After the NIU shooting, I bought a gun. - When the US government decided to dictate our lives in 2020, I bought more guns - When Naperville, Illinois chose tyranny, I bought more - When Pritzker signed PICA, I bought more Spread freedom and be safe this Christmas Eve!

FBI just finalized a rule letting gun shops run NICS on their own staff, contractors included. "Did Not Pass" results sit in the FBI audit log for 110 years. Effective Nov 27.

Brits: I walked into Harbor Freight w/ my gun, bought a machete, threw it in my gas-guzzling truck. Next time, I'll grab some pepper spray. Wild to think that the you went from ruling the world to getting jailed for potato peelers. Thank God we divorced those lobsterbacks 🇺🇸

Hot take: the anti-gun brief filed by David Robinson in support of the gun-control respondents in Viramontes isn't a lifeline; it is a lead anchor tossed directly into the respondents' boat. Filing on his own behalf, Robinson has managed a rare legal feat: authoring a defense of gun bans that reads like a love letter to the Second Amendment. The absurdity of the brief lies in its opening premise. For decades, the entire intellectual architecture of the gun-control movement has rested on minimizing, side-stepping, or outright denying the individual right to armed self-defense. Robinson, however, strolls onto the Supreme Court stage to apparently help the ban side. He concedes that the right to self-defense is inherent and that the Second Amendment protects civilian arms for that exact purpose.With friends like these, who needs petitioners? What Robinson casually hands over is the exact central holding of District of Columbia v. Heller—the crown jewel of modern gun-rights jurisprudence. By conceding from the outset that civilian self-defense is a right protected by the Constitution, Robinson saws off the very branch the respondents are sitting on.Once you admit that the Constitution protects civilian arms for self-defense, defending a categorical ban on popular civilian firearms becomes an uphill battle. Under Supreme Court precedent, the arms commonly chosen by millions of law-abiding citizens for that purpose are presumptively protected. You cannot coherently shout that citizens have a fundamental right to defend themselves with civilian weapons, and in the very next breath argue that the government can ban the most popular civilian weapons in America. Robinson’s brief is a masterclass in self-sabotage. Instead of dismantling the gun-rights argument, it validates its foundational premise, leaving the respondents to explain why they should win a case after their own supporter just surrendered the core point of the debate. Let's pick it apart before the Youtubers have a chance 😁

THIS MUST BE FAKE! MORE GUNS=MORE VIOLENCE. Everybody knows this its proven science and fact, okay!?

Were we supposed to be embarrassed or something?

"Insurance rates keep going up" Well, not for everyone. Mine are down 4 percent, and that's after taking a massive decrease last year. I can barely afford new housing at these mortgage/interest rates, but at least my insurance is less expensive, I guess.

Just a reminder that Anderson v. Raoul oral arguments regarding the Illinois ban on suppressors is set for Wednesday, Oct. 28 at 9:30 AM. A split between the 5th and 7th Circuits would trigger a cert petition, likely reaching the Supreme Court in the 2027 term.

Someone... 👀 In my household likes to carry my bodyguard. Buy another bodyguard or go with something else?

BREAKING: Chicago, Sunday 10:25 AM: two men jump a 23-year-old on West Cermak. He has a valid CCL and FOID. One attacker is now in critical condition. Illinois permit holders keep making the case. No charges filed yet.

Two convicted felons were just arrested for flashing guns in a music video. Is the clout juice worth the squeeze? Government is watching. Is it really worth following my account knowing by association that you're probably on a government list somewhere?!

Did I do this right? Vote Darren Bailey.

You are a faggot. That is all.