Guns


ILYA SHAPIRO: As a wave of Islamist terror attacks sweep across Europe, London police urge people to “run, hide, tell”. The Czech Republic’s response? Fight back.

Gun-free zones create easy targets, disgruntled employees, disgruntled whatever, nut jobs, terrorists, you name it. By contrast, if you can carry a weapon legally and conceal it on your person or nearby, the would-be perp will not know who is carrying but will know that it is legal to do so. And the odds have now shifted.

Story here.

Terror Attack Responses

Jonathan Fischer is never sure who’s going to be more surprised when he, as he likes to put it, comes out of the gun closet — the gun aficionados who find out he’s gay or the gay friends who find out he likes shooting guns.

When the 38-year-old television editor showed up last month to a defensive handgun class near Piru with a Glock 27 pistol on his hip, he wore a T-shirt sporting a rainbow-colored AK-47. His “gay-K-47,” he said.

There are dissenters to letting LGBT people carrying guns.

“Some people say you need a gun to protect yourself from the bad guys. We just fundamentally disagree with that,” said Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California. “We don’t want to live in a world where you have to be packing heat to live your daily life.”

How whimsical. This is not a realistic sentiment. People who crave stability and control need to face reality. There are too many actual events of random violence to remind people  who think differently then Mr. Zbur of the desire to defend themselves with a firearm.

“Even during our heightened days of civil disobedience and protest, we have only advocated peaceful means, never arming ourselves and retaliating with violence,” said City Councilman John Duran, who is gay.

Carrying a firearm is not retaliating with violence if you’re being violated first. It defending oneself. When one finds oneself in a potentially threatening situation, merely brandishing a firearm could stop the assailant, then again it may not in which case the next step is needed. Depending on the situation, that could mean informing the assailant that he may be hurt if he does not back down.

I fine with it Jonathan. Anything that’s peaceful.

Here.

 

Article on the interaction between Hollywood entertainment, its use of firearms, and the professionals in the industry who want to restrict second amendment rights.

“It never ceases to amaze me that hollywood hates guns yet glorifies them in movies when there’s money involved,” tweeted @DeeboCouch. “How about libs in #Hollywood agree to never make another film glorifying guns and the people that use them THEN calling for #Guncontrol,” wrote @courtface59.

This is the wrong way to proceed because both sides give up something too vital to them.

So where fictional gunplay is concerned, can Hollywood win?

Yes, and so can the American people.

The collaborative, win-win, version is that Hollywood continues to make movies and television programs that involve guns, and Hollywood stops trying to restrict run rights. Americans are free to use guns for their purposes. No one’s rights are restricted.

For people in organizations like Everytown, well, unfortunately, they are on the restriction side. If, on the other hand, they want to work with gun groups to promote safe gun handling, that’ll work.

 

Last week’s convention was a wake for the GOP as we know it.

This week will be an explanation of why Hillary Clinton is

unacceptable not simply to libertarians but to that plurality of Americans who define themselves as independent, centrist, moderate, or anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan.

On Federal Spending, Foreign Policy and State Surveillance, Free Speech, Social Issues, Immigration, Gun Rights, and Regulations, Trade, and the Sharing Economy, Hillary is just as much an authoritarian as The Donald.

Nick Gillespie.

The mark of authoritarian regimes is the suspension of constitutional and natural rights.

The promoters of these restrictions use a temporary emergency and circumstance as a starting point, to get the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent, then find reasons to extend the restriction. That can also become a template to use elsewhere.

So, no.

Here.

A new argument has taken hold among gun control advocates, that gun control could reduce police violence.

Will it help? Nope.

No law will rid such communities of guns in one step. Disarming such communities, as with disarming any population, would require a significant amount of police force. . . .

Gun buybacks are popular but ineffective. (Australia’s buyback program and gun crackdown created a violent black market in guns—but anti-gun advocates who point to the ‘Australian model,’ as Obama and Hillary Clinton have, won’t mention that.) Lowering the number of firearms in circulation would require confiscation. It would mean no-knock raids, flashbang grenades, and other techniques popularized by the drug war, and more.

So, if you want a police state, sign on to this.

Here.

Erin Palette wants to bridge the gap between conservative gun groups and the LGBTQ community.

Great idea.

Here.

Next Page »