Previous Post
Next Post


The latest from Chris Cox on the Manchin-Toomey amendment defeat in the Senate today:

“Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools . . .

 “The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats who are committed to protecting our children in schools, prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and fixing our broken mental health system. We are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to pursue meaningful solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. “

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. There are over 300,000,000 of us in America, I think that the rarity of spree killers is actually quite remarkable. It means that the Lanza’s of our nation are so far out on the bell curve that ball joint inspections on school busses would be more effective in reducing school age childrens deaths than trying to predict an unstable persons behavior. They are so few that you can’t build a model that could stop this. You would succeed in only grouping “abnormal” people and treating them as guilty by prior restraint. The real question would be, who desides who is deficient. Then if we can’t trust them, maybe we should put them in a camp, I mean a secure housing facility. Most of us are protected from rare events primarily because they are rare and not by a strategy we can implement. An armed concealed carry may be on the scene and will be more affective or not than trying to sceen all 300,000,000 of us.

  2. The battle may be won, but this ain’t over. The Gun Prohibitionists will not stop. They have become better organized and funded over time. They will go politician shopping by giving money to candidates in both parties during the Primaries.

  3. You know, I am going to go out on a limb and say this is going to bite us in the ass big time. We won this round, but I think just like the tabacoo stuff this may be a phyric victory. I think the next go round is going to be even more extreme. Remember the PATRIOT ACT was proposed by Clinton in 90s, worst law ever, then 9/11 and boom that shit is passed in 2 seconds. Let’s say the boston bomber is a timothy mcviegh, or there is an adama lanza 2, the grabbers are going to come harder and faster, and we may not have a say at all. We should have given up a brackground check, with a no national database provision, and then all of the libs could have gone home and said done deal… Great to have won this one, but I am doubling my ammo and gun counts, because they may be gone next go round.

    • “we should have given up a background check”

      pardon my French, FUUUUCK that. giving up an inch means they take a mile. every seemingly minuscule compromise we’ve made has been spun as approval. that’s how this “91% support” crap was born. by supporting it, allowing it to pass, you have legitimized their claim to this absurd figure, thus moving the next amendment to the chopping block. the media will be paid off to report another biased load of shit which will be shoveled down the throats of misinformed, undereducated, indifferent, lazy, trend-following Americans.

    • We already have a background check. One so comprehensive that it already steps on the Constitution in both restraint of arms and in-state commerce. One that also stopped the Newtown murderer from legally buying a gun.

      “Give them what they want so they won’t take it all” is never a suitable response, because appeasement doesn’t work. All it does is give the aggressive party an easy victory and momentum towards their next goal.

      • Interesting that you refer to the individuals dedicated to stopping violence with guns against children-and all citizens-as “aggressive”. If you mean that we’re aggressively hoping to save lives by restricting the sales and purchases of guns, then I guess you’d be correct. Otherwise, I’d suggest that the individuals completely unwilling to make any changes to current law and unwilling to admit that the use of automatic weapons-not even in existence when the constitution was written-is not a basic human right, are the aggressive ones. Just a thought…

  4. If the feds can’t do it, they will encourage the states to do it one- by-one. Look at the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. Two days ago the Senate passed sweeping legislation taxing ammo, making internet purchases illegal, and requiring additional registration of currently owned firearms AND ammo. While I love where I live in Northern CA, , I am definitely looking to retire somewhere else….


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here