The true purpose of Critical Race Theory

The common argument from Democrats to downplay Republican opposition to Critical Race Theory is that the detractors don't even know what it really is.

That may be true, but honestly Democrats don’t understand Critical Race Theory either otherwise they wouldn't be defending it. Ignorant they may be, at least Republicans are on the right side of history.

Critical Race Theory [1] is rooted in Critical Theory [2], which is a Neo-Marxist philosophy developed at the Frankfurt School in Germany during the 1930’s. The difference between a Marxist and a Neo-Marxist is that the former believes a workers revolution will inevitably occur in industrialized nations, whereas the latter acknowledges it will never happen organically in a prosperous capitalist state where the population is content and happy [3]. To undermine these societies, the thought process of Critical Theory is to inject “Repressive Tolerance” [4] into academia. The purpose is to no longer present lessons in a format that allows students to think for themselves, but instead present them as arguments filled with logical fallacies to convince the listener to reject Western Liberalism. Repressive Tolerance is a rejection of everything and anything to do with the idea of Western Liberal thinking around the idea of "Tolerance" and related concepts like "Freedom of Ideas" and "Freedom of Speech". It is a rejection of the Civil Rights movement.

By seeding a deeply flawed belief that we are evil, and teaching young impressionable people to hate themselves, the goal is to destabilize and erode our society. There are also other angles of attack such as the “defund the police” movement and other law changes pushed by self-described Neo-Marxists [5], designed to increase crime and create further instability [6][7] that aids their objective of destroying our system. We see it with a dramatic swing in public relations over the last decade (see the attached public poll below). We see it with rising support of ANTIFA, historically associated with militant communism, that uses “anti-fascism” as intentional misrepresentation of their true purpose [8]. We see it with leftists trying to twist the American flag into a hate symbol [9]. We see it with leftists celebrating murdered police officers [10]. In just 20 years we have gone from Democrats and Republicans both proudly cheering our nation, to a substantial portion of the population denouncing patriotism and our founding principles. This is Critical Theory working as intended – and Democrats have become their vessels (“useful idiots” [11] ). 

Supporters of Critical Theory desire for our nation to become another Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, USSR, and former Eastern Europe - which were ruined by an ideology responsible for more than 100 million deaths throughout the 20^th century and humanities worst atrocities [12]. Democrats need to stop supporting this.

[1] https://archive.org/details/critica_xxx_1995_00_1144

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

[4] https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html

[5] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/san-francisco-shoplifting-epidemic.html

[7] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-gun-violence-historic-levels-what-are-solutions-the-story/283-18a20c88-8760-4386-979b-dab9d8330700

[8] https://digitaledition.orlandosentinel.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=39427b4c-6add-4b4c-ade6-f9899dd81812

[9] https://kutv.com/news/local/black-lives-matter-utah-hold-to-claim-flying-american-flag-is-racist-with-one-condition

[10] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1419017430672814081

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

 

 

Small actions, big changes

Little things we’ve been doing go a long way. Sanctuary cities, individual calls, personal emails, etc. all have an impact on preserving our rights and liberty. For the naysayers, or those who feel the government is an unmovable force, let me hopefully bring some motivation…

There is something called the “Trimtab principle”, which is the idea that small actions are necessary for big changes. We all know how a ship changes course in the water, right? Ordered from a ship's helm, the rudder underneath a ship swings from left to right, which then determines the direction of the ship.

But is it really that simple? Look at a massive commercial ship, and their rudders can be over 10 stories tall and weigh hundreds of tons. How do you get such massive pieces of metal to move underneath the water? The answer is the trimtab. It’s a much smaller controllable surface attached at the end of the rudder (the yellow portion of the picture below). The bridge controls don’t actually move the rudder, but instead move the smaller trimtab which creates a suction and force that causes the rudder to swing.

It is a small action made in the right place that ultimately alters the direction of a massive ship.

Lets look at another example. In the 1980’s, crime in NYC subways was out of control. Violent assaults were through the roof and nearly 20 people a year were being killed in the tunnels. Big solutions like increasing police presence were attempted, but none of those efforts worked. After much debate, it was actually two small acts that made a big change:
1.) They created a turnaround process to remove graffiti off of the trains.
2.) They reduced police presence, and instead just prioritized cracking down on people jumping the tolls.

These two small actions caused an 86% reduction in violent felonies happening a day.

https://nypost.com/2016/08/06/how-brattons-nypd-saved-the-subway-system/

The point is, we’re up against opposition with an unlimited budget and no love for the Constitution. However, this does not mean we need big money and major backers to win. Small actions and creative solutions can swing what seems like an unmovable object.

3D Printing

NOTE: This is a guide for 3D printing of unregulated parts, such as magazines. Certain parts are regulated, and illegal to manufacture without proper licensing.



The ability to manufacture firearm parts at home has always existed, but traditionally required hands-on skills that have grown rare in the United States. Modern manufacturing techniques are rapidly changing the skills story. It is now possible for anyone to buy a 3D printer to create a wide range of firearm parts and accessories with little to no hands-on skills for building or repairing physical goods. Adequate barrels are made using electrochemical machining without requiring serious machining skills. Remaining components, outside of those that are regulated, can be printed. Printed components are reinforced with metal rails where necessary. This text briefly overviews 3D printing firearms and firearm accessories, focusing specifically on magazines. Magazines are easily printed and require no special effort to achieve adequate durability in many cases (e.g. no rails required).

What do you need to 3D print firearm magazines?

- A 3D printer. There are many on the market, but this is a category where you get what you pay for. Fortunately, even a high quality 3D printer is less than the cost of a high-end firearm. For the busy, narrow your search to two options:

-- Budget: The Creality Ender 3 is a popular budget printer than can be purchased for $200 or less. While the printer generally works well, it provides less automation and convenience out of the box than the premium option and is more likely to suffer problems that require tinkering to fix. Fortunately, this printer has a large, supportive online community for troubleshooting printing problems.
-- Premium: Prusa (https://www.prusaprinters.org/) is widely considered to be the best manufacturer for non-industrial 3D printers. Their current-model printers (the MK3S is recommended as of this writing) are highly reliable, automate many tasks that are manual with cheaper printers, produce high quality prints right away with little effort, are easy to use, and come with high-end support when something does go wrong. Including shipping, the printer kit, which you must assemble into a printer yourself, runs about $850. You can buy a fully assembled printer that comes ready to print for a few hundred dollars more. However, assembling the kit is easy enough for even a keyboard jockey to finish the job in about 10 hours, and the understanding of how the printer mechanically works gained by doing so is worth it. There is one common but easily fixed problem with this printer: The grub screw holding the gear on the extruder motor's shaft often vibrates loose unless you use a thread locker (purple Loctite is recommended for this). You can diagnose this problem easily because your printer will be "printing" in the air, with no material actually coming out of the extruder, yet there will be no clog.

Fair warning. Prusa is a Czech company, which explains the price of shipping. However, you do receive the printer very quickly. With the DHL option, ordering on Saturday is sufficient to receive the printer the following Thursday in the US. Some banks assume a charge to an Eastern European company is fraud and will automatically block it and lock your card. Call them ahead of time to tell them you are making the purchase and it is not fraud.

This text focuses on the premium option. Anyone with the budget doesn't really need to look any further, just buy the Prusa. You'll love it.

- Filament. A spool of filament provides the raw material your printer will use to create the object you're printing. There are many, many materials on the market (Amazon is a convenient place to buy). When getting into firearm printing, there are three worth focusing on initially:

-- PLA: Cheap, very commonly used, and super easy to print with.
-- PETG: Stronger than PLA, but can be a bit more finnicky.
-- Nylon: Stronger than PETG but more finnicky than PETG.

Practice printing magazines with PLA to get the hang of the process, then switch to PETG. When you're ready for very tough magazines, switch to Nylon. Again, you get what you pay for, so buy quality if you can afford it. Fortunately, quality PLA and PETG spools can be purchased for about $30 each and the same company that makes the premium printer makes premium filament available on Amazon.

- Filament storage. Filament is hydrophillic, meaning it absorbs water from the atmosphere. Once enough water is absorbed, you will have to dry the filament on the spool in your oven or using a food dehydrator to get quality prints with it. To avoid this issue, or at least delay the need to dry filament, a dry box is handy. Get a storage box with a gasketed lid, some indicating dessicant, and throw the filament and dessicant in the box. Keep the box closed unless adding or removing a spool of filament and keep the filament in your box unless actively using it.

- A textured print surface. The premium printer comes with a smooth steel sheet as a printing surface. This works well for PLA, but PETG will not adhere to it unless the surface is prepared with a glue stick or similar coating. With the textured sheet you can print PETG without extra effort. It's worth it if you plan to print with a lot of PETG. The printer has to be calibrated for the different kinds of sheets (this is super simple, the instructions walk you through it), but the calibration settings are easily stored and switched between with the premium printer. This makes it easy to switch between the smooth sheet when printing with PLA and other materials that adhere well on that surface, while switching to the textured sheet for other materials.

- 3D models to print. Most public firearm-related models can be found in the FOSSCAD package. You can access it on GitHub, but this option is likely to disappear from the Internet eventually since big companies tend to love censorship: https://github.com/maduce/fosscad-repo. You can also torrent the entire package, which is far less likely to suffer permanent censorship. Here is a magnet link: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:359050EC1608F8FD8B0D9FBF66FFE7DC02672ACC&dn=%5Bmonova.org%5D+FOSSCAD+MEGA+PACK+v4.8+%28Ishikawa%29+%5BZIPPED%5D&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969.

- Magazine springs. There are basically three options for buying springs:

-- If you're just buying one set of springs, buy Wolff springs on eBay where the shipping will be free.
-- If you're buying multiple sets of springs, especially across multiple firearm models, buy Wolff springs directly from the manufacturer: https://www.gunsprings.com/.
-- If you're attempting to produce in mass quantities (1000+) or find 20-30 people to go in on a group buy with, you can get springs from China for pennies each starting with just a CAD design for the spring from alibaba.com.

If you're adventurous, there are jigs and instructions for making springs in the FOSSCAD package. This process takes several hours and a bit of patience.


How do I print a magazine?

Before trying to print magazines, try printing some simple items first to get the hang of the process. With the premium printer you can print each magazine in 4-12 hours depending on your settings and the magazine. However, it's easier to learn the ropes with smaller prints that can be done in a few hours at most. This allows you to quickly see the process end-to-end before switching to longer prints. Try printing something super easy in PLA, like a beverage coaster, first (there are tons of neat gun ones on https://www.thingiverse.com/). From there, try printing a small animal figurine to practice using supports (again, tons on https://www.thingiverse.com/, try your favorite dog breed, a moose, or horse). Supports are printed with the item to provide a surface to print the item on when a surface of the item would otherwise float in the air (think of a dog's underside when it is standing). These are easily pulled off of the item after printing.

Acquire the 3D models you want to print. There are several formats in this order or preference, but in reverse order of popularity:

- 3MF. While not quite popular yet, models in this format contain plenty of metadata (e.g. pre-configured settings) and can contain multiple models in one file. These are the most likely to import in a manner that is immediately ready to print.
- OBJ. More popular than 3MF, but not nearly as common as the most popular option. Models in this format often contain dimensional data not available in the most popular format to prevent wonky scaling.
- STL. By far the most popular format in 3D printing, not because it's the best but because it's the oldest and therefore has inertia. Some firearm and accessory models, particularly from DEFCAD, are scaled down dramatically and have to be re-scaled to print if using STL. Scaling is easily done in a slicer.

Once you have the models you want to print, open them in a slicer. For the premium printer the slicer to use is an easy to use graphical tool called PrusaSlicer. You'll open the model in the slicer, where you can view it and arrange the component (or components if you open multiple models) on a digital version of the print surface. If printing multiple models at once, use the arrange feature, which will automatically arrange the items on the print surface for maximum space utilization. From there you can configure the print. Recommended settings for printing magazines:

- Enable a brim to ensure adequate adhesion early on.
- Set infill to 100%
- If using Prusa's PETG, increase the bed and extruder temperatures by 5 degrees for the first layer. Magazines don't seem to work out with the default PETG settings.

Don't be shy about exploring the tool and switching it to Advanced from Simple mode right away. For computer literate individuals, this tool is extremely easy to learn and use. The Simple mode is only necessary for people who are uncomfortable with technology. It tends to work out nicely to print all of the parts at once, just right click the follower (typically the only component that requires supports) to manually add a support enforcer. Ensure you enable supports only for enforcers in the slicer.

Finally, slice the model and export the gcode to the SD card that came with the printer. You can now pop the SD card into your printer and start printing. Once finished, simply lift the sheet you printed on off of the printer, flex it, and the parts will pop right off.


How do I make magazine models?

You will need the magazine you want to model, CAD software to create the model, and calipers to accurately measure part dimensions. There are many CAD options, but parametric CAD software is your best bet. Unless you already have software you like, check out Fusion 360 or FreeCAD. FreeCAD works just fine and can be learned in less than an hour if you stick to the Part designer. There are a wide range of cheap calipers that will get the job done on Amazon. If you want nice calipers that will last for years, can be used for high precision applications where it matters (e.g. reloading), and from a brand that can be counted on, buy a pair of Mitutoyo calipers directly from Amazon (Mitutoyo counterfeits are common from other sellers on Amazon). This blog post is a helpful guide to getting started reverse engineering physical products: https://hackaday.com/2018/03/27/how-to-reverse-engineer-mechanical-designs-for-3d-modeling/. Many magazines have quite a few complicated features you can simply ignore when modeling while still producing a working magazine.

Think carefully about how you layout and orient the parts you design. Generally, only the follower should require supports when printed.


Where do I learn more?

There is an active community working on new homemade gun designs in general, but with a focus on 3D printable firearms. Check out Deterrence Dispensed at:

https://keybase.io/team/det_disp (encrypted group chat)
https://spee.ch/@Deterrence-Dispensed:2 (hosted files)
http://deterrencedispensed.com/ (more information to on 3D printing guns)
https://gunstreamer.com/@IvanTheTroll (videos from Deterrence Dispensed's figure head)

Supreme Court on the 2A

The latest myth to address is the false statement that District of Columbia vs. Heller is modern revisionist interpretation, and altered existing precedent on the position of the 2nd Amendment being nothing more than a collective right. Truth is, only one of the previous cases ever addressed the 2nd Amendment in this manner, and it affirmed that it was in fact an individual right (Presser v. Illinois, 1886). Heller was the second broad review on this question, which re-affirmed that individual right and established self-defense as one of the intents.

Before we get into actual cases, it's worth noting that early state and federal supreme court justices commented on the 2nd Amendment. St. George Tucker, a Virginia State Supreme Court justice, published the following in his 1803 addition of Blackstone's "Commentaries":

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally under the specious pretext of preserving the game; a never-failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure. . . . True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy; but their right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words “suitable to their condition or degree” have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, by any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

Joseph Story, a US Supreme Court justice, also recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Back to cases, United States v. Cruikshank – A case involving the KKK, where minorities were being denied their 2nd Amendment rights (just like rich elitists are trying to deny that right today). It did not address the scope of the 2nd Amendment, but did affirm that the 14th Amendment prevents States from restricting the right to bear arms. The court only overturned the charges against the racists on grounds that suppression of rights needed to be addressed on the State level and not Federal, when suppression is being inflicted by an individual and not by State law.

Presser v. Illinois – This was the first time the 2nd Amendment was questioned as either an individual right or a collective right. The court affirmed the position that it was an individual right. The only established restriction was that citizen military organizations can be restricted from drilling within cities unless authorized.

“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

…

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. "

United States v. Miller – A case involving a sawed off shotgun. The court ruled that it was not “ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to common defense.” They went on to state that the intent was for ordinary men to be able to bear arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES for defense, which was used as further justification in the Heller case. Where the court had made an error, was that the defense had not appeared and never explained that sawed off shotguns were in fact used during WW1 – meaning the basis for their decision allowing regulation in this case was incorrect. It’s also important to note that this ruling does not justify banning sawed off shotguns, but only their regulation through a tax stamp.

District of Columbia v. Heller – A case involving a handgun owned for personal protection. Re-affirmed Presser v. Illinois, and addressed the individual right to bear arms includes self-defense.

McDonald v. City of Chicago – Affirms that the 2nd amendment is protected from local laws by the 14th amendment.

Caetano v. Massachusetts – Affirms that rights are protected even for technologies that have advanced.

Anti-rights mythology of the "well regulated militia"

The first argument against a citation of the 2nd Amendment seems to always be a curt, cherry picked quotation: "well regulated militia". The implication is that if you aren't in a designated organization that trains and drills, then the 2nd Amendment does not apply to you.

Lets break this down in two parts - "well regulated" and "militia". The use of "well regulated" was used frequently during this time period, and is perfectly explained by Brian T. Halonen:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The key point being, "well regulated" was directed at assuring functionality, and not instruction to enforce strict limitations.

As for "militia", at no point do these individuals question what a militia was to those living in the 1790's or early 1800's, but instead ignorantly cling to an assumption of it either being the National Guard or other government structured entity.

This is the historic context of militias in early America: A militia was not a well-trained, government controlled army. It’s a body, that if needed, can be called forth on the peoples terms – and not always of a specific list. In many cases, simply the assumption of being able-bodied met the obligation to answer the call. Only the strictest forms involved conscription, and even those cases involved bearing a personally owned firearm rather than something that was issued. Militias were also led by one of their own whom they personally selected rather than being anointed by officials. This is one of the purist forms of self-determination from government, and why the 2A was one of the most strongly phrased with “shall not be infringed”.

Interestingly, the Pennsylvania constitution from the same time period doesn't contain any militia phrasing. From Article IX Section 21:

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE,

(snip 20 sections)

Section 21. That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Those that still cling to the myth that the right to bear arms applies only to those serving in a militia often ignore the definition in the Militia Act of 1903. Given this definition, if I were to concede that the 2nd amendment refers to a collective right (I do not), men between the ages of 17 and 45 would still have a right to bear arms without infringement. See the relevant text in the US code here:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I suspect collectivist clingers will make up reasons this doesn't matter. In any case, it's not relevant to understanding the intention of the amendment, since the founders established no such age limitation.

Richard Henry Lee refuted the notion that the militia referred to a select corp, now known as the National Guard:

But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expense, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenseless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all pro-miscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
                                   -R. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

He reiterated this stance again:

No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state. . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.        
                                     -State Gazette (Charleston) (8 September 1788)

If you want further proof of intent behind the 2nd Amendment then refer to the Federalist Papers, which were written and distributed by the Founding Fathers in order to justify and convince the original member states to ratify the Constitution. In “Federalist No 46”, Monroe contrasts our newly formed nation to Europe, where the people are not trusted with arms and therefore would be unable to shake off the yokes of tyranny if imposed. He wrote this after having just risked everything in a war against an oppressive ruler. The first shots of this war, by the way, were fired when British troops marched towards Lexington and Concord to confiscate firearms.

Samuel Adams also clearly stated that the constitution is not intended to prevent citizens from keeping their own arms:

“And that the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”                                                   
“Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” pp. 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I could go on like this for an entire book. It is trivial for anyone willing to spend a little time researching the topic to determine that the founders intended that every man be armed on their own volition.

The Supreme Court relied on these same primary sources and many more in the Heller (2008) opinion when it held that:

(starts on page 570)
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it con­notes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576–595.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595–600.

Note the page citations lead to the details within the linked document that support the court's conclusion.

At this point it should be clear that it is at best ignorant and at worst propaganda to peddle the idea that the constitution only protects a collective right to bear arms.

A Safer Pennsylvania!

Except not really, because nine of the twelve proposals recently published by the PA Auditor General are biased trash that’s narrowly focused on an agenda and not an actual solution.

Proposals 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 – These proposals would be good for helping prevent violence of any form. My frustration with this is that it’s never addressed as the broader issue that it really is, but instead tunnel vision on something that’s not even the underlying issue. This just flows with the rest of the report, which is littered with repetitive talking points to convince people that a particular inanimate object is somehow a unique threat and public health crisis. This is unhelpful as it draws attention from the real issue with mental health and violence, and what motivates so many individuals to commit mass murder. The instrument is irrelevant, as it’s just one of a million different options. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, was convicted for 48 murders and confessed to 71, and yet the way he strangled his victims rightfully never caught the crazy fixation of a political agenda.

Proposal 3 – MD’s are not qualified to discuss the topic of gun safety, and falls well outside their swim lane (the NRA was right). It’s the equivalent of your car mechanic lecturing you on how to avoid a car accident. Their technical expertise does not make them an expert on physics, driving techniques, or human behavior. If this is the standard that we’re setting, then do it across the board and be prepared for the longest “health” surveys of your life: Do you own a car? Do you ride a motorcycle? Do you own a swimming pool? Do you own sharp objects? Do you have any OTC medications or items that are toxic? Do you have access to a tall building or roof? Do you have any stored gasoline or propane? (this list could go on forever) All great safety talking points, but to cherry pick firearms for discussion in a clinic is blatantly biased. If I were asked this question in a doctors office I would tell him/her to go fuck themselves and that it’s none of their business. I’ll talk to a SAMI if I want an opinion from someone who actually matters on this subject.

Proposal 5 and 6 – A training course with qualified firearm experts is a great way to teach safety, but it makes no sense to waste tax dollars to create a new voluntary program with such a narrow subject that few people will attend. Valuable courses already exist in the private sector, and teach way more than simple fundamentals of safety. They expand into a wide range of topics, that even involve live fire training (I have a feeling Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). The encouragement of safe storage is good, but this is a bigger problem than education – it’s financial. If anyone really supports these proposals, then give people their hard earned income back by offering tax credits to create an incentive and make it affordable. A single safe that offers actual security can greatly exceed the value of the average homeowners firearms. Additionally, you can also donate to the NRA because training and safety programs are what they already do (again, I bet Mr. DePasquale wouldn’t approve). If you’re concerned with lobbying, campaign funding, or legal actions that the NRA is involved in, that is a separate pot of money collected by the NRA-ILA.

Proposal 9 – Bureaucracy at its finest. Create an additional expense and administrative burden to tell us that thieves steal things, and might commit even more crimes later. When we read the reports, we’ll all pretend to be surprised that criminals don’t care what the laws are.

As for the other proposals that are decent, #4 is something I'm sure is already practiced by FFL dealers, but it doesn't hurt to offer insight. Proposal 10 does offer the opportunity to connect individuals to multiple crimes, which would help ensure criminals are being held fully accountable. Finally, proposal 11 is what every law abiding gun owner has been advocating from the beginning - enforce the laws already on the books! 

Rich white people are telling us we don’t need guns

Did you guys hear that? It was the voice of an overpaid, white Hollywood actress. From within a nook of her million dollar home, situated inside a gated community with private security, she assertively denounces the choice you’ve made to protect your home with an AR-15. Her criticism spews hatred for how you conceal carry in public, while she pays someone else to do her grocery shopping and makes arrangements for her bodyguards to drive her to a gun control rally.

At the rally, she convinces suburbanites whom live in neighborhoods with high property values to vote for magazine capacity limits. They’re easily convinced, because why would you need 30 rounds to feel safe if they feel they don’t need any rounds at all? After they drink the kool-aid, they go back to their lives in regions void of low-income housing that attract crime, and wave to police patrol units that their town can afford due to above average property tax revenue. The Hollywood actress, feeling good about herself, leaves the rally with her security entourage and heads off to an audition for a multi-million dollar role in a new action film where she’ll shoot people with guns.

But of course, this isn’t just limited to rich Hollywood types preaching in your ear. It could be billionaire Michael Bloomberg having it printed in the newspaper he owns... or the “man of the people” Bernie Sanders tweeting from one of his three mansions... or Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama while they travel the world with their lifetime taxpayer funded Secret Service…

Translation of their sermon: “Either you decide to get rich and live safely the way we do, or you decide to have no security at all… The only way you’re allowed to be protected by a gun is if you can pay someone else to carry it for you. The value of your life, family, or property is measured in who you can afford to protect it.”

For those in the gun community, these are arguments that need to be made. These rich people aren’t necessarily detached from reality per se, but they are certainly detached from OUR reality. They are oblivious to our insecurities, and therefore they take a stance on gun control that contradicts three fundamental views that leftists have of themselves. One is that they’re the righteous opposition to rich, white elitism, second as a bastion for the working class, and third as stalwarts of victim advocacy. The fact that on this particular issue they take a stance that's the polar opposite of what they claim to be shouldn't go unnoticed or without refute. Feeding them their own poison may be one of the simplest ways to get a point across.