Cage Weighs In

If you remember, there was quite a bit of disagreement on whether or not Baldwin was responsible for checking to ensure that the firearm he pointed at a staff member was safe, or if it was proper for him to accept another staff member’s word for it.

There are bloggers who insist that anyone who hasn’t made movies is unqualified to have an opinion. Perhaps Nicolas Cage has enough experience making movies for his opinion to matter. Cage explained that he believes it is an actor’s responsibility to be educated in the use of guns as part of their craft. Here is what he has to say on the matter:

You need to know how to fight. You’re going to do fight scenes. You need to know how to ride a motorcycle. You need to know how to use a stick shift and drive sports cars, and you do need to know how to use a gun. You do. You need to take the time to know what the procedure is. Those are part of the job profiles.

Nicolas Cage on the Baldwin ‘Rust’ shooting

Of course, we all know that rich and famous people follow a different set of rules from everyone else. For that reason, I don’t expect a rich, antigun movie star to be held legally accountable. Still, that doesn’t change his responsibility for what happened, even if he will never be held accountable.

Antigun Criminals

I Wonder

The Manhattan DA has said he will not seek prison sentences for any crimes other than homicide or other cases involving the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, domestic violence felonies, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law, unless required by law.

Does that mean you won’t do time for owning an AR15 and a dozen 30 round magazines?



Liberals want to erect a statue of Kyle Rittenhouse so they can tear it down.

Antigun Presidency

On Stupidity

Back in April of this year, Biden decided to take aim at the so-called “Ghost Gun” industry. This is what he had to say:

So the ATF decided to take aim at the DIY gun kits like the GST-9. As a result of this, they declared that selling an 80 percent firearm frame complete with all of the parts needed to turn that frame into a firearm is constructive possession and violates Federal law.

As a result, kit makers can’t put everything needed to turn an 80 percent frame into a firearm into the same box. So now they put them into two boxes, meaning that the rails for a Glock frame can’t be included in the same box as the rest of the (unfinished) frame. So now the rails come with the jig, which you must order separately.

Due to recently changed ATF regulations, we cannot legally include the jig or frame rails with the GST-9 frame. The jig and GST-9 frame must be purchased on our website as two separate items. Each jig includes one set of GST-9 frame rails. You will need to purchase one jig for every GST-9 frame you plan to build. Frame rails are ONLY included with the jig, not with the 80% lower itself.

The jig with the rails can be in the same order as the frame and even ship at the same time, thus proving that efforts to control this industry are doomed to failure.



The Santa Fe DA says this about Alec Baldwin:

“Guns don’t just go off. So whatever needs to happen to manipulate the firearm, he did that, and it was in his hands.”

Now I still think that Alec Baldwin has enough money and celebrity to get out of it. We all know that there are two sets of laws in this country: One for rich lefties, and one for the rest of us. That doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken, just that he will use connections to get out of it.


First and Second

Slate is always good for seeing the left’s faulty opinions, and this article is no exception. My first thought when I read the headline: “The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First” was something along the lines of, “Oh, what fresh idiocy is this?”

The article begins by pointing out that there are numerous restrictions on the time, manner, and place of free speech. Examples include rules that a ensure that expression does not interfere with their normal use. Rallies interfere with picnics and family gatherings. Parades and picketing block traffic and access to homes and businesses. The author then asks if firearms prevent the public from use and enjoyment of public spaces before going on to say:

Individuals may be injured and even killed when firearms are misused, improperly handled, or even when they are used properly. Even when a gunshot strikes the intended target, others may still be injured because the bullet may pass through the target and injure someone else or because the presence of the gun and gunfire cause a panic.

This is flawed, because the mere possession of firearms do nothing of the sort, any more than mere possession of a bible, political literature, or other materials that some find offensive interfere with the public’s use of a space. What the author is doing is conflating possession with use. No one is saying that people should be permitted to fire weapons in the middle of the street. The above argument is nothing more than the tired, old “yelling fire in a crowded theater” argument.

The author goes on to say:

the plaintiffs are not demanding the right to merely carry the firearm; they are demanding the right to use the firearm for self-defense. Thus, the fundamental question is not whether the presence of firearms threatens public safety but whether their use threatens public safety. The answer should be obvious, and the lessons of First Amendment jurisprudence should apply.

I actually agree. You see, using a firearm for self defense means that the person using that firearm is doing so to protect his own (or another’s) life from the unlawful use of force from a person illegally using that force. Just as a judge may prevent me from yelling out and disturbing his courtroom, no judge would argue that I cannot yell out to warn the occupants that the building is on fire, or that there is a man about to strike the judge with an axe from behind.

The author actually goes on to make a great point, and one which I agree with in principle, but I am betting not in the way that he is intending:

According to the court, “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is unconstitutional.” The same should be true for firearms, and, arguably, this is where New York’s law fails. The requirement that applicants must show “proper cause” may be insufficiently clear and objective, allowing officials to exercise an unconstitutional amount of discretion.

If the court adopts this approach, it will follow a clearly marked path that will force New York to reconsider its standards for restricting guns in public, but allow it to still maintain some such standards. If the public forum doctrine is good enough for those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, it should be good enough for those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights as well.

My agreement here is that they should be permitted to require permits for concealed carry, as long as those permits are issued under clear, and unbiased criteria. I would accept shall issue- that is, anyone who completes a reasonable safety course and is not a prohibited person shall be issued a permit.

I am betting that isn’t what the author is thinking.


It isn’t taken if the thief doesn’t keep it

That is what the 9th circuit said today when it ruled that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines was not an unconstitutional taking.

Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings

and as far as the ban being a violation of the takings clause:

the government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines.

Therefore, they didn’t take anything. The Australians were disarmed in 1996. By 2020, nearly all guns were confiscated. This was the result:

Two months later, and the military began taking Australians off to the camps:

The courts are not going to come to our rescue. There will soon be only two choices: Fight, or be taken away to the camps for our own safety.

Antigun Communism Race baiting

‘Everybody Takes a Beating Sometimes’

The Rittenhouse trial has exposed a central belief of the antigun left. There is this article, from a licensed New York attorney who specializes in International Human Rights and Islamic studies. The central belief of her opinion?

Kyle Rittenhouse had viable alternatives to patrolling the streets of Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle… He chose otherwise, and that choice should have had legal consequences.

Then there are several student organizations at Arizona State University, including: the Arizona State University Students for Socialism, Students for Justice in Palestine, Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, and MECHA de ASU. All of them are communist organizations, most are race based.

One of these groups- La MEChA, even has this in their constitution:

Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.

This MEChA group has a chapter on many College Campuses in this country. For example, they posted on the University of Texas webpage in 2007 (since taken down):

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories

I wrote about them in 2007, back when they were advocating for an armed rebellion. It appears as though they don’t mind guns, as long as the guns are in their hands, not the hands of their would-be victims.

The groups are demanding that Rittenhouse be expelled from Arizona State. In their statement, they had this to say:

Rittenhouse took the lives of innocent people with the intent to do so—by strapping an assault rifle to himself in a crowd of unarmed citizens. That is the textbook definition of intention. 

Nevermind that the citizens he shot were armed with a length of chain, a skateboard being used as a club, a handgun, incendiaries, and other weapons. No, having a firearm for self defense is, to the commies, evidence that you intend to commit murder.

The Rittenhouse case is being used as an indictment of armed self defense as a concept. They hordes of violent Antifa and BLM warriors need unarmed victims for their tactics to work. If their intended victims are armed and begin to actively resist, their movement falls apart.

There is a reason why those “protests” have only been successful in Democrat run, gun restricted states. When your victims have the means of resistance, it’s a bit harder for them to become victims in the first place.

Remember what the ADA said in the Rittenhouse case:

Because ‘Everybody Takes a Beating Sometimes’

Antigun Police State

Gun control

New Federal law being proposed. Let me explain:

The problem: There’s no requirement for a background check on ammunition sales.  So you can be someone who just stole a gun, illegally got your gun from some kind of trafficking, or were in possession of it and you are intending a crime. You can walk into any store and buy the bullets and nobody is going to check. If we extend background checks to ammunition, we immediately save lives

Fred Guttenberg, father of Jaime Guttenberg

Fred Guttenberg is pushing for the proposed law, named Jaime’s law after the man’s daughter. Jaime was killed in the Parkland shooting in South Florida. Here is the thing: this law wouldn’t have done a single thing to prevent the shooting that killed his daughter. The killer in that particular case obtained his gun legally because authorities couldn’t be bothered to do their jobs.

If the law passes, it won’t fix a single one of the hypotheticals in the above quote. If a person steals a gun, buys one on the black market, or is intending to commit a crime, there is no way that such scenarios would result in failing a background check.

No, the real purpose of this law is to inconvenience shooters. It requires that ammunition can only be bought from licensed dealers. It also appears to require a permit to purchase ammunition at anywhere other than a shooting range where the ammunition will be fired on the premises. The law also states that there is no limit to the fee that can be charged for the background check.

Keep buying ammo, it may be needed very soon.



A teen is walking down the street, not doing anything. An older man is following him after using racial epithets to threaten him. The teen turns and confronts his attacker. There is a short struggle. A shot rings out and one of them falls dead. Remember when the left claimed that the teen being followed should be allowed to attack the one following him?

Given the fact that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon the discussion should really be about Trayvon’s right to stand his ground during Mr. Zimmerman’s unprovoked attack against him. Trayvon was the one being pursued. Trayvon was the one who presumably feared for his life when confronted by Zimmerman who had admitted in the 911 call that he was following the teen. It was Trayvon who had a right to stand his ground and defend himself. Why has the discussion of the right to defend oneself focused on this issue from the perspective of Mr. Zimmerman instead of the innocent teen?

The Huffington Post

Now reverse the roles. The left is now saying that the teen should have run faster.

Those on the left just don’t like self defense.