By Wireshots Team / Featured NewsFirearm News / / 0 Comments

Let me say something to every political hack pretending you know an AR-15 from a

double-barreled shotgun in the wake of the Orlando terror attack:

Stop talking. Every word not only exposes your ignorance, but your utter contempt for

ordinary Americans trying to survive in an age of terror you still won’t fully recognize.

Hillary Clinton says “weapons of war have no place on our streets” and that we need to

ban AR-15s immediately.

Unlike Hillary, I’ve actually used an AR-15 … but fully automatic. I was a SEAL for 12

years. Now I train average, everyday Americans to protect themselves and their

families. And for the vast majority of people I work with, there is no better firearm to

defend their homes against realistic threats than an AR-15, semi-automatic.

It’s easy to learn and easy to use. It’s accurate. It’s reliable.

And I guarantee if the Founding Fathers had known this gun would’ve been invented,

they wouldn’t have rewritten the Second Amendment—they would have fortified it in

stone.

Because they knew the only way for us to stay free was by having whatever guns the

bad guys have.

This firearm gives average people the advantage they so desperately need—and

deserve—to protect their life, liberty and happiness.

But it isn’t just the anti-gun politicians attacking our rights. With every broadcast, the

media proves how ignorant and desperate for ratings they truly are.

(Gretchen Carlson: Do we need AR-ˇ15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to

protect our families?)

Look. Gretchen is a great broadcaster. And I’m glad she’s on the side of freedom on

most Second Amendment issues.

But the fact of the matter is, she simply does not understand what she’s talking about.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. And when it comes to

defending your family—what does it say to you when I … a veteran Navy SEAL …

someone who trains on every conceivable firearm platform as well as trains in hand-to-

hand combatives … someone who is more prepared for and capable in a firefight than

almost every American alive … turns to the AR-15 to defend my family?

Choosing to defend your home with an AR-15 is a common-sense choice that tens of

millions of Americans are making—and our neighborhoods and communities are safer

for it.

Let’s run through some of the latest attacks and see how banning so-called “assault

weapons” would’ve turned out.

California already bans assault weapons. That didn’t stop San Bernardino.

No ban on ARs, or any guns, would have stopped the Boston marathon bombing.

ISIS’ well-coordinated attack in France wasn’t deterred by the country’s strict gun

control laws.

Brussels’ gun ban did nothing to stop terrorists from killing.

But every single one of those tragedies ended with police officers carrying AR-15s

rushing to the scene as fast as possible.

Hillary’s solution to stopping terror attacks … is to ban the very gun that stops terror

attacks. And she calls that common sense!

Why would you want to ban the gun that you pray for police to show up with?

Here’s a common-sense solution to stopping Islamic terror: law-abiding citizens

prepared to deal with the imminent threats we face.

Hillary Clinton is prepared.

She knows ARs are a powerful defense against radical Islamic terrorists. That’s why

she’s been surrounded by guards armed with them for the past three decades. AR-15s

are fine for Hillary and her family. But average Americans who watch the news and feel

genuine fear for their safety, and their families’ safety—she wants to deny them the

level of protection she insists upon herself.

I fought this enemy face-to-face for 12 years. I know how they think, and I know the

hatred that burns inside them.

I urge every law-abiding American to take measures to defend yourself. Arm yourself.

Get the proper training. Be aware of your surroundings at all times.

Call upon your politicians to get rid of the dangerous lie of gun-free zones.

Demand your national right to carry—and use it.

This threat is real. Our leaders are either incapable of or unwilling to protect you.

And the AR-15 is one of the most effective tools available to protect yourself and your

family.

Embrace your freedom. Buy one if you want to. Get trained and learn how to use it.

Your safety is in your hands. And thank God we have the Second Amendment.

Dom AR Asset 1

NRA News Commentators Episode 75: "Civil Rights" With Dom Raso

 

 

 

Tune in to www.NRANews.com/Commentators for more episodes.

About: NRA News is America’s premier source for Second Amendment news. Besides Commentators, other broadcast offerings from NRA News include Cam & Co, a weekday talk show airing on NRANews.com, Sportsman Channel, SiriusXM and iHeartRadio; and Ginny Simone Reporting, a series of investigative pieces from the award-winning journalist. Visit NRA News: www.NRANews.com.

Love at First Shot Sponsored by Smith & Wesson

Episode 2: “Shotgun Sports”

There’s something timeless about a shotgun that you just have to love. In this episode of Love at First Shot, host Natalie Foster tackles the world of shotgun sports. Olympian Kim Rhode even stops by to give some expert advice to a first-timer!

LINK: http://www.nrawomen.tv/love-at-first-shot/video/episode-2-shotgun-sports

NRAW_Instagram_LAFS_Ep2_withshotgun

 

Noir Episode III: 

The Truth About Guns was offended by this 3rd episode of Noir. While he Colion does take some pointed swipes at TTAG and other gun bloggers, that is not the entire point of the episode.( read more on TTAG.)  This episode of Noir swipes at both sides, taking equally harsh jabs at the liberal elite anti gunners who have been overly critical of the Noir show and Colion himself.

Noir has expanded its audience with each episode and the 3rd episode will continue that growth. The NRA Freestyle show will continue to appeal to the younger audience, exposing a new generation of potential shooters, hunters, and outdoorsmen to the sport of shooting.

“Shooting makes the world BEAUTIFUL”

Noir

NRA NEWS COMMENTATORS

Episode 45: “Wrong Heroes” with Natalie Foster

 

There is a disturbing and tragically predictable trend that occurs like clockwork after every attack, mass murder or large-scale bloodshed in our country. Another face is burned into our memory, and another name is talked about around the world.

 

We become so focused on the person committing these acts of violence, that I’m afraid we’re losing sight of the big picture here. Sure, we see flashes of the victims and their families, but we can’t seem to get enough of the bad guy. It’s all we hear about. It’s all the media gives us. I can name five mass murderers off the top of my head but I couldn’t list five of the victims if I tried.

 

What is with this macabre obsession? Some talking heads in the media have even openly acknowledged this fact. But they’re so dependent on the ratings and keeping your eyes glued to the screen, that, well they’re not changing their news coverage any time soon.

 

Staying informed, that’s one thing. I mean, we need to learn about these people so that we can deter further attacks, of course. But when it’s all we hear about—when it turns into glorification of these crimes and atrocities, even profiting off these criminals? Well the media becomes complicit in the next tragedy.

 

Now it’s revolting enough when a pop star brutally beats his girlfriend the night before the Grammys and then after waiting the obligatory punitive period, he’s accepted right back in to the Hollywood scene.  But when the surviving Boston bomber, who murdered and maimed hundreds of innocent people somehow ends up on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine … how is that OK? What are these people thinking? They know precisely how much power they have and they know exactly what they’re doing.

 

They paint a picture of a young man who looks more like a budding rock star than what he really is: a blood-thirsty killer. And it’s looking more and more like our societal moral compass is broken. We need to be shaming these guys not worshiping at their altars. This isn’t the movies this is real life, real evil.

 

And then, there’s the real question, right? With all of this coverage that borders on fanfare, are we creating more monsters? We know that the man who committed the Newton massacre obsessively studied the Norway killer and sought to duplicate that shooting. Are there other people out there taking note of all this media coverage and planning similar attacks? More people who want to be ranked on this list of the most infamous household names?

 

Without question, yes. And we’re fueling their desire to be bigger and bloodier than the last guy. We are rewarding these people with the attention that turns into immortality—exactly what they’re seeking.

 

So what are we going to be here? A society that focuses on the negative and brutal facts far beyond simply being informed? I’ll be honest; it’s a question I have to ask myself too. It’s a slippery slope. And we’ve got to reassess what we’re ingesting, and what we’re glorifying. The only way to get the media to stop celebrating these villains is to stop patronizing their product. Tell them they can keep doing this; we’re not going to watch their shows or read their magazines. They’re going to be selling their twisted product to an increasingly smaller audience. Because we are better than that.

Comm_Social_WrongHeroes

NRANews Commentators Episode 42

“You Say Want, I Say Need” With Billy Johnson

 

Nationally, there is a push for increased regulations on legal gun ownership. One of the central premises of this push is that people don’t need particular types of guns, such as semi-automatic rifles. I find that premise to be fundamentally flawed. Let me explain why.

 

We are being asked to agree to legislation that restricts our Constitutionally protected rights. The burden of proving need doesn’t fall on us; it falls on the government to justify that restriction. Historically, Americans have enacted legislation that restricts their rights because of the perception it will make them safer or more secure. Now I’m not saying I think that’s okay, but if we use history as our guide, the data has to support the assertion that restricting this right in this way will make us significantly safer.

 

According to the recently released 2012 FBI crime stats, last year there were 12,765 murders. Of those, 322 used a rifle. The data doesn’t differentiate between semi-automatic and bolt action rifles. Still, rifles were used in only 2.5 percent of all murders last year. We are being asked to restrict access to semi-automatic rifles in order to prevent their use in less than 2.5 percent of all murders. That’s irrational and is a result of the media and our politicians engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that is meant to instill an overinflated fear of semi-automatic rifles in Americans. Restricting our access to semi-automatic rifles will not make a statistically significant impact on our safety and security.

 

Even more concerning is that as a society, we have willingly accepted the premise that we should have to justify exercising our Constitutional rights. Those rights are not granted to us; we are born with them. We do not have to prove we need them; we inherently have them. We are born with them, the Constitution protects them, and it’s the primary function of our government to uphold our Constitution.

 

But still, we expend a tremendous amount of time and energy justifying our need for the rights protected by the Second Amendment. And every time someone abuses that right, the government threatens to take it away by asking the rest of us to prove, yet again, we still need it.

 

Imagine, for the sake of the argument, if we did the same thing every time someone abused one of our other rights. Take, for example, our Constitutionally protected right to due process.

 

There are times when there’s a preponderance of evidence linking a suspect to a crime. Say, for example, there were several witnesses, police arrested the suspect on scene, holding the murder weapon, there’s ample DNA evidence. It’s obvious that the person is guilty, but the suspect insists on a trial.

 

We will, of course, grant one—even if it comes at horrible psychological costs to the victims and enormous monetary costs to the taxpayers.

 

And in the end, when the suspect is found guilty and sentenced, no one will ask why we need to have trials or whether we should restrict them to instances when we don’t have strong evidence that the suspect is guilty. Why? Because that’s not how it works. The commitment to protecting our rights and restricting them as little as possible is vital to maintaining a Constitutional republic.

 

Restricting access to rifles is a restriction on our Second Amendment rights. Further, when tens of millions of Americans own rifles, less than 325 were used in homicides last year. Restricting access to rifles will not make us safer, but it will make us less free.

 

I’m a law-abiding American citizen. I vote. I pay taxes. I would serve on a jury if asked to do so. I take my responsibilities of citizenship seriously. It undermines the very foundations of our nation when our elected leaders force our citizens to earn, justify or barter for the rights protected by the Constitution. And those who would ask us to do so are not fit to lead us.

Comm_Social_NEED 2

NRA News Commentators Episode 39

“Disarming” with Billy Johnson

Our government isn’t going to disarm us. It can’t. Let me explain why.

 

We currently live in a constitutional republic. Because of that, our elected and appointed leaders are legally obligated to defend and uphold the Constitution.

 

Our Constitution currently protects our citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

 

There are really only two ways our government could disarm us: They could abandon the Republican principles upon which this country was founded, or the people themselves could willfully disarm.

 

One way our government could disarm us would be to label us all enemies of the state. Historically, governments have disarmed people because they perceive them to be a threat.

 

Certainly, our nation has a rich history of disarming its enemies. After World War II we disarmed Japan and Germany. We used this same logic to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003; they were our enemies and we believed they were armed. This is not unique to the U.S. All people justify disarming anyone whom they believe is a threat.

 

However, our government can never convincingly justify disarming its own people. Our elected officials do not have the power nor the right to label their constituents, as a whole, as a threat. That’s why they can never justify disarming us.

 

We live in a country with an elected representative government. If our elected representatives argue that we are a threat to them, then they are no longer fit to represent us. Because in that moment, they have taken away the power of our vote and replaced it with the power of their own ambitions. If they believe they must protect themselves from us, they now perceive themselves separate from us. No representative government can ever be separate from the people it represents.

 

While our government leaders can’t justify forcibly disarming us, they could make the case to the people that we no longer need an armed citizenry. That would require amending the Constitution and eliminating the Second Amendment. For that to happen, we need a serious and comprehensive national discussion about the modern case for, or against, an armed citizenry.

 

But right now, our elected officials aren’t openly inviting debate about eliminating the Second Amendment. Instead, they are increasingly enacting overly restrictive legislation that effectively makes it impossible to fully enact our rights.

 

We have a historical precedent for this type of active infringement on constitutional rights via legislation. The late 19th-century Jim Crow laws enacted poll taxes and literacy tests as pre-conditions for voting. Many southern states enacted these rules to specifically disenfranchise African-Americans and freed slaves. At that time, the Constitution gave all men the right to vote. Then the state laws made it prohibitively difficult for blacks, immigrants and poor whites to do so.

 

We see similar actions today in regards to the Second Amendment. Excessive gun permit fees, may-issue and no-issue concealed carry laws, magazine and gun feature bans and overly burdensome application processes all deter law-abiding citizens from owning and using firearms.

 

This stifles national debate about the Second Amendment and allows our leaders to hide behind a haze of regulatory and legislative power. It also circumvents the will of the people and subverts the supremacy of the Constitution.

 

I started the video by saying the government is not going to disarm us, but that’s not entirely true. It would cease to be our representative government if it forcibly disarmed us. Politicians in Washington refuse to engage in fair and honest debate about an armed citizenry and therefore preclude the citizenry from willfully disarming itself. And so, they exploit the powers we’ve entrusted them with by legislating our citizens out of arming themselves.

 

For all its flaws, for all its troubles, for all its disappointments, we still live in the United States of America. It may not be a perfect representative government, but the ideals upon which it was founded are the most perfect we’ve ever known. It’s our responsibility to uphold those ideals. The burden falls upon those who represent us to protect those ideals—to enact those ideals. But when they don’t, the burden falls on us to demand accountability and public debate.

Comm_Social_Disarming[1]