firearms

Heartland’s Donald Kendal and Justin Haskins are joined by Isaac Orr and Jim Lakely in episode #203 of the In The Tank Podcast. This episode features work from the Heartland Institute, the Tax Foundation, and the Cato Institute.

Seven states and Washington DC sued and successfully obtained a restraining order against release of plans to make firearm parts using 3D printers.

It is not difficult to appreciate the initial remarks from President Trump on gun violence about the need to stop just talking about gun violence but instead do things that will make a difference.

As with every mass shooting, the mainstream media has been promoting the idea that Devin Patrick Kelly’s firearm was responsible for killing almost 30 people during a Sunday church service in Texas.

Democrats ripped Republicans on Monday evening, June 20, after lawmakers rejected gun control proposals approximately a week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. None of the four bills in introduced in the U.S. Senate in wake of the Orlando shooting received enough votes to provide for cloture (that requires 60 affirmative votes to move the debate forward for a vote on the actually legislation). You can see votes HERE.

With the tragic deaths of two newscasters at the hands of a disgruntled ex-employee on Wednesday, August 26 come the predictable calls for tighter gun control and keeping guns out the hands of “crazy” people. In no case, however, do the proposed solutions bear any relationship the crime itself. According to the media and progressive politicians, we have a “crime problem” and a “gun problem.”

For millions of Americans the Second Amendment and its guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms appears irrelevant and practically anachronistic. It seems a throwback to those earlier days of the Wild West, when many men, far from the law and order provided by the town sheriff and circuit judge, had to protect their families and land from cattle rustlers and outlaw bands. Such people are wrong.

Why should unduly burdensome regulations that place obstacles in the path of those looking to exercise one right be struck down while equally burdensome regulations that infringe on another right are upheld?