In the next couple of days there is going to be a change next to the “reply” button on posts asking people to login or become members.

We are currently looking at the 26th as our change over date for membership required for commenting.

For those of you that have already become members thank you so much.

Some of you might see a glitch happen on your card. This has been resolved. You will see two charges and a refund. If you think you were double charged and don’t see your refund in the next day or so, please contact us at gunfreezone (at) troglodite.com

Thank you again for supporting us.

Register

In response to the landmark case of NYR&PA v. Bruen we in the guns right community celebrated. This was an amazing win for the Constitution and for Americans.

For years we have been fighting the concept of the “living document” as our Constitution. “The Constitution of the United States was not made to fit us like a strait jacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness.” — Woodrow Wilson.

This is true, but not as the left sees it. The elasticity lies in our ability to amend the Constitution. We, as a nation, have seen fit to do this 18 times. The first time was when the Bill of Rights was added and the other 17 times added a single amendment. The latest in 1992. The 27th amendment to the US Constitution only took 200+ years.

Our Constitution is not a straight jacket that binds us from change. It is a document that is hard to change. It takes work. In addition it requires the only polling that actually matters, in the voting booth. Everything else is just noise. It is only in the polling booth that we learn what the people actually want.

This is why there is so much effort put into creating confusion in ballet questions. This is why there is so much effort put into controlling the count of votes. This is why there is so much effort put into ways of injecting votes into the system that are questionable.

Today we are seeing the temper tantrums of the left when the Court stated that the constitution should be read as it was written. That we don’t get to redefine words. We don’t get to twist words to mean what we want them to mean now. Just consider how the left has twisted “well regulated” from its original meaning of “functioning well” to “having lots of regulations”

Having lost the gun control battle the left with its gun rights infringers had a mental break. Having been told that “good cause” is unacceptable many gun rights unfriendly states immediately went with “good moral character”. Congress passed a gun control bill that flies in the face of Bruen.

And Biden got up to talk about how wonderful this bill was but that it was just a start.

Ignoring Bruen he immediately went to “We need an assault weapons ban” and by assault weapon he means all centerfired semi-auto rifles. And once that is done, there is just one more.

Just one more until there is nothing left…

There is a story from the Civil War that the commander of the a Union Army did not want his troops to devastated the country side. Orders were passed that the troops were only allowed to take ONE rail from the split rail fences of the area. And that is what happened.

The troops would take the top rail, enough to feed their fire. Anybody that saw them take that rail would move to the next section and take the top rail. After they left another group of troops would come by and take the new top rail. In just a short period of time the split rail fence was reduced to almost nothing. And nobody took more than just the top rail.

Just one more law. Just one more rule. Just one more restriction. There is no fence.
— Biden renews push for assault weapons ban — and calls for safe storage law

A judge’s duty is to apply the law as written. They are not there to judge the impact of the law but to apply it.

In the zombie movies the rule is “If I become infected, kill me.” And in most zombie movies a loved one becomes infected and instead of destroying them then and there a judgement is made as to the impact. “It will hurt me to much to lose my child/wife/husband so I’ll ignore the law.”

It almost always ends badly.

In the opinion, the three liberal justices repeatedly warn of the devastating impact of the end of Roe, while emphasizing that the majority’s ruling breaks with core tenets of court procedure.

We’ve been having discussions about the impact of Row v. Wade for years. How many women will be affected by restricted access to abortions vs. the number of babies killed by abortion?

The Dobbs opinion ignores the impact and instead focuses on what the law actually says. What was written, the Rule of Law.

This is the difference between progressives and conservatives. A conservative can be very unhappy over an opinion but will judge that opinion by the Rule of Law. We’ve lost cases because the law wasn’t in our favor. And when those rulings go against us, we attempt to modify the law through legislative means.

A progressive judges everything by its impact. As part of that they apply modifiers based on who is arguing. Thus they can argue the states should have the right to pass laws in one breath and the next argue that the federal government should make the controlling laws. They feel no conflict because they judge based on the impact, not the Rule of Law.

Paul Schiff Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said dissenting opinions help foster “a culture of argument” around America’s laws.
Advertisement

“It reflects the idea that law is not just a set of rules but is an argument about how to put society together,” Berman said. “Even a view that is not going to be the law of the land at a particular moment in history nevertheless gets articulated in the public arena, so people can see that there is a debate going on that they can be part of and that these things change over time.”

The progressives want the court to be another legislature. The goal is to create an opinion that achieves the outcome the left wants. It is not the rule of law but “how to put society together.” It isn’t about careful, critical analysis of the issue at hand but in writing for the masses with what they want to hear.

The descent of the liberal judges always have emotional foundations. The arguments are seldom about why the conservative opinion is wrong on a legal stand point but rather how it is wrong on an emotional or pseudo moral basis.

— The Guardian What the liberal justices’ scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme court

Growing up we didn’t have a TV until I was in the 3rd grade. And then it was a small black and white. We were only allowed to watch TV for an certain number of hours per week. My brother and I would go through the TV guide trying to decide what we would watch.

But what was unlimited was music. All sorts of music. Some music is just a joy to listen to. You can close your eyes and be transported. My parents had an amazing collection of music.

On a weekend I would head over to the stereo, put on the good Sony head phones, cue up my favorite music and just listen.

Some of the songs told stories. Stories of conflict, stories of love, stories of sacrifice and of success.

Over time, I learned that some of the songs were of real events. Of history. Other songs were not of any particular event, but instead of a series of events that were historically accurate.

Sort of like this painting from 1846, George Caleb Bingham’s The Jolly Flatboatmen (1846). This is a “photoshoped” image. The artist had sketches of all these events but at no time did this event take place with these people at this location.

Songs could be like that too.

Here is one of the first songs I remember that caused me to go learn more:

There are movies and books about this battle.

We all know the veterans that spent their time in the military behind a desk. They only time they touched their weapon was when they were in boot camp or when they had to qualify. The vets that never deployed but have a strong opinions.

We see them when a former general says “fully semi-automatic” when describing an AR-15. Or the vet that says “I know what the AR-15 can do, no civilian should own an AR-15”. They lay claim to an authority of opinion that they have not earned and do not deserve.

This image came from my Lady. She was laughing because this proved that the poster really wasn’t a vet.

Yeah, the forward assist is not a selector switch. Nor is “armored infantry for the Coast Guard”.

Except context matters. This was a troll posting. War Path is a name I’ve seen before and not as a wannabe. So yeah Trolling.

This tweet was in response to this one:

When I was in the Army, we kept our M-16’s locked up in the armory. The only time we brought them out was for guard duty — or when we trained for war.

— Lakota Man (@LakotaMan1) July 6, 2022

And Lakota Man responded, you can see it in the image above “Exactly. Thank You.”

Trolling accomplished.

Context matters.

On any given day there will be a dozen different articles or opinions posted to major news organizations about guns. Well, not guns, gun rights, well not gun rights, OUR right to self defense.

The arguments are so tired and well worn that in most cases you can discard them within moments.

Militia! What about the Militia!

These are the people that read “A well regulated Militia,” and stop. If the amendment mentions militia it must be about the militia.

These are the same people that say that until 2008 and the Heller decision there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. They might state it a little differently “the individual right to keep and bear arms was not recognized until 2008” They are ignorant or deceitful regarding the facts that until around 1968 it was always considered an individual right.

But what about all the gun violence!

These are the people that are not interested in the law as written. They are interested in the law as interpreted. They believe in a balancing act between the common good and the law. If they believe that the common good is more important than the law then the common good should prevail.

In the past when “for the common good” was applied, you ended up with strange fruit hanging from the lamp posts.

You can hear and read this point of view in the descent to Bruen.

You don’t need a (Fill in the blank)!

Unlike every other right there are people that believe the right to self defense should be limited by need. And need is defined by them, not you. If they don’t think you need an AR-15 then the second amendment doesn’t apply to an AR-15. If they don’t think you need a semi-automatic center fire rifle then the second amendment doesn’t apply to semi-automatic center fire rifles.

By defining and limiting what is covered by the second amendment they are able to reduce the second amendment to a meaningless trope.

That place is to sensitive to have firearms

For some reason they believe that people that carry firearms will lose control and start shooting random people. Now it does happen that evil people shoot others because they are evil. The justification seems to be that by creating a gun free zone that people will be safer within those zones.

The obvious problem with this is that gun free zones are only apply to the law abiding. They do not apply to criminals. In addition, because of the limits on the law abiding they become a place where it is easier for criminals to operate.

If a property owner wishes to only allow criminals with guns into and onto their property, so be it. We should then decide not to enter those places to do business. If a crime then takes place in one of these places the property owner should be liable as they did not provide adequate protection for those on their property.

Years ago we went to Six flags in Maryland. On the way in we had to pass through metal detectors. Bags had to be checked. They got very upset about my Swiss Army Knife. They didn’t notice the large folder that was in my camera bag. They would not have noticed if I had a full size 1911 in that bag.

Criminal Guns Only zones just don’t work without a great deal of effort.

They Only Meant Muskets!

Leaving out the rifles of the time and all the other amazing advancements in firearm technology going on.

They are unable to figure out that if there was a technology restriction on rights they would loose almost all of their other rights.

The Pennsylvania Gazette, the newspaper published by Ben Franklin, published once a week and had a subscriber base smaller than this blog. (It is hard to find circulation numbers, take that last statement with a grain of salt). Yet nobody really thinks that the first amendment doesn’t apply to the Internet, regardless of all the yapping about “hate speech isn’t free speech”.

It is to deadly

Almost everything we do today is faster and has larger impact on more people than what was happening in the 1700’s. Most people didn’t hurl across the earth in contraptions of steel and plastic weight thousands of pounds. Each one of which was capable of destroying most homes of the late 1700’s.

A food processor is significantly more capable than the knives of 1776.

Balance

nj.com has a history of unbalanced articles regarding firearm rights. Earlier this week they published a balanced article. It is almost as if they can see where things are going and are making editorial decisions that don’t make them out to be complete fools.

The U.S. high court’s ruling, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, “opens up the possibility of scrutinizing all modern-era firearms laws, which seem to be preoccupied with banning hardware as opposed to punishing wrongdoers and intervening with people with mental health problems,” said Scott Bach, the head of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs.

There are many more quotes from gun rights advocates in the article. There is one from gun rights inf ringers and none from the usual suspects.

A spokesman for acting state Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who is named as a defendant in the two major suits, declined to comment. But Platkin saw these legal challenges coming.

“The opinion in Bruen (the Supreme Court gun permit case) will encourage individuals to challenge other laws, ranging from our limits on who can buy guns, to our limits on the most dangerous kinds of guns New Jersey residents can buy,” he wrote in an op-ed last week.

It is refreshing to read a news article in such an anti gun outlet in such an anti gun state that is not twisted in the normal ways.

N.J. gun laws face new legal challenges after Supreme Court strikes down concealed carry law

Peter Kehoe of the New York State Sheriff’s Association gave an interview. He was not kind to the Governor of NY.

He slammed Hochul for unconstitutionally pushing through her gun rights infringement bill without following the states constitution. As we reported earlier nobody had a chance to see the bill before it was voted on. The minority party was reporting that they didn’t have a copy until the day of the vote.

The citizens of NY surely didn’t get a chance to weigh in on the bill before a vote was forced. Another S.A.F.E. act passed in the dead of night without citizen input.

Kehoe: I think pretty clearly the intent was to stymie lawful gun owners from getting their permits and that would be unconstitutional by the state.

Anne: Do you believe that that infringes on second amendment rights?

Kehoe: Sure. By creating a rule they can’t abide by.

NYS Sheriffs: New gun laws unconstitutional by creating rules impossible to follow

A young lady in NYC decided to write a diary. Being a young lady what she wrote in her diary she considered to be private. It was her thoughts, her fears, her wants. It was for her.

Unfortunately, her brother was an uncultured clod and when he discovered her diary in a public area, knowing it was private, decided to read it. We can guess about how the brother handled such private disclosures.

The young lady realized that she needed some what to secure her diary from prying eyes. The idea of wrapping it in chains probably didn’t appeal to her. Like wise, it is unlikely she was able to get a high level wizard to spell lock it.

She found a small portable safe at a second hand store and bought it for cheap. She then proceeded to lock her personal items in the lock box to keep her private stuff private.

Her parents being meddling AWFLs couldn’t handle that so her father showed the lock box to a friend. The friend identified it as a “gun safe!” Exclamation marks in the original article.

Once the parents heard the word “gun” they had a mental break. They demanded that she get rid of the gun safe. They can’t have anything associated with a gun in the house. They young lady refused.

The parents aren’t worried about the gun safe holding a gun because the young lady is anti-gun but “GUN SAFE!” in the house is unacceptable.

Being unable to deal with their daughter refusing to give in to their crazed demands, the mother wrote to New York Times Social Q page for help.

There Philip Galanes comes to their rescue.

…Acknowledge your daughter’s valid distress and ask her to help you solve your problem with the gun safe in light of your shared philosophy about guns. Let her stash the diary elsewhere while you remove the safe, then negotiate a security system for her that wasn’t built for weapons.

More important, use this opportunity that’s fallen into your lap to talk with your children about guns. …
— Philip Galanes, New York Times: How Do We Get Rid of Our Teenage Daughter’s Gun Safe?

Yep, this editor of the NYT agrees with the parents that a gun safe is to awful to have in the home. Instead, the daughter should give up the good security she currently has for her diary and instead trust her parents to provide a “security system … that wasn’t built for weapons.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Is there an outreach program for parents like this? Heck, is there outreach programs for people that aren’t this far off their rockers?

Thank you so much for the people that have already become members.

I’ve you are on a desktop or laptop type machine click on “REGISTER” in the menu bar. To see the images full size and clear, please click on them.

This will take you to the registration page where you can pick your membership level.

If you are on mobile it takes two clicks:

This is the “menu” button. Once you click on that you will get a menu:

Click on “REGISTER” and that should take you to the registration page.

Sorry for the difficulties.

Again, thank you for your support.

When the title of an article tells you how they are going to combat “gun violence” you know that it is another attempt at banning guns. Or a crime gun purchase/scam the ignorant effort.

The standard response to anything gun related by government is to ban it.

The assassin of Shinzo Abe used a home made gun. In Japan it is illegal to posses that gun. It is illegal to make a gun. It is almost impossible to get government permission to own a gun.

The assassin made what would have been called a “zip gun” and seems to have used black powder.

The president of these United States in his belated statement blamed gun violence. A one track record that is skipping in the first groove.

The City of Cincinnati is going to spend $1 million on programs to reduce violence

The city will spend $1 million to increase employment among youth and will work along side other nonprofits, such as the Urban League.
…
“This violence protection collaborative brings residents and organizations together to disrupt the pathways to violence through youth mentoring, advocacy and character building programming,” said Mayor Pureval.
— WKRC Local 2 Cincinnati city leaders announce new measures to combat rising gun violence