by Chad D. Baus

WHIO-TV (CBS Dayton) is reporting on a lawsuit that has been filed against the City of Riverside after an incident involving the arrest of a man who was open carrying a firearm.

From the article:

Advocates of "open carry" of weapons are testing police on their knowledge of state laws and then posting the results on the internet.

The most recent case involved a Tipp City man, Roy Call, who walked into a Speedway gas station at 3201 Valley Pike in Riverside at 4:30 am on August 28, 2012 with a gun holstered on his hip in full view by anyone in the store. A customer alerted a police officer who happened to be in the store parking lot. When the officer asked Call who he was and what he was doing, Call said he was exercising his Second Amendment rights and initially declined to identify himself. The officer arrested Call and charged him with obstructing official business.

by C.D. Michel

She went home from the gun store to endure a ten day cooling off period before she could take her new gun home. But her estranged husband, the subject of a restraining order, was not cooling off about their pending divorce. That same evening she was raped, beaten nearly to death, and their son was almost killed by the man he once called "Daddy."

Every law has unintended consequences. Many have perverse intended consequences. Nowhere are the perverse results more horrific than with gun control laws, because laws relating the legal acquisition of firearms often harm no one except those who are inclined to obey such legislation.

Oddly, it is the most vulnerable among us who are most harmed by ill-conceived gun control laws. According to criminologists, guns are used to prevent violence about six times more often than commit it. In the absence of efficacy as a crime deterrent – a conclusion reached by the National Academy of Science – we should accept that gun control laws endanger people. And disproportionately so.

Disempowering Women

by Jeff Knox

Gun control advocates are compulsive liars. They have to be because the truth doesn't support their agenda. Even the names of gun control groups – suggesting "violence policy," "violence prevention," and "gun safety" – are all lies. And the term "gun control" itself is a lie. Virtually everything coming from gun control advocates today is a lie.

I'm not talking about simple distortions or cases of "my statistics are better than your statistics." These are intentional, calculated, bald-faced deceptions, foisted on the American public by ideologically motivated zealots trying to force an agenda of citizen disarmament and government control. That's not to say that everyone who supports gun control is driven by the same ideology, or that there are no honest, passionate, idealistic, true believers among the ranks of gun control advocates. There are some very good, honest, sincere people who promote gun control, but unfortunately these misguided souls are steeped in emotion and inculcated with the never ending lies of the professional gun haters.

Let's dissect some of the lies:

Hell hath no fury like an anti-gunner who doesn't get her way on gun control.

The Star-Ledger reported last Friday that after a closed-door hearing on gun control in the New Jersey Senate the previous day, three state senators--believed to be Democrats Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham and Linda Greenstein--were caught on tape, complaining that bills introduced in the Garden State--including one that would require mandatory training to possess a firearm--don't go far enough.

First, a voice is heard complaining, "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate." Then, the trio apparently focuses its ire on gun control opponents who say that the way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to throw the book at them.

Weinberg, willing to have no part of it, says "They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don't have any regulations to do it." Cunningham then snipes, "They don't care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them," and Greenstein chimes in that enforcing existing law is "the line they have developed."

Knives are one of mankind's oldest and most commonly used tools. Elsewhere in the world, many of the knives sold and used daily in the United States are illegal or severely restricted and the restrictions are growing every day.

Even in the U.S., efforts to demonize knives and to place more restrictions on knives are becoming more commonplace. Without a dedicated grassroots organization to protect our knives, they are an easy target for those who seek restrictions on our freedoms.

Knife Rights is a dedicated grassroots organization that works to defend your knife rights.

While our knives are primarily tools, ultimately our right to own and carry these tools is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The fight to protect our knives is the Second Front in Defense of the Second Amendment. The two pillars upon which Knife Rights stands are "Essential Tools - Essential Rights." We cannot retain the former without the latter.

Win knives, guns, and more - over $100,000 in prizes!

As we reported last month, on April 2, the United Nations General Assembly voted 153-4 to pass the Arms Trade Treaty, with the United States voting in favor and several countries abstaining. The vote in the General Assembly pushed the treaty process forward after negotiations twice failed to deliver on the goal of developing the treaty by consensus. The Obama Administration is expected to sign the treaty soon after it is opened for signature on June 3.

According to a May 16 Amnesty International article, a senior US diplomat--Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman--has confirmed the U.S. government will be quick to sign the new treaty. According to the article, Countryman said on Wednesday that the United States would sign the ATT "in the very near future."

If the deeply problematic treaty is signed, the fight will move to the U.S. Senate, where the Obama administration would need to find 67 senators to ratify the treaty.

Editor's Note: Today's feature is reproduced with permission from http://www.shellypalmer.com/2013/05/3d-printing-is-way-scarier-than-plas.... We might not agree with Shelly's characterization of printing guns as the "dark side of the technology" but we agree wholeheartedly with his description and assessment on the future of 3D printing.

by Shelly Palmer

Ever the publicity hound, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who obviously has no idea what additive manufacturing actually is, came out big and strong against "stomach-churning" 3D printed plastic guns last week.

"Everyone's seen the movie 'In The Line of Fire,' where one of the great bad guys, [played by] John Malkovich, labored at making a gun out of plastic and wood so it could get through metal detectors and he could assassinate the president..." Senator Schumer went on to say, "But that was only a movie, and just this week, it has become reality. We're facing a situation where anyone -- a felon, a terrorist -- can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It's stomach-churning."

by Jeff Knox

That demented, hate-filled terrorists could build bombs and detonate them in a crowded public place should not have come as news to anyone. That's what terrorists have been doing around the world for decades - centuries. That it could be done in the U.S. by people we had welcomed with open arms, should also have been no surprise. Islamist extremists have been promising, and perpetrating attacks in the US since the 1970s. Other extremists, from anarchists, to White supremacists, to Puerto Rican separatists, to anti-abortion activists, to radical leftists have perpetrated acts of terror on our soil since the foundation of the republic. Indeed, American revolutionaries of the 1700s were considered terrorists by the British. The use of violence as a means of advancing a social or political goal is as old as society itself. How it is remembered generally depends on who wins and is around to write the history. Nonetheless acts of terror, particularly when perpetrated against civilians, generally backfire and engender hate and loathing for the assailant’s cause rather than sparking the desired changes in policy.