Politico: Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings. Blame “Toxic Masculinity”


H/T The Truth About Guns.

Never mind what this mindless bimbo has to say these shooters are not Alpha Males they are limp wristed soy milk drinking Nancy Boys.

As we begin a new year,” UVM grad Laura Kiesel (above) writes at politico.com, “it’s time to have a more nuanced discussion about what might really be to blame for the trend of mass shootings in America—as well as the gun violence epidemic more broadly. No, it isn’t mental illness. It’s gender. If we want to stop the problem of mass shootings, we need to fix the problem of toxic masculinity.” Specifically . . .

According to sociologist Eric Madfis, the male gender-mass shooterconnection may stem from cultural standards of how men are expected to react to stress and perceived victimization as compared to women.

“Women tend to internalize blame and frustration, while men tend to externalize it through acts of aggression,” says Madfis, who is an associate professor at the criminal justice department at University of Washington-Tacoma and author of a 2014 journal article exploring the intersectional identities of American mass murderers.

Boys will be boys? Not a bit of it!

This isn’t just because of how men are built physically.

While it’s true that having higher testosterone is often related to aggression, recent research indicates that testosterone is likely a result rather than a cause of violent behavior. This suggests that societal influences probably play a larger role in violence than any biological factor.

After all, our culture is saturated in messages—whether in the media, in our military, in sports, at the workplace, or in our education and health care systems—that embrace and even endorse a distorted view of masculinity, which tends to value and encourage expressions of aggression by men.

Bottom line: Ms. Kiesel is convinced that mass murderers aren’t born, they’re made. America’s “hyper-masculine” society conditions men like Elliot Rodger (the California shooter who complaining about his virginity before stabbing his roommates and shooting random strangers) to become mass murderers and “gun violence” vectors.

“If violence was just due to genetics, [mass shootings] would not be happening with increasing frequency or occur so much more often in the United States than other places,” says Madfis. “It’s time to have a close look at our culture and what is going in terms of how masculinity is defined and characterized, which is often as something that is performed or ‘proven’ through acts of aggression and even violence.”

Where I grew up “masculine” values included physical courage, honesty, honor, empathy and self-sacrifice. But then I played soccer, drove a Mazda RX7 and learned to cook. Go figure.

Is Mitch McConnell The Reason We Don’t Have National Reciprocity?

Leave a comment

H/T  Bearing Arms.

As he is the Senate Majority Leader I would say Mitch The Bitch McConnell is the reason we do not have National Reciprocity.

One of the biggest items on the agenda for many gun owners is national reciprocity. The time for such a law has never been better, with the GOP holding both chambers of Congress, the White House, and a majority on the Supreme Court. It seems likely that national reciprocity needs to happen now or it may never happen.

However, despite passing in the House, there’s been no movement on the Senate’s version of the bill. Is Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to blame?

Some say he is.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 some 45 weeks ago. Three-hundred-and-twenty-three days have passed since the introduction of Senate Bill 446 on March 1, 2017. Nothing. You can thank Kentucky Republican and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell . . .

Perhaps there’s some other political calculus of which I’m not aware. Maybe Senator McConnell is waiting for the right moment to restore gun rights on the federal level. When would that be, exactly?

While we’re asking questions, where does Sen. McConnell stand on Americans’ Constitutional rights? Does he support the Second Amendment as writ, or did he swindle those Kentucky voters back in 2014 and the millions of NRA voters that poured their hard earned money into his campaign? We shall see.

Politics is a messy business, especially when you’re in leadership. There’s no point in bringing a law to a vote when you know it won’t pass unless you’re trying to make a point with it not passing. While Republicans control the Senate, they don’t have a supermajority. Perhaps McConnell is worried about Democrats filibustering the bill, thus bogging it down?

However, if that’s the case, then you might as well give up now. You’re giving Democrats the ground without there even being a fight. Democrats from pro-gun states won’t be forced to choose between party and their constituents, thus leveraging them to either vote for the bill or set the groundwork for a Republican to take that seat come next election. You’re just making it too easy for them.

But I can’t help but think McConnell’s been around too long for that to be the reason. He knows how the game is played, and he knows that even the bill being blocked can count as a win if you handle it right. So why the holdup?

Frankly, I haven’t got a clue. It does seem to boil down to McConnell not being as pro-gun as he claimed to be as Candidate McConnell. He was more than willing to take the NRA’s money as well as the money of legions of the NRA’s supporters for his campaign war chest, but now that it’s time for those contributors to get a little something back for their investment, McConnell doesn’t seem willing to deliver.

National reciprocity needs to be brought to a vote. Win or lose, gun rights advocates have earned the chance to see who really stands with us and to make ready to remove any politician who stands against us.

It’s on Senator McConnell to make that happen, so he needs to get to it. Otherwise, the only one being targeted by gun rights activists might just be him.

Ten Examples of the Internet’s Worst Gun Advice

1 Comment

H/T OutDoorHub.

When I hear a person spewing crap like this I want to do a couple of things first I want to yell as loud as I can this is bullshit then smack the Hell out of that person.


Apparently I’ve taken on a task that it simply not possible without violating several laws of our physical universe—picking only 10 of the worst pieces of shooting advice from the across the vast and vacuous expanse known as the internet.

I stopped counting at 32,987,412,318. But no worries, I’ll persevere.

Here we go, drum roll please…

1. A firearm light or laser will just give away your position!

If the self-defense scenarios swirling around your brain involve moving ninja fights in the dark that emulate Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon moves, you’re absolutely right! A weapon light will give away your position, and your tactical pose hanging from the chandelier will be compromised. In real life, the benefits of seeing where and/or what you’re shooting at far outweigh any realistic disadvantages of “giving away your position.” One more thing, make it a point to tell the hundreds of thousands of military and law enforcement personnel who mount lights and lasers on their guns specifically for the purpose of fighting in the dark that this is a tactical blunder. What do they know anyway?

2. To defend your home, blast your shotgun through the front door!

We all know that politicians are (self-defined) experts in all things. Some of the best (worst!) gun advice in recent history comes from our very own vice president: “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” While blasting your shotgun through the door may help you drill a hole for one of those handy peep holes, it won’t help your legal cause in any way, shape, or form. Most likely, this strategy will send you straight to jail. Just ask the Virginia Beach man who actually did this when confronted with two armed and masked home invaders. The bad guys escaped, but the Biden disciple was charged with a crime. The “Biden Defense” is just not likely to yield a positive outcome. Come on, we all know politicians are immune to repercussions from bad behavior. It’s an expected part of the job.

3. Don’t use an AR-15 for home defense!

You might have heard from internet commandos that a “high-powered” .223 round will go clear through your interior and exterior walls, Margaritaville machine, and most of Montana—or maybe that if you torch off a .223 round indoors, the building will explode. Actually, most standard AR-15 ammunition will only go through a few pieces of interior drywall with any significant energy. The projectiles are light and traveling extremely fast. This combination results in rapid tumbling and fragmentation when barriers are hit. While there may be other factors in the debate on using AR-15s for home defense, over-penetration is not one of them—especially when compared to pistol ammunition and buckshot. Of course, exceptions apply if you choose to use ammunition designed to penetrate.

Here's some practical advice: Always keep one hand on the wheel while shooting a tactical rifle from a golf cart.
Here’s some practical advice: always keep one hand on the wheel while shooting a tactical rifle from a golf cart.

4. You should carry your self-defense gun with the chamber empty.

Unless your self-defense gun is a single-action revolver with a hammer-mounted firing pin, that’s almost always bad advice. If you think you can simply keep an eye on things around you so you have plenty of time to draw your gun, and rack the slide, in the event of an attack, try a Tueller drill sometime. It’s enlightening and will quickly relieve you of any security gained by carrying with an empty chamber. Also, please write Hollywood and tell them to stop racking the slide every time someone is about to fire a gun. It’s a waste of perfectly good pretend ammunition.

5. I only train for head shots.

Some of the couch commandos elite-speak of training for head shots to defeat body armor and perhaps save ammunition during these tough economic times. On the range, a cardboard target is pretty darn easy to hit anywhere you like. Now try that while running full speed. Then try that while you and the target are running full speed. Then try it when everyone is running full speed, shouting, and the target is trying to kill you. Enough said.

6. You don’t have to aim a shotgun!

The tireless persistence of this one is incredible. At any reasonable self-defense distance, a shotgun pattern is measured in inches, and when indoors, usually less. Compared to firing a shotgun, you need to aim it less if you were to swing it like a club.

7. Any advice that includes the words “knockdown power.”

Remember Wayne’s brother Isaac? As in Newton? According to him, and word is that he was really, really good at science, if your gun could knock someone down, you would also be knocked down in the process of firing it. In fairness, some people who use this term really mean “stopping power.” Even still, guns, and especially pistols, just make little holes. Rifles make bigger holes, and therefore are more likely to have “stopping power” as big holes in our bodies tend to make us stop and evaluate things. I’m thinking that cannons and howitzers do have “knockdown power,” as the last time I held one and fired it, I was, in fact, knocked down.

8. Standing downrange during training is the best to prepare for a real gunfight!

Unless you’re a special forces operator and need to train with a half-dozen of your buddies who will all be shooting in the same room, you don’t need to be downrange during training. Some schools insist on posting videos of “operators” being as “operate-y” as they possibly can by sending students and instructors downrange so they can hear they bullets fly by. If you want to learn self- and home-defense skills, avoid these schools like you would avoid Justin Bieber’s Tupperware Party.

9. You don’t need an AR-15!

If you’re ever the victim of a home invasion, you “need” about 14 miniguns, a howitzer or two, and a MK-19 Automatic Grenade launcher. Those tools are just not very practical, so you get by with what you have. Allowing people to define “need” is a slippery downhill slope that never ends well. Next time someone tells you that you don’t “need” an AR-15, ask them if they “need” a car that goes faster than 60 miles per hour, bacon or periodic bathing. We don’t “need” anything beyond air, water, shelter and calories.

10. It’s OK, you can ________, because this gun is unloaded!

There’s no scenario where playing with, or pointing, guns is “OK” because a gun is unloaded. Rule one: a gun is always loaded.

These are some of my pet peeves. What say you?

Chris Christie Bans Bump-Fire Stocks, Orders Confiscation On Final Day In Office

1 Comment

H/T The Daily Wire.

Nothing like giving the gun owners of New Jersey a giant FU on the way out the door.

I am glad this fat bastard never got the Republican nomination and then elected president just think what he would have done in cahoots with Smuckie Schumer and San Fran Nan. 

Citizens threatened with hefty fines, imprisonment for failing to turn over gun accessory.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ended his last day in office on Tuesday by signing a new law banning bump-fire stocks and ordering their confiscation under threat of heavy fines and imprisonment.

The former Republican presidential contender offered no words of explanation for ordering the ban of a common firearm attachment, the Free Beacon reports.

The bump-fire stock is an accessory that allows a firearms enthusiast to use a rapid fire technique. The legislation cites the Las Vegas mass shooting as the primary reason for the ban. The document states, “On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock opened fire on an outdoor venue in Las Vegas, Nevada killing 59 people and injuring at least 530 people in the deadliest mass shooting in the United States’ modern history. According to recent news reports, the rifles found in the gunman’s hotel room were modified with a bump stock.”

Gun owners were given 90 days to surrender their bump-fire stocks while licensed firearm manufacturers and retailers were only given 30 days to turn over their inventory to law enforcement. The law threatens the state’s citizens with a fine of up to $15,000 or up to 3 years in prison for refusing to cooperate.

Gun control advocates celebrated the decision. The Michael Bloomberg funded group, Moms Demand Action, said in a statement, “We are so grateful that our lawmakers have prioritized public safety by passing this piece of common-sense legislation. Senate Bill 3477 is an important step toward keeping accessories like bump stocks out of the hands of dangerous individuals who seek to carry out large, senseless acts of gun violence.”

Gun rights activists took to Twitter to express their distaste for the new law.


Chris Christie certainly was no friend of #gunowners. https://goo.gl/L7Mzcd 

8:00 PM – Jan 16, 2018



Twitter Ads info and privacy

AWR Hawkins@AWRHawkins

Gun-grabbing @ChrisChristie bans bump stocks, demands law-abiding #NewJersey residents surrender theirs w/in 90 days — http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/16/chris-christie-gives-nj-residents-90-days-surrender-bump-stocks-one-final-acts-governor/ … @GunOwners @NRA @2ANow @2AFDN @BoSnerdley @DRUDGE @GOP #freedom

10:20 AM – Jan 16, 2018



Twitter Ads info and privacy

Carmen Natalie@canaweb

Replying to @GunOwners

So..will NJ pay gun owners for these accessories, or just steal them? With Republicans like Christie..who needs liberals? What a putz. Just like Cuomo. Two douches.

9:51 PM – Jan 16, 2018



Twitter Ads info and privacy

Chris Christie began his career as a popular, tough-talking New Jersey governor who was widely considered to be a GOP presidential contender, but has since become one of the state’s least popular leaders, with both Democrats and Republicans turning on him in increasing numbers.


Leave a comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

This would be an interesting twist to protecting gun owners rights.

With American gun owners constantly under attack by the liberal left, it’s about time that one state started diversifying their tactics in the war on the 2nd Amendment.

For decades, democrats have worked both behind the scenes and in the open to nullify the rights of gun owners across our great nation.  By exploiting tragedy and segregating their voters into tiny, workable clans, the left has long been void of any dignity or shame when it comes to achieving their selfish goals.

Outside of constantly railing against the 2nd Amendment, the left has also been busy pushing the concept of “sanctuary cities”, or, places in which federal immigration officers will not be welcomed by or assisted by local law enforcement in the line of duty.  The idea here is that this will allow democrats to keep their precious undocumented immigrant vote numbers come 2018 and 2020, and the bleeding heart liberals of the party will be able to virtue signal their love of minorities at the same time.

Now, conservative lawmakers in West Virginia are taking a good, hard look at the untenable “sanctuary city” model for immigration, and wondering if the concept couldn’t be applied in the fight to protect the 2nd Amendment.

“House Bill 2138, introduced by Republican Del. Pat McGeehan, would effectively nullify all federal gun control within the state’s boundaries, according to a report from the Tenth Amendment Center. The bill would make any attempt to enforce such laws a felony.

“HB2138 reads:

“’All current and future federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, laws, orders, rules, and any other actions which attempt to restrict, tax, or regulate the possession, use, discharge in lawful self-defense, transportation, purchase, acquisition, sale, transfer, ownership, carrying, manufacture, or repair of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition and their accouterments contradict the true meaning and original intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section twenty-two, Article III of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia. Those statutes, ordinances, laws, orders and rules which violate the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of West Virginia are invalid, and therefore, are null and void.’”

There’s nothing quite like given the democrats a taste of their own medicine, is there?

Whether or not West Virginia can successfully pull off their “sanctuary” status for firearms has yet to be seen, but the concept will certainly reignite not only the battle for the 2nd Amendment in the Mountain State, but the battle for states’ rights as well.

Leftists Are Just Dying For a Concealed Carry Holder to Make a Mistake

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

If the DemocRats take over the House and Senate I promise you they will do they Damndest to gut the Second Amendment.

President Ronald Regan once said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Democratic political strategist James Carville was a bit more pragmatic about it, saying, “The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage, and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats, all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.”

Lay out the silage they do and nowhere more so than in the field of the Second Amendment.

George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and a regiment of like-minded new world order propaganda hacks feed disinformation to their army of apparatchik who, with no critical thinking skills at all, spread the word. Currently, the hot topic is concealed carry national reciprocity. Clearly, to them, the concept of anyone being able to carry a gun anywhere is anathema to the very core theme of progressive liberalism: John Q. Public should not be allowed to own a gun, until he/she reaches the stature of Rosie O’Donnell – to whom such rules do not apply.

The One Thing the Anti-Gun Narrative Is Waiting For

What has torched me off most recently is a letter to the editor of Silicon Valley’s Mercury News titled “Just wait till ‘Good Guy’ with a gun kills innocent bystander.” This is typical liberalism – spread the gospel regardless of facts. In it, the writer expressed concern over what the author of a previous letter to the editor wrote, saying he “is more concerned with ‘bad guys’ packing heat than Joe Average with an out-of-state permit.” He then suggests, “It’s going to take some wannabe cowboy trying to be a hero and hitting an innocent bystander to demonstrate just how bad that can be. How many people have to die to defend the Supreme Court’s twisted version of our Second Amendment rights…?”

This is so wrong on so many levels and underscores the fact that anti-gun liberals truly have no clue. I tried to find a case where a concealed carry holder’s life was threatened, used his legally possessed firearm to defend himself or another, and accidentally shot an innocent bystander. I’m not suggesting it has never happened, but I sure couldn’t find an example of it.

Having said that, the far more important issue is the writer’s position that it is better to have an active shooter shooting innocents all around him than for someone with a firearm to try to stop his murderous shooting spree, because he might miss and hit someone else. So, to liberals, is it better for potentially dozens of people to die at the hands of some fanatic than allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm? Does anyone see the logic in that point of view? I sure don’t. If we fought wars with that attitude, we’d still have a British accent.

So, How Safe Are CCW Holders?

This raises the question of how safely concealed carry holders go about their daily business. When Illinois was the only state not to have concealed carry and the legislature was debating the issues of instituting it, a man told me he was very uncomfortable with the idea that he could be in a room with people carrying hidden firearms. I asked him if he traveled out of state very often, he said he did, and I informed him that he had already been in rooms with people carrying hidden firearms. It had never occurred to him.

Mainstream media anti-gun reporting notwithstanding, here’s what we know about concealed carry permit holders. A 2013 study looked into the effects of state-level concealed weapon laws on murder rates for the period 1980 to 2009. It found that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The chilling effect concealed carry has on violent crime is one thing, but the remaining question is how trustworthy are concealed carry permit holders.

study done by John Lott in 2016 found that it is very rare for permit holders to violate the law. There are about 12.8 million permit holders in the U.S., and Lott found concealed permit holders committed an average of 113 firearm violations per year during the period from 2005 to 2007. That’s .0009 percent of concealed carry holders commit a crime with a firearm compared to law enforcement firearm-related crime statistics at .02 percent. Overall, concealed permit holders are remarkably safe and law abiding.

Making a Difference

Finally, there is the myth perpetrated by the Left that concealed carry permit holders are delusional if they think they can intervene in an active shooter situation and stop the carnage. It took minimal effort to turn up ample situations where that exact scenario unfolded.

A 2015 Controversial Times article titled, “12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns”, underscores the positive effect associated with law-abiding concealed carry holders being armed everywhere they go. Had Mississippi’s Pearl High School allowed faculty to carry a concealed firearm, Assistant Principal Joel Myrick might have been able to save more lives. When Luke Woodham started shooting, Myrick ran to his car, retrieved his .45 caliber pistol and headed back into the school. He was too late to save two students lives and seven others from gunshot wounds, but he did prevent Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he’d planned.

The fact is that more mayhem is prevented by a good guy with a gun than is reported simply because stopping it before someone gets killed is never going to make the news. The fact that concealed permit holders are less likely to use a firearm in the commission of a crime than even law enforcement officials will never make the news, either; and the fact that they have stopped mass murderers from racking up a higher body count won’t be in national headlines, let alone the additional fact that they have a positive influence on the overall crime rate across the country.

Anti-gun progressive liberals never let the facts get in the way of their mission to disarm John Q. Public. You would do well to remember that in the next election.

A Prescription To Cure Terrorism

Leave a comment

I found this on Facebook.

This is the perfect cure for terrorism and terrorist.


Do You Carry a Spare Mag?

Leave a comment

H/T AllOutDoor.

I carry 6 spare magazines for my 1911.

As the old saying goes I would sooner have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

amara Keel writing in Recoil goes deep into the whats, whys, and hows of carrying a spare mag. This is a really thorough article, and even if you’ve given the topic some thought, I encourage you to read it.

Me, I do not carry a spare mag. I don’t track round counts and gauge my magazine lips and so on. Maybe one day, when I’m retired and have nothing better to do, I’ll think about it. But for now, I’m content to play the odds.

As Keel points out, the odds are abundantly, overwhelmingly in my favor here, given that I’m extremely unlikely to ever fire a gun in a DGU. If I do happen to fire my carry gun, the odds that I’ll fire more than a few rounds are minuscule. I carry 19 rounds of 9mm in my SIG 229, which is plenty — I’m more likely to face a malfunction than I am to run out of ammo. And given that I buy quality mags, test them initially, and then cycle them with my carry ammo every month or so, the odds of a malfunction are pretty low. Oh, I’ve had mags crap out on me before, and yes that’s scary, but it doesn’t happen often.

So no, I’m not planning to carry a spare. As I’ve said before, I keep my EDC pared way down to the absolute minimum, because I know if I try to pressure myself to carry more I’ll end up carrying nothing.

Yeah yeah, keyboard commandos will crucify anyone who doesn’t carry a spare magazine, but I just don’t care. If toting a spare mag is your thing, then by all means go for it. I’ll do me, and you do you.

So, do you carry a spare? Do you think I’m crazy not to?


1 Comment

H/T Keep And Bear.

This can not be as Chicago has such draconian gun control laws this could never happen.Snark

The state of Illinois, and specifically the city of Chicago, have long been rocked by an inexcusable democratic experiment on gun control.

From 1982 to 2010, the city of Chicago maintained an all out legal ban on handguns.  While the left’s hope was that this ban would deter criminals from acquiring firearms with which to commit their crimes, this farcical legislative joke only went on to prove the old adage “when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns”.

Beginning in 1982, and extending well into the modern day, Chicago has been a lawless hellscape of illegally imported firearms as black market arms races blossomed while the law-abiding citizen of Chi-Town cowered helplessly in their homes.

Still, many politicians in Chicago will stand to defend the purely partisan nonsense, despite the obvious evidence that the entire experiment was a massive failure.

Now, the Illinois Attorney General has gotten a taste of the mess himself. 

“Illinois Attorney General candidate Aaron Goldstein (D) was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight during a campaign stop in Chicago on Thursday.

“Four individuals with Goldstein were also robbed.

“According to the Chicago Tribune, there were a total of three robbery suspects. Those included a gunman and two accomplices, all ‘between 20 and 24 years old.’

“Goldstein was taking part in a photo shoot in Albany Park. The shoot was intended to capture him and the essence of the neighborhood. Campaign manager Robert Murphy said the campaign stop was part of an ‘in-the-neighborhood kind of’ theme.

“The robbery suspects got away with cameras and cell phones, and Goldstein’s crew was shaken up but not harmed.”

Goldstein was certainly given a unique look into the inner workings of the neighborhood surrounding Albany Park.

Now, as Chicago works its way back into modern civilization, the lawlessness will likely continue for some time.  It took criminals very, very little effort to bring these illegal and untraceable weapons into the city, but it will be extremely difficult to remove them.

We Are Losing Congress Unless Gun Owners Become Gun Activists

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

Gun owners must help replace every DemocRat that is up for reelection regardless of their support for the Second Amendment.

There must never be a Chuck Schumer as Senate Majority leader or a Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.


Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- I hate being forced to break the gun rights battle down on party lines. All Republicans aren’t supporters of the Constitution and the right to arms, nor are all Democrats enemies of our rights, but the fact is, Republicans, as a party, have embraced the idea of God-given rights that include the fundamental natural right of self-defense, and Democrats, as a party, have embraced a view of rights that are granted by an expanding State, where protection is left to police, or for those so entitled, armed security details.

Even if an individual politician stands with gun owners, if the politician’s party doesn’t, then having that politician in office can be damaging to rights. Even if they have the integrity to defy their party leadership on gun votes, every additional Democrat in Congress puts Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi that much closer to being Majority Leader and Speaker.

Picture this: Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as Senate Majority Leader with Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. How do you think that would play out for your rights?

In the House the scenario is just as dire with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as Speaker, and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) leading an anti-rights, rogues gallery in the House Judiciary Committee.

At a minimum, having a Democrat majority in either House guarantees an absolute halt on any forward momentum on human rights issues.

The House runs under “simple majority” rules, meaning that not only would Pelosi control the agenda and what comes to the floor, but as long as she can wrangle one vote more than Republicans do, she can pass legislation. A Democrat majority in the Senate would mean that Chuck Schumer could – and undoubtedly would – put an immediate stop to all of President Trump’s judicial appointments, especially any appointment to the Supreme Court.

And while Schumer and his Democrats have used long-standing filibuster rules to effectively block almost everything Republicans have tried to pass through the Senate over the past year, they have also demonstrated a willingness to throw those rules out the window if it suits their objectives – as they did with the so-called “nuclear option” doing away with the filibuster for judicial appointments. So there is nothing but tradition standing between Chuck Schumer and simple majority rule in the Senate. And Schumer and company have made it clear that tradition is of little importance to them.

Right now, many Americans are frustrated with Congress for their failure to get things done. Most of that frustration is falling on Republicans who campaigned on promises to repeal Obamacare, close the borders, reform immigration, and reduce taxes and regulations, along with promises to restore gun rights. Most of those objectives have been effectively blocked by Senate Democrats – with collusion from some Republicans – but Republicans have failed to make a strong, visible effort, and they’ve failed to clearly pin the obstructionism on the Democrats. Rather than push the legislation that they promised to their constituents, and forcing the Democrats to actively fight it, Republicans have tended to look at vote counts and conclude that they can’t win, so they don’t even try.

The legislative result might be the same, but the perception of the public is that Republicans aren’t doing what they promised.

Republicans should have a huge advantage in the Senate elections, because there are many more Democrat-held seats up this cycle than Republican-held seats, and many of those seats are in states where Trump won majorities. I examined that more closely a few weeks ago in this article. But with the resignations of several Senate Republicans like Jeff Flake of Arizona and Steve Corker of Tennessee, the advantage is waning. And while most Republicans are not lamenting the departure of these senators, they will certainly lament the resulting imbalance if Democrats win a majority.

Human Rights
Who Needs The Second Amendment?

On the House side, Republicans are in a more precarious position as many have announced that they will not be seeking reelection. Many of these retiring representatives happen to come from districts that Hillary Clinton won last year, so there is much speculation that these are rats fleeing a sinking ship.

If these politicians are bailing because they fear defeat at the polls based solely on Clinton’s numbers, they are being foolish.

Perhaps reelection will be harder for some, thanks to the way the media and Democrats have energized their base with their endless moaning and gnashing of teeth over President Trump (not infrequently encouraged by the Presidents own antics), but presidential election numbers are a poor indicator of voter inclinations for congressional races, especially after a race as negative as the last one.

A much bigger factor will be what voters think when they start noticing more money in their paychecks next month, thanks to the Republican tax reform.

For those who care about the right to arms, the time to start getting involved in politics is right now – not in November, or October, or July.

Right now you can begin learning about candidates, volunteering for campaigns, and getting involved in your local party structure. Campaigns and the parties are always struggling to find more volunteers, and by getting involved now, you will get a better footing, be recognized by candidates and leaders, and position yourself to not only make a difference in elections, but also to have a politician’s ear once they are in office.

Get together with a shooting buddy, and make it a team project. Start with your state or county party, and get involved with your local club. Check with your Secretary of State to see if there are open Precinct Committeeman positions open in your area, and fill the vacancies.

Vist NRA Political Victory Fund website and volunteer: https://www.nrapvf.org/volunteer/

Volunteer to man a candidate’s or party table at area gun shows. That usually comes with free admission, and a great excuse to go to every show. It can also position you as a politician’s go-to guy on gun issues. Most of them don’t really understand our issue as anything other than a political point, so even the ones already on our side often need to be educated.


As Tip O’Neil used to say, “All politics is local,” and getting involved in local politics really does make a difference. Don’t wait for Election Day to do something. Get involved right now, and make a real difference, because if we lose Congress, we lose rights.

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: