Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Mamet: Hands Off My Gun

Playwright, essayist, screenwriter and film director David Mamet seems the least likely person to take on the anti-gun establishment in America. Yet, not only does Mamet take on leftist gun-grabbers, he utterly kicks their asses – albeit, in a hoity-toity way.

In one of the best-written, best-reasoned pro-gun essays I’ve ever read, David Mamet describes why people with a leftist bent, particularly communists and other far-leftists, are obsessed with taking guns from ordinary, law-abiding citizens. A couple of quotes from the article:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death …

… The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Mamet brilliantly deconstructs the left’s mania to disarm the citizenry. Whether his analysis is applied to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China or Obamunist America, it slices like a razor through all the “think of the children” crap we have been seeing all over the media. Give it a read.

Number Of Sheriffs Refusing To Enforce New Gun Laws “Snowballs”

Would-be gun grabbers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, who plans to introduce legislation today to ban virtually all modern firearms, have run into a huge snag: Who, pray tell, will actually grab the guns once they are banned?

An increasing number of county Sheriffs in the U.S. will not.

From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

My own view is that Feinstein’s efforts are doomed, yet again, to failure. She introduces a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban every year. So far, her efforts have failed every year. Currently a host of Democrats, their black little hearts gladdened by both Obama’s reelection and a few high-profile mass shootings by maniacs, feel they can really pull it off this time. But the irresistible force they believe they hold is about to meet the immovable object in the House, the GOP contingent.

Assuming the Obama regime actually passed a bill banning ownership of modern firearms, it would remain mere words-on-paper in many “red” states. If a law is passed, but nobody is willing to enforce it, is it even a law? County by county, state by state, nullification would render a renewed AWB meaningless across wide tracts of these not-so-United States.

Texas Sheriff Says He Will Not Enforce “Unconstitutional” Gun Laws

He may not be the lone voice in the law enforcement community, and he may not be the first, but Collin County, Texas Sheriff Terry Box speaks for many county and local agencies when he says his department will not enforce Draconian gun control laws that are unconstitutional on their face:

In light of recent events I feel I need to make a public statement of my views on this subject. As the Sheriff of Collin County, Texas, I have for the past 28 years served to protect and keep safe all citizens of our county, recognizing the trust placed in me with this profoundly important responsibility.

Unfortunately, the recent surge in the numbers of innocent victims who have died at the hands of unstable criminals has prompted politicians in Washington to seek to pass laws that would seriously erode the constitutional rights of innocent and law abiding citizens.

Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As long as I remain Sheriff of Collin County, I will not participate in the actions of misguided politicians who seek to impede our citizen’s right to all of the privileges afforded by our Constitution.

Respectfully,

Terry G. Box

Sheriff, Collin County Texas

Although I haven’t been posting in this last week due to my retirement and immediate relocation to a “red” state, I’ve been following the furor over gun control on radio, in print media and on television. I managed to see a replay of Obama’s anemic anti-gun spiel, in which he used children as propaganda tools in the same way that other totalitarian dictators throughout history have done. I also heard Rush Limbaugh’s program late last week, in which he opined that Obama’s proposals were “reasonable” – at which time, I immediate turned him off, vowing never to listen to him again.

The vibe I’m getting is that the big anti-gun push by government pretty much petered out. Maybe it was the realization, by our friends in government, that there are simply too many guns for them to ever hope to confiscate. Maybe it was their realization that making an attempt at this, except in liberal-infested states like New York and, yes, my former state of Illinois, the LOL, would produce (ahem) widespread noncompliance and probably (ahem, ahem) some level of civil disobedience as well. Maybe it was the massive surge in NRA memberships. Or maybe it is LEOs across the country telling inside-the-beltway hoplophobes to piss up a rope. Whatever the cause or causes, even the most rabid supporters of gun bans have admitted none of the laws they are proposing stand a ghost of a chance of actually passing. And Obama – contrary to my earlier prediction – has stood down on issuing executive orders banning or reclassifying semiautomatic firearms. So, the big push to ban guns has fizzled. For now.

This should not be interpreted as the bastards waving a white flag on the issue of gun control … or whatever sly, friendly-sounding term they’re using today. (Come to think of it, liberal swine from the top to the bottom of the food chain, from Obama to Chris Matthews, aren’t calling it “gun control” any more; all of a sudden, laws designed to disarm the American public are called “gun safety laws”.) No, subversives like U.S. Rep Charlie Rangel (D-NY) will continue to make snide remarks about how “… some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome” when it comes to gun control. In other words, what Rangel really means, is that only ignorant white trash racists own guns. There will be more shootings that the media will exploit to push the government’s agenda to emasculate or eliminate the Second Amendment; and every time one of these events occurs, expect wall-to-wall anti-gun agitprop, and the attendant panic buying by those who either don’t have a firearm, or feel they don’t have enough yet.

If you’re reading this, want to own a gun, but don’t: Wait for the current wave of panic buying to subside, and prices to come back down. The same rule probably applies to those who have a weapon or two, but want more. The cardinal rule is to buy low, and sell (if you wish) high.

You can’t buy low during a panic.

“You Don’t Need An AR15, It’s Too Dangerous”

By Jorge Amselle

(Appearing in The Daily Caller)

 

Sadly, so called “assault rifles” are getting a lot of negative press lately and are being subjected to a great deal of misinformation. This is not just coming from the usual anti-gun crowd, whom one would expect to lack knowledge about firearms and how they function, but also from supposedly knowledgeable gun owners and hunters, some of whom favor “reasonable” controls on firearms freedoms. Here are a few of the fallacies.

Why do you need that? 

I need an AR primarily for self defense. Could I use another gun for self defense? Of course I could and the AR may not be the best firearm to use in all defensive situations. I could use a shotgun or a pistol, I could use a baseball bat or a knife, I could use a tennis racket, a golf club, my bare hands, or I could just try playing possum.

It is not a question of what I use to defend myself but my right and desire to have the best possible tool for the job at my disposal. I want a semi-automatic rifle with an adequate capacity magazine for the same reason the police want them; to be able to quickly and accurately engage multiple assailants should the need arise.

The caliber is too weak to use for hunting. 

The AR is traditionally chambered in the 5.56x45mm NATO (interchangeable with the .223 Remington caliber) cartridge. The U.S. Military has been using this round as their primary rifle caliber for 50 years, through many wars and other interventions. If it was not effective we would not still have it. As with any firearm, the weight and type of bullet can be easily changed to deliver better performance and while not all loadings may be ideal for hunting, many are used on deer, feral hogs, coyote, and other game animals.

That does not even include the fact that the AR is the single most versatile rifle available. It can be converted to a muzzle loader for black powder, a crossbow for archery hunting, an air rifle, and can be adapted to fire over a dozen different rifle and pistol calibers. The design makes it easy to install optics and scopes, the collapsible stock allows the length to be adjusted so different statured shooters can comfortably use the same rifle. All of these features are why it is so popular.

It is not suitable for home defense.

Some have argued that a 5.56mm AR is bad for home defense because the round will over penetrate and pass through walls, endangering other occupants or neighbors. Tell that to police SWAT team that are increasingly switching from 9mm (pistol caliber) sub-machineguns to 5.56mm ARs exactly because they over penetrate less than the 9mm especially with proper ammunition selection. If over penetration is a serious concern then use a shotgun with bird shot. At close ranges this can be extremely effective. Others argue that a long gun is too unwieldy for home defense and going around corners. Ironically a shotgun has long been considered an ideal home defense firearm, not to mention that “hunting down” home intruders is not really advisable anyways. Better to barricade yourself and call the police.

These guns are too dangerous for people to own.

Ignoring the fact that semi-automatic rifles are used to commit only a tiny fraction of all gun crimes and that gun crimes overall have been declining for the past 20 years, the AR and other similar rifles are no more dangerous than any other firearm. The AR is semi-automatic and fires once each time the trigger is depressed, like a double-action revolver, or any pistol, or many other rifles and shotguns.

If you believe that the AR is too dangerous to own then there is no rational limit to what firearms you will find too dangerous next. Politicians have attacked firearms as too dangerous because they are too small and easy to conceal, too cheap and easy for poor people to buy, too accurate and usable and sniper weapons, too powerful and usable against vehicles. The list of “too dangerous” can easily be expanded to cover most any firearm and making every firearm “too dangerous” is exactly the real agenda.

—————————————————-

Jorge Amselle is a certified firearms instructor and writer covering all aspects of the industry from military and law enforcement firearms and training to the shooting sports. His youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/amselle.

PBJ: America’s Coming Gun War

For the past two days, the news has been filled with talk of gun bans and pending actions by the Obama regime – including the possibility, as signaled by VP Biden, that Obama may well issue executive orders to combat the wickedness of private gun ownership in America.

Rather than go through this litany item-by-item, I’ve instead chose to spotlight Patrick J. Buchanan’s recent piece on “America’s Coming Gun War”.

Buchanan isn’t speaking of a literal shooting war, as some are. The gist of Buchanan’s story is that, although liberal elitists want desperately to disarm the American public, the American public ain’t going for it:

Yet, from the record gun sales in December, and 2012 — there were 16.8 million calls to the FBI for background checks for gun purchases last year — the elites have lost the argument with the audience that counts. They have failed to convince those who buy guns.

My own take – as a gun owner, almost-former police officer, and military veteran – is that any “ban” concocted by the Obama regime will be about as effective as the prohibition against alcohol in the 1920s. Unless Washington has the means to physically remove all firearms from private hands, their laws or executive orders will have little real-world impact. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the Obama regime imagines they can impose some sort of confiscation scheme. After all, this is the man who, at his first inauguration, boasted of healing the planet, lowering sea levels and other crackpot, grandiose miracles. It is here than an actual, by-gosh gun “war” may occur.

This may well be complicated by our wide-open southern border. Dewy-eyed liberals, dreaming of a Utopian planet without boundaries, have insisted on having no fences and as little enforcement of  our border with Mexico as possible. As a result, untold tens of thousands of tons of drugs flow from Mexico into the U.S. every year.

A fully-automatic AK-47 weighs a mere 10.5 lbs, fully loaded. 10,000 tons worth of such weapons equals 1.9 million fully-automatic AK-47s …

And let’s not even talk about heavy machineguns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, antitank/antiaircraft missiles, mines, military-grade explosives, grenades, etc.

A sweeping ban of firearms, as proposed by the Obama regime, will automatically set up a thriving black market in truly dangerous weaponry, the sorts of things our government really, really doesn’t want us to have. But my prediction is that a ban would generate at least as large a market for such things – and probably a bigger market – than exists now for drugs. I myself, inveterate gun lover that I am, have no use for a full-auto Kalashnikov, let alone a Russian-made antitank rocket. But I know the gun community well, and there would be many who would purchase such things. Some of this dreadful ordinance would fall into the hands of maniacs.

You think a psycho with a piddly-assed little semi-auto M4gery in a shopping mall or school is bad news? Imagine a loon like Adam Lanza, his already jacked-up mind ruined by SSRIs, equipped with an actual assault rifle that can fire full-auto and a bandolier of grenades, storming a kindergarten.

Go ahead, Mr. President. Sign your executive orders. Create a thriving black market in military-grade weapons along the border you’ve so compassionately left unsecured.

When the U.S. fails to become Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, and instead transforms into a dangerous, hyper-violent, dystopian hell-hole, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

PJB Warns Of “Revolution” If Government Attempts Ban

Archconservative Patrick J. Buchanan, a regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group, is never at a loss for words. However, his warnings about the potential implications of an attempted gun ban and/or confiscation law certainly left his fellow panelists – notably, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek – speechless Sunday:

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: With no Second Amendment, Congress could pass a law, as limited as this: banning assault rifles or as sweeping as prohibiting all private firearm ownership and requiring the surrender of all privately held firearms.

BUCHANAN: There would be a revolution in this country!

MCLAUGHLIN: Baloney! That doesn’t mean you can’t own one, but you have to put it in first and then go try —

BUCHANAN: There are 270 million guns in this country right now, John, and they’re adding to them at a rate of 16 million a year.

The Giant, Gaping Hole In Sandy Hook Reporting

David Kupelian, managing editor of WND, and author of the bestselling (except in liberal circles) book How Evil Works has written a groundbreaking article about how the media is ignoring a common thread in mass-shootings: in most of these incidents, the perpetrators were either taking, or just coming off of, some form of psychiatric medication.

Adam Lanza, who is vaguely reported to have had psychiatric issues, probably was on some sort of P-meds. However, the media shows little interest in getting to the bottom of this particular facet of the case. Historically, the media has shown similar disinterest, for example, in the fact that Eric Harris, of Columbine infamy, was taking prescription Luvox; or that Kip Kinkle was taking Prozax and Ritalin; or that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui  was taking a witch’s brew of prescription P-meds.

The warning labels for these drugs all warn of possible side-effects and contraindications that are consistent with the behavior of rampage killers:

Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others.

The most popular class of P-meds are the Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs. In animations on the Internets and on television, and in ubiquitous magazine ads, depression is shown as the result of low-levels of seratonin or other neurotransmitters in the brain. These molecules are released in certain quantities, fitting like keys into tiny locks in the next neuron, causing it to fire. Not enough firing, and depression sets in. Blocking the reuptake of these chemicals by neurons allows them to stay in the synapses between neurons longer, causing the receiving neuron to keep right on firing, thus alleviating the depression. At least, according to the animations.

However, the action of SSRIs, and their supposed benefits for depressives, is largely theoretical. The biochemistry and pharmacology of the brain, and how this relates to things like mood or sanity, is not well understood. Nobody has ever peered into the synapses of living brains and observed this reuptake inhibition occurring, much less mapped out the exact mechanisms of depression. SSRIs are produced as a theoretical way to solve a poorly understood problem. Clinical trials are then conducted to see if consumption of this medicine actually helps. Pharmaceutical companies say they seem to help; so does the FDA, which approves them for use.

However, I deal with persons every day – sometimes several times a day – who are mentally ill and using these meds. The pattern seems to be that the patient reports depression, and is given a drug. If it doesn’t work, another drug is given … and so on, until something given by the doctor produces satisfactory results. In other words, it is all trial-and-error, a crap shoot from patient to patient. If this is science, it is voodoo science.

Obama, his pals in the media, and members of his regime in government may say they want a “comprehensive” approach to gun violence in America. But clearly, they are fixated on guns as the culprits, and want to remove them from our hands.

If they were honest, they would look at the correlations between mass shootings and psychiatric drugs, and seek to address why the real bad actors in these incidents – those pulling the triggers – decided it was OK to shoot up innocent people.

 

Obama Regime Plans Broad Gun Control

The Obama regime is considering – in the words of Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence – proposals for gun control that are, “… a deeper exploration than just the assault weapons ban”:

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

In other words, a bunch of feel-good, social-work-feeling nonsolutions that’ll cost a lot of money but play well to the press, wrapped around a ban of most modern firearms.

The entire story can be read here, at the Washington Post website.

 

Illinois Contemplates Confiscation

The Illinois State Rifle Association has sent out an “urgent alert”  regarding a pair of pending bills in the Land Of Lincoln (LOL) that would effectively ban gun ownership here. These are the bulletins, with relevant links, courtesy of the ISRA:

SPECIAL ALERT UPDATE– YOUR ACTION REQUIRED SENATE COMMITTEE APPROVES BILLS TO RUN RANGES OUT OF BUSINESS AND BAN 80% OF YOUR GUNS

MESSAGE FROM COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS: “Eliminating law-abiding gun owners is a good ‘first step’ towards a ‘civil society.’”

Votes on HB815 and HB1263 were split along party lines in the Senate Public Health Committee Wednesday night with the committee Democrats voting 6-4 and 6-3 to send the bills to the full senate. If these two bills become law, they will resulting most, if not all ranges in the state going out of business as well as the banning of ALL semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as banning all pump shotguns and rifles.

In comments made during testimony, committee Democrats stated plainly that HB815 and HB1263 were “first steps” and that these bills have as their objective the creation of a “more civil society.” In other words, elimination of lawful gun owners is a required first step for creating a more civil society. Of course, there was no mention of the impact of eliminating criminals.

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO ON THURSDAY:

1. Call Senator Dave Syverson at (217) 782-5413 and tell him “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

2. Call Senator Shane Cultra at (217) 782-6597 and tell him “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

3. Call Senator Christine Johnson at (217) 782-1977 and tell her “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

4. Call Senator Carole Pankau at (217) 782-9463 and tell her “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

It is very important that you praise these Senators for their support.

The ringleader of the effort to shut down shooting ranges and take your guns away from you is Senator Dan Kotowski. You may wish to call him at (217) 782-3875 and politely explain to him that, as a law-abiding gun owner, you do not appreciate being treated like a criminal and that you oppose any efforts to regulate shooting ranges, ban semiautomatic firearms, or ban standard capacity magazines.

Posted Wed Jan 2 22:29:34 CST 2013

###

URGENT ALERT – BAN ON GUN RANGES AND BAN ON ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS ON THE MOVE IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE

YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

A pair of nightmare bills is on the move at this moment in the Illinois Senate.

These two bills would:

1. Run all gun ranges out of business by imposing heavy fees, imposing special staffing requirements, warrantless searches of ranges and customers, unlimited unannounced “inspections.”

2. Ban all semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns.

Here are direct links to the two bills:

“http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB0815sam001&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=56601&DocNum=0815&GAID=11&Session=”

and

“http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1263sam005&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=57242&DocNum=1263&GAID=11&Session=”

EITHER OF THESE TWO BILLS WOULD END YOUR GUN RIGHTS ENTIRELY

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO PROTECT YOUR GUN RIGHTS.

1. Follow the instructions below and contact your Illinois State Senator. Politely tell your senator that you are a law-abiding gun owner and you want them to vote AGAINST HB815 and HB1263. CALL NOW!

2. Pass this information on to your gun owning friends and family, tell them to call as well.

3. Post this alert to all Internet blogs and bulletin boards to which you belong.

The worst of the two bills, HB815 is being sponsored and pushed by anti-gun Senator Dan Kotowski. Go to his link:http://www.ilga.gov/senate/senator.asp?GA=97&MemberID=1724 Call him at the numbers listed and tell him that you do not appreciate him trying to shut down gun ranges and taking your guns away from you. He needs to hear from you!

Posted Wed Jan 2 21:17:56 CST 2013

###

Illinois Senator Dan Kotowski (pictured above) is touted as the fellow most responsible for this legislation. According to his official biography:

Since taking the oath of office in January of 2007, Dan has quickly become an independent voice for the 33rd Senate district ushering in a new era of progressive leadership for Illinois. He was sworn-in for his second term on January 14, 2009.

Kotowski sponsored legislation in 2007 that would have prohibited assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles. His bill made it through a Senate committee but died on the floor.

Another Illinois State Senator from the 1st District, Antonio Muñoz – pictured below – is responsible for the “Assault Weapon Ban” components of this legislation. He is an ex-Chicago PD cop, and a longtime foe of gun rights. Also, he is pushing to provide illegal immigrants/undocumented workers valid Illinois driver’s licenses. A comprehensive bio of Muñoz can be found here, at Ballotpedia.

Illinois State Senator Antonio Muñoz

Illinois State Senator Antonio Muñoz

Apart from allowing grandstanding “progressive” politicos another chance to stand before the cameras with their arms dramatically outspread, like mini-Mussolinis addressing cheering mobs of fascists on the Illinois floor, I can’t imagine what they expect to accomplish with these bills. Well, sure … they’d like to see us all turn in our guns to the Illinois State Police; and certainly, they’d like very much to get reelected by their “progressive” voter bases. But down deep, they have to realize these bills are about as airworthy as lead dirigibles. Like Kotowski’s Quixotic 2007 attempt to ban .50 cal rifles, this new effort is probably doomed.

I say “probably” because, let’s face it: these are powerful men. Downstate, our representatives will not support these bills. However, just as the super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy calls the shots way out in the spiral arms where we live, the super-ignorant black hole in Cook County, Illinois has substantial influence all the way down to Cairo at Illinois’ southernmost tip.

So, yes, if you live in the LOL, get on the phone, on your e-mail account, maybe even write a letter using actual paper and raise five kinds of bloody-friggin’-hell with your elected representatives.

Obama To Go “Quickly” For Gun Control, Immigration Reform

An Obama Regime official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Huffington Post today the Prez will go “quickly” for gun control and immigration. Some sort of action is expected by the end of January, 2013.

The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well.

The HuffPo article mentions U.S. Rep Zoe Lofgren as spearheading Obama’s efforts on immigration reform; there is no word as to which moonbat will command the Push For American Citizen Disarmament, but it seems likely their name will end with einstein and start with F.

What is being suggested is a legislative push on both issues, rather than Executive Orders. But Democrats seem to see passage of sweeping gun control and immigration reform as a cakewalk, and are cheered by the fact that House Speaker John Boehner seems to be tucking tail in dealing with the White House:

Good news for immigration advocates may have come Tuesday night, when Boehner broke the so-called “Hastert Rule” and allowed the fiscal cliff bill to come for a vote without support from a majority of his Republican conference. Given opposition to immigration reform by many Tea Party Republicans, the proof that Boehner is willing to bypass them on major legislation is a good sign, the Democratic aide said.

Indeed. Neither Boehner nor former VP Candidate Paul Ryan offered much resistance to Obama’s demands on the “fiscal cliff” crisis. If this sort of invertebrate behavior continues when gun control comes up for a vote, we gun owners may have a real problem.

Taking a lead from USMC Corporal Joshua Boston, we should be contacting our elected representatives and reminding them that Democrat efforts to ban guns, and register owners like sex offenders, will not be tolerated.