web analytics
2A anti-gun Biden Colion Noir ghost guns POTUS UBC universal background checks

Video – Biden’s Anti-gun Tactics & Executive Orders


It’s a bold lie that the majority of the US favors background checks.  Colion Noir provided details to refute that awhile back (https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR/posts/3791001044282958).

It’s also bad (and quite bold) for a standing US president to say that NO amendment is absolute when the 2nd affirms the inalienable right to bear arms.  That statement should be raising quite a few eyebrows.  2A doesn’t grant citizens the right.  2A isn’t the US government giving citizens permission to bear arms.  2A is the government acknowledging that the right exists and is beyond the US government to take away.  Some believe (as I do) that it is a God-given (or natural) right.

So he’s going to ban ghost guns.  Why?  A mass shooter has never used a ghost gun to commit atrocities, so why the focus on ghost guns?

He’s pushing universal background checks.  Why?  There have been mass shooters committing atrocities in states that require universal background checks.  UBCs don’t stop mass shootings.

The tactic of creating many laws to impede lawful abiding gun owners is ridiculous.

2A 9th Ciruit California high capacity magazine ban RKBA

9th Circuit Court ends California’s ban on high capacity magazines!

 I logged onto Facebook today and saw a post on one of the citizen defense groups that the 9th Circuit Court has ended the ban on high capacity magazines in CA.  I thought it was relating to older articles or that it was a troll post, but when I searched on it via Google, the below showed:

The article I’m reading was published by the San Diego Union Tribune.  

An excerpt:

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday threw out California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection of the right to bear firearms.

“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” Appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the panel’s majority. California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.”

 Some other posts regarding high-capacity magazine (I hate that term) bans:




2A 2nd Amendment California high capacity judge magazine ban Roger Benitez

Judge Blocks ‘High Capacity’ Controversial and Upcoming California Mag Ban

Judge Blocks ‘High Capacity’ Mag Ban to Prevent Criminalization of Law-Abiding Californians

On June 29 — two days before California’s “high capacity” magazine ban was set to take effect — U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the ban to prevent “otherwise law-abiding” citizens from being criminalized.

Benitez ruled that the ban takes away Second Amendment rights “and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.”

Freilich did not address the fact that the high-profile shooting in Santa Barbara — May 23, 2014 — was carried out with “standard” magazines of 10 rounds.

I’m glad there’s at least one non-corrupt judge in CA doing his appointed duty.  I’m still trying to determine why it’s bad to have more than 10 rounds in a magazine.  Even if criminals obeyed this law (they won’t), it’s trivial to remove an empty 10-round magazine from a handgun and replace it with another 10-round magazine.  It can be done very quickly.  But that’s IF a criminal decided to use 10-round mags.  It’s stupid…if a guy is willing to rob a bank, what makes you think that he’s going to follow a magazine limit law?  “Oh, I have to go out and buy 10 round mags before I rob this bank…can’t use 15-round mags…that’s against the law…derp.”

I’ll be watching how this one plays out.

2A AR-15 Helen Ubinas liberal mass shooting Orlando


Take a look at this:


This lady claims that she bought an AR-15 in 7 minutes:

That’s how long it took me to buy an AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.  Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver’s license to the moment I passed my background check.

A Facebook friend shared it but he’s not in favor of gun ownership.  He’s basically in awe and I believe he believed this lady’s article.

I believe it’s bullshit, no matter if it’s in Philadelphia (I’m in Virginia).  Here’s why.

I’ve fourteen handguns and one rifle (an AR-15). When I buy my guns locally (online is a whole different process, at least until the gun has been shipped to my local gun store), the whole process can take maybe 20 minutes. The background check paperwork takes maybe 10 minutes and the approval process (where the background check is actually submitted by the FFL/store) usually takes 5 minutes for me. The approval process time frame is different for everyone. While mine usually takes 5 minutes, some people usually have to wait an hour. Others have to wait a few hours.  For some, it may take a day.  For others, it may take days.  For some, it may come back disapproved.  It depends on your background, as well as if you’ve a common name (which will slow down the process). Whether it is a handgun or “assault” rifle, the process is the same (although, for an AR-15, two forms of ID are needed (UPDATE (9/6/2021) – the requirement has changed in VA since this article was posted) — I used a passport and my concealed carry license). A person that gets approved within 5 minutes of submitting their background paperwork is a person that has a clean background. There’s nothing wrong with that. A person that goes through the background check process goes through the same checks as law enforcement officers. I’d ask the author of that article if there’s a set amount of time one should wait before knowing that person is bad. I’m wondering what she was expecting.

I highly doubt it took five minutes, total process time for everything, for this lady to buy an AR-15. It takes more than five minutes to read the paperwork and sign/initial them properly (and there are two forms, a state and a federal form). Most guns stores don’t move that fast (they can’t because they’re also required to do certain things before they submit the paperwork, like add the weapon’s serial number(s) to the paperwork, then check to see that you completed it correctly). Gun stores (or FFLs) are meticulous with their paperwork because they’re liable if they get something wrong and the person turns out to be a nut. They also are routinely audited…any audit failures mean they could lose their FFL credentials (ie, they’re out of business).

Something stinks with this story and we shouldn’t always believe what we read on the internet, no matter our stance on a particular subject.

It’s funny…she didn’t even supply where she bought it.  With even the gun owners that have used their guns for bad purposes, the statistical data available shows that gun owners in American have less issues than the whole of the USA LEO group.

Yes, this Orlando shooter killed people.  So did the guy who shot up the SC church.  So did the San Bernardino couple.  So did the Boston bombers (they used bombs in lieu of guns…we’ll discuss that in a bit).  So did the Sandy Hook shooter, and so did the VA Tech shooter.  So did Vester Flanders, the Roanoke shooter that killed a news crew on camera.  I can go on, but that is a small drop in the ocean of gun owners in the US.

I don’t believe in bans or limitations.  Gun restrictions in the UK, Australia, France, or any other place won’t work here because the difference between the US and those countries is that we have, and have always had, the 2nd Amendment.  That’s an inalienable right to bear arms where the right “shall not be infringed”.  

Remember, our forefathers left England because they were oppressed.  That’s why the Bill of Rights reads the way it does.  They wanted to ensure that we’d have less issues than they experienced.  2A reads clearly…there’s no other way to read it.  There’s also a reason it’s listed as the 2nd…yes, it’s that important in priority, and only the 1st Amendment trumps it.

And I’ll say this again.  I refuse to be group-shamed.  I refuse to take responsibility for the Orlando killings, or any other mass shooting.  I’ll only take responsibility for the things I’ve actually done.  Each individual in the U.S. is responsible for their own actions.  There’s no law that says that one individual has to be responsible for another because of group affiliation.  I’ve never killed anyone and my intention is that I never will, unless it’s in self defense, but that’s a whole different discussion.

The reader is attempting to lump lawful gun owners with these mass killers.  Why do Liberals always do this?  There are people that own guns legally, and there are people that don’t.  There are people that own guns legally that end up killing many people, and there are (many many more) people that don’t.  If she thinks guns are the problem she’s wrong.  Remember when I mentioned that the Boston Marathon bombers used a bomb?  Yes, they didn’t use guns…they used a bomb.  Bombs are illegal.  They used a bomb anyways.  If guns are banned or highly restricted, do you honestly think criminals will stop using them?  NO.  Cocaine has been never been legal…people use that more than they do guns.  Let’s lump all illegal drugs together.  In the last 20 years, drugs have kills far more people than the last 20 years of active shooters.  Hell, on 9/11, the terrorists used PLANES!!  We haven’t banned planes yet.  There was also Prohibition.  That didn’t work well, either.

And once again, Obama refuses to categorize this as Islamic terror plots, even when the Orlando shooter was found to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.  WTF?  Last time, in San Bernardino, they tried to classify it as workplace violence when those two killers pledged allegiance to the same group.  He also focused on the gay angle.  We’re all Americans.  Both of these were terrorist attacks on American soil.  Yes, the Orlando shooting was at a gay club, but it was targeted because those who practice Islam believe that gays are perverted and because the U.S. pushes for gay rights, they believe the U.S. is perverted. This wasn’t just a gay thing, otherwise the shooter wouldn’t have pledged his act to ISIS.  Obama won’t use this angle, but he’s trying to go after guns (again).

This is why people are questioning Obama’s loyalties.

This isn’t Australia.  US citizens will not let the US government take their freedoms.  Every Aussie I’ve spoken with always tells me, “don’t let them do you like they did us”.  In fact, I’ve also had British citizens tell me the same.  This has nothing to do with the Civil War…back then, they were divided because of slavery.  This has to with Liberals altering/limiting/removing an inalienable right. They (Liberals) believe doing this will make the population more pliable…take away the guns, and you don’t have to worry about uprising when the government oversteps their bounds (like they’re currently trying to do).

She also said the following:

No need for a concealed carry permit. No mandatory training, though the guys did give me a coupon for a free day pass for a local gun range. No need for even a moment to at least consider how gross all of this felt as relatives of the dead were still being notified.

Who carries an AR-15 concealed?  Why do you need mandatory training?  I advise it but 2A says NOTHING about there being a training requirement for bearing arms.  Because if they did, the government would dictate the training.  2A is a right, not a privilege.  And no, there’s no need for a moment to consider “how gross all of this felt”…it’s a purchasing decision.  What other purchases do you make where you need a moment to consider.  Maybe take a moment before you step into the store to buy such a thing as an AR-15.


2A 2nd Amendment blog Colorado gun control mass shooter Obama refugees social media syria

Colorado Mass Shooter, Obama Speaks Out Before Facts Are Known


I saw this posted on Facebook yesterday:

“The last thing Americans should have to do, over the holidays or any day, is comfort the families of people killed by…
Posted by The White House on Saturday, November 28, 2015

My response is:

Here we go again with trying to make a whole population feel guilty for someone that’s either crazy or doesn’t care about rules. True to form, Obama didn’t even wait for the bodies to stiffen before rushing to the podium. What’s wild is that he admitted that they don’t yet know the motives of the shooter. If you don’t yet know the important facts, why make a statement?

Do any of you feel guilty when a murder is committed and a gun WASN’T the murder weapon? Probably not. Why is this any different? Because a gun was used? It’s not the gun that’s the problem…it’s the fact that people keep using the media as a tool to final fame in their end game. Also, this game of “its so commonplace that we’ve become numb to it” is ridiculous. Whenever I see something like this, I just shake my head, but I’m not going to give up my right because some fool murdered someone. That’s why people who commit murders are tried in courts of law…they try the assailants, as they committed the crime. Not me or other law-abiding gun owners, but he assailants.

I’m not buying the excuse that it happens a lot, especially when the media hypes things up.

Tightening gun control will NOT help…if anyone can point to a place in the US (NOT any place OCONUS) that has seen a decline in murders because of tight gun control, share the data.

The bottom line is, I refuse to pay any price for someone who wants to go out with a large body count. Why should I feel guilty or wrong for a crime I did not commit? I refuse to be even remotely responsible for this act. Some dude killing several people and me using my guns for sport and self defense…two VERY different things. Again, why should I be morally responsible for a nut going on a killing spree?

I’m going to leave this here: Obama is really pushing for the Syrian refugees to be allowed in this country…he doesn’t see a problem and has stated that these refugees are not terrorist, but he’s pointing blame of hysteria to a certain group of Americans. Well, he’s right…not every muslim is a terrorist, JUST LIKE EVERY GUN OWNER IS NOT A CRIMINAL. He’s giving leeway to the refugees by refusing to believe that terrorists might slip into America, but he’s believing that every gun owner is responsible for the relatively few nutjobs that commit murder. That doesn’t make sense. The difference is that he wants to control one situation (guns in the US) but not another (refugees that might be criminals). He ignores that they might be criminals in the refugee ranks but won’t acknowledge that there are criminals in the gun owner ranks. He really doesn’t have control of either group of people, because criminals will be criminals. Again, it doesn’t make sense.

On a slight tangent, I saw someone state that using social media as a debating tool doesn’t help a cause.  Actually, for people that are on the fence about political matters, it just might help to open a dialogue with them.  Many times, such discussion spills over into real life discussions (example, you visit a relative that might support tighter gun restrictions and he’d read your view on the 2nd Amendment).   As well, many of my FB posts are copied to either my Google account or my blogs.  Blogs are definitely powerful as a social media tool.  Also, sometimes I make videos to spur discussion.  Really…if politicians use FB or any other social medium, regular folk can too.


2A 2nd Amendment Colion Nior media news NRA

The Media’s Latest Attack On Freedom – NRA News

Good stuff here:

“This isn’t Minority Report. We don’t arbitrarily strip American citizens of their rights based on crimes they haven’t committed and a list they’re not aware of. If someone is seriously that much of a threat, arrest them and charge them with some shit.

When a person they’re monitoring shows up to buy a gun and the gun store runs a background check, the authorities know about it immediately. At that point, they either tell the gun store owner to allow the sale, or they block it. This is how it’s supposed to work.

Which is why the pathetic attempt to demonize the NRA isn’t coming from the CIA, the FBI, the NSA or any other intelligence or law enforcement group … it’s coming from the most powerful anti-gun organization on the planet: the mainstream media.”

2A 2nd Amendment A well regulated militia Bill of Rights Penn Teller

The Meaning of “A Well Regulated Militia” within the 2nd Amendment

One of the things anti-gunners tend to rant about is the wording of the 2nd Amendment where it states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The key focus of many antis is the wording of “a well regulated militia”.  Well, Penn and Teller break it down as I’ve stated in the past, but deliver the message in a way that I never could.

2A blog Gadsen Guns VCDL Virginia Citizen Defense League

Gadsen Guns & VCDL

Gadsen Guns is a gun shop that I was made aware of by the VCDL (Virginia Citizen Defense League) Facebook page.  They’re not local to me (but they’aren’t all that far away, either, being between Fredericksburg and Richmond), but their website has competitive pricing relative to the local gun shops around here.

There’s an additional bonus:  there are some pretty good articles within their blog.

On a small tangent, if you’re a Virginia gun owner and value your right to own and bear arms, joining the VCDL will definitely benefit you.  The Virginia Citizen Defense League is:

…a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental human right of all Virginians to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I became a member a few months ago, as I tired of seeing the 2nd Amendment under attack.  This is my way of contributing to the defense of the 2nd Amendment.

2A attitudes guns negligent video youtube

Negligent Folks with Guns when Watching YouTube Videos

I thought I’d share something I saw today.

When I was viewing YouTube videos, I saw something rather disturbing .  A guy was capturing video footage of his new guy, a Rock Island Armory 1911 10mm.  The guy cleared his weapon, but had his finger within the trigger guard and the finger looked to be bent around the trigger.  He’d removed the magazine but hadn’t yet cleared out the chambered round…his finger was resting on the trigger for quite awhile.  I immediately stopped watching the video…it was that disturbing.

EDIT:  The original video is here — https://youtu.be/VLcFmNV4ZHw?t=30s

UPDATE (12/14/2023): The above-linked video is no longer available. I’m glad I recorded it (below).

I went to the video’s comments section to see if anyone else complained to see if anyone else noticed.  Someone had and was tactful in mentioning it.

The author blew it off:

It is so sad that someone takes crucial criticism so casually.  What he said was, he has enough trigger control to not negligently discharge the gun, even with his finger resting on the trigger while fumbling around with the gun (as well, 1911 triggers are sensitive as hell).  I mean, I pointed it out with the cursor in the above video…it doesn’t get any more plain than that.  He was rather condescending in his reply.  This fool is either going to injure/kill himself, or even worse, he’s going to end up killing some innocent bystander.

2A carry concealed carry firearms training

Some 2A Food For Thought

I posted the following yesterday to my friends and family on Facebook:

Yes, folks, I carry. I’m carrying 70% of the time I’m not showering, not sleeping, or not on the work campus. Do I care that others don’t know that I carry? No…that’s not what the 2nd Amendment is about. The 2A doesn’t say that I’ve the right to bear arms as long as other people know I’m carrying and that they’re comfortable with it. Why do I carry? Because I choose to. Basically, I’ve the constitutional right to carry. There’s nothing conditional about it. I do not have to let other citizens know. Yes, open carry is an option (it’s legal here), but not for me…why would I let potential bad guys know that I’m their first priority?

Those that see me occasionally…I was probably carrying when you last saw me. You probably never knew. You probably felt comfortable then. Will you feel as comfortable the next time we meet, now that you know? I hope so, because I wasn’t a nut then and I’m not a nut now.

Why advertise that I carry? You all already know I own guns…I’ve been posting pictures and articles the last 9 months. I’ve been a gun lover since 1986, when I enlisted. That’s the total of my adult life. You’re also my friends, which is why you’re seeing this now. The assumption is that you already suspected that I carry, so it’s not a big deal for me to keep this a secret amongst a certain group of people. Some people hide such facts. I don’t.

Again, this isn’t a big deal for me. YMMV.

Where’s this coming from? An opinion on 2A from someone that doesn’t exercise the right.

I got the reply, which I agree with:

Now more than ever, it’s an option that every law abiding American should exercise.

Someone then replied to him with the following:

I know enough law abiding Americans who are generally a danger to themselves and others to appreciate that not everyone should have a gun.

What does someone say to that?  Well, the same can be said of anything. Some people have no business driving, for example, yet they’re never noticed until they’ve been in several nasty accidents.  And, when this happens (it happens a LOT with chronic drunks driving home), is there overwhelming support to ban people from having easy access to cars?  Nope.

As with anything, some people either require more training than others or need to not do that particular activity. The slope becomes slippery when additional criteria is added to basic rights…the rights are no longer really rights. The system doesn’t need to be tweaked every time someone gets emotional about an issue that, on the whole, isn’t all that much of a problem.  If someone becomes problematic, deal with that particular person, not the whole group.

In VA, you’re required to pass a basic firearms handling course before you can carry concealed…if people still are considered to be a danger to themselves and others even after meeting the state requirements, then what do you do? Limiting the population as a whole isn’t a good answer, especially if those types of people are outliers.  Until that person accidentally kills himself or someone else, there’s really nothing you can do.  Regulating a whole population because a few are inept is bad, and there’s nothing that can be preemptively done that won’t affect the people that are carrying properly.