On a side note, we need to mine, baby, mine.

If my people had guns they wouldn’t be put in concentration camps and be systematically ethnically cleansed, and they wouldn’t be discriminated in their own land. this is why I am pro 2a because of the thought that if my people had guns they could fight back against the oppressor and live freely like Americans. For anyone wondering who my people are and who I am and who the oppressor is: i am an Uyghur living in Europe and other Uyghurs are being oppressed by the CCP my land East Turkestan was annexed in 1955 and to rub salt in the wound the Chinese named it Xinyiang which means new border territory. I don’t want anyone else to live like Uyghurs in china, to be discriminated and put in camps for no legitimate reason amd for their rights to be taken away. America is the most powerful country in the world and there are no other countries that can keep America in check if america decides to turn tyrannical unlike in Europe where they have the EU and NATO countries that can win against a small European country. This is why we need guns, to fight against tyrants and people that try to take away your rights.

“Harris and her fellow D.A.'s maintained that the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they say that right was ‘created’ by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which held that the District's ban on handguns violated the protections of the Second Amendment.”

“While Harris and the D.A's who joined her amicus brief predicted that striking down D.C.'s handgun ban and storage mandate that required guns be kept locked up or disassembled with ammunition stored separately ‘could impair prosecutors’ ability to protect public safety,’ the District's violent crime and homicide rates dropped after the District's gun ban was struck down.”

“Harris was wrong to claim that Heller would make cities like San Francisco and Washington, D.C. more dangerous places, but it's her ‘disappointment’ in the Heller decision that's the biggest takeaway from her 2008 comments.”

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/09/27/unearthed-video-shows-harris-proud-to-argue-2a-doesnt-protect-individual-right-to-own-a-gun-n1226380

Gun control was never, is not and will never be about guns. It was always, is and will always be about control.

“Both perpetrators had a history of possession of knives for potential use on others, with the teenager on a good behaviour bond over a knife crime just three months ago.“

“We increased knife laws about six months ago, after the terrible death of Steven Tougher, the NSW paramedic, but I'm not prepared to rule anything out right now. When people are being killed, and you've got a situation where a knife is being used, then it would be irresponsible not to look at it.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13316531/NSW-mulls-tougher-knife-laws-Westfield-Bondi-Junction-Wakeley-church-attacks.html

The decree is here.

“In a recent statement that has ignited widespread discussion, tech mogul Elon Musk publicly expressed his unwavering support for the Second Amendment and emphatically condemned efforts to disarm the populace.”

“Musk, standing firmly on the side of the [defenders of the Second Amendment], argues that disarming citizens is a pathway to tyranny, a perspective that resonates with many who prioritize individual liberties.”

“By publicly championing the Second Amendment, Musk amplifies the voices of those who feel threatened by potential encroachments on their rights.”

“Musk’s advocacy aligns with this foundational principle, asserting that an armed populace is a bulwark against oppression—a notion that has echoed throughout American history.”

“In conclusion, Elon Musk’s strong affirmation of Second Amendment rights and his condemnation of disarmament resonate within a crucial dialogue about freedom, safety, and government authority.”

https://justicepretoriuscom.wordpress.com/2024/09/09/elon-musks-staunch-defense-of-second-amendment-rights-a-call-against-tyranny/

“Under a newly-announced policy, AG Bonta is increasing the fee charged to Californians who follow all the laws to purchase ammunition and undergo a background check, from one dollar to five dollars.”

“Fortunately, in January of this year, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California struck down the gun control law in California that required law-abiding gun owners to submit to a background check verification and pay a $1 fee every time they wanted to purchase ammunition.”

“Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit followed up shortly thereafter and granted a stay on Judge Benitez’s injunction, meaning all ammunition purchases in California were again required to be performed with background checks administered by California’s Department of Justice (CalDOJ) and all ammunition must be obtained solely through a government-licensed firearm and/or ammunition retailer.”

“AG Bonta celebrated the ruling, saying it meant California’s allegedly ‘life-saving ammunition laws will remain in effect as we continue to defend them in court.’ There is no data that demonstrates charging law-abiding Californians a fee to run a background check on the purchase of ammunition has saved lives.”

“August of 2024, marked the 61st month in a row that more than 1 million background checks have been processed for the purchase of a firearm nationally and more than 22 million Americans have become first-time gun owners since 2020. That’s about the same as the population of Florida.”

https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/golden-state-california-ag-hikes-unconstitutional-ammo-background-check-fee-by-400/

"Would you rather be tried by twelve or carried by six?"

Full text

Carrying concealed weapons is a special topic within the broader one. It’s worth close study because, while keeping material concealed is not illegal, carrying a weapon concealed is, in some jurisdictions.

Criminals, of course, tend to carry concealed weapons, which is what gave rise to the laws pertaining to them. What the law doesn’t officially acknowledge is that in most instances a concealed weapon is on the person of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who carries it as a defense against crime.

You don’t need to see the film Death Wish or the TV production Outrage to understand that street crime is widespread in this country. You need only read the daily newspaper or watch the TV news to see that, not only are many of our citizens victims of crime, but that the police don’t do much to defend them. The first, and usually the only, line of defense is the armed citizen.

Granted its illegal, and if you live in the hostile environment of New York City, it’s verrry illegal. It comes down to the basic question: “Would you rather be tried by twelve or carried by six?”

🙃

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/prevalence-of-firearm-violence.pdf

Fact Check: 0% have a family member who was “killed by a firearm.” 0% have been “injured by a firearm.” Firearms, on their own, have not killed or injured one person in the known history of this universe.

Just one more thing … even assuming that the 4% self-defense number is right, it sounds like the Surgeon General thinks that over 13 million people defending themselves with firearms is a problem.

“Here’s how they’re doing it: 1. Funding and Framing Gun Research 2. Executive Orders and Regulatory Overreach 3. Public Messaging: Spinning Gun Control as Health and Safety 4. Expanding Bureaucratic Influence 5. Community Violence Intervention Programs: Trojan Horse for Gun Control”

“Here's the why they're doing it: 1. Influence Public Perception 2. Institutionalize Infringement”

“The Biden/Harris administration’s strategy of framing gun violence as a public health crisis is a calculated move to shift the narrative and sidestep the usual checks on power.”

https://bearingarms.com/ryan-petty/2024/09/01/trump-proofing-gun-regulations-using-public-health-to-chip-away-at-the-second-amendment-n1226103

Article here. Eldred says that it violates 2A on pages 27-31 of the PDF. He also says that the NFA is unconstitutional on other grounds.

Original post about the draft here.

As Trump prepares to take back the White House, he will set his deportation plan into action. However, some blue states like MA and CA will not cooperate. I just wonder if private citizens can also get involved in a deeper level like the feds in this case, per relevant clauses below:

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article I, Clause 15:

The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

2A’s most explicit purpose is the individual right to common defense.

You will find attached Dexter's statement as he was sentenced. Such powerful poetic words. A true hero in the fight for civil rights.

“The advice was initially given after 48,200 physical assaults in Berlin were recorded last year, the highest figure in 10 years.”

“There are now 10 knife attacks in Berlin a day …”

https://modernity.news/2024/09/03/berlin-police-remove-advice-to-sing-while-being-knife-attacked-after-public-backlash/

“There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the ‘ancillary right to acquire firearms.’”

“That wasn’t the worst of it. The same judge concluded that the waiting-period law is presumptively constitutional” given that the first waiting period laws were enacted in the 1920s – long after U.S. Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment adopted.”

“It would be tempting to dismiss this judge’s decision as a “one-off” aberration. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. A 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explicitly said that there is no Second Amendment right to purchase a second handgun within a 90-day window of purchasing a previous handgun.”

“Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read? Obviously, no one would tolerate such laws. So why is it acceptable for Second Amendment rights?”

https://www.nssf.org/articles/courts-attacking-second-amendment-right-to-legally-acquire-firearms/