Although ethical journalism demands covering both sides of a story, when it comes to guns and the Constitution, today’s journalists abandon the rules and only cover the side they like—paradoxically, the part they hate. The dark side. They hate guns, gun owners, gun rights and it shows. It’s not good to hate.
Alan Korwin | All Articles
Anti-gun-rights crusaders are calling for new and improved background checks. You know why. They’re dancing in the blood of victims. It’s what they do.
How much longer will gun owners tolerate discrimination and be segregated because they bear arms?
In a “more guns” bill that alarmed even pro-gun-rights activists, representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has proposed arming federal legislators to the exclusion of regular citizens. An existing bill, HR 38, to make the firearm-carry permits of normal American citizens valid nationally, has languished in Congress since the election of Donald Trump.
We banned such waste by law. They're ignoring it.
The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national - or any - firearm carry permits.
Certain candidates for Congress and the presidency have announced plans to act against the ownership, possession and use of arms and ammunition by the public.
Blame the Muslims, the jihad, guns -- do it for safety.
Katie Couric isn’t the only journalist whose bona fides on gun issues are in the sewer.
Enormous self-evident facts have been lost in the national debate about disarming or subarming the American public. We now have about 100 million people armed, in something like 60 million armed American homes. Raise or lower those figures by some percentage if you are pro this or anti that (the Ph.D.’s do not agree precisely), but that’s the ballpark. It’s a lot, by any standard. The Worldwide Gun Owner’s Guide places us in the Top Ten of nations with armed publics (which is virtually all nations to some degree).
Liberal and progressive gun controllers aren’t afraid of criminals with guns. They’re afraid of honest people with guns. They’re afraid of you. And your gun.
It never ceases to amaze how quickly police and their supporters insist they would never do anything that violated the Constitution or our rights. If push came to shove they would stand with the people, defy authoritarian rule, block any attempt to implement illegal orders, and be the force for good and justice we would all hope they would be. They would never summarily confiscate our guns, that’s for sure!
“I wouldn’t want a gun in my house,” said the nervous frail suburban housewife, speaking to her daughter’s grade school teacher, who was nodding vigorous agreement. “It’s dangerous.”
I want to finish describing the gun myths anti-rights advocates keep throwing at us, so we’re the fully informed electorate the Founding Fathers wanted. But there are so many! It seems the only thing the other side has are myths! If freedom is the gauge, every new (or old) gun proposal coming out of the left attacks a mythological problem.
My Daily Caller columns have been cataloging the gun myths decent people have been enduring in the struggle to preserve, protect and defend the right to keep and bear arms. I didn’t choose those verbs lightly.
Like original sin, there is an original myth in the gun-rights struggle: progressives make progress. It’s counterintuitive, even defying the name they’ve chosen, but progressives interfere with progress, the opposite of the name they use.
It’s important to recognize that progressives’ arguments against guns aren’t lies—deliberate fabrications and untruths—they’re myths—complete inventions and fantasies based on fears and psychological terror.
Say what? What’s really insane is that the all-democrat audience applauded wildly when the person currently in the White House said it. What did he say?
The scary list of deceptions that dangerously cloud the gun debate continues unabated. These imaginary problems lead us off course, create enormous discord and delay arrival at real solutions. They force us to focus on issues that aren’t problems, or aren’t even real.