Tag: pro second amendment

Gun Control Is Re-Branded Gun Violence

TJ Roberts | United States

On January 9th, 2019, Dianne Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons ban of 2019 to the United States Senate. In the authoritarian left’s endless attempt at complete social control, Feinstein has made it her goal to ban guns as small as the Ruger 10/22. Feinstein and her supporters justify this in the name of safety. While one may have sympathy for one’s desire for safety, basic logic refutes this claim. In fact, there is nothing that could make a physically weak person safer than a gun. It must be made clear that all gun laws are infringements. There is no compromise on fundamental rights. Continue reading “Gun Control Is Re-Branded Gun Violence”

Advertisements

The President of Brazil Proposes Arming the Population

Thomas DiGennaro | Brazil

Brazil, since 2003, has been subject to some of the strictest gun regulations in the world, along with one of the highest murder rate in the world. To put that in a comparative perspective, the murder rate is 30.8 per 100,000 persons. Tremendously higher than the United States murder rates (less than 6 per 100,000 persons since the 1990s), despite the fact that in Brazil, owning a firearm without a license is a jail-able offense up to four years; issuing of license are limited to police, security officials, and hunters/sportsmen; and proof of residence, employment, technical and psychological capacity are all license requirements. These requirements are a part of the Disarmament Statute which took effect in 2003. There was a slight decline in Brazil’s murder rate after the passage of said legislation, but that rate continued to rise again shortly after and is still on the rise today.

Newly elected President Jair Bolsonaro ran on the platform of being tough on crime, hoping to combat the murder rates as countless politicians from every country on the face of the Earth have. However, his plan to combat crime is a tad different; make firearms more accessible to the general public. A former army paratrooper, President Bolsonaro stated in a post-election interview that being “politically correct” and disarming everyone isn’t the solution, supporting that claim with the fact that the regulations from the Disarmament Statue have not made progress towards disarming criminals. His campaign offices displayed across the front door, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”, the all too familiar argument American gun owners try to make their leftist counterparts privy to.

Bolsonaro’s promises have inspired hope in many, as supporters have flocked to shooting clubs to register for firearm safety and training. “I’m not going to run around the streets with a gun in my hand, but a criminal might think twice if normal citizens could be armed,” one Brazilian citizen and supporter of Bolsonaro’s proposals says. Brazilian gunmaker Taurus Armas SA stock rose almost 90% in anticipation of sales to be made during Bolsonaro’s term.

“Every honest citizen, man or woman, if they want to have a weapon in their homes should be able to have one,” says Bolsonaro, and it will certainly be interesting to see what kind of legislation is passed to relax gun laws and what effect this will have on Brazil’s murder rates.

Whatever may happen in Brazil, or anywhere else around the globe, one thing is certain: The fight for gun rights is alive and well in the United States and if we, the law-abiding, armed American citizens, properly educate our children on safety and handling, continue to keep discussion open, and do not compromise away our rights, the next generations may be armed to the teeth as well. This is all the more reason why Americans need to apply Bolsonaro’s mentality to combatting crime and gun violence.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

The NRA Doesn’t Fight For Your Gun Rights

By Thomas DiGennaro | United States

It is both a difficult realization for many pro-gun Americans, as well as a confusing contradiction for many anti-gun Americans, that the National Rifle Association is NOT a true gun rights advocacy group. As I mentioned before in a previous article, Ruining ‘Adam Ruins Guns’, “the NRA is a bunch of corporate suits and lobbyists who are only concerned with lining their pockets”. They have constantly rolled over on the NFA, the GCA, and federal background checks. Most recently they show support for Trump’s proposals for ‘no fly, no buy’, and other measures of “taking the guns first, due process second”. And of course, there is the glaring issue today of the Trump Administration and the ATF’s ban on bump-fire stocks.

The War on Bump Stocks

Many have ‘justified’ the bump-fire stock ban. “It’s just a stupid range toy, no one actually uses them, and they’re inaccurate anyway” are among such claims. Essentially, they don’t care because this legislation isn’t regulating or confiscating any firearms themselves. While this may entirely be true, these arguments completely miss the point of opposition to these bans. It is about the slippery slope that occurs when we start regulating guns. If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to want a glass of milk. And you can be damn sure that the Democrats in office are working very hard to get that glass of milk, and they will have enough support and seats in government to do it sooner or later.

The second ‘justification’ we have seen in defense of this proposed legislation is very similar to the previous, and that is that rolling over on bump-fire stocks is playing chess and appeasing the anti-gun crowd in order to protect semi-automatic rifles. The mouse is going to want that cookie.

We also see one of the underlying principles of capitalism and attempting to regulate the market; the rise of the black market and alternatives. Obviously, there will still be bump-fire stocks sold on the streets long after the ban. Some owners simply will not turn theirs in. The latter, the alternatives, do wonders to show the ineffectiveness of such legislation. The same effect of a bump-fire stock can be simulated using a binary trigger. Hell, even through crafty use of rubber bands or the belt loop on your pants.

What Does the NRA Say About This?

This is an excerpt from the official statement released by the NRA on the issue, “Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.  The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations”. Does this sound like a principled gun advocacy group? Does this sound like people who are fighting to defend the rights of their members?

The most hypocritical aspect of this all: could you imagine the holy hell that would be raised by Republicans and the NRA if the Obama administration was moving to pass this law? For reasons I will never understand, Republicans have no problem trampling their rights as long as it is a Republican administration doing it.

The NRA has also refrained from having Senator Rand Paul speak at their conventions. He is “too extreme” on gun rights. Why would the NRA turn away such a principled gun advocate? Because defending gun rights above all else is far from their agenda. Rather, they line their own pockets through memberships and alignment with Republicans like Trump.

Who Do We Turn To?

So where do we turn in terms of making our voices heard in government as gun owners and libertarians? Look no further than the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America. Both of these organizations have taken legal action against the ATF and the Trump Administration for the legislation banning bump-fire stocks. GOA filed suit against the constitutionality of the ATF’s ban, and “that courts should be highly suspect when an agency changes its “interpretation” of a statute in order to impair the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right”. FPC has moved to challenge the legality of Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Attorney General, and therefore his actions as Attorney General. FPC has also filed a separate suit aiming to show the differences between bump-fire and fully automatic fire. Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Thomas Massie actively work with GOA. Not so much the NRA.

There are several principled and well-run advocacy groups actively working for your gun rights. In addition to FPC and GOA, the National Association for Gun Rights and the Second Amendment Foundation certainly make the list. The takeaway here? Don’t give your money to the NRA.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Governor Jerry Brown’s New Gun Control Laws Are Foolish

By Teagan Fair | United States

On Friday, Jerry Brown, Governor of California, signed bills advancing gun control within the state. A notable piece of this is a law that will raise the minimum age for buying rifles and shotguns from 18 years old to 21 years old.

It is a bit over seven months since the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, when 19-year-old gunman Nikolas Cruz killed 14 students and 3 teachers, injuring 17 others, using a Smith & Wesson M&P15, which is an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle. This event launched the left into a full out attack on the second amendment and gun rights. Three weeks after the shooting in Parkland, California passed laws that raised the legal age to purchase a gun, banned bump stocks and allowed police to bar a mentally ill person from owning guns for up to a year if judged to be mentally ill by a court.

Seven months later, California has passed laws that will be put into place on January 1st. The minimum age to buy a rifle or a shotgun will be 21 years of age. These laws also ban firearms for those convicted of serious domestic violence and those who have been hospitalized due to their mental health more than once in a year. Another bill governor signed by the governor will make it easier for both family members and police to seize guns and ammunition from those who are ‘threatening and potentially violent’.

Like all of these proposed gun control laws, raising the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21 is ridiculous. Of course, you can join the military at 18 and kill people for the government. You can invade countries, attack people you’ve never met and destroy or take lives of innocent people if it’s in the name of the government, but you cannot defend yourself from people trying to attack you unless you are three years older than the minimum age to do previously mentioned activities. If it’s not in the name of the government, of course, it’s sinister now. You can vote for who will represent you at 18, but owning a tool used to defend from criminals, private or government, is somehow malicious. More people are killed by cars than guns each year, yet you can drive at 16 years old.

Not to mention the fact that putting a law on it will likely prove useless, as is true for most gun control arguments. For this particular case, if someone has their mind fixed on committing murders, they will 1. Do so whenever possible, whether that time is when they are 16, 18, 21, etc. and/or 2. Kill by any means necessary, whether that is doing so by gun, knife, car, chemicals, a bat, a sharp stick, jabbing a spoon into someone’s throat, etc. Additionally,  if someone is actually fully willing to commit mass murder,  they will not be scared of the fact that they are not allowed to buy a gun, considering the fact that it’s incredibly easy to purchase guns illegally, and no law will change that. It’s pretty hard to imagine a mass murderer thinking, ‘Man, I really want to go into a vulnerable area and kill as many defenseless children as I can in cold blood, but apparently I’m not allowed to go and buy a gun. Wouldn’t want to do anything illegal, because it’s not like I’m prepared to kill vulnerable teenagers!’ Obviously, if one does not fear mass murder, they will not fear buying a firearm illegally.

This rule can go for most legislation, including all of the previously stated laws coming into place starting in January. People convicted previously of domestic violence, will obviously not be afraid to illegally obtain a firearm if it supports the much worse crime they are already planning and not afraid to commit. Any future mass murder does not fear gun control laws. Yes, Governor Brown, even if they are mentally ill. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, who have no interest in murder, hence why they are considered law-abiding citizens, are the only ones who will likely be affected by such laws, leaving them defenseless and in a worse state than before.

Governor Brown’s laws are foolish, both morally and practically. There is no excuse for us to sit and watch as our rights are gradually taken away. I advocate for those who wish for these rights to be protected to stand up to those enforcing these laws on law-abiding citizens so that we can attempt to protect our liberty.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source