A gun guy that does not believe in the 2nd amendment?

Now I understand that most liberals are anti-gun, there are
still a good number that are hunters. Then there is Yihan Wong, the former CEO
of Reddit.



“I am a pro-gun-control liberal who does not believe in the
Second Amendment”


“I also possess five guns: three handguns and two rifles —
one which I built myself from parts. It was fairly easy and a lot of fun, as I
am an engineer by training.”


Wait, what?  Did he
just say that he does not believe in the second amendment and he owns multiple firearms?
 So he wants to be able to own and possess guns, but not have a right to do so.  Can we say hypocrite?

He does go on to make a few valid points about if you are
going to write legislation for gun control, you should know how firearms
work.  For the most part, he was fairly accurate.  But its hard to get past his anti-rights stance.


“Almost every gun control advocate I know hates guns and
wants nothing to do with them. They are vaguely (or very) afraid of them, and
believe that if they fire a gun or buy one, they will suddenly become a gun nut
or turn evil.”


Then there is this one..

“I also believe that guns at home are more likely to result
in injury than be used successfully for home defense, so I believe in storing
them at the local gun club or armory.”


He basically does miss the point that that firearms are primarily
purchased for self defense.  Safe to say,
there would be no resistance to anyone wanting to break into his home.


“Being a gun owner who doesn’t believe in the Second
Amendment is really lonely. My liberal friends react with a sort of politely
sanctimonious horror to learn that I own all these weapons. My gun friends
think it’s absurd and despicable that I can be into guns but not support the
Second Amendment.”

I have no doubt that his friends do not understand him.  To think he owns and enjoys guns but think
that no one has a right to do the same is absurd.  Frankly, I fail to understand his logic at
all. Now if we applied his logic to, lets say, to the first  amendment.  Would he say its ok for him to speak , but no
one has a right to speak?  So is this a
case of entitlement?  We have all seen
the celebrity or the liberal politicians that say that guns are evil all while hiding
behind their armed security, but this guy takes it to a whole new level.

Sample Link

Is Virginia at the brink of civil war?

Unless you have been living in a cave with no internet, you have been hearing about Virginia. Now its not unheard of for a push for new gun laws when a new legislature or governor takes office.

What is going on in Virginia right now is not typical. There is a reason that this is getting so much attention. Virginia “was” a fairly pro-gun rights state. The NRA headquarters is there. I have a theory and it is a scary one.

For decades, the liberals have been pushing for gun control. Some pushed the line on constitutionality. Mag size restrictions, “assault weapon” bans and background check laws are the norm. But this is changing, the far left have now gained a louder voice. This far left agenda is what we need to worry about. Yes, it is about the guns, but nothing to do with safety of the masses. Its for the safety of those in power.

During this 2020 election, look at who is running for the Democratic nomination. All are far left, and a few like Sanders, Warren and Yang are socialists. Those socialists need the 2nd Amendment to be eliminated.

For Socialism to succeed, you can not have an armed populous. Socialism is a tyrannical form of government. The 2nd Amendment was designed to stop our government from becoming a tyranny. It gives the people the means to stop or even prevent a tyrannical government from taking over.

At present, about half the country recognizes how bad Socialism is. The other half wont realize this till we are living under socialist rule. When the 5th Amendment is abolished and your property is no longer yours, When the freedom of speech no longer exists, they may notice. But in order for this to work, the 2nd Amendment must be gone. The government has to be able to maintain control. To control you.

Look at what has happened in Virginia, the locals are pushing back, the governor prepares to use the National Guard to forcibly disarm their citizens, and jail them. Imagine the whole country enduring this. That is tyranny folks. The local Sheriffs are declaring their counties 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. So here is a scary picture to think about. The local Sheriff Departments and their citizens defending themselves against the Virginia National Guard. The citizens at war with their government. The next civil war has begun.

This is the beginning of the end of our freedoms if one of the far left Dems win this November and the Senate also flips. We will see what is happening in Virginia happen to the rest of the country. Not state by state, but at the Federal level. Imagine having some of the states and counties push back against a socialist Federal government. States would take sides. Imagine California at war with Arizona and Nevada. Scary picture isn’t it?

The first shots of the next civil war may very well happen in Virginia.

Was The Parkland School shooting Preventable?

So 2 days after the shooting at a Florida high school, the details are starting to emerge. The details are scary. The bad guy with an AR15 is bad enough, but the failures that made it easier for him are what’s even more scary.

Lets start with the school. The school, like many have security procedures for dealing with threats like a mass shooter. I am going to highlight a few and what the result was.

1. Secured campus. The school is essentially locked from the outside world during the school day. Only open in the morning and the afternoon when students are either arriving or leaving.

The shooter entered at the end of the school day after the school was opened up for students to leave.


2. The school has a sheriffs dept for a resource officer. Their task is student safety.

The resource officer was either off site or on vacation the day of the attack.


3. The school has a lockdown procedure called a “Code Red”. The school initiates a code red at the first sign of trouble. It automatically closes and locks all classroom doors.

The code red lockdown can be overridden by the fire alarm. The shooter knew this and pulled the alarm, thus unlocking all the classroom doors.


3. The shooter was expelled for previously bringing ammo to school.

Law enforcement not informed.


Now, the failures of Law Enforcement.

4. The shooter had been reported to the FBI as a threat to the school from discovered social media posts.

FBI did not follow up with an investigation. The last threat was from January.


5. The police had been to the shooters home 36 times for reports of violence.

No arrests or mental health detentions even though he demonstrated he was a threat to him self and others.


Now, hindsight is 20/20. The attack was well planned. Just about everything that could have prevented or even slowed this shooter down failed. He effectively beat the system. A 19 year old that did not finish high school defeated everything the “smart” people had in place to keep those students safe.

The shooter is ultimately responsible for this, not the cops, not the school, not the gun store that legally sold the rifle. But the school, the sheriffs department, and the FBI failed to keep the students safe when they could have. Politicians want to change the gun laws and blame the gun for this. If everyone had done their job, this bad guy would have not been able to purchase a gun let alone be able to attack the school. If they had done their job, the current system and laws could have stopped this guy well before anyone would have gotten hurt or killed.

I open carried at Mt Rushmore, and nothing happen.


Gun Toting Dad at Mount Rushmore, open carrying S&W M&P 40.  DemolitionRanch shirt just to be more patriotic.


Recently, if you follow the guntotingdad Facebook and Instagram pages, you would have seen a pic of open carrying at Mount Rushmore.  Something that is totally legal at national parks in states that allow open carry.


Now this trip to South Dakota, while being a family trip, I decided to to also make it a experiment as well.  How do people react to non-Law Enforcement open carrying a firearm in public.  Especially in a National Park full of people like the Mount Rushmore Memorial.  Now granted, I know that South Dakota is a gun friendly state, but you have people from all over the country visit, even some from out of the country.  It also happen to be the last week of the Sturgis Rally with increased Law Enforcement present.

Lets just say, the reaction was a little underwhelming.  I was expecting some looks, and maybe get questioned by Park Rangers.  For the most part, either people ignored it or never noticed that I was carrying a holstered full sized M&P on my belt.  My wife reported to me that she saw one guy give me a look.  No park ranger said a peep to me, nor even gave me a second look.  One interesting thing did happen and it really kind of caught me off guard.  An older man wearing a biker vest comes up from behind and says “Excuse me sir, could I take your picture, with your accessories?”  From his accent I would guess he was from out east somewhere like New York.  I obliged and he took a picture.  As he thanked me he said his buddies back home would “get a kick out of this.”

On this trip, I open carried at the campground, no issues.  I open carried at Mount Rushmore, no issues.  I open carried at Devils Tower, no issues.  I open carried in the Badlands, again, no issues with authorities or anyone for that matter.

What I learned is this, Most people do not pay attention, or if they did notice, they did not care.  Which seems to be a double edge sword.  If you like to open carry legally, most people do not seem to notice.  But at the same time, if they are not noticing the legal carry at all, they are also not noticing the illegal carry.  What else are they not observing that could be dangerous.

I typically do not open carry, but I made a point of it on this trip to just see the reactions.  Frankly I was surprised by the lack of reactions, save the one biker from out east that gave me my 30 seconds of fame.

Are schools a breeding ground for criminals?

Seems that violence among our youth is increasing.  Not only in schools but in everyday life.  I just heard the other day where a 12 year old in Chicago was caught in possession of a gun.  Bullying in schools is rampant and goes for the most part unabated.  What has happened?
I know this this is generally a gun blog about politics and so on, stick with me this will all tie together.
Now I should give you a little background about myself as this may qualify my statements.  Besides being a Conservative father, I also worked for a school district for seven years.  I worked closely with school staff and regularly was asked to review security video or look into student’s school computer usage.  Believe me, I saw firsthand what school district policy was and how ineffective it was.
People often wonder, what happened, or what changed in our schools that is breeding the violence, the contempt that these kids are showing.  Believe me the blame game is rampant.  The schools are quick to blame the parents, or the media (internet, movies, etc..)  There is plenty of blame to go around.  I do believe that those are factors, but there is another that does not get talked about.  The modern school environment.
This is the part that may get a little controversial, but I believe that school policies are a very large part of the problem.  I am not blaming teachers, they are following the polices of their employer.  If they don’t, they do not have a job.  Problem resolution policies are the real cause.
In modern public education, kids are taught early on to be reliant on others for their success.  If they have a problem in school, report it to the school for them to resolve.  If they have problems with a student, report it to the teacher and all will be fixed.  Problem is, this policy of “letting others” fix our problems, seldom resolves anything.  Kids are taught that others will resolve their problems.  They do not learn how to resolve the problems themselves.  To be self-reliant. (If a student does defend themselves, they get punished for it.)   Now, these “kids” grow up and they are still relying on others to resolve their problems for them.  Some of these kids try to do everything by the rules, but the bullying remains, these are the ones that are looking for a way out, and too often it involves suicide.
Some kids are crying for “safe spaces” on college campuses.  They really do not know how to process conflict or even a difference of opinion.  Here are your “Snowflakes” that you hear about in the conservative media.
Now besides the snowflakes, you have others that figured out that they can take advantage of the policies.  These are the bullies.  They know that the school policies will punish anyone that stands up for themselves, or fights back.  The bullies are rarely caught or disciplined.  If they are, it is rare that they are punished enough to effectively change their behavior.  Schools are afraid of getting sued, or reprimanded by the state.  So basically, bullies are not afraid of the consequences, because there are none.
These bullies also grow up.  Some straighten out, others do not.  Usually by now, these bullies have gotten into trouble with the law.  Theft and assaults are common.  The big problem when they are at this age is that they still believe that they can get away with it or the punishment will be minor.  So again, they run unabated.  In some cases, these bullies become the robbers, burglars, rapists and murderers.
Now for society, the liberal solution is again, let someone else protect the innocent from the bullies.  That someone else is either law enforcement, or the Federal Government.  It is difficult for the police to prevent crime, they must react to it after it has happened.  By then you’re a victim to theft, assault rape or your dead.  The government just keeps passing laws they say are to prevent the crime, but most often, it makes it harder for the innocent to protect themselves, i.e. gun control.

So to put it simply..
Because the innocent student was not allowed to standup to the bully in elementary school, the student may commit suicide, the bully grows up to become a thief, that commits armed robbery and kills an innocent victim that the government did not allow to protect themselves.

School policies are creating a society that is falling victim to the bully’s.  And somehow it all gets labeled as “gun violence”.  To them, it’s the guns fault.


Illegal immigration, the stranger in your house at 2 am.

With all this talk about immigration and building the wall, it may be time to clarify things a bit.

First of all, I am not against immigration.  Legal immigration to be precise.  I am against illegal immigration.  There is a difference and it seems that far too many do not see the difference.  Also far too many do not see what the problem is with illegal immigration.

So here is an analogy that you could use to have a conversation with your liberal friends.

Scenario 1.

You are at home in bed, and you awake to a noise at 2 am.  This noise happens to be a knock at your front door.  You go to check this out, and a stranger asks to come in to you your phone.  You could either let them in, turn them away, or ask questions to see if this is legit.  Lets assume that you do not see them as a threat and allow them in to use your phone.

Scenario 2.

You are in bed at home, and you awake to a noise at 2 am.  When you go to investigate, you find your front door is broken and a stranger sitting on your favorite lay z boy.  At this point you do not know what his intentions are or if he is dangerous.

Now in both scenarios, a stranger is in your house.  One is legally in your house, the other is not.  In scenario 1, you were asked by the stranger to let them enter your house.  You had a choice, it was up to you to “vet” this person to see if they were legitimate and not a threat.  In scenario 2, the stranger had broken into your house, they did not have your permission.  You have no idea if they are there to rob you, kill you or ask for a sandwich.  You do not know what their intentions are.  They are not legally allowed in your home since you did not give them permission to come in.  They are in your house illegally.

Simply put, scenario 1 is like legal immigration. The stranger is asking to enter our country.  We “vet” them or check them to make sure they are not a threat.  We have the choice to not allow them to enter.  Scenario 2 is like illegal immigration.  They “broke in” and entered our country without permission.  We do not know if they are a threat and do not know what their intentions are.

Now recently we shared a news article on our Facebook page about a police chief stating that immigration is not a criminal matter, but a civil matter.  They would not contact immigration enforcement, unless the “immigrant” broke the law.  So the police, who are sworn to protect us, won’t do anything about an illegal immigrant unless they broke the law.  But, like my example above in scenario 2, the illegal immigrant has already broke the law by “breaking in” to our country.  It appears that enforcement is broken either by the laws not being interpreted correctly or the laws need to be changed.

As I stated above there is no issue with legal immigration, as long as the immigrant is thoroughly checked to make sure that they are not a threat.  I also see no issue having even more strict background checks for immigrants from certain countries that have increased terrorist activity.

So the next time you see the news talking about immigration, think about that stranger at 2 am .  Did they knock at the door, or did they break in?  Do they only want a sandwich or wish you harm?



The liberals are making the gun toting conservative look sane

Did we dodge a bullet last Tuesday?  I think we did, but are we going to have to dodge ball bats and rioters now?
By now you all heard about the protesters and really the rioters that have decided that they know better than the rest of the country.  You now the whiny liberals that think that the election was not valid because their pick did not win.  What’s interesting is that when Obama won in both 2008 and 2012, I dont remember the conservatives taking to rioting, it shutting down freeways.  There were no celebrities telling the sheep to assault people for how they voted.  Back then, the conservative’s started working to do what they could, legally, to limit what Obama could do.  Really did not do a good job, but could have been worse.
What really irritates me is these celebrities promoting the protests and violence.  They have made threats against innocent people for how they voted.  They have even called on some to target the president-elect.  This is way, way overboard.  Do these whiny anti-gun liberals realize that by inciting violence, they actually are proving the need for the legally armed law abiding citizen?  They are actual showing that they are more of a threat than the gun toting conservative.  The media is saying its about 1/3 of the Hillary supporters that are causing all the trouble.  Maybe its a good thing they are against guns.  Well, they are against the legal ones anyway.
With all this going on, which makes no sense where they are rioting.  They are rioting in areas that voted for Hillary.  So that are really hurting them selves.  Does not make much sense does it.
What I do now is this.  Their rioting will not change the outcome of this election.  The protests and petitions will not change the election.  What they need to do is just what the Republicans did.  Strategize and plan for the future.  That’s if they want any chance to take back the white house in the future.
So to the angry liberals out there protesting, go home.  Go home and think about what your doing.  Think about your plan for the future.  The rioting is only hurting yourselves and your cause.  Think about it.

Will gun owners go into hiding with a President Clinton

With the election looking like a very real (and ugly possibility) that Hillary Clinton will be our next president.  I pose this question.
Will the 1st amendment rights of gun owners be in jeopardy?
Now you may ask what the hell I’m talking about.  Why the 1st amendment and not the 2nd amendment.  If Hillary does get elected and follows through on her promise of ramming gun control down the throats of all Americans, will this cause all the gun owners into hiding?  Now before you accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat to tight, hear me out.
If she is able to get a new assault weapons ban, those who own the banned weapons may be forced to hide them.  Hide any clues to them, especially online.  Why?  There is no gun registry, Clinton will want to know who owns what.  Your online presence and what you share online may “tip them off” that you own one of those “evil black rifles”.  So just by sharing your interest of your hobby with your friends, may rat you out to an over bearing government.  To go a step further, second amendment related sites, like this one, may go silent.  Facebook pages would be trolled for gun owners.  So even making a comment on a pro-gun page, may get you investigated.  That pic at the range, may get you looked at.  Before you think this it too far out there, just remember, the government is already using social media to track and round up criminals.  In Hillary’s eyes, anyone that owns a firearm, especially an AR15, is suspect.  An aggressive ban could turn legal owners into criminals over night.
So is it too far fetched to think that pro-gun sites, like this one, could go dark in just a few weeks?

If Hillary Clinton is elected, is all lost?

So Donald Trump is down in the polls and it is looking more likely that ol’ Hillary will get elected.  I know what your thinking.  We’re screwed.  She is claiming that she is going to push for gun control on the first day.  Executive action supposedly if congress wont act.  We have been hearing this for some time.  Are we really screwed?  Maybe, maybe not.  It may really come down to the other races.  You know, Congress.  Even your state races could play into this.  Just remember how effective Obama has been on gun control.  He really could not get anything moving at the federal level.  All the gun control legislation has been at the state level of some states.  So, if the house does not fall in to the hands of the liberals, which is looking safer everyday, this will certainly throw a wrench into Hillary’s plans.  This is why Bloomberg and his cronies are spending so much on the state elections and legislative actions.

So what could happen?

Hillary wins the White House, Congress is in Republican hands.  Could stay very similar to what Obama had.  Very little to nothing advancing.  She could use executive action, but that too is limited.  Executive action can not create nor get rid of existing law.  Just force the existing laws to be enforced.  The scariest prospect is what happens for the Supreme Court vacancy.  If a progressive judge is appointed, there could be challenges.  I have covered these prospects before in an earlier post, so I wont re-hash this too much.  This appointment is the biggest concern of a President Hillary.

I really do not see a “Australian” style of gun buyback or forced confiscation happening.  There are far too many moderate Democrats let alone the Republicans that would not be supportive. There is a possibility of a new “Assault Weapons” ban, but even that would have difficulty I believe.  Pro-gun legislation would also prove difficult unless its buried in another bill.  Like the carrying in national parks that was thrown in a while back.

The only way we are getting anything positive will be at the state level.  Just like the last eight years, the only pro-gun movement really has been at the state level.  This brings me to the main point of this post.  The local / state races are probably more important than the other races getting all the attention.  They have the biggest impact on your gun rights right now.  These are the races that we really need to pay attention to.  This is where you and I still have a good chance to further the recognition of our rights.

We really need to research the candidates for the state offices.  The NRA does a good job of rating the candidates for Congress, but you may have to do some digging for the state races.  Some gun rights groups do send out surveys to rate the candidates.  I do know that GOCRA (MN Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance) does this.  This information is invaluable.

We must be informed to make sure we vote the best we can.  We also must do our best to elect the pro-rights candidates for congress and the state races.  The Donald may lose the White House, but we need to fight to keep congress and the state races to thwart Hillary’s plans.  We need to prepare the best we can.  I always say “hope for the best, but prepare for the worst”.  Which reminds me.  I think I may need to buy some more ammo before there is another run on it.

Outback Steakhouse and pi Pizzeria bans “good guys with guns”

If you have been a concealed carrier for long, you have gotten used to looking for the “Bans Guns” signage.  Depending on where you live, the more you may see it.  Two businesses made the news recently on the internet.  Outback Steakhouse and pi Pizzeria in Texas.

Outback Steakhouse doesn’t serve ‘good guys’ with guns, neither should anyone else

The father of the slain TV reporter in Virginia leaves an Outback because of a open carrier.  Calls Outback corporate office to complain that they allowed a firearm in their business.  Outbacks response is that they do Ban Guns in their restaurants.

Houston Pizzeria Tells Gun Rights Fans to F**k Off

A new pi Pizzeria gets a bad review online from a conceal carrier, and the franchise owner tells him to F**k Off.  That’s a good business practice, tell a legal gun owner in a state of gun owners to F**k Off.

Now, as conceal carriers, we know that there are businesses that either are owned by anti-gun individuals or corporations.  Most will post signs like pi Pizza above, some will not, like Outback.  As conceal carriers, we are not forced to patronize these businesses and we should not.  As citizens, we have the right to call out businesses that promote the “shooting gallery” atmosphere and let others know.  Obviously, they do not want our business.  They obviously missed the fact that licensed conceal carriers are the most law abiding group of people in this country.  More law abiding than law enforcement even.

What most of these businesses do not understand is that most patrons do not care if a person is legally carrying a firearm.  These business owners react to the anti-gun politicians and groups without fully researching anything.  In the case of Outback, they are reacting to a grieving father that has been manipulated into a pawn for Bloombergs  Everytown for Gun Safety.  Oh, I want to point out, that signs are not bullet proof.  Those signs will not stop armed robberies, mass shootings or “bad guys with guns” . What they are doing is making a shooting gallery for the bad guys.

Other businesses just follow the local laws and that’s it.  There are a few like Target, that “politely ask” their customer from not carrying in their stores, but will not post signs or really do anything.  For those, I carry anyway.

For those businesses that post the signs, I will not be doing business with you.  I legally carry a firearm because I choose to not be a victim.  By asking me to disarm, means that you want you establishment full of helpless victims.  I will not subject myself, my family, or friends to that.  I will also continue to call out those “shooting galleries” to inform others of these unsafe establishments.

For those businesses that allow legal carry, there are about 12 + million conceal carriers that thank you.  You will enjoy our patronage.


Carry on my friends, carry on.


Whats it like to conceal carry? A typical day of the concealed carrier.

So what is a typical day for a conceal carrier?  Like everyone else, we are all different.  But I thought I would share what it is like for me.

Now I will skip the typical boring stuff like taking a shower in the morning or eating breakfast, we all do that.  Getting dressed is where things start to differ.  Most people will take the weather and where they are going into account to how they dress for the day.  I also have to take into account which firearm I will be carrying and the corresponding holster.

So for starters, lets say I am going to work while carrying.  This would require a looser shirt, a inside the waistband holster, and then the S&W Shield.  Also, I would be carrying a spare magazine in a old knife holster.  After I have all that on, I would do a “print check”  to make sure that I am not “printing”.  Now when I get to work, as I exit my car, I always do a quick check to make sure my shirt did not ride up as I got out.  I will do this with my strong side toward the car as to obscure prying eyes.  As I get to my desk, all is normal.  Only thing I need to be careful of is again, is my shirt riding up.  I will check again before standing up as to not make it obvious.  Really at work other than making sure I do not have a wardrobe malfunction, there is not much different than a non-carrying person.  Going to the restroom, I prefer to use the stall.  Its not that I am shy, but just being careful.  Sometimes, clothes will not cooperate and if someone is waiting, they are looking right at your back side as your peeing.  Speaking of that, I also do not like the idea of having my back to everyone that is in the restroom.  Using the stall not only provides privacy, but also would make it more difficult for someone to sneak up from behind.  Now this covers work, where I can legally carry.  They just do not know I am carrying.

I used to work where I could not legally carry.  There I had to lock it in my car every time I entered the building and then retrieve it when I left.  Just another thing to remember when you carry, you may at times have to disarm due to the law.

Speaking of having to disarm.  Most states allow private establishments to post signs “Banning guns on these premises”.  Now not all states are like Minnesota, but those signs do not have the force of law behind them here.  You would have to be caught and refuse to leave when asked before they could trespass you.  That is all it is here.  If you fail to leave when told to, your trespassing and could get sited for that.  So to answer all the questions on how I handle that.  Yes, I carry in those places too.  Most of the time I do not patronize these establishments, but in some cases, I have no choice.  I take the risk of being “made” and have to leave when asked.  If that ever happens, I will leave with no argument.  But to date, that has never happened.

So back to what we are talking about.  So after work, everything is pretty typical.  Drive home, say hi to the kids, maybe make dinner.  I am still carrying.  I carry when at home.  So one could see me in the kitchen making spaghetti and I am armed.  So when its time for bed, as I am getting undressed, I lock my pistol in the lock box next to the bed.  Then it starts all over the next morning.

So if its the weekend, I may change it up a bit.  Depending on the weather, I may use a outside the waist holster, and carry my 1911.  Again I am carrying a spare magazine in that same knife holster.  Usually when I go out carrying in this way, I would be wearing a jacket.  If its warmer, no jacket, but I would be using the IWB holster with my shirt covering it.

The point to all this is that there are some adjustments to your life when you carry everyday.  At first, it seemed like you were always conscious to “appearing armed”.  After a while, you begin to notice how oblivious people are.  Everyone is not looking at your waistband wondering if you are armed.  It will take another conceal carrier to notice typically.  The general public does not pay close enough attention.

Now “Carry On” my friends.