No, America Isn’t Turning Away From Firearms 

Anti-gun extremists are doing their best to restrict lawful firearm purchases, possession and use across the country. If you believe what they say, they are winning the war against firearms and more and more people are rejecting them. But is that true? 

The accompanying graphic popped up on one of my news feeds and purports to show the rate of gun ownership across the states. Keep in mind the graphic is from The Trace, an absolutely biased, left wing funded and produced, anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment group, so… anything they says must be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt. But just for a moment, let’s say the information is even in the ballpark. What does it show us? 

First off, you’ll notice the lowest percentages of firearm ownership is in the nanny/highly restrictive gun control states of California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Hawaii. This is not by accident and is a source of great pride with them. They have done such a good job at gun control that their firearm ownership rates are so low. 

Now, go take a look at the crime rates across the country and compare those in the lowest firearm ownership states with those in the higher firearm ownership states. You’ll notice the truth they don’t want you to see. Less civilian firearm ownership means higher crime rates. The reason is simple. Criminals prefer unarmed, defenseless victims. And since none of their gun control laws do anything to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through illegal means, they are well-armed. 

Governments also prefer unarmed, defenseless victims as citizens. When the public has no place to turn other than the government for ‘safety’, they will willingly consent to more and more restrictions on their own liberty for the promise of a little bit of safety. 


Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

What’s the truth about firearms in this country? Americans understand they are responsible for their own safety and the safety of their families. The government cannot/will not be there to protect you and… has zero legal obligation to do so. Your safety is YOUR responsibility. 

For Americans who feel firearms are an appropriate tool, they have been purchasing them in record numbers. December’s NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation)-adjusted FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications topped 1.6 million background checks for the sale of firearms at retail establishments. This brought the total for 2024 to 15.2 million.  December was also the 65thstraight month where the total adjusted background checks exceeded 1 million.  Does this sound like the country is abandoning firearms or embracing them for self-defense? 

I also noted an article recently where the LGBTQ community is now rushing to arm itself under the unfounded fear they will be rounded up and put into “concentration camps” or subjected to “hate-driven oppression” with the incoming administration. Even the most cynical, radical, anti-everything among us understands this is just another scare tactic designed to sow hate and discontent. But at the same time, it is interesting that some of the very same groups and individuals who have advocated for highly restrictive gun control laws are now pushing to arm themselves for self-defense against a potential oppressive government or those who would do them harm, just like everyone else.

The Pink Pistols, established in 2000, has long advocated for members of the LGBTQ community to become comfortable with firearms, train with them and carry them for self-protection. Personally, I cannot applaud them enough for encouraging their members to take responsibility for their own safety. 

The nice thing about the Second Amendment is it doesn’t discriminate. Yes, even though our country has come a long way since it was created, there are some people who still do. I firmly believe their numbers are dwindling, much to dismay of the fearmongering press who attempt to drive a wedge between the people of our nation. 

Unfortunately, the criminal element among us no longer fears the police, the courts or any form of punishment thanks to years of soft-on-crime politics. Adding to the problem are defunded law enforcement agencies who despite wanting to do their best to “protect and serve” the public, no longer have the capacity.  

Therefore, it falls upon the individual, the law-abiding citizen – as it always has – to step up and defend themselves the best and most effective way they can. IF that includes the purchase, carrying and use of firearms, then let’s make sure everyone has the opportunity by opposing the insanity of the do-nothing for public safety gun control community. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

No Compromise on the Second Amendment

One of the common complaints from the anti-gun extremist left is Second Amendment advocates are never willing to compromise. They say we are “never willing to meet us halfway” or “negotiate on gun safety”. To this I respond, you are absolutely correct! We don’t now and we never will! How many of your constitutional rights are YOU willing to negotiate away? 

We often get hit with the ‘no compromise’ argument from the anti-gun extremists. We aren’t willing to have a “discussion about gun safety”. The reasons why are very simple. 

In the first place the anti-gun crowd has no idea what the term “gun safety” means. To the world at large throughout the history of firearms, gun safety has a specific meaning. It means using your firearms in a safe manner. It’s exercising the four rules of firearm safety EACH and EVERY time you handle a firearm. It’s taking responsibility for every projectile that comes out of the barrel. It’s storing your firearms responsibly for your INDIVIDUAL circumstances. It’s instilling the values of safety and responsibility in the next generation. 

Just because the anti-gun crowd co-opts a word and tries to use their own definition of it, doesn’t make it true. To them “gun safety” means more gun control laws. It means restricting the purchase, possession and use of firearms by law-abiding individuals. It means taking every opportunity to strip firearms out of hands of the law-abiding, while doing absolutely nothing to increase one of their other favorite topics, “public safety”. 

Public safety from the government point of view is something they are responsible for. They ensure the public is safe from harm from crime and other dangers. But while the government has the responsibility to do this, they have no accountability in doing it. Numerous cases of individuals suing the government for failing to protect them from harm have been dismissed by the courts ruling the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect the public. 

This means you are on your own to protect yourself and your family. Fortunately, the Second Amendment is there to protect your natural right to self-defense. 

At the same time, the government, and more specifically the anti-gun extremists running it, want to eliminate your ability to protect yourself. By restricting your ability to carry and use firearms, they enforce the government’s monopoly on protecting the public, even though they have zero constitutional duty to do so. 

When the anti-gun extremists talk about “public safety”, all they are doing is trying to maintain the government as the sole protector of the peace and safety, even as they defund and dismantle the ability of law enforcement to act. When your only option for safety comes from the government, then you will support progressively more restrictions on your own liberty in exchange for a little bit of safety. 

As far as having a discussion, negotiating or meeting them halfway, when is the last time your ever heard of the anti-gun extremists being willing to give up any form of gun control? And no, agreeing not to advance a new gun control ban on “X” this year is not a negotiating point, it’s just postponing the inevitable. 

For them, discussing and negotiating means more gun control, period. If you ask them to give up something, they’ll whip out all the so-called “research” they’ve conducted to prove what they have been pushing for. You know the ones created, financed and conducted with a specific goal in mind which come to the inescapable conclusion that more gun control is the only way to increase public safety. They’ll even have all the buzz words to go along with it like data driven, common sense, empowering safety, keep guns out of the wrong hands, and of course ‘think of the children!’. In the end, they won’t give up a damn thing. 

An actual negotiation would look something like this. 

We’ll give you nationwide conceal carry reciprocity in exchange for a nationwide three-day waiting period. 
We’ll take suppressors off the NFA (National Firearms Act) list for a ban on carrying firearms in state and federal government buildings. 
We’ll get rid of red flag laws if you fully fund the staffing and training in the mental health commitment laws currently available in all 50 states. 

It’s not that I would support negotiating away any limitations self-defense; these are just examples of what a negotiation might look like. 

Would the anti-gun extremists ever truly negotiate by rolling back a gun control law without being forced by the courts to do so? No, because they only want Second Amendment advocates to negotiate in the interest of their definition of public safety. What they want law-abiding firearm owners to do is voluntarily give up more and more of their Second Amendment protected rights until nothing is left. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

For me, I can proudly say I would never compromise on Second Amendment protected rights, for myself or for future generations. As much as the anti-gun extremists want to redefine words for their own needs, the last three words of the Second Amendment seem pretty damn clear – “shall not be infringed”.

No compromise, no negotiation, no meeting halfway and no watering down our rights. Stop lying to the people and let them protect themselves and their families as is their right. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #NoCompromise, #NoNegotiation, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

97 Percent, Just Another Gun Control Group

Among all the noise and confusion created by the anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment community, there are those who purport themselves as moderates and gun owners who believe more and more gun control is the answer to so-called “gun violence”. Do they really represent gun owners? Hardly. Simply look at how they operate and what they are pushing, and you’ll see they are just another group of antis in a cheap disguise. 

I came across the 97Percent in a search on “gun safety organizations”. Like a lot of anti-gun rights groups, they claim they represent both gun owners and non-gun owners. They claim their name was derived from a 2018 Quinnipiac University poll, which found that 97% of Americans support universal background checks. 

First off let’s dig a little into this 2018 Quinnipiac University poll. It claims 97% overall and 97% of GUN OWNERS support universal background checks. If you think those numbers seem a little hard to believe, consider a few things. The poll was initiated just TWO DAYS after the horrific shooting at the Parkland, FL school. Also consider they asked, “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?”, THEN asked if they or anyone in their home owns a gun.  The poll of a scant 1,249 people DID NOT identify if the respondents themselves were gun owners. 

Now I’ll be the first to admit my family, friends and the people I associate with are going to skew decidedly right on most issues. However, I’m confident if I conducted the same poll I would get the exact opposite number, with only 3% supporting universal background checks. And once we had a conversation as to what those universal background checks really mean, I’m pretty sure I could knock off another percentage point or two. 

The 97Percent’ers claim they are made up of gun owners and non-gun owners. The group is not member supported, but funded by the founders, a rich California couple now into philanthropy. They claim right on the front page of their website: What’s the most effective way to reduce gun deaths while respecting Americans’ Second Amendment rights? ASK GUN OWNERS.

Who are their gun owners? They have Republicans and law enforcement and former NRA lobbyists (Oh My!). Let me translate that for you, RINOs, politicians with badges and professional activists who are willing to sell their services to anyone for a buck. Not exactly a robust group of Second Amendment right supporters. Again, I ask you to consider our current Vice President is a self-proclaimed gun owner yet is one of the biggest anti-Second Amendment/Fourth Amendment/Fifth Amendment advocates out there. 

Like many of the favorite Fudd’s we all know and love, as long as we leave them and their guns alone, they don’t care what happens to anyone else’s guns or gun rights. Just because you “own a gun” doesn’t make you a representative of the Second Amendment community. 

What is their policy roadmap? Well, some of this is going to sound very familiar. 

  1. Make sure violent criminals can’t access guns.
    Set violent misdemeanor crimes as the threshold for exclusion from gun purchase and possession.
  2. Create a mechanism to assess if someone is a violent criminal, prior to purchasing a gun.
    Implement gun permit laws at the state level, in conjunction with background checks.
    Ensure background checks, at the state and federal level, are part of the gun permitting process.
  3. Ensure those at high risk of committing violence in the immediate future cannot access a gun.
    Implement red flag laws at the state level.

Let’s take these in order. 

1) Make sure violent criminals can’t access guns. Their proposal is to reduce the state and federal firearms ownership ban threshold from a felony to a misdemeanor. A conviction of any form of violence as a misdemeanor would result in a 10-year disqualification. 

These are direct-from-Kalifornistan “Red Flag” law proposals whose intent is to cast a much larger net of those who can be forcibly disarmed by the state. And don’t forget the Kalifornistan APPS (Armed and Prohibited Persons System) program to go to the homes of recently convicted offenders and confiscate their guns. That’s part of the plan. 

But good news! –  How Does It Respect Rights of Law Abiding Citizens?

“Along with gun permit laws and background checks, this would eliminate the need for subjective and potentially discriminatory “may carry” laws.” 

Of course, these “may carry” laws have already been declared unconstitutional. 

2) Create a mechanism to assess if someone is a violent criminal, prior to purchasing a gun. The proposal is for a state level permit to purchase license as well as a permit to carry license. The claim is this will be more effective than repetitive point-of-sale NICS checks currently required for FFL (Federal Firearms License) purchase and transfers since the FBI based checks don’t check state and local records. 

But good news again! How Does It Respect Rights of Law Abiding Citizens?

“Would eliminate the need for background checks with valid permits (current federal laws waive point-of-purchase background checks in states with gun permits).
Would eliminate the need for potentially discriminatory “may issue” laws. Law enforcement would not need to have discretion in approving permits.  The decision would be based solely on whether a person has a history of violence. 
Would open the door to concealed carry permit reciprocity between states that have permitting systems in place.
Gun owners would not need a new background check each time they purchased a gun, provided they held a valid gun permit.  
Gun sales or transfers between family members would not require a NICS check or a state background check, as long as the person receiving the gun has a valid gun permit.”

Sadly, the 97Percent staff doesn’t seem to fully understand NICS checks, or realize how foolish of an argument this is. And of course, there’s that whole “may issue” thing being unconstitutional and the fact many states will never willingly allow carry permit reciprocity. 

Side note: From their contracted “research” to justify these policy positions, they spoke about how great it would be for the gun owner to have a state level permit for firearms purchases. Once you are “approved to execute your right” there is no delay. 

Note: APPROVED TO EXECUTE YOUR RIGHTS.  Does this sound like a right or a privilege to you? 

Interestingly, even their own directed research couldn’t back up the 97% approval for universal background checks. 

3)  And finally; Ensure those at high risk of committing violence in the immediate future cannot access a gun. Simply put, Red Flag laws. There are many excellent articles out there which clearly outline why this is a constitutional nightmare. 

Instead of using the laws EVERY STATE already has in place to take persons in crisis into custody and secure their firearms, they needed to come up with a shortcut civil system where the firearm confiscation comes first BEFORE the subject has a chance to defend themselves in court, without the right to a court appointed attorney, after the fact, and the supposedly dangerous subject is not taken into custody.  There is zero good news with Red Flag laws, and no amount of lies or sugar coating can come up with one. 

Why do I bring this up and focus on groups such as the 97Percenters? Because they claim to include gun owners in solutions, but these solutions are always, ALWAYS, the ones that take away rights, take away firearms, and turn your Second Amendment rights into second class privileges subject to whatever whim of new restrictions the next anti-gun administration feels like adding on. 

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

Nothing in what this so-called ‘moderate’ group or any of the other anti-gun group clones does in any way respects Second Amendment rights. It’s all about getting YOU to believe other gun owners think this way, so you should too. They might as well be arguing it’s “common sense”. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #NoFudds, #NoRINOs, #No97%ers, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Shhhhhhh… Don’t Say Suppressors 

The anti-gun rights world is suddenly all about banning suppressors, or “silencers” as they like to call them. The once nearly non-issue firearm accessory is now front and center in the anti-gun/rights/Second Amendment community. Is it the huge problem they claim it is? Of course not, but that doesn’t stop them. Remember, the sickening mantra of the gun control extremist, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

As everyone is undoubtedly aware, the incident that brought this to the forefront of the extremist attention was the cold-blooded murder of a healthcare CEO at the hands of an entitled and disturbed individual. 

From the videos taken at the scene, it appears the shooter was waiting for the victim to arrive, approached him from behind and opened fire. BUT… it appeared he used a suppressed pistol for this assassination. Enter the wild speculation and moronic reporting from the news media. 

While the manhunt was underway, everyone from the celebrity gun pundits, retired FBI to Navy SEALS got in on evaluating the shooter’s weapon, stance and tactics. The weapon used was identified as everything from a $6,000 VP9 “Veterinary Pistol”, a $2,500 Station SIX-9, or an actual World War II-era Welrod pistol they were both based on.  Of course, all of these are NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms. Good luck finding an actual original Welrod which can go for upwards of $35K. So, OBVIOUSLY a professional hit!  

Back in the real world, the suspect was apprehended with the weapon still on his person. Hint: Not a professional. The law enforcement reporting now says it is either a 3D printed gun or an 80% kit, the same for the suppressor.  My bet when this all flushes out in court is an 80% kit and so-called “solvent trap” suppressor. 

So why the confusion about the weapon and tactics? Most likely it was from the amateur who didn’t put a piston on his suppressor and had to manually rack the slide. Not knowing what he was doing, it resulted in the empty casings and a live round being ejected. 

Was the suppressor necessary to accomplish the job and get away? Hardly. Considering it was done in front of several witnesses and on video, on a busy early morning Manhattan Street, it’s likely he could have used a “loudener” (yes, it’s a real thing) and not drawn any more attention to himself. 

What is the reality of suppressors? 

Suppressors do not silence a gunshot, they merely reduce the amount of recoil, muzzle flash and sound produced. How much varies by the design, caliber, type of firearm and ammunition. It is NOT silent. Sadly, Hollywood is to blame for our perception of suppressors as “silencers”. In the movies, a bad guy (it’s usually a bad guy because only bad guys use “silencers”) can snap a tiny two inch “silencer” on a revolver and the only sound you hear is a little pfft. 

Suppressors are legal in 42 states and hunting with a suppressor is legal in 41. As of June 2024, there are more than 4.8 million legally owned suppressors in the United States. Only eight states and the District of Columbia outright ban suppressors. It should go without saying, but those eight nanny states of gun control are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. 

Suppressors are subject to the NFA along with items such as fully automatic firearms (machine guns), short barrel rifles and shotguns. NFA firearms require submission of fingerprints and a photo for the background check as well as a $200/item tax stamp. 

NFA approvals have always been an issue and a hinderance to ownership. Up until recently, the wait time for approval on a suppressor was one to two years. Within the past couple of years, it has been steadily dropping from years, to months, to weeks, to days. This has dramatically increased demand as buyers no longer have to pay for the suppressor and tax stamp then wait two years to take possession. The anti-gun extremists call this a “troubling surge in silencer sales”. 

Back to this case. Let’s ignore the fact that murder is already illegal in New York City, but also illegal is possessing a firearm without a license, a firearm without a serial number, a self-manufactured firearm, firearm suppressors, carrying a concealed firearm without a concealed carry license and carrying a firearm in a “sensitive location”.  

Since the perpetrator used a self-manufactured firearm and suppressor, how exactly would a nationwide ban on suppressors have stopped this crime? The answer is it wouldn’t, and no gun control laws ever would. 

What does the future hold for suppressors? 

Up until this incident and the extremist kneejerk, emotional response to ban legal suppressors due to an illegal one being used, I would have said the future looks good. A number of visibility bills have been introduced over the years which would remove suppressors from the NFA and have them sold as simple firearms without a $200/item tax stamp. The latest version of the SHUSH (Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act) would have had a chance with the incoming administration. 

I would even go a step further and say remove the classification as a firearm. There is nothing about them that is a firearm. Suppressors can’t load, hold or expend a projectile. They are at best, a firearm accessory. I say remove the firearm classification and licensing restrictions and let them be sold over the counter. 

You might think that a bit extreme, but suppressors are regulated wildly different around the world. Some countries outlaw them completely, others license and restrict them, some treat them as accessories with no limitations whatsoever. They are rarely used in crimes in this or any country. 

Just so you know, chances are very good your local law enforcement agency utilizes suppressors and justified the purchase with the same arguments laid out in the bills to remove them from the NFA, hearing protection, reduction of recoil and muzzle blast. But when it comes to a non-government person wanting to use something to protect their hearing, well, you must want to do something illegal! 

Hopefully our incoming Congress and Administration will see past this latest attempt to outlaw legal use based on illegal use, ignore the reactionists calls to outlaw suppressors and approve removing suppressors out of the NFA. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #NFA, #Suppressor, #Silencer, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Pardon Me? (A Hunter Story) 

On Sunday, December 1st, the President of the United States of America pardoned his son Hunter for his federal criminal convictions. But not only did he pardon him for his convictions on gun and tax charges, but for ANY and ALL crimes he committed, may have committed or been involved in, charged or uncharged, for a period of nearly 11 years. How’s that for a bitch slap rule of law! 

While Presidential and Gubernatorial pardons can be controversial because of the who they are given to and the crimes forgiven, this one breaks new ground in more than one way. Not only is this the first time the President of the United States has issued a pardon for his own child, but it also covers any crimes he MAY have committed or taken part in from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024. That’s a period of 10 years, 11 months, 1 day including the end date.

The full and unconditional pardon comes after numerous, repeated statements from the White House and the President himself saying he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence. Politicians and pundits proudly stated this as being part of this Administration’s “nobody is above the law” stance. 

It’s interesting to note the whole reason why the person the President calls the “smartest guy I know” even had trials is because his original ultra-sweetheart plea deal for his gun and tax charges blew up when the judge questioned the wide-ranging immunity from all federal prosecution it would have offered him. Oddly enough, the pardon immunity time frame coincidently covers the same timeline. 

You can read the official statement from the President at the link below and see if you buy the story or what might really be behind it. 

Link to official White House statement: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

So why do I care? 

Well for one, it’s a massive bitch slap in the face for the rule of law. The President is flat out lying about this crime not being charged without aggravating factors. Many people around the country have been tried, convicted and served time for this exact offence. And no, it’s not enough for you to not consider yourself a drug user when you fill out a form 4473. You either are/were, or you are/were not. 

Second, much of the nation was hoping this case with its celebrity/political alure would finally do away with question 21g on form 4473.

“21.g. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

When it comes to the use of marijuana, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and 38 states allow its medical use, yet it  remains illegal at the federal level. Given the widespread legal acceptance in the states and in the medical community, isn’t it about time the federal government updated its thinking on it? After all, we’ve come a long way from the days of “Reefer Madness”. Take a look at the trailer from the 1936 film here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0. “Marijuana, the burning weed with its roots from hell!”

But alas, the Second Amendment community did not gain an ally who would challenge the constitutionality of drug use eliminating the right to bear arms. His lawyer’s notice of challenging his case based on Bruen’s text, history and tradition test were just a ploy to get them past the elections. 

Instead, all we got was a spoiled and protected political son whose self-documented drug and prostitution addiction, under the table influence peddling and corruption spanning multiple continents for himself and his family getting a pass on all the charges he was convicted of, charged with, not charged with, or may have been involved with. 

And finally, now that this President has opened the door to preemptive pardons, there is talk about issuing many more preemptive pardons for key figures in the administration and the Democrat party to protect them from potential legal action when the Department of Justice (DOJ) is taken over by a Republican administration. 

What does this say about the actions of these potential pardon recipients? Granting and accepting a pardon is in of itself an admission that what someone has done was illegal. Issuing them preemptively, covering long stretches of time like they did in this case, for cases that have not even been investigated to say nothing of charged or convicted, says they DID break the law.  Maybe they shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place instead having to hide behind a blanket pardon issued in the final days of a lame duck Presidency. 

I’m not going to outright condemn Presidential or Gubernatorial pardons because they do provide relief for those who have demonstrated an EXTRAORDINARY level of reform and deserve a second chance. Sadly, it may now have a place as relief due to political persecution, today commonly known as lawfare, something I never thought we’d never see in our country. 

I guess the rule of law just isn’t what it used to be. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #Pardon, #RuleOfLaw, #Lawfare, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Reform or Abolish the ATF? 

With the incoming administration selecting a new cabinet and the directors of key government agencies, many of us are anxiously awaiting word of who will take the reins of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). While the Second Amendment community is generally in agreement there needs to be great deal of reform in the agency, some are calling for it to be outright abolished. 

Of the areas the ATF is responsible for, firearms are by far the most visible and controversial. In fact, I don’t think any of us could name a recent action by the ATF where alcohol, tobacco or explosives was the subject. Firearms is also the only one of the ATF areas protected by the Second Amendment. 

Certainly, the ATF has had many infamous incidents over the years. Ruby Ridge, Waco, and most recently the shooting of a Little Rock, AR airport director in his home during a pre-dawn raid. While none of the incidents resulted in the ATF or their personnel being found at fault, their decisions to use deadly force when myriad other options were available in all these cases have created calls for the ATF to be disbanded. 

The mass collection of inventory and sales records from FFLs around the country by taking copies and photos of their A&D (acquisition and disposition) books, unrelated to investigations or audits, combined with their own admission of creating a database, albeit with alleged “limited” search capabilities, in violation of federal law, has only intensified these calls. 

ATF has also been targeting FFLs with their new Zero Tolerance Policy where even minor, paperwork errors are considered “willful violations” and falsification of records, resulting in mandatory revocations of licenses. This has increased to now at least triple of historical revocations. The result is what the left-wing extremists have been trying to achieve for decades, a steadily decreasing number of retail firearms establishments. 

Adding fuel to the fire has been their use of their own administrative reinterpretations of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 to create new legal restrictions, without the authority of Congress.  

Bump stocks are an excellent example of the issues within ATF. Unregulated for years even after numerous ATF evaluations, they were shoehorned into the NFA as a “machine gun” and outlawed. Owners were given a short grace period to turn them in. It took a United States Supreme Court decision in June 2024 to strike down the erroneous definition and administrative rule.  Even with this decision, the ATF website still has the invalid Final Rule, How to Destroy, Small Entity Compliance Guide and Bump Stock Q&As with the outdated information, along with a short section on the Supreme Court ruling against it.

A fresh “Abolish the ATF” bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives, the previous one receiving no action. Yet even with a razor thin republican majority in the House and Senate, and a republican President, there is very little chance of this visibility bill ever seeing the light of day given the establishment entrenched RINO members. 

Still, the abolish the ATF supporters are calling for the incoming President to administratively do away with the agency and divide their current responsibilities amongst other federal agencies and the states. Given the past abuses of constitutional rights, federal law and their own rules and regulations, call for abolishing the ATF are well founded. The issue beyond that decision comes from where the essential functions should go. 

The most logical destination would be the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) as it has the depth and investigative and administrative knowledge to handle the ATF’s current responsibilities. They already handle the background checks for FFL’s (Federal Firearms Licensees) through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). 

But as soon as you say FBI, you have to face the reality that the nation’s former premier law enforcement agency has become an anti-rights, anti-constitution, anti-freedom, anti-firearm, partisan haven whose motivation and investigations have made it the de facto hired muscle of left wing extremists. The FBI itself is facing calls for massive reform, reorganization and purging. Therefore, adding additional regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for a constitutionally protected right to an agency which has showed a clear distain for American rights would be a disaster. 

Then again, any federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice would be just as disastrous given the DOJ’s partisan and selective targeting of anyone inside or outside the government who doesn’t think the way DOJ does. 

While the President-elect has nominated strong and committed replacements as leaders of the DOJ and FBI, the establishment regulars are already rallying their forces to oppose them at every turn. 

Pushing some of the responsibilities down to the states would also be a trainwreck. Anyone who has had to deal with the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms (CA DOJ BOF), the state of Kalifornistan’s own state level version of the ATF (because the ATF doesn’t do what they need them to do) knows what a nightmare of bureaucratic nonsense they are. Every fringe level gun control concept they can dream up comes to life here and is administered with unwavering severity. 

While several deep blue states have similar state level departments, imagine if every blue leaning state had their own mini-ATF to regulate firearms within their borders. Aside from a bizarre patchwork of conflicting laws from state-to-state, firearm sales and use would become a privilege based on your state of residence instead of a constitutionally protected right. 

I would favor a reform approach, although that may be due to folks from my generation preferring to fix broken things instead of throwing them out. However, I fully acknowledge it will be a long, difficult struggle. The ATF didn’t get to the condition it is in today overnight, and it will certainly not be reformed overnight either. Even with strong leadership and executive support from the White House, it could take decades to realign the agency back into working with the firearms industry and the public on safety and regulations, instead of trying to crush and eliminate it. 

Despite the best efforts of the left-wing anti-gun extremists, the Second Amendment, firearms, ammunition and the will to bear arms are not going away. Millions and millions MORE Americans are choosing firearms to protect their families inside and outside of their homes every year. Having an ATF administration that understands this and will refocus the agencies efforts on those who are actually doing harm should be the goal going forward. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #ATFE, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

The Second Amendment in 2025

I’ll be honest, I did not expect this outcome from the elections. Like many people, I knew the “official polls” showing the candidates in a dead heat going in the final days of the campaign were bogus. I figured these poll numbers were being used as ‘target totals’ for them to hit when the voting started. While the election results, a Republican House, Senate and White House are a very positive thing for the Second Amendment community, it doesn’t mean all our hopes and dreams will come true. We need to look at reality and remain focused in our efforts. 

The good news first. The current administration, and its subsequent extension had the Democrat candidate been victorious, was openly hostile towards Second Amendment rights. While publically claiming  “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away”, they also supported “a mandatory buyback program” (literally confiscation/taking guns away), a national so-called “Red Flag” law (taking guns away without due process) and the desire to search private residences of law-abiding citizens without a warrant for gun control compliance checks, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.”

But that’s only part of what has happened. The ATF’s focus was shifted from partnering with the firearms industry to targeting dealers for inconsequential administrative omissions, closing record numbers of Federal Firearm Licensee dealers each year. An “Office of Gun Violence Prevention” was created at the White House and staffed it with the most biased, extremist, anti-gun activists in the country, to attempt to bribe and influence states into adopting their radical gun control positions. 

Let us not forget about the current administration’s signature gun control achievement, the dubiously titled “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”.  Supported by the Democrat party and a handful of their most favored RINOs, it is a collection of horribly written and ill-defined laws which can be interpreted any way the gun control community desires. 

So, for the Second Amendment community, getting the administration out of power is a very good thing. But will it bring a reversal of attitudes in D.C.? 

The former President/President-elect’s comments offer hope for what he will do. 

“In my second term, we will roll back every Biden attack on the Second Amendment – the attacks are fast and furious – start the minute that Crooked Joe shuffles his way out of the White House”. 

“Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day”.

“I will protect the right of self-defense everywhere it is under siege, and I will sign concealed carry reciprocity. Your 2nd Amendment does not end at the state line”. 

However, we also must remember some of his record from his first term. 

Banned bump stocks (since reversed by the United States Supreme Court).
Signed “Fix NICS” to expand prohibited persons faulty database.
Supported Red Flag gun confiscation laws.
Supported raising the minimum age to purchase firearms. 
Supported TAPS Act, government monitoring of social media for firearms statements. 

We also must consider the Republican majority in the House and Senate is absolutely razor thin and there is already a concerted effort by the Democrats and RINO members of both houses to thwart any and all of the President/President-elect’s agenda, no matter what it is. Just as a President cannot create gun control laws solely by executive order, a President cannot reverse gun control laws by executive order.  

One of the biggest areas where the President can have an impact is with house cleaning and reforms in the Department of Justice, FBI and ATF. The selective targeting of Americans based on their political ideology must come to an end. 

Will it be easy? Absolutely not! The corruption in these departments runs deep and it will take some very determined leadership to make a difference. Let’s not forget that some of the people in these very organizations who worked for the President/President-elect during his first term, were the same ones who set up the false flag operations to get him out of office and prevent him from ever winning the office again. 

Going into the new year with the new administration, we need to remain focused on influencing not only our federal representation, but our local and state ones as well. Far too many of them have lost all accountability to their constituents and are more interested in their own political power. If they are not willing to follow their oath of office and represent our interests, it’s time to recall them or vote them out. 

Then of course, there are the court cases. Your unlimited tax dollars will be used to argue against your rights while your donations will be used to argue for them. Lawsuits and appeals go on for years and years in the hopes of reversing an unconstitutional law. Meanwhile the lawyers on both sides are the big winners and your rights are on hold. 

The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #EditorOnHoliday, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Vote 2024

Some call me a single-issue voter. Well, yes and no. While my thing is advocating for Second Amendment rights, my selections in the voting booth are a little deeper than that. Every topic is important including crime, immigration, education, international relationships, the economy, the environment, etc. etc. etc. However, the litmus test for me is a candidate’s support of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  If I can’t trust them to support and defend the very basic construct of our nation, then why would I trust them with anything else? 

Will I ever support a candidate who believes in restricting my First Amendment right to free speech because it goes against what they say? No. 

Will I ever support a candidate who wants to restrict my First Amendment right to religion by discriminating against one religion while promoting others? No. 

Will I ever support a candidate who wants to sensor my First Amendment rights to a free press because some press publishes things they don’t like? No.

Will I ever support a candidate who has vowed to violate my Second Amendment rights by unconstitutional, do-nothing gun control laws to confiscate my firearms, limit what I can and cannot legally purchase, how I can purchase them and limit the places where I am allowed to defend my own life in public?  No. 

Will I ever support a candidate who believes it is acceptable to violate my Fourth Amendment rights by barging into my home without a warrant to determine if I am being responsible with my possessions? No. 

Will I ever support a candidate who believes it is acceptable to violate people’s Fifth Amendment rights to due process because of their political ideology? No. 

Will I ever support a candidate who wants to do away with the Electoral College and allow only the largest population centers to elect the President of the United States? No. 

Will I ever support a candidate who wants to pack and reorder the United State Supreme Court because they issue rulings that they don’t like? No. 

For these and many more reasons, I shall vote on Tuesday, November 5th, 2024. 

Vote wisely. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

Gas Prices & Elections (Pre-Election Day Rant)

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed the falling gas prices lately. Prices have been falling for the past few months. Yesterday, I paid the lowest price I’ve paid in the past 3 ½ years, the club price of $2.67/gallon, down 70 cents in the past six months. Normally, I’d be celebrating and saying how good life is, but I know this is a completely artificial, pre-election price reduction to convince people the economy really is good under the current administration, and we should vote to keep the same people in office.  Yea, I’m not falling for it. 

Why am I convinced this is just a political game?  The US is currently involved in three proxy wars, two of them in the middle east. Normally, this would be raising the prices at the pump from the time the first bombs dropped until long after everyone has gone home. We also have an administration that is 100% hostile to the fossil fuel industry and is actively trying to shut it down. Their so-called green initiatives are pushing solar and wind as the replacement for electric grid power and trying to mandate electric cars only for the country. That’s not going to happen with low gas prices. 

Personally, I have no issues with solar or wind for power or electric cars and trucks, as an OPTION. However, I do have a very strong objection to them being forced down our throats as a government mandate. I also know they are not as green or as ready for primetime as the government likes to say they are. 

Electric cars have been around a lot longer than most people realize. The first electric cars were invented way back in 1830’s. Rechargeable batteries came in in the 1860’s making them a lot more practical. Innovation has come and gone over the years with cheaper cars with gas engines and cheap gas prices, then gas shortages and higher gas prices pushed the electric car from the spotlight, then pulled it back in later. Environmental concerns now dominate the argument for electrics, even if they really aren’t as green as they pretend. The so called “path to net-zero emissions by 2050” is a lie. 

While we do have some truly exceptional electric cars out there right now, I still don’t believe they are ready for primetime. The current class of batteries used for power are horribly heavy, overly expensive and an environmental disaster to mine and manufacture. Battery life is an issue both in the disposal of the hazardous materials and the cost of replacements, often more expensive than the value of the electric car itself. Even the best-in-class electrics suffer from range limitations and slow refueling times when compared to gas powered cars.  Cold weather performance, a real concern for those of us in the northern parts of the country, is huge problem. 

The promised nationwide network of charging stations, funded by $7.5 billion in public funds from the current administration, has produced only seven stations with a total of 38 charging spots in two years. Charging stations are prone to outages and long lines for those that are in service. Inexplicably, some are powered by onsite diesel generators or connected to gas or coal generation sites, the very dirty technology the electric cars are supposed to be eliminating. 

Of course, even if everyone did go out and buy a pricy new electric car right now, the United States power grid would never be able to handle it. Nothing better illustrates this than the State of Kalifornistan who in 2022 passed a new law banning the sale of gas-powered cars in the state by 2035, then just days later told people not to charge their electric cars because of anticipated stress on the California power grid from a heat wave. This in the state with the only power companies in the WORLD that can’t operate electric lines when it’s windy out and shuts them down for “safety”. 

Despite the government and environmental activists push, consumers have not been going electric. Major automakers around the world have been pulling back on their electric car and truck manufacturing after losing billions and having huge inventories they can’t move. 

So what does this have to do with gas prices at the pumps in the run up to the general elections? It’s purely to convince you to keep the same people with the same priorities in office for another four years.  

What’s going to happen AFTER the elections? Prices at the pump are going to start going up, and up and up. It’s not so much a matter of when, it’s how fast and how much. I’m betting it will be immediately after the elections and will steadily rise back to the peak prices we’ve seen over the past 3 ½ years, and beyond. 

The why is the easiest to understand. Nobody is going to willingly give up the convenience and reliability of their gas-powered car and truck if they can afford to fuel it. The only way to force people into higher priced, heavy, unreliable, range limited, slow refueling, cold weather adverse, environmentally dubious electric cars is to mandate it and make gas prices so high you have no other option. 

BUT… you can’t do that if you don’t win the elections.  

Between now and when you cast your ballot on Tuesday, November 5th, I recommend filling up your tanks and gas cans one last time at these nostalgic prices and consider what you want to happen on November 6th. 

Vote wisely. 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #GasPrices, #Rant, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com

The Electoral College (An Election Year Rant)

In what seems to be the norm for a general election year, opponents of the Electoral College are again hyping how unfair it is and how it needs to be eliminated. This horrible relic of electing the President/Vice President from the founding of our nation was put in place as a balance between population centers and rural areas. Naturally, the folks in charge of the population centers are the ones who are calling for its elimination. 

As you probably suspect, this is coming from the port side of aisle, the same ones who want to pack the United States Supreme Court with five new Democrat appointed Justices to ‘eliminate politics in the Court’ as well as impose term limits on the Justices, all because they don’t like their rulings. While the Democrat candidates for President and Vice President have both advocated for this, their campaigns have been forced to walk back their stance in the face of strong opposition. But that hasn’t stopped the rest of the political/pundit/sycophant crew from keeping it in the press. 

Why do we have the Electoral College? The Founders of our country studied the history of nations around the world and designed our government so as not to fall into the same trap as so many others had. In short, the Electoral College was put in place to elect the President/Vice President by our Founders who were afraid of democracy, hence why our country is a Republic not a pure Democracy. They were concerned about “the tyranny of the majority” and created the Electoral College to preserve “the sense of the people”. 

The number of electoral votes a state has equals its number of Senators (2) plus its number of Representatives in the House of Representatives. With this system, each state is guaranteed a minimum of three electoral votes. 538 electors chosen by their states award all their votes according to the winner of the popular vote in their own state, except Maine and Nebraska who have a slightly different system.  

The Founders recognized there needed to be a balance between the densely populated urban areas and the more sparsely populated rural ones.  Today, urban areas are predominately liberal/Democrat and rural areas tend to be conservative/Republican. With a direct, popular vote, a handful of urban areas in our country would determine the President in every single election. 

As with every election loss, we saw a renewed call to abolish the Electoral College following the Democrat candidate’s loss in the 2016 elections. Claims that the election was “stolen” and the “will of the people” was ignored because the candidate with the most votes didn’t win the most votes from the Electoral College. 

Attempts to do away with the Electoral College have all failed in Congress as it is recognized for what it is, a power grab from one side that would eliminate the voice of rural America. 

Not to be outdone, an alternate attack was created called The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). It is an attempt to nullify the Electoral College without actually abolishing it. Participating states would award their Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won the popular vote in that individual state. 

Following the 2016 elections, there were increased drives across the country that were being courted to join the Compact. Popular themes included “one person one vote” and “make your vote count”.  People were promised that politicians would be forced to campaign for votes in every state not just the most populous areas. Of course, that’s not true. Outright lies such as “This is patently undemocratic and undermines confidence in the people that we are truly a democracy” are common. 

Sadly, my home state of Maine bought into this lunacy in 2024 with its liberal controlled legislature and joined the NPVIC, bringing the total committed electoral votes to 207 of the 270 needed. 

The sad reality is a true popular vote election would see the candidates trying to appeal to the handful of urban population centers that currently make up the majority of the popular vote. A few swing states might be in play as a counter to an unwinnable urban center for a candidate, but the rest of the country would have no say or influence on the presidential election. Their votes, their opinions, their needs, would be too small to matter. 

So why is eliminating or nullifying the Electoral College so important to them? Because playing by the rules would require coming up with a candidate, platform and strategy that appeals to the entire country instead of one that is supported by just the handful of urban population centers where furthest-from-center message is better received.  

Rules matter, especially when it comes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When you look at the checks and balances our Founding Fathers built into the establishment of our country, understand they did this for a reason. They looked at world history and knew what had worked and what had failed. Our country is what it is today because we have held true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not in spite of it. 

By the way, for those who oppose the Electoral College, ask them how they feel about the United States Senate. The Founders designed Congress with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate with two members from every state as a balance, exactly for the same reason. If the Electoral College gives too much weight to small, rural states, certainly allowing the smallest state of Wyoming to have the same number of Senators as the largest state of California would be considered unfair as well.   

Should we redesign the Senate to be population based like the House? Or how about just eliminating it completely since we already have a population-based chamber with the House of Representatives?  I’m sure the high population states will be more than charitable to the low population ones. And if they didn’t like the decisions that were made, who cares! It’s not like they could do anything about it. 

When someone is trying to convince you to change the foundation of our nation to advance their one-sided political purpose, you can bet your life you will not be on the side to benefit.

Yes, your vote this year matters.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #ElectoralCollege, #NoNPVIC, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com