Joe Biden, Kamala Harris
(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the DC Project . . .

In response to the Biden Administration’s anti-Second Amendment proclamations from the Rose Garden, the DC Project, Women for Gun Rights, has a strong response. “These new restrictions from the White House will not keep Americans safer.”

Representatives from the well-funded Moms Demand Action (Everytown for Gun Safety) were on scene at the White House press conference where six initiatives to “address the gun violence public health epidemic” were rolled out. “Countless lives are protected and saved through the defensive use of guns by law-abiding Americans,” said Dianna Muller, DC Project founder. “Who is telling that story, and why are they ignoring the thousands of restrictive gun laws already on the books that aren’t enforced?” she asked.

Later this month, a group of women from the DC Project will travel to Washington to share their own stories with individual policymakers and several caucuses. Meetings will focus on countering the misinformation tactics of anti-gun organizations and educating Representatives on the true impact of restrictive laws.

dc project gun rights women
Courtesy DC Project

“Women have suffered violent consequences because of legislation fueled by groups who mislead lawmakers. They intend to strip the Second Amendment from Americans. It’s imperative they learn first-hand what happens when they only know one side of an agenda-driven narrative,” stated Muller.

The trip’s agenda will focus on education, firearm safety, and opposition to nominee David Chipman as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The DC Project women will also explain the pitfalls of “red flag” legislation and the drawbacks of evidence-based community violence interventions through their personal experiences.

Dianna Muller
The DC Project Founder Dianna Muller speaks at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on assault weapons on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

“Chipman is a radical anti-gun lobbyist with a long history of pushing anti-freedom rhetoric,” said Muller. Chipman worked for the ATF for 25 years and was a pivotal player in the tragedy in Waco, Texas. Afterward, he joined Everytown for Gun Safety as a senior adviser and moved on as senior VP of Public Safety Solutions, before he landed with the Giffords anti-gun organization.

Muller faced Chipman in 2019 during testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Assault Weapons Ban where he stated, “assault weapons like the semiautomatic AR-15 … are identical to those used by the military. If our goal is to balance the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners and the urgent need to keep particularly dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals, simply reinstating the 90s-era ban on assault weapons is not enough.”

“We can only assume Chipman’s stance is the same now as it was in 2019 when he said lawmakers should consider requiring the registration of ‘all existing assault weapons in the hands of civilians…while banning the future manufacture and sale of these weapons,'” said Muller. During his testimony, Chipman went on to suggest registration and tax requirements on sales of certain weapons such as “sawed-off shotguns, short-barrel rifles, machine guns,” and accessories like silencers.


Reacting to the announcement of President Biden’s executive orders and Chipman’s nomination, Muller was a guest on Chris Stigall’s KCMO Talk Radio Show where she commented, “education is the key to safety, not legislation.” Listen to the entire interview here.

More than ever, the DC Project needs the support of pro-gun and pro-freedom Americans to help counter groups like Moms Demand Action who are backed by Bloomberg and a $36 million operating budget. “We’re truly in a David and Goliath situation, but we will not stop! Please contribute today,” urged Muller.


About the DC Project
The DC Project affirms that firearms safety and violence prevention are achieved through education, not legislation; it encourages the preservation of America’s gun culture and highlights the diversity and rising demographic of female gun owners through ongoing advocacy because gun rights are women’s rights. According to Muller, “We believe that self-defense is a human right and that we are our own first responders. We understand the importance of preserving the right to protect ourselves. Members of our foundation regularly stand before legislators and lawmakers on the frontlines of this battle to protect this crucial right and make their voices heard through education. Stand with us by donating to the DC Project and let others know you support the rights of responsible gun owners.”

DC Project Foundation
The mission of the DC Project Foundation is to raise awareness among community members, including legislators, that firearms safety and violence prevention are achieved through EDUCATION, not legislation; to encourage the PRESERVATION of America’s gun culture from conservation and commerce to competitive sports, hunting, and self-defense; and to highlight the diversity and rising demographic of female gun owners through ongoing ADVOCACY, because gun rights are women’s rights.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Caught another line of crap from Jim Crow Gun Control joe on the radio news hour…Attempting to justify his stance joe pulls a fast one on history illiterates with his…”When the Constitution was written there were people who were restricted from owning firearms.” Yes plantation democRat joe there was and those people were called, “Slaves.”

      • To say nothing of native Americans and emancipated free Blacks and their decedents.

        This matter, with respect to Blacks, was settled by the 14A. It took a long time for SCOTUS to catch-up. Nevertheless, the wheels of SCOTUS grind exceedingly fine, and Ottos McDonald, a Black man, finally got-his-handgun in Chicago.

        I think it’s tragic that neither Shaneen Allan, my sister Penciltuckian, nor Carol Browane, my sister white woman, enjoyed the right to bear arms in NJ. I remain terrified each time I drive by a bridge to that state.

        We patiently await the pleasure of five justices to see if they can discover the word “bear” in the 2A.

  1. This is not and never has been about keeping people safe. If it were, the democrats would not let the animals out of their cages. It’s about power and control over a population.

    • True. It was never about keeping people safe. Disarmed peasants are much easier for the oligarchs to control. That is always the point of gun control.

    • Read “The Pedestrian” by Ray Bradbury ( written 1951). Very short story, available on the web. Somewhat prescient and unnerving.

      • I saw a T-shirt on TV the other day, cracked my ass up more than anything clean I’ve seen recently; “Make Orwell Fiction Again”. Can I get an Amen?

  2. A friend recently told me a story of a conversation with a legislator which gave me a new insight. The gist of it is this.

    A politician has zero interest in “the facts” that impinge on which way to vote on an issue. The ONLY thing he cares about is the impact of his vote/statements on the voters’ decisions to vote for/against him. Therefore, it is (almost) futile to talk to a politician about “the facts”.

    To the extent that this is true (and, it it really IS substantially true) our REAL AUDIENCE is a critical vote pool. Identify the members of that pool and educate THEM. Each politician is elected by a fixed constituency of voters and some (established) constituency of major contributors. Some group is critical. E.g., it might be vital for a certain politician to win the votes of cattle farmers (or butchers) and to do this he needs the contributions of vegetable canning companies (or solar cell manufacturers). Identify these few constituents and then go sell THEM.

    It should be clear that a politician who is elected by a solid block of Democrat voters is unreachable. Likewise, a politician with substantial support from Michael Bloomberg. It’s not cost-effective to try to reach that large Democrat voter block nor to convince Bloomberg. That eliminates plenty of politicians who can never be reached economically. You have lost the REAL facts battle – votes and money – before it starts.

    Conversely, there should be plenty of politicians who are vulnerable to either a primary or general election challenge. EACH is equally threatening. Worst case scenario might be a target – suppose a MALE – in a solidly Democrat district fraught with gun violence, supported by Bloomberg. HE’s being opposed in the primary by a WOMAN supported by some other important interest, say immigration. If you can convince HER audience that the gun-control message is futile then you make HER a formidable threat to knock HIM out of the Democrat NOMINATION.

    We might be equally unhappy to have either HIM or HER in Congress. That’s fine. One or the other IS going to win. OUR objective is to bring the truth (about gun control, or ANY OTHER ISSUE) to those that matter, the voters and the candidate’s contributors. It may be that you have to convince HER audience of some totally UN-RELATED issue such as schools or parks. We don’t care WHY she might get elected, only that HE get DEFEATED.

    ONLY NOW can you go to this guy and explain to him the relevant facts. HIS support of our issue (gun-control) is causing US to threaten his candidacy by SUPPORTING HER. We might be supporting HER over guns/schools/parks; doesn’t matter which. The relevant fact is that HIS support of GUN-CONTROL is a significant threat to his defeating HER in the primary (or some other opponent in the general election).

    In our worst-case scenario (Democrat district, Bloomberg contributor) he might have to decide to risk some of his voters’ enthusiasm on one issue. He might have to forego Bloomberg’s future support. It’s a calculation for him; his only goal is to get RE-ELECTED. It’s doubtful that his NOT voting for a gun-control bill will lose him all his Democrat voters. It won’t help to keep Bloomberg’s contributions if SHE wins the nomination over schools/parks.

    The ONLY “fact” that matters is that we find a way to threaten HIS re-election by ANY competitive issue (guns, schools, parks).

    I have no idea what the DC Project is telling Congress-critters. It strikes me as though they/we ought to be working on the voters and the candidates’ contributors in our home states and Congressional districts. Find the WEAK and VULNERABLE candidates in specific races. Identify their opponents and their critical constituencies/contributors. Find the crucial issue guns/schools/parks and leverage the facts relevant to THAT issue.

    We can NOT do these things in DC. We CAN do them in our home states and Congressional districts. We need to pool our resources cleverly.

    Identify which Senators and which Congressmen are absolutely SECURE and which are VULNERABLE. Move resources AWAY from those who are secure and TOWARD the vulnerable. Identify the VIABLE OPPONENTS of the vulnerable and identify their critical issues (guns/schools/parks). Educate the voters and contributors of these viable opponents.

    Then, carry the message to the target in Washington. We’re targeting HIM because of HIS position on gun-control. It’s the only “fact” that he will listen to.

    • Trump is a major threat to the Democrat party and must be removed at all costs. Any accomplishment does not matter. The truth, the facts, and reality do not matter. Say anything to convince people to vote against him. Take any action possible to bring him down. This goes a long way to explain how TDS starts.

      It’s why Cruz (and others) gets treated the way he does. With a 50/50 split, removal of any republican becomes a major accomplishment for the Dems.

      • Trump’s history. He’ll never again be in elected office.

        He did it to himself by alienating so many conservatives and independents with his piss poor performance in office that they didn’t come out to vote for him.

        Please get used to that fact.

    • MarkPA,

      As a veteran of MANY political campaigns (two U.S. Senate campaigns), I heartily agree with and endorse your analysis. It won’t work in every case, but I concur that attacking an anti-gun pol through primary challenges is a more effective strategy than trying to defeat a Dim in a heavily-Dimocrat district. There are a couple of moderate Dims out there who might be amenable to persuasion, but they are few and far between. I think your strategy should also focus of taking the same approach to the squishes on the conservative side – if they are weak in support of the 2A, primary their @$$es.

      Thanks for bringing a little pragmatism to the discussion!!

      • Kind of you to comment.

        Often, we can see all the Legos strewn on the floor before us; yet, we can’t see clearly how to assemble them into a useful construction.

        I can see the Legos; but, I bow to the talents of those (such as you) who have much better insight into how to assemble them.

        Can’t those of you with political experience enumerate for us those things which are clearly NOT cost-effective? For example, I faithfully contribute my name to GAO solicitations to e-mails to be sent to my Congress-critters. But I’ve recently read that Congress-critters read nearly NONE of their mail. It’s not often that their aids bother to tally the pro and con numbers of constituent inputs. If that is really true then it makes sense to stop writing-our-Congressman as a strategy that makes US really FEEEEEEEEL as though we are “doing something” to defend gun rights.

        Folks like you have to direct our resources AWAY from things that do NOT work and toward tactics – a strategy – that WILL have an impact.

        As an illustration, it occurs to me that we can divide the country into two classes: Right-to-Carry jurisdictions; and, May-Issue jurisdictions.

        We can preach the Gospel of self-defense to voters in NYC all we like; but, we can never convince anyone. They have no prayer of ever getting a carry permit. Even a home premises permit is out-of-reach for them.

        Conversely, in Detroit (and elsewhere in MI) a carry permit is obtainable; and, there is a growing body of carriers. Concentrating our efforts in such precincts could make gun-control a loosing issue in the corresponding Congressional races.

        California, western Massachusetts, upstate NY are mixed bags. There are counties (therefore Congressional districts) that are UNreachable. Conversely, other counties ARE reachable.

        What tactics/strategies can you illuminate as bad/good candidates?

      • I really Feeeeeeeelz for you.
        I hope you will feel sympathy for me when I carry on habitually clicking on the GAO email invitations; never knowing whether my pixels are all for naught.

  3. They are already educated. They know what they know and that’s all they want to know.
    Waco, to save the children we’ll burn them alive.

    • I became disabused of the idea that any politician in DC knows anything about guns.

      I once had an idea I hoped to get traction on in DC. I called an old acquaintance who knows DC very very well. Coincidently, he originated from a state deep in gun country. He SHOULD know a fair amount about our gun issue.

      Nevertheless, it became apparent to me that he had NOT the slightest clue how gun background checks are conducted. None. He clearly knows a great deal about how a lot of things work in DC, but, that includes nothing about what goes on in the ATF/NICS/guns. Such gun knowledge was never part of his stock-in-trade practicing his profession.

      Shouldn’t be surprising. His knowledge (and my knowledge) is miles deep in the particular industry we were working in at the time of our acquaintance. That knowledge was necessary to our work. Little else was important to us, not nuclear energy, ships, . . .

      Any estimate we make – other than ZERO – of gun knowledge in DC is going to be vastly over the real mark.

  4. All of my monthly 2A donations go to the GOA. Lots of good 2A groups out there, but my preference is to focus on one organization. Not saying it is better than more distributed giving…just my preference.

    For national politics, all my donations go to Trump’s PAC. Nothing to the GOP (with a United effort, they could have stopped the steal).

    Locally, the Tea Party. Here, in the Lehigh Valley, the Tea Party has over 5k members, and is growing rapidly.

  5. In 1775, British attempts to confiscate the guns of Americans resulted in a successful revolution.

    Biden, & the Dems,, really should keep that in mind.

  6. Only the Government could dream up a ban on Pistol Braces which only serve to make a pistol more accurate, ensuring that you are more likely to hit what ever you are aiming at, as opposed to missing and hitting something else, and calling it common sense gun safety legislation.

    • Biden admits a shoulder stock makes the gunm more accurate. That’s why he wants the brace outlawed. With that logic shouldn’t it be illegal for any gunm to have sights?
      The crowd cheers because they hear ” I will ban gunms and crime will go down. ” that’s not exactly what was said but that’s what the crowd hears.

      Gunm violence is an epidemic. ?
      X amount of people are killed or injured.
      Truth: Of those killed or injured by gunms, most do not have health coverage . The Hospital and burial( State) picks up the tab, it’s not about crime, or lives ,it’s about insurance and money. Seat belt laws were not put into place because of lives saved, but for the insurance money on head injuries. ” cars do kill more people then gunms, wheres the outrage.” One form of death is accepted and another form is not.
      “But I ‘NEED’ my car.”
      But I ‘Need’ my gunm.
      ” But I need to drive to work.”
      Not when I’ve shot your car full of holes with my gunm. …Sooo Fck Off.

      • I think you ARE on to something. There is a cost/benefit analysis applicable to politicians’ thinking. Likewise, to the thinking of movers-and-shakers (mutually exclusive with politicians.)

        In some ways, a death by suicide or by homicide is more-so a SOLUTION than it is a problem. Were those who committed suicide by gun going to vote for me in future elections? If you think not, then why should you expend resources to actually succeed in reducing gunshot suicides? Where those killed in homicides likely to have voted for me in the future? If not, . . .

        In concentrating on deaths we MISS an important part of the picture: gunshot batteries resulting in serious woundings but not death. We don’t have so great statistics on these compared to those for homicides. Nevertheless, we can safely say that these are some multiple – say 3 or 4 – of homicides. No hospital admission is cheap anymore. The lifetime costs – monetary and emotional – of a crippling wound are unimaginable.

        Let’s suppose that the vast majority of these are gang members for whom we ration our sympathies. Nevertheless, there are indisputably several innocent poster children who will be dragged into the discussion. What’s the REAL issue? The gang members? The poster children? Or, is it the COST to our social-safety-net infrastructure to care for all of them from gurney-to-grave?

        It’s very likely true that interests in that gurney-to-grave COST coalesce to form a powerful political block. Should that be true, and verifiable, then we have a useful insight.

        Theoretically, any successful hard-nosed business person or scientist should be open to reason. Yet, Michel Bloomberg proves that isn’t necessarily the case. He really does understand the issues perfectly well. Yet, he is convinced that guns-for-me but not-for-thee is a viable strategy.

        Our question should be: Are there UNOUGH influential members of this gurney-to-grave COST constituency who might be open to reasoning about the relative efficacy of a root-cause approach?

        If the answer might be Yes, then (I suspect) that suicide is NOT the place to begin. They shouldn’t be focused on the burial costs of gunshot suicides. Perhaps (I don’t know) the cost of revival and recovery of an unsuccessful suicide attempt by OTHER means isn’t great. (This impression deserves further analysis).

        What we need to concentrate on is not-so-much the 11,000 homicides each year, but rather the 33,000 – 44,000 serious, though NON-fatal – gunshot batteries each year with their lifetime maintenance and opportunity costs. That’s where the MONEY is.

        Is there an argument to be made for investing in crisis-deescalation programs? How about really serious enforcement of felon-in-possession for targeted suspects who likely do most of the shooting? What is the relative cost of incarcerating a high-victim producer for life vs. the cost of treating and maintaining (for a lifetime) ALL his PROSPECTIVE victims?

        Just to TOY with numbers, suppose 20% of the 11,000 homicide shooters and 35,000 gunshot batterers produce 80% of the victims. Of the 46,000 victims, 80% are 37,000 per year. Over a 10-year career, these 20% generate a cost from gurney-to-grave in the neighborhood of 370,000 victims. (Deaths are cheaper). How many perps constitute the 20%? Maybe 5,000? Incarcerating them for a lifetime might be 5,000 * $50,000 = $250,000,000. Is that price-tag cheaper (or at least competitive with) the tab for gurney-to-grave costs on 370,000 victims?

        Is this a marketable business proposition?

  7. Disregarding fineness, why do I have to feel beleaguered in my own country now for practicing my constitutional rights?

  8. There are NO studies or surveys demonstrating that ANY of the various “common sense gun control” laws passed have had ANY positive impact on “gun crime”, crime rate, or public safety. NONE.

    It’s time we stop even addressing the gun control movement on their terms. There is NOTHING in the gun control movement that has anything to do with “reducing gun crime”, “reducing gun violence” or “public safety” – ALL of those things have been statistically improving SINCE the expiration of the execrable AWB, and yet the gun control movement becomes more irrationally strident every year.

    Their goals are (i) disarmament of civilians, to facilitate (ii) control of people who have a different worldview than them. It ain’t more complicated than that. We need to stop pretending it is.

    • Well, you ARE RIGHT. But there are 33,000 new dead Americans each year. At this point, what difference does it make?

      What arguments might be SUCCESSFUL in changing the hearts and minds of voters?

      We are a nation – tragically – of voters acculturated to sucking on the Federal teet. Promise nearly any voter his wildest dream and he will vote for you notwithstanding that you have NEVER delivered on any promise.

      What argument might prove successful in shocking a voter into recognizing that the government is NOT going to save HER? (I don’t know the answer, but THIS is the right question.)

      Maybe it’s showing her a picture of a burned-out store whose minority owner and minority employees had been operating in a minority neighborhood. Or, asking how she imagines Customs is going to stop gun-running when they can’t stop drug-running. Or, asking her if she can afford to buy a gun at retail rather than buy her neighbor’s used gun without an FFL fee for the paperwork. I just don’t know; these are examples.

      Long ago, in my misspent youth, I studied econometrics. I have some vague insight into the weakness of statistical methods. Yet, I’d never be able to shake the righteous faith of anyone who can dream the impossible dream. I doubt that a lesson in statistics or a meta-analysis of studies is likely to persuade any voters.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here