Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Anti-Gun Hysteria

Virtue Signaling Corperations

with one comment

Recently, Walmart decided to exclude customers under twenty-one from buying any type of firearms ammunition.

Can this be a clearly thought out change in policy?

What about the under twenty-one-year-old single mom shopping for her family who remembers she needs to replace the bullets she uses in her Armalite Rifle – 15 to protect herself and child from a physically abusive ex-partner?

Does Walmart want to deny the single mom’s right to self-defense to protect a woman beating ex-partner?

Isn’t it time, as a community, to stop supporting virtue signaling corporations such as Walmart?

Authorities Concerned Over Gun Violence Wave On Australia’s Gold Coast

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 11, 2018

Over and over again, we’re told that we should adopt gun laws more akin to those in the UK or Australia. Such places are presented as some kind of peaceful Utopia by anti-gun zealots in the United States. Over and over again, politicos and activists push for the kind of laws these countries have.

Meanwhile, on Australia’s Gold Coast, authorities are concerned about a recent uptick in gun violence.

GOLD Coast police say a wave of gun violence less than three months out from the Commonwealth Games is ‘a concern’.

It comes as Coast Mayor Tom Tate warned his city’s reputation was ‘at stake’ during the Games and said he would like to see more police.

Two men have been shot — one of them fatally — and a house hit with gunfire on the Glitter Strip over the past week.

The latest firearm incident happened on Wednesday night when a house at Arundel was fired at in a drive-by shooting.

Acting Inspector Matt Ward, of Surfers Paradise CIB, said the three shootings were not connected and were targeted rather than random attacks.

But he said the spate of shootings was concerning.

This is impossible! I’ve been assured by the anti-gun jihadis that nothing of this type can happen, that if we make guns illegal for everyone then criminals won’t be able to get their hands on them. Life would be grand.

Yet sure enough, there’s still gun violence taking place.

That’s because criminals simply don’t follow the laws, but they do have access to illicit materials like drugs. Unless you have an IQ lower than your shoe size, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand that if guns become illegal, it becomes profitable to send guns via the same or similar pipelines as drugs have been coming through for years.

The only difference is that only the criminals are armed. There are no armed citizens to oppose them, putting the totality of the burden on law enforcement. Since police can’t be there when a crime is committed the vast majority of the time, it means the armed criminals can have their way.

After all, who’s going to stop them?

No one. Not a soul.

And that’s the world anti-gunners envision…except they don’t envision it. They really don’t. They instead delude themselves that violence will somehow be a thing of the past, that it will simply disappear into the ether.

They’ve managed to delude themselves to believe they can create a better world by removing our sacred and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They won’t. Instead, they’ll empower criminals over victims, thugs over neighborhoods, and the rapist over the potential victim.  They won’t make the world better, they’ll create a nightmare dystopia they wouldn’t want to live in.

But then, will they see the error of their ways? Will they see the problem with disarming law-abiding people?

Of course not. They’ll look for new things to control because that’s just what they do.

Meanwhile, the rest of us know the way to combat violence. You simply make it too risky to be violent. That happens when you have armed citizens all over the place, standing by in case they need to respond.

It’s just that simple, and Australia doesn’t have that, hence their current problem.

Spike’s Tactical, Pipe Hitters Union Fight Back Against More Leftist Nonsense

leave a comment »

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 11, 2018

The fellows at Spike’s Tactical and Pipe Hitters Union have had an…interesting week, to say the least. First, they found themselves attacked by Newsweek. The two companies responded.

You’d think that would be the end of it.

However, it seems Vice took issue with the two companies as well, and they felt the need to respond to yet another attack I can only describe as libelous.

There’s a lot there, but here’s the press release as a whole, which has the complete, sordid mess here:


Left-wing media outlets lose minds over gun ad, disregard basic rules of journalism

APOPKA, Fla. – On SundaySpike’s Tactical, a Florida-based gun manufacturer, and Pipe Hitters Union, a Texas-based apparel company, released a joint advertisement. Throughout the week, the ad has apparently caused left-leaning media outlets like VICE News and Newsweek to disregard basic journalism ethics like fact-checking for accuracy and maintaining any form of neutrality.

The ad, which depicts a group of violent Antifa protesters armed with weapons, who appear to have just set fire to the city behind them, are charging forward on one side of a barricade, while on the other side, there are four lawfully armed men standing guard. Their guns are not pointed at the attackers and their fingers are off the triggers.

Spikes Tactical Pipe Hitters Union Ad.jpg

The dual-page ad is featured in the current issue of SKILLSET Magazine and was designed as part of an annual joint advertisement for RECOIL Magazine by Spike’s Tactical and Pipe Hitters Union for the 2018 SHOT Show convention in Las Vegas.

On Monday, Newsweek fired back at Spike’s by running a one-sided hit piece, and the attacks continued Wednesday when VICE News ran their article.

Newsweek failed to contact Spike’s Tactical and Pipe Hitters Union for comments related to the article, while insinuating to their readership that the companies support neo-Nazis and white supremacy groups.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. As representatives from both of our companies have already gone on record and said multiple times, we absolutely DO NOT condone or support racist or white supremacist organizations or their beliefs,” said Kit Cope, spokesman for Spike’s Tactical

By Wednesday, the left-leaning media company VICE News decided to do a story and reached out to both companies for comment. Without hesitation, Spike’s Tactical and Pipe Hitters Union offered a joint response to address the journalist’s six questions and offered to provide a tour of Spike’s tactical and make someone available for in-person interviews.

When the article ran, however, it was beyond evident that it was yet another attempt to push propaganda and a political agenda.

In the article, VICE News vaguely alleges the companies support neo-Nazis and racism by using a quote from a Facebook commenter in their article.

“VICE asked if our companies support white supremacy, which we clearly stated, again, that we do not,” said Cope said. “Sadly, while there are many great journalists out there who follow journalism ethics and guidelines, the tactic here is often used by pseudo-journalists to tell the side of the story they want to tell.”

By leaving out the companies’ response denying any support for white supremacists, (hyperlink to image) the VICE reporter allows readers to draw the conclusion that these companies support racism, despite having contrary evidence.

“This kind of agenda-driven journalism is exactly the problem. Our biggest complaint is that we’re being called neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and the so-called journalists that have asked us about it, have refused to include our responses categorically condemning neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Again, for the record, we always have and always will adamantly condemn racism, white supremacy and any threat to America, foreign and domestic,” said Lincoln A. Osiris, president of Pipe Hitters Union.

The VICE News article also refers to Spike’s Tactical as a weapons dealer and retailer. Spike’s Tactical is actually a weapons manufacturer.

Additionally, and probably the biggest example of an absolute failure to care about reporting factual information, is the original post that VICE News ran, prior to being contacted to request a correction to their story. VICE News posted a screenshot of a Spike’s Tactical Facebook post showing a picture of a stripped AR-15 lower, but falsely claimed that it was a bump-stock similar to the ones used by the Las Vegas killer.

VICE News ridiculous error.png

“This is purely a legitimate example of fake news. Spike’s Tactical has never made or sold a bump-stock. The reporter clearly didn’t care to do the proper research to make sure her story was accurate,” said Kope. “This also demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about weapons nomenclature and the agenda that VICE had, which was to damage our companies’ reputations by relating us to the homicidal maniac that killed so many innocent Americans.”

About Spike’s Tactical
Spike’s Tactical was founded the day before 9/11 by Mike and Angela Register and is headquartered in Apopka, Florida. The family-owned business employs around 40 people and all products are made exclusively in the USA and assembled in Florida. Spike’s Tactical is regarded as one of the premier AR-15 manufacturers in the world. Their mission is to build the highest quality products and offer them at the best possible price to the consumer. Spike’s Tactical weapons are designed to military specifications for civilian, law enforcement and military use. All products manufactured by Spike’s Tactical feature a manufacturer’s lifetime warranty.

About Pipe Hitters Union
Pipe Hitters Union is a disabled combat veteran-owned and operated small business, founded in 2004 and headquartered in Austin, Texas. PHU was founded by a small group of special operations combat veterans that shared a common belief in the unity of cause, the willingness to face extreme obstacles head on and the absolute refusal to backdown in the face of adversity. Since then, the message has spread to like-minded individuals from all professions and walks of life. Whether military, law enforcement or civilian, Pipe Hitters throughout the world are pushing their limits daily and making their mark. The PHU brand is a mark of distinction and a call for others to join us.

Now, as noted, Spike’s Tactical and Pipe Hitters Union issued a reply. Their statement to Vice was essentially the same thing we got here at Bearing Arms. They made it clear they don’t support neo-Nazis or fascism.


As for the claim that Spike’s posted a bump stock, well…let’s just say it proves how little Vice knows about firearms. That’s a lower receiver. In particular, it’s the Snowflake lowerthe company put out not all that long ago. It’s not a bump stock.

Vice has since edited that tidbit out of the story, however. It seems they can learn…after they were contacted by James Judge, spokesman for the two companies.

But none of that matters. Spike’s Tactical and Pipe Hitters Union committed only one sin. They portrayed Antifa as exactly what they are, a rampaging mob made up of violent thugs. Leftist media can’t handle that, so both companies need to be cut down.

They had the information.

Judge, forwarded me a screenshot of his correspondences with Tess Owens, the Vice writer.


As you can see, it was made abundantly clear that neither company ascribes to neo-Nazi ideology. Their denial is vehement and firm.

You can’t get much more firm than that, yet note how that didn’t make it into the article. It goes to the very core of the claims being made and the charges being leveled against the two companies. Why leave it out?

Because, like I noted yesterday, this isn’t journalism. This is activism masquerading as unbiased reporting.

But it’s nothing of the sort.

Christian Science Monitor: Right to Self-Defense Added to 2nd Amendment ‘Only Recently’

leave a comment »

By Awr Hawkins
January 9, 2018

In a long and circuitous piece intended to explain that national reciprocity violates states’ rights, the Christian Science Monitor claimed the right to self-defense was added to the Second Amendment “only recently.”

Their exact claim: “[National reciprocity legislation] has pitted a sense of overriding states’ individual wishes and local character against shifting legal views of the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has expanded only recently to include self-defense.”

This appears to be a not-so-veiled reference to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), although neither case created or added a right to the Second Amendment. Rather, the ruling in Heller reaffirmed the individual nature of the rights that had always been protected by the Second Amendment and the ruling in McDonald held that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, they are doubly protected.

To be clear, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the McDonald majority opinion and did use a small portion to explain that self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment, but he did not do this because SCOTUS made it central. Rather, he did it as a way of showing self-defense has always been a crucial right protected by the Second Amendment. It was the centrality of self-defense that supported the ruling of incorporation, not the other way around.

Nevertheless, the Christian Science Monitor says the right to defend oneself was added to the Second Amendment “only recently.”

They also suggested Americans may not even possess a right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. They said, “The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether there is a right for law-abiding Americans to carry a concealed weapon.” This would be strange thinking to our Founding Fathers, who risked their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, to secure the exercise of God-given rights that predate the United States, and certainly the Supreme Court.

The Founders hedged in the right not simply to keep arms but to bear them as well, as the Second Amendment plainly states. And the Founders also used the words “shall not be infringed” to ensure a widespread understanding that keeping and bearing arms was not something placed under the purview of government. Rather, it was (and is) a natural right possessed and exercised by free men.


Well Done, Hollywood Left: You Just Got The Second Amendment Totally Wrong (Again)

with 2 comments

By Matt Vespa
December 29, 2017

If there’s a reason why Hollywood should just stay out of politics, especially gun politics, and this is your classic example. Ed Asner and Ed Weinberger, a screenwriter, decided to teach the National Rifle Association a history lesson on the left wing site Salon. It dropped a little before Christmas, and it ended with both men getting a face full of buckshot. They argued that our Founders were pro-gun control, which is odd given that the first shots fired in our American Revolution at the battles of Lexington and Concord, were in response to British soldiers trying to seize our guns. Still, let’s go through their arguments:

Now that we have your attention, let’s consider the case made by the NRA, its Congressional hired hands, the majority of the Supreme Court, and various right wing pundits who claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun.


First, here’s that elusive Second Amendment as it now appears in the Bill of Rights: “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.”

Arguably not the clearest amendment in the Constitution. And that’s the problem with it: While stating the need for a “well-regulated Militia,” does it at the same time also guarantee the individual citizen the personal right to “keep and bear arms?” In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, ruling for the Majority, said that it was. Ignoring over 200 years of precedent, historical context, the Framers’ Intent and the D.C. laws of its elected officials, Scalia relied solely on the text, arbitrarily dividing the Amendment into two parts. The first – “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — he called the prefatory clause. The second part – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — he called the operative clause. Claiming that second part was all that really mattered; Scalia discarded as irrelevant that inconvenient reference to a “state militia.


Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s intent could not be more obvious: his Second Amendment refers only to state militias. If not, why include that exemption for what we now call “conscientious objectors?”

When Madison’s amendment was rewritten by a joint committee from the House and Senate in 1791, the “religious” exemption was lopped off as too cumbersome in language and too complex to enforce. Thus, the Amendment as it now stands.

Okay—what am I missing here? Asner and Weinberger really just ignore the Supreme Court to peddle a recycled liberal talking point. Of course, the anti-gun Left peddled the tired and disregarded state militia provision, just as they ignore the Citizens United decision and its implications on expanding free speech rights. Also, this line, “the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun” is just pure trash. Law-abiding gun owners are not killers in waiting. Second, it’s not an unfettered right; Justice Scalia said so in the Heller decision, which they don’t mention in their piece:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

You hear that guys. You have the right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia, but states have the right to impose their own restrictions, like on concealed carry rights. This is a rather explicit recognition of federalism, along with limiting the Court’s impact so as to not produce challenges to laws prohibiting domestic violence abusers, the mentally ill, and convicted felons from owning firearms—all common sense provisions. Stephen Gutowski found some of Madison’s quotes about the Second Amendment as well. It doesn’t help the pro-gun control hypothesis that’s rather shoddy in this piece. In fact, if these two guys had read Heller, they would see it’s not some SCOTUS opinion intended to turn the country into the Wild West. Anti-gunners, you guys have lost this debate. Gun rights have expanded since this landmark 2008 decision. Every state recognize concealed carry rights, even in Washington D.C. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere. Deal with it.


Why Colorado Doesn’t Need New Gun Laws

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

Almost any loss of life qualifies as a tragedy. Even the loss of someone so despicable that most of us would gladly have pulled the trigger may well be an unmitigated tragedy for someone who cared about that individual.

However, even the loss of a deputy’s life shouldn’t spur new gun laws without a darn good reason. Luckily, it seems people in Colorado get that.

After the killing of Douglas County sheriff’s deputy Zackari Parrish on Sunday as well as the shooting of others, including four other deputies, some gun control activists are calling for new state laws.

“We don’t have any tools in Colorado for the police to disarm the individual,” said Eileen McCarron, president of Colorado Ceasefire, a gun control advocacy group.

McCarron is arguing for the Gun Violence Restraining Order, which would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership from individuals for up to a year.

Any request for a ban would have to be signed off by a judge. California, Washington, Oregon and Connecticut have signed similar measures into law.

The gunman had an apparent history of mental illness, including a psychotic episode with the Wyoming VA in 2014 as well as concerns from the University of Wyoming.

But multiple sources said there is little appetite for new gun control laws at the state Capitol — at least right now.

That’s because Colorado, nor any state for that matter, has a need for additional tools to disarm people.

The gunman in question should have been mentally adjudicated as being a danger and he wasn’t. Had he been, his ability to legally own firearms would have ceased and this incident wouldn’t have happened.

The problem with these Gun Violence Restraining Orders is that they allow people to be disarmed over some awfully tenuous circumstances. Note the phrasing here. It “would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership.” Family members.

How many of us have family that disagrees with gun ownership? Do you really think someone won’t try to use this to settle personal scores?

No, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there needs to be more to it than a family member’s desire to disarm someone. And yes, there needs to be a judge’s approval for anything to happen. Yes, I get all that.

However, people lie and judges believe those lies all the time.

Plus, there are plenty of existing laws on the books that could have averted this particular tragedy if only someone had utilized them. They didn’t. Why didn’t they? Who knows. Maybe they thought the killer would get better. Maybe they thought that while he was disturbed, he wasn’t a threat. Who knows.

What we do know is that the ball got dropped plenty of places along the way.

So why wouldn’t the gun grabbers in Colorado want to try and push for one more anti-gun law in the process? Why not? It’s what they do, especially when it’s just too damn hard to look at the problem objectively and try and address the root of the problem for a change.

Anti-Gun Celebs Gather For Golden Globes Under Protection Of Men With Guns

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 7, 2018

One of Hollywood’s premiere events is taking place later today with the Golden Globes set to take the stage. Host Seth Meyers has already promised to get political during the show–which never turns out badly for Hollywood, now does it–and that may well mean some slams on guns and gun ownership.

Even if it doesn’t, however, the audience will be filled with people who have pontificated on the topic of firearms and the Second Amendment, usually without having a freaking clue what they’re talking about. They’ll be sitting there with their fellow celebrities and, oddly enough, they’ll be nice and safe.


Because despite their insistence that guns are a problem, they’ll be protected by men with guns.

With this year marking the 75th anniversary of the Golden Globes, organizers have heightened security for the event.

With the Globes and subsequent after-parties scheduled to take place Sunday at and around the Beverly Hilton, the Beverly Hills police are collaborating with multiple law-enforcement agencies on security. The FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department are working with Beverly Hills P.D.

Meanwhile, private security officers employed by event organizers are expected to play a major role. The Hilton on Wednesday provided Variety with details of its plan to move after-party attendees through a revised transportation and security system following last year’s check-in meltdown that saw long wait times for guests arriving at the after-parties from off-site. The new plan calls for an increase in the number of security stations processing party-goers as they check in to the event, and expedited travel for shuttle buses through security checkpoints.

Asked whether attendees can expect to once again see armed officers wearing body armor at and around the Globes and related events, as was the case last year, Hoshino said, “Absolutely. That’s the norm.” He added, “I know that we’re using a lot of technology at the event. We consider this a large-scale event, and there’s going to be a multi agency response.”

For all their arrogant talk about guns and gun ownership, they have no problem hiding behind armed security, not just in their day-to-day lives, but in their social lives as well.

The thing is, most Americans don’t get armed security everywhere they go. We don’t get the virtual army of private security that celebrities at the Golden Globes get. We get whatever we can muster ourselves, and only an elite few can afford professional bodyguards. Most of us can’t.

That means we buy guns. We get guns to protect our homes and our families because we don’t have the resources to hire security.

It remains to be seen just what topics Meyers will spout off on. He may be wise enough to leave guns off the table, especially if he’s self-aware enough to understand that pontificating on guns for average Americans while surrounded by armed men paid to keep you safe is just begging to get everyone labeled as hypocrites.

As it stands, plenty of them are. They enjoy the safety provided by men with guns, but would rather see you unable to provide that safety to your family, just because it makes them feel funny.

Mother Of Dead Robber: ‘Why Did He Shoot Him Five Times?”

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 8, 2018

I feel bad for Cynthia Ruiz. In addition to being a widow, she has now had to bury her son. It’s a horrible thing to lose one of your children, but she did.

However, I can only feel so bad for her. After all, her son brought this on himself.

Ruiz’s son, Andrew Herrera, was shot and killed when he tried to rob a Popeye’s Chicken in Texas. That’s when he came face-to-face with the state’s self-defense laws.

Now, Ruiz has questions.

 “Did my son deserve to be punished? Yes, he did,” Ruiz said.

Police said Herrera, wearing a hoodie and a mask, entered the South Side restaurant with gun and confronted a man and his family who were eating.

After the man told Herrera he had spent the money he had on their dinner, Herrera turned toward the counter and pointed the gun at one of the workers, who was running away.

That’s when the man, who had a concealed handgun license, fired several shots at Herrera.

A police spokesman later said, “Here in Texas, if you’re in fear of loss of life, loss of property, you have a right to defend yourself.”

Ruiz said she understands the man who shot her son was defending his family, but she asked, “Why shoot him four more times? Why did he shoot him five times?”

I hate to break it to Ruiz, but the reason the man shot him five times was simple. You shoot until there’s no longer a threat. The armed citizen judge there was still a risk to him and his family–and the word “family” means no self-respecting man is going to take a chance at that point–and kept shooting until there was no longer a threat.

Shootings aren’t like the movies or on TV. You don’t shoot to wound. A wounded person can still kill you. You shoot until the threat has been eliminated. If the first shot wounds them but they drop their weapon and surrender, so much the better for everyone, but only a complete and total idiot expects that to happen.

Herrera threatened the lives of human beings, and he paid a price for that. It’s a price that Ruiz is being forced to pay, which is a pity, but either she failed to teach him it was wrong to steal, or he failed to heed the lessons. Either way, he tried to rob a chicken place and came face-to-face with someone who was not going to be a victim.

Why was Herrara shot five times? Because he stood there, gun in hand, and threatened the innocent.

Ruiz contends that a second suspect who served as Herrera’s getaway driver claims the gun wasn’t loaded. To that I reply, “So what?”

If you point a gun at me, my family, or anyone else in my vicinity, I’m not going to assume that it’s unloaded. That is stupid, especially since one of the basic rules of firearm safety is to treat all firearms as if they’re loaded. For me, that applies to the one in the criminal’s hand. I’m going to act as if it’s loaded because the alternative is the loss of innocent life if I’m wrong.

Why did they have to shoot him five times? Because he was a threat, and common wisdom is to just keep shooting until he’s not a threat any longer.

If you want your kids to not be shot, impress upon them that this is what happens when you threaten people with a gun.

‘Black Guns Matter’ Group Joins World’s Largest Gun Show With a Unique Message

with 2 comments

By Lauretta Brown
January 5, 2018

Black Guns Matter, a Second Amendment education group with an urban focus, will be featured in and sponsoring SHOT Show, the largest gun show in the world.

Maj Toure founded Black Guns Matter in 2015. The group is focused on providing Second Amendment education and information to urban communities that are plagued by violence.

“I don’t think there’s a black gun culture or white gun culture,” Toure says on the group’s website. “I think there’s an informed gun culture and an ignorant gun culture.”

In their December feature on black gun ownership, Toure told The Huffington Post why gun ownership and education has become so important to him.

“Guys in my neighborhood would get drunk and shoot their guns into the air on New Year’s Eve,” Toure recounted. “Bullets come down though, number one. Number two, you’re wasting ammo. And number three, that’s just not responsible. I had uncles who were in Desert Storm, I got uncles who were in Vietnam. And seeing their understanding of firearms and how they carried themselves, I immediately had what to do and what not to do.”

Toure explained what his group is doing to spread more education about gun safety and laws.

“We give classes free to all on firearm safety, on knowing the law, on how to apply state laws and for different permits, how to get a license to carry in your particular town, who are some trainers that you can work with,” he said. “We work with trainers locally for whatever city, lawyers that know firearm laws, the Sanskrit, the basics, conflict resolution, de-escalation tactics. We give lessons on basics, so in essence it’s a class on the Second Amendment, on human rights, on civics, firearm safety and the cultural differences between communities.”

He went on to address the historical significance of the Second Amendment and his perspective as a black gun owner.

“America would not have even been created without firearms,” Toure emphasized. “Some people say it’s a contradiction for me as an African-American man to have a position: ‘When they wrote the Second Amendment, they didn’t mean it for you.’ I don’t give a f**k who they meant it for. It’s mine now.”

John McNamara, senior director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that sponsors SHOT Show, told the Washington Examiner Friday that “the era of cultural divide when it comes to firearms ownership should be a thing of the past, and thanks to the work of Maj Toure and Black Guns Matter, we’re a lot closer to that being a realization.”

“He’s putting his money where his mouth is through this sponsorship, but his real impact will be in the ‘Black Guns Matter: Engaging Urban Communities in the 2nd Amendment Fight’ Retailer Seminar he’ll be conducting,” he said.

SHOT Show will kick off January 23rd at the Sands Expo Center in Las Vegas.

NY County Executive Bans Gun Sales On County Property

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

The idea of a New York politician who hates guns is is only slightly more shocking than finding out about a fish that prefers water to dry land. It’s just not terribly surprising.

For one recently elected official, however, he wasted no times trying to establish his bonafides.

Democrat George Latimer took office Monday as Westchester County Executive and among the first order of business was to bounce future gun shows.

Latimer in November defeated two-term Republican incumbent Robert Astorino for the spot as head of the executive branch of the million-resident county in the Hudson Valley and his First Year Plan includes prohibiting gun shows from the County Center. The new county head said he felt having gun shows on government property did not reflect the community and signed an executive order this week temporarily banning future events.

“While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not believe that there is any proper role for government in promoting guns and gun paraphernalia,” said Latimer. “Additionally, the Westchester Gun Show has brought with it horrendous problems, including the availability of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia.”

According to local media, the last show held at the Center in early 2017 drew about 7,500 over two-days and a spokesman for then-county boss Astorino said the event was “well-run and well-attended.” The Democrat-heavy county legislature had previously voted 9-8 to ban further gun shows, a move Astorino vetoed, saying there was no basis for a restriction.

I do so love how he claims to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Here’s a pro tip for you. If you start off a sentence with, “While I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,” then you’re probably about to do something that shows that you aren’t.

While we can agree to disagree over whether a government should promote guns in any way, renting a space to someone doesn’t constitute “promotion” in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, I suspect Latimer is likely to find his county being sued rather quickly. Absent a problem stemming from gun shows, there’s no basis to ban them from county-owned property except personal politics.

Even the argument surrounding the presence of Confederate and Nazi memorabilia falls flat for one simple reason, these items are typically being marketed for historical reasons, not racial ones. Like it or not, both of these entities existed and there are people who are fascinated with the material culture of both armies for whatever reason. Since a Venn diagram of military history buffs and gun buffs would show a massive overlap, it’s not hard to understand why these items are sold there, especially since there are so few places that will sell either these days.

But it seems that Latimer, despite his claims of supporting the Second Amendment, is really just virtue signaling like so many of his fellow Democrats. From here, it looks like he wants all the other Democrats to know that he’s doing his part to fight gun owners.

If he wants to claim to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, then he needs to act like one.

%d bloggers like this: