3 Steps to Reduce Violence, Including Gun Violence
The effort to reduce violence of all kinds, including gun violence, needs to be led by the states. Here’s how.
Citizen Writers Fighting Censorship by Helping Americans Understand Issues Affecting the Republic.
The effort to reduce violence of all kinds, including gun violence, needs to be led by the states. Here’s how.
No, there was not a drop in “mass shooting deaths” because of an “assault weapons ban” in the 1990s. And banning these rifles again will not stop shootings.
Gun violence and crime is a crisis. But taking firearms away from law abiding citizens will not change the behavior of criminals, nor will it solve America’s real societal issue, the destruction of the family. violence behaviour violence, an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm. The damage inflicted by …
It is often said that the right to bear arms is there to protect all the others.
Governments usually hold a monopoly on the use of force. In the Second Amendment, the Framers clearly determined that the citizens should also wield that power.
Who Do Gun Laws Really Protect? In the U.S. and worldwide, there is a very strong correlation between harsh gun laws and high crime and tyranny.
The decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen was a huge gift from the Supreme Court and a blow to tyranny of the BATFE.
New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and California Governor, Damien Thorne, er uh, I mean Gavin Newsome are doing something they might think is brave, but is very stupid, after the NYR&P Association v Bruen. Both states and their governors, along with their massively Democrat controlled legislatures, are directly defying the Supreme Court decision. I hope …
What did the NFA really do? Did it prevent crime? Can you even give an answer to that question? Does it conflict with the literal meaning of the Second Amendment? How did it come to encompass so many other types and components of firearms? After its passing, in 1934, what effect did it have, and …
If you heard about the recent shooting in a suburb of Indianapolis, maybe you didn’t, a young man with his constitutional carry firearm, which is something that just passed in the state of Indiana, was faced with an active shooter who was armed to the teeth, killed four people, so far, and was shot by …
The Democrats/Media, constantly demand that we restrict the Second Amendment as the answer to what they call “gun violence.” They focus on the gun and not the criminal who uses the gun, as if the gun is a living object that decides to shoot and kill.
A case is being set up to challenge the National Firearms Act, and it is because someone, (finally!), Justice Clarence Thomas, said all the right things in his decision on NY Pistol v Bruen.
Between killing babies in the womb, keeping guns away from blacks and encouraging children to take hormone blockers, I am just astonished a civil war didn’t beat the Supreme Court to the job.
Two great rulings put restraint on one state’s abuse of power, and ended a judicial overreach. Hopefully this is just the start.
And somehow the conversation in this country has eroded to where this is not even part of the conversation, it is completely ignored. There are many many points that we can engage on to argue against the “gun control compromise” that was voted on Wednesday in the US Senate, but it dawned on me that …
A very common Democrat talking point is that most Americans favor some form of reasonable gun control. And it is true that most people do. The problem with that is that we know history. If we start with some reasonable laws about firearms, that don’t actually prevent every single murder using a firearm, the left will immediately proceed to unreasonable limits.
We don’t have a gun problem. We have a Democrat overpopulation and governance problem.
The above is not an assault rifle, and neither are most of the firearms now under attack by the left. We need to take back the language.