided by the PLCAA prevailed. She also examined the plaintiffs' argument that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act allowed them to bring this action as an exception to PLCAA due to a violation of a state statute. This, too, was dismissed.

Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law, nor do they come within PLCAA's definition of negligent entrustment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA) to bring this action within PLCAA's exception allowing lawsuits for a violation of a state statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms. A plaintiff under CUPTA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court grants in their entirety the defendants' motions to strike the amended complaint. 

Judge Bellis' opinion ran to 54 pages. I surmise that one of the reasons she took so much time to lay out her arguments for approving the motion to strike is so that it will withstand scrutiny by an appeals court. The plaintiffs' have vowed to appeal this ruling.

As might be expected, this ruling was attacked by both Hillary Clinton and the gun prohibitionist lobby. Clinton quickly released a tweet saying it was "incomprehensible that our laws could protect gun makers over the Sandy Hook families. We need to fix this." Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) attributed the decision to "the gun lobby's destructive grip on Washington." Lest anyone forget, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted in 1995 as a response to multiple municipal lawsuits seeking to destroy the firearms industry through litigation. It also provides only limited immunity and not a blanket immunity against negligence.

Trying To Decide Between #NeverTrump Or #NeverHillary? Ponder This.

This presidential election may be historic if for no other reason than both presumptive nominees are grossly unpopular. Now if you like Donald Trump or you like Hillary Clinton and you object to that statement, then you are probably in the minority. Both candidates had unfavorability ratings of over 50% as of late June. Frankly, I don't see that changing.

I'll admit right up front that Donald Trump was not my first choice. Heck, he wasn't even my fourth choice. At the start of the primary season, I considered Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz as potential recipients of my vote. I added Carly Fiorina to that list after I saw how she handled the press.

As to Hillary Clinton, oh, please. Her primary qualification to me seems that she married the right guy to have pulled her along with him to national prominence. Without Bill Clinton, she'd be just another Yale educated lawyer with political ambitions. It is doubtful that she would have ever been elected a US Senator from any state especially given she had held no prior elected offices. She would never have been Secretary of State as she wasn't one of the "wise old men" like a Warren Christoper, a college professor specializing in foreign policy like  Kissinger or Madeleine Albright, or a general like George Marshall.

To those who would say I'm forgetting about Gary Johnson, I'm not. While he has gathered more support than prior Libertarian candidates, his role in this election is that of a spoiler. He will either take just enough #NeverTrump Republican votes from Donald Trump for Hillary to win or he will take just enough Bernie supporting Millennials from Hillary for Trump to win. I've participated in every election since 1976 and have studied American presidential politics at the graduate level. Gary Johnson being elected President just isn't going to happen.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interviewed by the New York Times on Friday. What she said should clarify for any gun owner or any Second Amendment supporter what this race for President is really about. This holds true for both the deer hunters in Gun Culture 1.0 with their .30-06 Remington 700s and the non-hunting concealed carriers in Gun Culture 2.0 with their Glock 19s.

This election is about the Supreme Court which now stands in a four to four split between conservatives and liberals. Another way of putting it is that neither the Originalists nor the Living Constitutionalists hold a majority.

Justice Ginsburg was asked whether there were any cases of recent memory that she would like to see overturned. Here is what she said:

Asked if there were cases she would like to see the court overturn before she leaves it, she named one.

“It won’t happen,” she said. “It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”

She mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

Should Judge Garland or another Democratic appointee join the court, Justice Ginsburg will find herself in a new position, and the thought seemed to please her.

“It means that I’ll be among five more often than among four,” she said.

Rest assured that Michael Bloomberg would spend big bucks to get a gun control case before a Supreme Court in which Justice Ginsburg was now among the five who believe there is no individual right to own a weapon of any sort (firearm, knife, sharp stick). The Wall Street Journal noted yesterday in an editorial that Justice Ginsburg thinks the Second Amendment obsolete and that there isn't even a need for the militia anymore.

So unless something untoward happens this week or next at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump, warts and all, will be the nominee. He is on record as supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right and is on record as opposing gun-free zones.

The coronation of Hillary Clinton will take place in Philadephia the following week. She is on record as saying she'd "change the gun culture". To think that a President Hillary Clinton would appoint anyone to replace Justice Scalia that believed as he did that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right is ludicrous.

I still don't really like Donald Trump. However, I am adult enough to realize that stomping my feet and saying I'm not going to vote or that I'll vote for Gary Johnson is giving aid and comfort to Hillary. This election has become a zero-sum game for the Second Amendment. If Hillary wins, we lose.

I'll boil it down to the essentials:  If you are #NeverTrump, then you are #NeverGuns.

NRA Releases Ad - It's Powerful

The NRA-PVF has released their first ad of this presidential election cycle. The ad is not so much pro-Trump as it is anti-Hillary.

I've watched the ad a few times and every time I'm struck by how powerful a message it sends. It features Mark "Oz" Geist who is a retired US Marine and is the security contractor who led the mission in Benghazi. He is the co-author of 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi. With the Rep. Trey Gowdy's House Select Committee on Benghazi releasing their report damning both the White House and State Department, it is very timely.

Watch it and share this with your friends.




UPDATE: I just saw the NRA ad featured in a story regarding Donald Trump on CNN this morning around 9:30am EDT. They didn't run the whole ad but enough to get the gist of it. According to CNN, the NRA-PVF is spending $2 million on air time.

Tweet Of The Day

I don't know Ann aka Grasshoppah but I think her tweet hits the nail on the head. What does it say about those in power and those who are seeking power, i.e. Hillary, that they would let one Islamofascist's actions be their reason (or excuse) for suppressing our God-given rights? What does it say about us as a country if we let them?

Paris-went after terrorists
Brussels-went after terrorists
U.S--went after American citizens & their rights pic.twitter.com/7WWZUYfF8K

— Ann aka Grasshoppah (@Doodisgirl) June 13, 2016

Coincidental?

Two days after Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination for President, I got an ad in my email from Sportsman's Guide advertising ammo boxes and gun vaults.

Now most of these are simple ammo cans or fabric gun cases. However, there is the Military Surplus 58-Gallon Waterproof Molded Barrel, the 47" Mono Vault, and the Mono Vault 107S. These can be used for burying or caching firearms and ammunition.

The ad copy for the Mono Vault above says, in part:

Give your gun a proper burial! Hard-line protective Mono Vault!

Of course we're not suggesting "laying your gun to rest"! Too much good shooting left to do. But these Mono Vaults are rugged, completely sealed capsules that could be literally buried.

The smaller MonoVault 107S pictured above is explicitly being sold as a container to bury firearms and other valuables. Sportsman's Guide even makes a point of assuring you that it is non-metallic so that metal detectors can't sniff it out.

MonoVaultTM 107S: think of it as a safety deposit box for your backyard.

Determined thieves can crack a wall safe in no time flat. That's why the best safeguard is the one he never knows is there. That's where the MonoVault comes into play. The MonoVault is an air and water-tight chamber designed to be buried on your property.

It's large enough to hold important papers, photos and even many semi-auto handguns (including 5" barrel 1911-style pistols). A gamma-sealed, threaded lid closes it up tight, and a secondary lift-off burial shield adds a second layer of protection. "Buried treasures" stay safe and completely undetectable until you go to retrieve them.

Now it may just be coincidental that the Sportsman's Guide sent out an advertisement with containers for burying firearms two days after Hillary clinched the nomination. However, given her rabid anti-gun platform and recent statements, I'm not so sure. I'll let you make the call.

Not that I'm advocating armed revolt but there is a lot of truth in the saying "if it is time to bury your firearms, then it is time to use them." However, if you insist on burying them, might I suggest a good local business like my friend Tim's The Old Grouch Military Surplus  instead of a large mail-order company owned by the French.

"Heartless Hillary"

I listened to Donald Trump's speech at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum yesterday. Two things stood out for me. First, and most important, I really do believe that Trump understands the issues surrounding the Second Amendment and gun rights. In his speech he referenced the makeup of the Supreme Court, judges, concealed carry permits, the threats to the Second Amendment, self-defense, and gun free zones.

The latter two, self-defense and gun free zones, are two areas that he really highlighted. Noting the Paris Massacre in a gun free zone, Trump said he doubted that it would have gone on long if held at the Annual Meeting due to the number of armed citizens. (As a sidebar, due to the Secret Service and their protective rules, Trump *was* speaking in a gun free zone.) Trump spoke of single moms in Florida and grandmothers in Ohio that would be left defenseless if Hillary was elected. That lead to his newest nickname for Clinton as "Heartless Hillary". Though, he admits, he still really likes "Crooked Hillary."

Second, listening to a Trump speech is an exercise in patience. This is not because of what he says but how he says it. The man has a severe case of attention deficit disorder when it comes to public speaking. He'd start out on a topic and then ...SQUIRREL! and he'd be off on a tangent. He makes some good points but he can be damn hard to follow.




I read some discussion yesterday on Sebastian's blog on whether or not the NRA should have endorsed Trump. In my opinion, the NRA did not have much of a choice. They deal in realpolitik. Their avowed foe Hillary Clinton has doubled down and made gun control, the Second Amendment, and the NRA her number one target.

This is a two-person race unless Bernie decides to run as an independent which Trump encouraged in his speech. The NRA has to pull conservatives who supported other candidates and gun owners who don't trust Trump back into the fold. Without them, Hillary most likely will win and the Second Amendment will be lost as an actual civil right. It will become a historical artifact. That is something the NRA can't live with and I certainly won't live with.

#Gunvote - Correcting The Record

Hillary Clinton and the gun prohibitionists are on a jihad against the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act. They have been willfully mischaracterizing it as a total exemption from liability by the firearms industry. In fact, it only protects the makers and sellers from the misuse of their products by criminals and contains six enumerated exceptions to the qualified civil liability protections in the law.

The NSSF has released a YouTube correcting Hillary. It is worth two minutes of your time.

As Bad As The Sandy Hook Truthers

I and others get regular emails from what I call "Sandy Hook Truthers". They assert a number of things including that the whole thing was a hoax. A recent Hillary Clinton fundraising email is in the same league as the Truthers.

As reported by the Daily Caller, the email is headlined, "The differences between Senator Sanders and me." It goes on to assert that SHE is the only one standing with the Sandy Hook families because SHE voted against the Protection for Legal Commerce in Arms Act of 2005.

In 2007, Senator Ted Kennedy made a valiant effort to pass immigration reform — I stood with him and voted for that bill. Senator Sanders voted against it.

This week, families from Sandy Hook are in court suing the manufacturer of the gun that killed their children, challenging the law that gives gun-makers legal immunity. I voted against that law. Senator Sanders voted for it.

The bill passed the Senate in a 65-31 vote and the House in a 283-144 vote. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was in the House of Representatives then as the sole representative from the state of Vermont. He along with 59 Democrats voted for passage of the PLCAA. Only four Republicans voted against it including, believe it or not, then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

What Hillary Clinton should be railing against are scum-dog ambulance chasing lawyers who are preying on the emotions of the families of the dead children of Sandy Hook. The manufacturer of the stolen AR-15 is no more responsible for the deaths of those children than you or I. That doesn't stop the ambulance chasing lawyer from dreaming of a big payday along with big headlines.

Likewise, when it comes to presidential politics and the chance to scarf up money and votes, everything is on the table for Hillary. If it puts her in the same league as the Truthers, so what. They deny the event happened and she is saying that Bernie stands in the way of "justice" for those poor families. Whether she believes what she says is true or not is irrelevant. Money and votes - not the families of Sandy Hook - is what she cares about.

She Approves Of Dead Mexicans, Gun Running, And Murdered Federal LEOs

Hillary Clinton is one of the most shameless politicians of this era or any era. If an endorsement or ad will get her just one more vote, she'll go for it. It doesn't matter if the person making the endorsement was the most partisan, the most contemptible, the most brutally corrupt Attorney General since the founding of this Republic. A man whose fingerprints were all over an operation to run guns to Mexican cartels so as to build support for gun control. A man who was found in Contempt of Congress. A man who said he supported voting rights but dismissed charges of outright voter intimidation against favored groups. A man who used the Department of Justice as a shakedown machine against corporate America.

Of course, I'm referring to former Attorney General Eric Holder.

Living in western North Carolina, 3/4's of our broadcast TV comes from the Upstate of South Carolina. I was watching Jeopardy! last night when the ad below came on with Holder's endorsement of Hillary. The two themes pushed were gun control and voting rights. These are themes that play well with black voters and Hillary needs to lock down the black vote to stave off Bernie Sanders.




Who cares if the endorser and his minions were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the murders of two Federal law enforcement officers, the deaths of a minimum of 300 Mexican nationals, and the arming of Mexican drug cartels through smuggled guns?

Hillary doesn't. All she cares about is getting one more vote.

Shocking News!!

I know you will be as shocked (shocked!) by the news below as I am.

We are proud to endorse @HillaryClinton for President of the United States. Join us here: https://t.co/dXWAoIOU92 pic.twitter.com/eUyFGVZ5gY

— Brady Campaign (@Bradybuzz) January 12, 2016

.@BradyBuzz: Hillary consistently put the safety of Americans ahead of the interests of the corporate gun lobby. https://t.co/rcF1nJ2aQF

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 12, 2016

I wonder if it was her endorsement of Australian-style gun confiscation or her decision ignore the experience of Democrats in 1994 and Al Gore in 2000 to go all in for gun control. It could have been her proposal of a "cash for clunkers" approach to gun buybacks with yours and my money. And let's not forget that she is the Brady Campaign's Governor Mario M. Cuomo Leadership Award winner! It could be that an organization full of bullying old harridans recognized her as one of their own.

If Bernie Sanders actually pulls off a win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, I wonder if they will reconsider. The Qunnipac University Poll shows him retaking the lead in Iowa and holding a lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire.

The Brady Campaign is going all in as they have even set up a website proclaiming their strong endorsement of Clinton.

New Year's Resolutions

Given that Hillary Clinton thinks the National Rifle Association is one of the enemies that she is most proud of, it is good to see the NRA punching back twice as hard.  Their New Year's video pokes fun at her support from Bloomberg as well as her obvious disdain for the Second Amendment and by extension the US Constitution.




I think it is smart for the NRA to start switching their focus from Obama to Clinton. While Obama can still make mischief as he is signaling with his weekly address, he is a lame duck. Short of appointing another Supreme Court justice, he can't hurt us too badly. Hillary, on the other hand, given four years in office would be a disaster for gun owners.

UPDATE: Interestingly enough, the NRA's video is catching some traction with the news media. In our local station's (WLOS Asheville) reports on the gun control moves by Obama, this video is mentioned each and every time. I heard about it at 5pm, 5:30pm, 6pm, and 11pm.

If I Have To Google Your Headliner To See Who She Is....

I got an email tonight from the Brady Campaign with "BREAKING NEWS" that Ingrid Michaelson would be at their New York City gala. You can call me old and out of touch but I had no clue who this was. I figured she was some NYC politician of note. After Googling her I find that she is a indie pop and folk singer. Go figure.

The invite to the event is below:

  Brady’s upcoming gala in New York just keeps getting better!

Join Ingrid Michaelson, Julianna Margulies and special guests on Thursday, November 19th, as we celebrate the progress that has been made and the tipping point we’ve reached in gun violence prevention because of your support. The evening includes a performance by Ingrid Michaelson, award presentation to Senator Charles E. Schumer and the inaugural presentation of the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Leadership Award to the Honorable Hillary Clinton.

You won’t want to miss it!

Limited tickets are available.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. If you can’t join us in person, please make a contribution in honor of those we’ve lost this year and those who have stood up on behalf of all Americans to create a safer America.

Nothing says elitist more than making your minimum individual ticket price $1,000 per person. If you want to be a Bronze Level sponsor and get a table for 10, be prepared to kick in $15,000.

Hillary should feel right at home when she gets her "Leadership Award" since the riff-raff can't afford to be there.

Hillary's Cash For Clunker (Guns)

By now, there have been innumerable stories written on Hillary Clinton's love for the "Australian-style" approach to gun control. Breitbart has it as does The Daily Caller. SayUncle has it as does Sebastian. However, if you still don't know what I'm talking about, here is the video. In it Hillary proposes a "cash for clunkers" approach to firearms. Of course, being a good Democrat I'm guessing she would use other people's money to fund her program.




The NRA doesn't think much of her proposal.

Hillary Admits Gun Confiscation is ‘Worth Looking At’

Fairfax, Va.— Hillary Clinton said at a New Hampshire Town Hall today that gun confiscation is something “worth looking at.” Discussing the firearms confiscation program in Australia, Clinton admitted she would consider implementing such a system in America. A voter asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

Mrs. Clinton responded by describing Australia’s program, and then said, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”

Chris Cox, executive director of The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said, “This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation. Hillary Clinton, echoing President Obama's recent remarks on the same issue, made that very clear.”

Clinton's call for gun confiscation follows recent comments she made at a private fundraiser late last month. While expressing support for a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, Clinton stated her belief that the Supreme Court wrongly held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self-defense. In her own words: “…the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

"Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it. The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment,” Cox said. “A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people."

Even Paul Barrett of Bloomberg News thinks she is making a mistake.

But Clinton may be making a mistake framing her argument in culture-war terms—as a battle against the National Rifle Association, which is a conspiracy-minded extremist group that thrives when under attack. Moreover, while some of her ideas make sense, others, including her emphasis on “assault weapons,” come straight from a tired, ineffective gun-control playbook.

I say let her go full gun control. It worked for President Al Gore. Oh, wait, he lost both his home state of Tennessee and Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas over just this issue. She probably won't lose New York over this but swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvannia will go to her Republican opponent along with the election.

Well, Hillary, We've Seen How Successful Negotiations With Iran Have Been

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an interesting comment during a town hall meeting in Iowa on Wednesday. She compared the NRA to the Iranians and Communists when it comes to negotiating. All I'll say is we've all seen just how successful the Obama Administration has been in its negotiations with the mullahs in Iran. In other words, the US gets diddly-squat and the death to America chanting mullahs get "the bomb".

Frankly, if you think about it, using the negotiating techniques of mullahs and/or "Vlad the Impaler" Putin makes a lot of sense when it comes to gun rights. This is especially true when you consider the gun prohibitionists' idea of compromise is negotiating how much we will give up.




Hillary's comments prior to this remark were to encourage a "Fifth Column", my words - not hers, of gun owners. They have tried this before with false-front organizations like the American Shooters and Hunters Association. I think the average gun owner is on to their tactics by now.

As an aside, I would encourage everyone to listen to Michael Bane's rant on this week's Downrange Radio. It is 45 minutes well spent. He describes the war between those who cherish our freedom and those who would take it away in very stark terms.


H/T The Daily Caller

Are We Supposed To Be Surprised?

Shannon Watts of Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors loves her corrupt politicians. At least the ones that are for more and more gun control while they have their own armed security details. She tweeted the pictures below of Hillary Clinton signing a "whatever it takes" poster yesterday.

.@HillaryClinton signed on today to Moms' pledge to do #WhateverItTakes to stop gun violence @MomsDemand #gunsense pic.twitter.com/Ffekuq8ky5

— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) September 10, 2015

Hillary probably thought she was signing a poster with her campaign motto.

Can You Say Ironic?

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday regarding Hillary Clinton's new push for gun control. They note that this marks a shift in presidential politics and is an effort on her part to out-lefty Bernie Sanders who has actually been not (too) bad on gun issues.

Hillary thinks it is good politics to run on restricting gun rights. What struck me about the story is this photo by Jim Young of Reuters that is used to illustrate the story.

Hillary is standing in front of the Iowa state flag which contains the motto, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." If that isn't irony, I don't know what is!

I don't know if the photographer is a gun guy but he, either consciously or unconsciously, just illustrated the conflict between supporting Clinton and supporting Constitutional rights. The two just don't go together.

Hillary Has Spoken - You And I Are Terrorists

ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]

noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

Former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and now wannabe Evita* Hillary Clinton participated in a town hall meeting sponsored by CNN on Monday. During that event, she was asked a question regarding gun control. She said she was in favor of re-instituting the ban on "assault weapons"(sic) as well as a magazine ban.

Mrs. Clinton then accused those of us who still believe in the Bill of Rights of not only being a minority but, in so many words, terrorists.

Clinton said that while she’s “well-aware that this is a hot political subject,” she thinks there should be “a more thoughtful conversation” on gun control.

“We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people,” she said.

I don't consider myself a terrorist nor do I think you do either. Moreover, I don't believe the majority of people in the United States are for gun control or any of the other measures that Clinton would like to see enacted.

As my friend Kurt has said more than once, to be despised by the despicable is an honor.



* Eva Peron aka Evita only achieved power in Argentina on the back of her husband Col. Juan Peron. Likewise, Hillary's claim to power seems to be that she married - and stayed with him despite his philandering ways - President Bill Clinton. As such, she is the American Evita who now aspires (again) to the Presidency.