Suppressors- none of the State's business

Once I discovered that suppressors didn't silence a gunshot, I lost nearly any interest in having them.

I understand the arguments in favor of them (hearing protection, and it's your right). 

I also know the arguments against them (criminals will use them to silently murder) are based on imaginary TV/movie silencers that work like I wish they really worked. The people who want them banned or regulated are coming from a place of supreme ignorance and fear.

I'm just not personally willing to put a big, expensive cylinder on the end of a pistol for so little benefit. I'm completely in favor of you being able to order one online and have it mailed to your door without any paperwork or proof of ID.

I've noticed the politically addled people have two arguments they keep pushing: that "silencers" are "arms", and that they aren't. They each seem to believe this doesn't change government's "authority" to regulate them. it just shifts the direction a little.

If suppressors are "arms", then they believe this gives the illegal ATF the "authority" to regulate them. I believe this makes it a crime for the ATF criminals to do so.

If they aren't "arms", then some people believe this means they aren't protected by the Second Amendment, and thus are subject to regulation by the aforementioned illegal ATF. I believe this puts them outside anything the criminal ATF believes it has the "authority" to do.

Either way, the unconstitutional ATF has no legitimate say over suppressors. Nor does any other government agency or bureau or employee.

And they know it, even if they won't admit it. They are just trying to buy time until they can get a new crew of Supreme Courtjesters to agree with them.

Which leads to another argument in favor of getting a supressor: make them so ubiquitous that it doesn't matter what anyone says about them-- make them as common as flies at a feedlot.

-

Thank you for reading.
Itching to subscribe or donate?

"Brandishing"

The claim that a cupholder can't "legally" qualify as a holster (didn't say it's a good holster), brings up another nonsense "gun offense" that I've seen used against people more than once: "brandishing".

Simply being seen to be armed can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.
Holding a weapon in your hand, ready in case it's needed, can't reasonably be the "crime" of brandishing.

To be a real crime, brandishing must mean pointing a weapon at an innocent person (someone who isn't violating anyone's life, liberty, or property at present). 

Pointing a firearm at a violator is what you should be doing in some cases, and it's not "brandishing" as a crime.
Letting a bad guy know you're armed by showing your weapon is a peaceable attempt to discourage the bad guy and convince him you're not an easy target, not a crime. Only a criminal would treat such an act as a crime.

I hate the way the anti-gun bigots of government use this word to mean whatever they want it to mean to excuse their crimes against self-responsible, prepared people. 

Just so they can shoot their friendly labradoodles, probably.

And, of course, the armed goons who work for the state never get punished for ACTUALLY brandishing in a dangerous manner* when they point their weapons at- or shoot at- innocent people. That's how you can tell it's a nonsense "offense" made up by copsuckers and other government supremacists.

-

*There's a specific case I'm thinking of, and I remember at least one photo showing a family in a car, the man who was driving holding his hands up, and a cop pointing a rifle in his face. It seems the image has been scrubbed from the internet; flushed down the memory hole. Unless I'm imagining the whole thing. I don't think I am.

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

I don't think Texas knows what the word means

Any state that allows its armed goons to molest, rob, kidnap, or murder anyone for a "gun offense" is NOT a Constitutional carry state. It's a criminal organization. Its "law enforcers" are the criminals.

A Constitutional carry state would fire (and probably arrest) any law enforcer who attempted to enforce any such illegal rule. 

It wouldn't then compound its crime by illegally prohibiting its victim from being armed while the case is active- there would be no case. This is yet another violation of the Second Amendment. Two strikes, at least!

The Constitution doesn't allow government to dictate how a weapon "may" be carried. Shall NOT be infringed! 
Ethics don't allow a government to have any say in how a weapon may be carried.

Even if it did (it doesn't), who do they think they are to even make the spurious claim that a cupholder can't be a holster? If it is being used to contain a gun, it is a holster.

I don't know the basketball player, James Harden, or anything else about him. It's irrelevant. I don't care why he is being mistreated this way, or who is being mistreated this way; I only care that he is being mistreated by a supposedly "Constitutional carry" state that is showing what it really is.

Do the right thing. Drop the charges, fire the cop and any prosecutor or judge that allowed this case to be brought against him, give him their personal property as restitution, and stop being a criminal gang committing criminal acts!

-

Thank you for reading.
Ways to subscribe or donate.

Looking at the problem backwards

It's not that "Democrat run cities" are "soft on crime"; it's that they are hard on defense of life, liberty, and property. Really, just about all cities, states, and countries are. It's a universal feature of government. It's that whole "monopoly of violence" scam.

I saw another story recently where someone focused on the wrong thing. Again. As always.

“A man in New York City walks into a bakery with a large bag and cleans out the entire display case. The same witness ran into him half an hour earlier at Home Depot where he was stealing there too. Two stores. One morning. One bag. Zero consequences. This is what happens when you decriminalize theft in a Democrat run city.”

No.

This is what happens when you criminalize defense and the proper tools with which to carry it out.

It’s not a case of too little “law”, but of too much, and aimed at the wrong people.

Government coddles criminals because government is made up of criminals. It’s professional courtesy.

It's your right to defend your property, or any property with which you've been entrusted. Or anyone else's property you witness being violated. Government "laws" violate this right in favor of criminals. 

It's not kindness or compassion. It's slavery. You are being enslaved by a coalition of freelance criminals, governing criminals, and their hired goons.

-

Thank you for reading.
Subscribe or donate, 

Yes, machine guns, too.

If you're not in favor of getting rid of the government's illegal rules against machine guns, you: 

1. Don't really believe in the plain words of the Second Amendment.
2. Don't believe in the natural human right to own and carry arms, which exists regardless of the Second Amendment.
3. Allow your fears to determine what rights others exercise.
4. Favor letting political criminals determine what rights you have and are allowed to exercise.

It doesn't matter if you think machine guns are scary and don't want "those people" (whoever they may be) to have them. The worst people already have them.

I was disturbed to talk to someone who is generally pro-gun and find out he draws the line at machine guns. His reasoning is that he's scared of criminals having them, and because of this, he doesn't care what the Second Amendment says about the matter.

It's disappointing. 

It's the same when someone believes "felons" lose rights.

-

Thank you for reading.
Value for value? 

If not, that’s OK.

More evil losers making news

An evil loser in Louisiana decided to murder his kids. Eight of them. 

The usual idiots are blaming "guns!"

Smarter people blame the evil loser who chose to murder 8 kids.

People who've been made stupid by politics are calling this a "mass shooting" so they can pad their anti-gun narrative with whatever they can find and twist to fit. Just like gang-on-gang killings.

A few decades ago, there was a guy in Arkansas who decided the Christmas holiday was the ideal time to kill his entire family. I don't remember ever hearing his horrible crime called a "mass shooting", even though this evil loser also used a gun in many of the murders. I guess people are getting dumber or more dishonest- or more political.

This is mere days after an outspoken anti-gun bigot shot and murdered his wife and then removed himself from the roster of the living. I'm no longer surprised when an anti-gun bigot does something like this. It's completely on-brand.

Yet, I'm seeing the usual idiots screaming to ban guns because of the acts of these recent evil losers. It's predictable, pathetic, and counterproductive. Not to mention, banning (and regulating) guns is a criminal act.

It's not the guns. It has never been the guns. It's the evil losers who decide to murder others. They use whatever tools are available. If the anti-gun bigots managed to get guns banned, and all the guns magically disappeared so evil losers had no access to them, the murders would continue. They might even increase since guns do more to protect the innocent than to empower bad guys who often have a lifetime's training in hurting people.

No one calling to ban or restrict guns is doing this for your benefit. They are your mortal enemy, functionally the same as an evil loser who is coming to shoot you and your children.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to tip me? 

If not, that’s OK.

Worthless pseudo-certification

Government is the last entity I’d ever want certifying anything or anyone. 

If you’ve ever watched one of government’s "firearms experts" trying to disassemble a simple pistol, you can explain to me why you believe these clowns should be certifying firearms, firearms accessories, or procedures.
Or illegally making up any rules they’ll (also illegally) apply to firearms or firearms businesses.

Some of these supposed experts even think a shoelace is a machine gun- for punishment purposes, at least. They are clowns.

I’m no firearms expert, but I know firearms well enough to see government experts’ utter incompetence. 

The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect would be my only excuse to avoid the recognition that this incompetence is systemic across government. Because it is.

Since I don’t suffer from that particular cognitive blindness, I know government shouldn’t be certifying anyone or anything at all.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips, please. 

If not, that’s OK.

Rights are identical for everyone

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for February 4, 2026)

There's nothing like a political showdown to help you discover who is on your side, who isn't, and who's been a phony ally all along.

All the people, organizations, companies, and politicians who say "I'm a Second Amendment absolutist, but..." are lying. The Second Amendment doesn't come with any "unless", "except", or "but".

Is the political Left on my side? Absolutely not. They want me to hate myself, they want to steal my money and give it away, and they want to vote away any rights they don't approve of. Just like the political Right wants to violate my right to associate with whoever I choose, to criminalize standing up against kidnappers as long as the kidnappers are said to have "authority" to kidnap, and they want to legislate away any rights they don't approve of.

H.L. Mencken wrote: “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

When President Trump said, “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with a gun. You can’t do that", he was wrong. No government rule or politician can overturn the Constitution or alter human rights, not even if the Supreme Court agrees.

Trump said those words because he was trying to gloss over a murder committed by a member of his gang. This will only work on those preprogrammed to believe it.

Trying to find loopholes so you can violate natural human rights, or violating human rights without such a loophole, is criminal. Violating rights is what criminals do; it's the definition of "criminal". Criminals excuse and justify each other.

Defending people from those who try to violate their rights can't be a real crime. Criminalizing defense and the proper tools with which to carry it out? That's the crime.

The Second Amendment isn't about who is allowed to carry what, when, or where; it's about prohibiting government from having any role in the conversation.

If you won't stand up for the rights of those you dislike, you don't really believe in rights at all. At best, you believe in privileges- things you can do as long as some government official agrees and gives you temporary permission to do it.

If this is you, at least admit it.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

'Gun culture' misleading propaganda

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for January 7, 2026)

Recently, a 15-year-old was shot and killed by another teen. Afterward, a local official blamed the tragedy on "gun culture". I haven't decided if he said this out of ignorance or dishonesty. Either way, he's wrong, and his use of "gun culture" is as misleading as the propaganda phrase "gun violence".

I am part of gun culture. We don't point "unloaded" guns at each other. We don't shoot at houses from the street. We don't rob people at gunpoint... or at all. We teach our kids how to handle firearms and other tools safely.

This official didn't dare blame the problem on "crime culture". Why not? Why is the truth so hard to face? Politically addled authoritarians prefer to blame guns and the people who aren't the problem, rather than to confront the real issues. Once you see it, you realize it's everywhere, and they do it every chance they get. This isn't helpful, and it shows which side they are truly on. It isn't your side.

But what about the guns? Crime culture uses guns, too, but this doesn't make them part of gun culture. Crime culture uses cars in their pursuit of evil far more often than they use firearms, but I wouldn't be so ignorant or dishonest as to call a vehicular tragedy that happens during a crime a consequence of "car culture".

Criminals also use phones, money, and certain dog breeds. I'm not stupid enough to blame those things for crime instead of placing it with the people responsible. But then, I'm not brain-damaged by politics, either.

Crime culture sees every tool as a weapon. Guns, knives, cars, baseball bats, wrenches, bare hands- it's all the same to them.

Crime culture can seem exciting to young people who are floundering without guidance. They are attracted, even if subconsciously, to the tools and behaviors of crime culture. This doesn't end well.

By blaming "gun culture", this official is providing cover for the actual bad guys out there.

The next time he's wondering why it seems like public sentiment is against him and his gang, he should look in the mirror. If you position yourself against the good guys, don't be surprised when the good guys no longer have your back. You did this to yourself. Complaining about it and trying to shift the blame won't work. It's on you to stop being a major part of the problem. Admitting it is the first step.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip.

Carrying cookies?

Someone was arguing with me that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect your right to carry a gun while committing a crime.

That’s a weird misunderstanding, but let’s think about that.

You have a right to carry a bag of cookies. You still have a right to carry that bag of cookies while you rob a bank. The cookies are not the issue. The issue is that you have no right to rob a bank, with or without cookies. Nor to violate any individual’s rights in any way. The bag of cookies is completely irrelevant in every way.

Whether you might use the cookies to help you commit the crime or not. It’s the robbery that’s the problem, not the bag of cookies.

Now, if someone imagines that guns are different than cookies in this scenario, the problem is within them.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

It's not supposed to be a race to the bottom

Someone replied to me yesterday, saying, "Nobody loves big government more than the left".

Well, that is an obvious lie.

The Right has discovered (or exposed) just how much they love big government, and it's at least as much as the Left loves it. As long as big government is being used against people they hate or fear- just like the Left likes big government to be used.

The past few days have shown exactly how deeply the Right loves Big Government. And how they hate the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution when it doesn't go their way. How they hate your right to own and to carry weapons without government permission. How much they love murderous cops, as long as they disagree with the one who is murdered. How far they'll stretch to excuse cops. How they hate the fundamental human right to fight tyranny, wherever it occurs.

They are lying to cover for The State- just like the Left does.

When you have "libertarians" sticking up for rights violators and their liberty violations, you know it's bad.

When you have the NRA and other "gun rights" advocates and organizations blaming someone for being armed, and sticking up for the thugs who are the ONLY credible threat to gun owners, it tells you where their priorities lie.

They are ignoring and misinterpreting the Constitution to justify their agenda- just like the Left does.

Statism is statism. Every time I decide one variety of statist is a little worse than the others, the others see it as a competition and try to out-evil their opponents.

If you hate foreigners and your political opponents more than you value liberty, you never cared about liberty at all. You were a phony, cosplaying a liberty lover. Crouch down, lick that tyrant's hand, and pretend he loves you as much as you love him.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Cop guns

I own 3 guns that I know previously belonged to cops. 

That means I've done something to get guns out of the wrong hands; guns that may have even been used in the commission of crimes.
I've probably done more good than all the anti-gun "laws" put together.

You're welcome.

(OK, I realize they just bought more guns to replace the ones they sold- and we know freelance bad guys would never do the same, and once they no longer have a particular gun, they are forever gunless. Right? Right?)

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

“Broccoli choking”

Using the propaganda phrase “gun violence” is exactly as dishonest (or ignorant) as singling out choking on broccoli and decrying “broccoli choking”. 

They ignore all the deaths and injuries caused by choking on other foods, not because they care about choking victims, but because they hate broccoli.

In the exact same way, the people who lecture about "gun violence" don't really care about violence (or archation); they just hate guns and don't want you to have them... unless you're a government thug who can use your guns to take the guns away from people who aren't in your gang.

If they weren't this despicable, they would care about the innocent people stabbed, stoned to death, beaten with clubs, strangled by hands, or intentionally killed in any other way, no matter what weapon was used. They would be happy when someone uses a gun to fend off an attack. They don't care, and they aren't happy, and that's how you know they are nothing but filthy anti-gun bigots. 

Keep this in mind every time you see or hear the propaganda phrase "gun violence" come from one of these nasty bigots.

-
Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

That's CRIME culture, you badged bonehead!

The local-ish police chief blamed a dead 15-year-old, shot the other night by a 16-year-old while they were messing around with guns in a bedroom, on "gun culture". What a disgusting, lying jackboot!

It’s not "gun culture" that’s the problem. It’s crime "culture".

I’m part of gun culture. We don’t shoot people because they disrespected us. We don’t point guns at our friends because we “know” the guns aren’t loaded. We don't shoot at houses as we drive down the street. We don't mug people at gunpoint. Or with a knife held to their throat.

Those who do those things are not part of gun culture.

That chief cop parroted a Leftist propaganda phrase because he’s an evil loser, too, just like the rest of them.

He’s trying to avoid blaming crime culture by blaming gun culture. Like protects like. He should be sued for defamation. What a nasty anti-gun bigot!

(I'm also writing my newspaper column for next week about this.)

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Governments have no right to keep or bear arms

No government should be allowed to possess any weapons it prohibits the people from possessing.

No, that doesn't mean you and I should own nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. It means governments shouldn't be allowed to have them. 

They've demonstrated quite clearly that they can't be trusted with them.

Governments have no rights, because rights are individual and governments are collectives. This means governments can't have the right to keep and bear arms. Nor to decide what arms others own and carry.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

Committed to Liberty

It's hard to find people who are committed to liberty.

Take "gun rights" people, for example. 

Too many of them are fine with other natural human rights being violated- as long as it doesn't affect them. You'll find many of them who support prohibition, "immigration" control, or cops. The number of them who are flaming statists astounds and disappoints me.

A lot of them even approve of background checks, the NFA, and government keeping "certain people" from exercising their right to own and carry weapons. I guess, as long as they have theirs, it doesn't bother them too much if government violates the rights of others.

Gun stores may be the worst offenders, since I suspect many of them like the fact that government is protecting their market share by regulating the crap out of guns, in clear defiance of the Constitution. I think it's some sort of "teacher's pet" power trip. They feel special, since they have a "license"... never mind it's for something no one can rightfully require a license for.

It's not any better with other liberty-oriented topics. Most people love what they love, but everyone else is out of luck. No support.

I do my best to surround myself- at least online- with people who do better. I'm happy to report that it works.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.

No Kings-- no, not yours, either.

Just in case you imagine I'm giving "the Right" a pass recently, here's a list of some of the tyranny of the Right:

• Unconstitutional "border" enforcement and "immigrant" crackdowns.
• Anti-gun enforcement and trying hard to keep both the NFA and GCA, and all their unconstitutional crimes, intact and enforced.
• Supporting police, even when they enforce counterfeit "laws".
• Prohibition.
• Military bases in nearly every country on Earth.
• Taxing you for things they want.
• Governing others.

All these anti-liberty things are reprehensible, and I give their supporters no leeway whatsoever.

But, I'm not so stupid as to hallucinate that the only threat, the only "kings", are the rulers on the Right. That's just pathetic. I oppose their prospective kings, too.

-

Thank you for reading.
Donations would be appreciated at this time

"That is a LIE!"

If you are in favor of "illegal immigrants" [sic] getting arrested for having "illegal firearms", you do not support the natural HUMAN right to own and to carry weapons. You are anti-Second Amendment and pro-infinite government (as long as it's doing things you approve of).

All human rights apply to all humans. Everywhere. No legislation can change that. No constitution can change it.

The only thing such a "conservative" is conserving is illegitimate (and illegal) government power. They can shut their yaps about supporting the Constitution or being for "limited government". Their other words prove it's a lie.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

Scottish girls have the right to own and carry weapons

You can never trust "the news" to be entirely accurate or complete, so I have to be careful, but...

When I come to the defense of the 14- (or 13-) year-old Scottish girl who chased away molesters with a knife and a hatchet, some people take this to mean I am opposed to migrants.

No, I'm opposed to archators.
I am opposed to governments that protect archators.
I am opposed to governments that import people (human trafficking).
I am opposed to governments that treat defense from archators as a "crime".
I am opposed to governments that regulate tools.
I am opposed to governments that punish defenders.
I am opposed to governments because governments are always archators.

If the story is true as I read it, I am in 100% support of her right to use weapons in defense of herself and others against freelance archators who enjoy the protection of government archators. No matter where those archators were born, or what they believe is the proper way to treat 12-year old girls, like this brave girl's younger sister. Only a criminal government would seek to punish her for her act of defense.

Scottish girls, of any age, have the equal and identical right to own and carry weapons as every other human on the planet, regardless of the worthless opinions of the regional political criminals. And they have the right to use those weapons in defense of life, liberty, and property against all credible threats.

This right doesn't come from America's Second Amendment. It comes from being born human. No government legislation can overrule it. All the Second Amendment does (or tried to do) is make it a crime for the US government to impose any rules concerning weapons. It created no rights, only an obligation to respect a right that has always existed everywhere and always will. Including in 2025, in Scotland.

Any government that behaves like the Scottish (or UK) government behaves in example after example like this (a credible threat) needs to be overthrown immediately, in whatever way is necessary.

-

Thank you for reading.
Leave a tip?

The view from Down Under

There's no such thing as a legitimate weapon ban. Nor is there any such thing as a legitimate weapon restriction. This includes licenses, permits, background checks, and keeping records of who owns what. It includes exempting armed government employees from the illegitimate rules they expect us to be slaves to.

It's not only certain Americans who understand this: some Australians do too. And I'm sure there are others in other places. Stupid and/or crooked people are the only ones who ban or restrict weapons, or support those who do. In every country or region, it's the same. Human rights don't change at the "borders".

Attacking people with weapons is unethical; nothing more is needed.
Using weapons in defense is the right thing to do. Punishing defense is evil.
It's never about the weapons; it's about what people do with them. Stupid and/or crooked people will try to make it about the weapons.

Bad guys will always be armed.
Smart good guys who ignore the opinions of political criminals will, too.

"America, Do not give up your guns." Good advice.

-

Thank you for reading.

Show your support.