Saturday, April 29, 2017


by -

A man who is connected to this “deplorable” organization killed the terrorist who stabbed nine people in a St. Cloud mall.

Jason F. Falconer is the off duty police officer who shot and killed the terrorist in the act of stabbing people at a local mall. The terrorist lunged for Falconer and he killed him in a textbook takedown.

The story is spreading all over the United States and his praise is all you are hearing on the national media.

Guess who was a member of the NRA? Guess who taught a training course for the NRA? Jason Falconer.

The man who is being praised by both the left and the right is not only a member of the NRA, but is he is a trainer.

The NRA has been attacked by Democrats and called the worst names for trying to support the second amendment.

Democrat governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota said that he is, “deeply grateful to the heroic law enforcement officer, whose swift response prevented an even worse attack.”

As of right now, the authorities are investigating terrorist ties to ISIS. Watch the video below to see the press conference by Minnesota officials as they talk about terror ties and the heroics of Jason Falconer.

It is obvious to anyone that is paying attention that this was a terrorist attack and a gun toting, card-carrying member of the NRA is the one that stopped the attack.

We need more NRA members like Jason Falconer on the streets.

What do you think about Falconer’s heroic actions? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

What is the best way to stop the gun violence in America? If you ask a liberal professor from Southern State Community College in Ohio, the solution is shooting up the NRA and leaving no survivors.

The terrifying statement was posted on Facebook on June 13th, when professor James Pearce called on people to storm the National Rifle Associations headquarters in Virginia.

The post has since been removed, but the text is below.

“Look, there’s only one solution. A bunch of us anti-gun types are going to have to arm ourselves, storm the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, VA, and make sure there are no survivors. This action might also require coordinated hits at remote sites, like Washington lobbyists. Then and only then will we see some legislative action on assault weapons. Have a nice day.”

Before the post was taken down, people responded with “likes” and a laughing face emoji. The scary thing is that some people think that this professor’s idea is a good one.

Although a lot of friends responded positively, someone alerted the authorities the next day and the case is under investigation.

What kind of school would allow a person who calls for the killing of hundreds of American citizens to be a professor? Southern State Community College, that is who.

When Kriss Cross, the Director of Public Relations for SSCC, was asked about James Pearce and his comments, the school refused to discuss any details during an investigation. Kriss Cross did however spoke in general about the incident with a Campus Reform reporter.

“In general, the college would alert local authorities about any threats that were made known to the college, especially any threats made to students, faculty or staff. We have a good working relationship with the police jurisdictions covering each of our four campuses, and trust they would follow their protocols for reporting to other agencies. As I understand it, a report does not necessarily mean an investigation.”

As of right now, the school is holding strong and Pearce is still employed by the community college since no criminal charges have been filed yet.

Apparently it is ok to make horrific threats and still keep you job as long as you threaten the NRA. If Pearce threatened an LGBT organization, he would probably be fired immediately.

What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Gun Control

The House of Representatives was the site of a sit-in last week where dozens of Democrats sat inside protesting and demanding a change to gun control.

This week, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the House will vote on new gun control measures that will help prevent suspected terrorists from purchasing guns.

Also on the docket, the House will work on a terrorism package that will be aimed at disrupting recruitment and radicalization.

The vote on the gun control measure still isn’t defined very well. There are several bills that could be brought to the floor that will help disrupt terrorists, but the House is divided.

Some like Texas Senator John Cornyn’s bill that requires the Feds to prove that a person is a terrorist to stop the purchase of a firearm. Democrats want the bill to cover “probable cause” instead of “proof” that someone is a terrorist.

The NRA supports Cornyn’s bill but does not support the “probable cause” direction the Democrats want to go.

The Democrats want to take it a step further and ban anyone on any terrorism watch list or even the no-fly list from buying a gun.

The major concern with the “no-fly no-buy” campaign is there are many people on those lists that are not any threat at all. When a person is added to a watch list, they are not told nor do they have a real system to challenge the ruling.

Although Speaker Ryan called the sit-in a “publicity stunt”, it is clear he is trying to bring the House together by calling a vote. What they will vote on next week is up in the air, but they are going to vote.

Do you think that Speaker Ryan should call for a vote? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

On Friday Trump spoke to a forum put on buy the political wing of the National Rifle Association, and won over the powerful group.

In his speech to gun enthusiasts, Donald Trump made it clear that he is pro 2nd Amendment and Hillary was not.

In one of his most poignant speeches yet, Donald took the opportunity to speak to the group of NRA supporters about guns and attack Hillary at the same time.

Trump started off by saying he’s beating Hillary in all the polls , but then went on to discuss why guns are important to him. He spoke of the Paris attacks and how 130 people died because nobody was able to shoot back.

Of course he mentioned the fact that Obama and Hillary don’t want to call terrorists Muslim Extremists.

Trump talked about Gun Free Zones and said he would get rid of them. He called Hillary the most anti-gun person to run for president ever and said she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

The crowd of NRA fans ate it up, and at the end of the day he walked out with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. This is probably the single largest endorsement he could get from any group in America.

Here is the entire speech.

What did you think of his speech and the endorsement of the NRA? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

Throwing caution to the wind to gain the support of anti-gun radicals who despise the Second Amendment and want gun owners to be disarmed, democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced this past weekend that she was going to “take on the NRA” if she wins the White House next year.

And because it is unlikely that new gun control legislation will pass Congress and reach her desk for signature, she has said that she will use “Executive Orders” just the way President Obama has to sidestep Congress on controversial issues like illegal immigrant amnesty.

Warning the NRA to be very afraid of her should she win the presidency last year, Clinton touted her anti-gun record in a campaign email that reads in part:

“Hillary has been fighting hard to prevent gun violence for decades, from her vocal support of the Brady Bill in 1993 to her calls on the campaign trail to take on the NRA and pass commonsense solutions to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.”

“She is the champion we need on this issue — but she needs all of us to stand behind her.”

The email goes on to condemn congressional Republicans for refusing to implement more gun control measures including the expansion of background checks.

For his part, House Speaker Paul Ryan said late last week that he will not allow the Left to stampede Congress into passing new gun control legislation in the wake of last Wednesday’s shootings in San Bernardino, California.

Ryan added that there too many unknowns about the San Bernardino shootings and that many mass shootings occur due to is mental illness which Congress has already been working on.

Democratic presidential candidates Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley all used social media to call for increased gun control immediately following the shooting, while Republican candidates mostly urged prayers and words of support for the victims and their families – something that anti-gun activists mocked in front page editorials.

Reverting to form, Hillary urged Americans to “think about the children” in her email.

“We need to take action now.” “No parent should have to worry about sending their kids to school, or going to a movie theater, or even going to church. No one should have that basic sense of safety and security ripped away from them.”

Candidate Clinton failed to explain how her gun control proposals could have stopped determined Islamic terrorists from gunning down 14 people in San Bernardino, how taking the Second Amendment rights away from law-abiding Americans would make the country safer and exactly how she was going to take the NRA’s five million members down a peg.

All she could offer was an appeal to the anti-gun hysteria on the Left as way to drum up campaign contributions to finance her flagging campaign.

by -

Hillary Clinton gave a solid performance in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate–but one statement she made is raising eyebrows. And it could have disastrous repercussions for her in the general election.

Moderator Anderson Cooper asked, “Which enemy that you made during your political career are you most proud of?”

Clinton responded, with a smile, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians–probably the Republicans.”

While that got a loud cheer from the audience, full of partisan liberal Democrats, it could mean big problems with Hillary when it comes to moderates in the general election.

It’s no secret that America has gotten progressively more polarized in the age of Obama–and part of that has been Obama’s refusal to work with Republicans. Blessed with a supermajority in the Senate when he took office, Obama didn’t need any votes from Republicans in order to pass controversial bills like ObamaCare.

When he lost his 60th vote in the Senate with the death of Teddy Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, he refused to change course–further alienating Republicans.

Now, Americans on both sides of the aisle are left pointing fingers for gridlock–and many Americans caught in the middle are looking for a President who can unite, rather than continue to divide.

But it’s clear, from the debate, that Hillary Clinton–who declared how proud she is to count nearly half the country as her “enemies”–will not be that President.

by -

Anti-gun extremist Jeffrey Zalles, who serves as president of the Marin County, California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is reaching back in recent history to push what amounts to a gun ban that doesn’t focus on guns themselves but the ammunition people need and must have to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Zalles began his recent editorial in The Washington Post by referring to a second anti-gun crusader, Nicholas Kristof, who wrote in The New York Times this past August “that gun violence claims one life every 16 minutes in the United States.” Kristof did not back up his spurious claim with any empirical evidence a uses the statistic to say “more than 90 American families are broken by gun violence every day.”

This claim could only be true if Zalles and Kristof lump Chicago gang violence, disputes between drug dealers settled at the point of a gun, robberies, home invasions and more with one thing in common – that these criminal acts were committed by those who care little for our laws against murder and not at all about our laws regarding guns.

Zalles solution it to create a hole big enough in the Second Amendment to drive a truck through and does just that when it comes to licensing, rationing, microstamping and even banning ammunition – efforts that would not take away the right to Keep and Bear Arms but take away ammunition in a way that renders the Second Amendment meaningless.

Zalles laments the fact that the National Rifle Association (NRA) – the nation’s leading pro-gun group has stood in the way of “meaningful” gun laws that would “achieve” significant reductions in his gun violence “statistic” and ignores the rapes, killings, robberies, kidnappings and other criminal horrors prevented by the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens in self-defense.

But Zalles take heart in his belief that the NRA is not “forever” and that there will come a tipping point “whereby a majority of Americans, fed up and fearing for their safety, will finally work their will in the form of strict gun-control measures or even a rewrite or repeal of the Second Amendment.”

So for now, Zalles thinks making it difficult to access ammunition will neutralize the ability of gun owners to exercise their gun rights without restricting their access to firearms.

This is the same fascist thinking that gave us “poll taxes” and “literacy tests” to give people the right to vote but only if they could negotiate the speed bumps and road blocks set up to make voting as difficult as possible.

To burnish the validity of his strategy to limit the ability of gun owners to use their firearms by going after the ammunition, Zalles noted that late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said there was a 200 year supply of gun in the United States but only a four-year supply of ammunition.

So Zalles proposes “two steps (that) would work wonders” in fighting gun violence.

The first is to license ammunition buyers – that next best thing to gun registration itself. He proposes “several” non-threatening requirements to gain a license like watching a video, answering a few questions about gun safety, producing some form of photo ID, paying as small fee and passing a passing a background check.

What he leaves out is that if the government knows who has the ammunition, the government knows who has the guns. What’s more, once any part Zalles “ammunition registration” scheme is in place, the government can play with the gun rights of law-abiding people around the edges.

A “small fee” could become a “big fee”. Some form of photo ID could become a government ID issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). A gun safety test could become a questionnaire, completed under penalty of perjury, requiring you to disclose the types and number of firearms you own.

And Zalles doesn’t ask for a “criminal” background check, he only wants a “background check” that could include questions about military service, treatment for mental health issues, the number of children you have your home – you name it.

Zalles’s second step is to make ammunition too hard or too expensive to make – and that means “microstamping” ammunition at point of manufacture. That’s right, All ammunition would be marked so ammunition could be traced back to the buyer.

Setting the cost of microstamping aside, criminals could gain access to ammunition and simply deface the markings on the round. It would also put a crimp in those gun owners who load their own ammunition. Would these gun owners have to enter into some tortured registration regime overseen by government bureaucrats on the ammo they reload?

And while Zalles says “a focus on ammunition wouldn’t infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners”, he is woefully ignorant in what it takes to be a gun owner and the havoc politicians and bureaucrats to rain down on the right to Keep and Bear Arms.

A government that could impose a poll tax or literacy test on American’s wishing to exercise the franchise could easily take nice sounding well-reasoned and incremental steps against ammunition and turn them up into roadblocks that would stop the right of all law-abiding gun owners to use firearms for hunting, shooting and self-defense dead their tracks.

by -

“Never let a crisis go to waste” was the famous credo of Obama’s former chief of staff, and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel.

And it’s advice that the liberal news media is certainly taking to heart–because they’re now blaming the horrific shooting in Oregon squarely on the Republicans to score political points.

Correspondent Nancy Cordes gave a special report on CBS News, where she slammed Republicans and conservative-leaning nonprofits like the NRA.

“Sympathy and best wishes are all about the victims’ families can expect from Congress,” she fumed, “which has not seriously debated strengthening gun laws since 2013, after 20 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut.”

But the media wasn’t alone directing their outrage at Republicans–it was Barack Obama who gave them permission to do so.

In a speech after the shooting on Thursday, Obama called for national outrage and exploited the crisis in order to seek tougher gun laws. He said, “Somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize.”

But while Obama–a politician–might be eager to politicize something, it’s not something Americans should expect from their so-called “unbiased” mainstream media.

by -

Dana Loesch, syndicated radio personality and author, has been attacked in the media for the last few weeks after an ad was released wherein she voiced her support for the National Rifle Association (NRA). In the ad she makes points about how as a mother she feels more comfortable knowing how to use a weapon to protect her family and that the media does not show that side of gun ownership.

Groups have run to attack her appearance in the ad and one such attacker even edited the footage to make it look like she shot herself. But the hate has done nothing but fuel Loesch’s stance.

In a post from her website she talks about how she has been repeatedly threatened because of the NRA ad and her platform of Second Amendment rights. The “Hands Off My Gun” author wrote that the most violent comments and threats always come from anti-gun groups and people.

In fact, she comments that groups like Moms Demand and Everytown have never come out against the violent statements made by their members. She deftly acknowledges the irony of the most graphic threats and insults coming from the side claiming that guns take lives.

Loesch is not taking the abuse lying down. She has asked that her fans turn the hate against her into support for the Second Amendment and many have. Whether voicing support or donating to the NRA, a large group is standing behind Loesch and the right to gun ownership.

She is changing the conversation from being attacked to why gun rights are so important. Instead of playing the victim she is calling it like it is. Loesch has taken up a mantle not to defend herself but to defend gun rights. Her response to the hate video was an apt and pointed commentary on why she carries:

As for those who continue to threaten her, she says:

Dana Loesch has proven that she is a force to be reckoned with and much more than a pretty face in an NRA ad. The national conversation about gun rights needs to change and Loesch very well may have started the process by coming under fire herself.

by -

A statement released by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), SAF leader Alan Gottlieb announced that he, along with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) filed suit earlier this week against the City of Seattle, Washington to overturn a new retail sales tax on guns and ammunition. According to Gottlieb, the new taxes are:

“…a clear violation of Washington State’s 33-year-old state preemption law that does not allow cities, counties or political subdivisions to enact laws relating to firearms not authorized by state law…”

According to the statement, SAF, NRA and NSSF joined two of the city’s firearms retailers – Outdoor Emporium and Precise Shooter LLC – and two private citizens in filing their lawsuit in King County Superior Court. Defendants in the suit are Mayor Ed Murray, the city’s Department of Finance and Administrative Services, and that department’s director, Glen Lee.

“We’ve been down this path before with Seattle when we sued them and won, knocking out their attempt to ban guns in city park facilities,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“The city does not seem to understand that no matter how they wrap this package, it’s still a gun control law and it violates Washington’s long-standing preemption statute.”

“Once again, anti-gun activists in Seattle have chosen to violate the Washington State Constitution and trample upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

“They tried to enact similar regulations back in 2009 and lost. It’s a shame to see such a waste of public resources on issues the courts have already ruled to be unconstitutional.”

Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel said:

“NSSF has no alternative but to be an active party in this lawsuit against the City of Seattle’s attempt to interfere in the lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition on the grounds that it violates Washington State’s preemption statute that blocks cities from regulating the sale of firearms on their own.”

“The Seattle ordinance is nothing but a ‘poll tax’ on the Second Amendment and an effort to drive Seattle’s firearms retailers out of business.”

The lawsuit is historic in this respect. It is the first time SAF, NRA and NSSF have collaborated on a lawsuit.

SAF and NRA joined forces in the past against New Orleans, San Francisco and Seattle, the latter overturning an attempt by then-Mayor Greg Nickels and his successor, Mike McGinn, to prohibit legally-carried firearms in city park facilities but that this is first time NSSF has joined in a unified legal action.

Keane added that:

“No municipality can be permitted to set itself apart as a city-state, in defiance of existing law, especially for the purpose of financially penalizing law-abiding gun owners for problems they did not create and crimes they didn’t commit.”

“Just as we did in 2009, we cautioned the city against adopting this tax and our concerns were ignored for the sake of political grandstanding. The law is very clear. Cities in Washington cannot set up their own gun laws, and we expect the courts to agree.”

The Second Amendment Foundation, which was founded in 1974 and has grown to more than 650,000 members, is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.


Liberal magazine, Vanity Fair’s writer slammed Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, in a recent article plaintive over the...