Connect with us

Big League Guns

An Open Letter To Kyle Kashuv: Don’t Support New Gun Laws

The fact of the matter is: no new gun regulation will stop future shootings.

Published

on

Kyle,

First, I want to let you know how much I admire your bravery. Standing up against your fellow classmates, who became anti-gun media giants overnight surely wasn’t an easy thing to do.

As a die-hard Second Amendment supporter, it was great to see somebody standing up for what I believe in against the David Hoggs of the world. Despite the left’s attempts to shut you up and slander you, your words have only become more powerful.

Trending: ANTIFA-Linked Washington Women, Former Democrat Organizer Charged With Terrorist Attack in Train Derailment Plot

But despite my admiration for you, my support for the Second Amendment comes first. That’s why I wanted to explain to you why your recent support for “red flag” gun bills is extremely dangerous. I wanted to write to you after seeing this recent Tweet:

I have written in the past about the dangers of these bills, oftentimes dubbed “Gun Violence Restraining Orders,” or “Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” That’s why I wanted to write directly to you explaining my position, not to attack you, but rather to educate you about the other side of this issue.

As I’m sure you already know, “Red Flag” bills operate by allowing a relative, family member, or in some cases, an acquaintance to petition a court to remove firearms from an individual they believe to be a danger to themselves or others. The laws do include a process to allow individuals effected to prove their innocence and regain their firearms, but that process is where the problem with this legislation lies.

That is the reason that pro-gun groups like Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights are opposed to these measures. Our right to keep and bear arms is a natural right protected by the Second Amendment in our Constitution. Also included in that Constitution is the right to due process.

Is it really due process if a vindictive, or just radically anti-gun relative convinces a judge you are crazy, therefore allowing police to ransack your home and take away your guns? Because that is the reality of these bills. Once your guns are taken away, the burden of proof is on YOU to convince a court you should be allowed to have your guns back.

I know a likely reason for your support of these bills comes down to the fact they could have been used against the monster that shot up your school. But in reality, it probably would not have been used in his case.

Police had every justification in the world to take away Nikolas Cruz’s guns. Between the police and school disciplinary officials, they came into contact with him almost one hundred times. There were also multiple occasions where Cruz could have been charged with a felony, resulting in his guns being taken away.

But the reason none of his offenses prevented him from owning a gun comes down to an Obama-era regulation designed to protect young offenders. If just one of his major offenses had been placed on his criminal record, he would not have been able to purchase the firearm he used.

The fact of the matter is: no new gun regulation will stop future shootings. If you are serious about preventing shootings, which I know you are, you must focus on the core of the issue. The real problem is gun free zones. As long as we allow the children of our nation to spend their days in gun free zones, the shootings will continue.

Research compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that over 98% of U.S. mass shootings from the 1950’s until 2016 have occurred in gun free zones. Rep. Thomas Massie has filed a bill to end these gun free killing zones. I can’t tell you how to spend your time, but I believe you would be much better served using it to advocate for his bill, which would repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act.

I hope you take my words not as criticism, but as advice from a friend. Thank you for all that you do, Kyle.

— Luke Rohlfing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big League Guns

Black Rifle Coffee Does Not Support Second Amendment Hero Kyle Rittenhouse

At this Time, Conservatives Cannot Afford to be Timid

Published

on

Black Rifle Coffee, a coffee company based in Salt Lake City, is not defending 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.

The company said that it was against a tweet that Blaze Media reporter, Elijah Schaeffer,  posted that featured Rittenhouse wearing a Black Rifle Coffee Company shirt captioned “Kyle Rittenhouse drinks the best coffee in America.” Rittenhouse was released on November 20, 2020 after supporters were able to raise $2 million for his bail. 

In the tweet, Schaeffer posted a discount code for the coffee. Sara Tabin of The Salt Lake Tribune noted that online Twitter users “questioned whether the coffee company had a sponsorship deal with Rittenhouse and accused it of supporting murder and hate.”

This prompted Black Rifle Coffee, the sponsor of the Slightly Offens*ve podcast, to release a statement on November 21 declaring that it is not sponsoring or supporting Rittenhouse.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Initially, there was a misunderstanding about the company withdrawing its sponsorship of Slightly Offens*ve. However, a spokesperson for the company told the Salt Lake Tribune on November 21 that “We are not fluctuating our ad spend.” The coffee spokesperson added “We did have a conversation with Schaffer, and he understands that the post was a mistake.”

She stressed, “We don’t traffic in national tragedy and to us, that’s what this is. We are not legal experts or members of law enforcement. We fully support all law enforcement officials and believe in the integrity of the legal system.”

The spokesperson reiterated that the company will maintain its sponsorship of Blaze Media. She explained: “Our concern is that use of the discount code in the post did not reflect our values. That’s a concern we’ve addressed with the journalist and that he understands.”

Blaze employees “make decisions about how to allocate ad dollars within the Blaze,” she remarked. Although the spokesperson did not go into further detail about the company’s status as a podcast sponsor, it noted that the coffee company and the Blaze are in talks about “how to move forward with the allocation of ad dollars.”

Black Rifle Coffee positions itself as a pro-Second Amendment, conservative company that was founded by veterans. Black Rifle Coffee co-founder Evan Hafer released a statement on November 21 declaring that “We do not support legal advocacy efforts. We do not sponsor nor do we have a relationship with the 17-year-old facing charges in Kenosha, WI.”

At the moment, Rittenhouse is facing two counts of first-degree murder for shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber during a Black Lives Matter riot back in August. In addition, he’s being charged with one count of being a minor in possession of a firearm. During the riots, Rittenhouse was attacked by Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse was carrying an AR-style rifle as he was walking down the street to protect private property from looters.

It is disappointing to see supposedly pro-Second Amendment businesses fold to the mob. Although the Left is very effective at mass politics and causing certain businesses to get cancelled, some businesses will have to take a stand. Submission to these radicals only encourages them to become bolder in their attacks. 

Can Americans actually grow a spine for once?

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending