2A News

A man pumping gas in Illinois was randomly confronted by a gunman who approached his car, drew his weapon and attempted to kill him.

Police say a man dressed in the orange jacket in the video below is Ronald Morales. After apparently staring down the driver who was pumping gas, Morales hastily approached the man, gun drawn. He opened the passenger side door in what appears to be an attempt at exchanging words, but the driver had already seen Morales draw a weapon. In turn, he drew his own weapon and a shootout ensued.

Morales was shot, quickly turned and ran out of view of the camera and subsequently collapsed and died a short time later.

Police say the driver will not be charged because he acted in self defense:

The video proves once again that the Second Amendment saves lives, because determined criminals who intend to harm innocent people will absolutely get their hands on a weapon regardless of background checks or waiting periods.

Incidents such as this one play out across America on an almost daily basis.

Justified Self Defense: Mom Kills Armed Intruder with Shotgun; 9-1-1 Operator Gives Her the OK To Shoot:

“She had no time to wait for police… so she pulled the trigger.”

An 11 Year-Old Demonstrates Gun Control:

“Not Only Good Judgment But Also Good Marksmanship, Striking Only the Intended and Lawful Target”

Story first appeared at SHTFPlan.

Now that President Trump has addressed the NRA and pledged nearly four years of no gun control pushes, the 2nd amendment is high on the minds of many. With this in mind it seems fitting to watch a flashback moment of a time when kids were allowed to play cops and robbers without fear of leftist backlash.

The following ad for a toy tommy gun was aired back in the 60s. Can you imagine what would happen if an ad like this were aired today?

Liberal heads would literally explode.

Tip of the hat to Clash Daily for the great find!

Neil Gorsuch will be sworn in today and will take a seat on the Supreme Court at a time in which a massive 2nd amendment case may end up in the court before April ends. There are several cases that could be decided to the SCOTUS with Gorsuch taking part in the decision, but one such case stands out for millions of 2nd amendment right supporters.

What kind of 2nd amendment case, you might ask? Well, in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago the court stood with the constitution, ruling a state like California or Illinois cannot prohibit private firearm ownership in the privacy of one’s own home. While this was certainly a good and correct ruling, it did not extend to protect the actual right to keep and bear arms period. The 2nd amendment in no way states Americans can only keep and bear arms inside their homes.

So a new case making its way to the SCOTUS, should the court accept it, addresses the right to carry outside the home. In most states this isn’t an issue. Most states are in line, in some way or another, with the right to keep and bear arms. But in states like California there are counties where it’s virtually impossible to obtain a concealed carry permit. This because of state law that doesn’t require a permit to be issued upon request, but instead gives counties the authority to decide whether or not to “grant” the right to bear arms. Something the 2nd amendment already does.

In 2016 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled states like California can choose to write legal loopholes that prohibit the ability to obtain a concealed carry permit for use outside the home. This is an obvious and blatant violation of the 2nd amendment and activist groups immediately challenged the ruling.

That challenge is what may end up at the Supreme Court later this month. And if the SCOTUS rules correctly, states like California will no longer be able to refuse an application to obtain a concealed carry permit for use outside of the home. Essentially, the Supreme Court can and should rule that all states must operate on a “shall issue” permitting system. Meaning, if an American citizen requests a concealed permit, such a permit shall be issued.

Being America and all… there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fruits of capitalism leading to a an hour or so of pure firearm awesomeness. And one guy spent $1,000 to do just that.

The man in the following video got to shoot a wide range of firearms, many of which were full auto capable. And to top it off… a minigun of course.

Fantastic afternoon video.


A German pharmaceutical company is out with a TV ad for an eye vitamin that is turning heads across the internet. The ad features two guys at an indoor shooting range and gives the appearance that the shooter is not a good aim.

That is, until his true intent is revealed. And as the ad implies, the shooter was able to accomplish his goal thanks to the “Eye Vital” product.

Pretty dang smart ad, in our view. And it’s an ad the political left in the U.S. would lose their collective minds over.


The following video provides proof that guns do, in fact, prevent crime. Especially when in the possession of law-abiding citizens who simply wish to have the ability to defend themselves and those around them.

In the video we see a man in line at a grocery store suddenly pull out a very large knife, point it into the back of the cashier and demand money. The would be robber’s plans were quickly stopped, however, when the man behind him makes a surprising move.

Watch the video to catch the rest of the story.

Donald Trump is wasting zero time tackling all the issues he promised to tackle while on the campaign trail. Today is only his third full business day in office and he’s already signed a plethora of major executive orders, negotiated with massive corporations to create tens of thousands of new jobs in America and he’s waging constant war on a corrupt mainstream media.

And now he’s aiming his political weapons of warfare directly at one of the most gun controlled cities of America, Chicago, Illinois.

In a tweet late last night Trump took aim at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. He didn’t mention Rahm by name, but it’s clear who the tweet was directed to.

It was also clear that if Rahm didn’t get the warzones of southside Chicago under control, Trump isn’t going to stand around and wait forever. In fact, Trump is blatantly threatening to send in the feds!

It isn’t clear what exactly the administration could or would do to confront the violence plaguing gun controlled Chicago. But we do know Trump is ready to do something. And that would be… YUGE!

Dude Perfect is now famous for multiple viral videos showing seemingly impossible trick shots of all kinds. But traditionally the group uses basketballs, golf balls, frisbees and other various sporting goods for their tricks.

Today Dude Perfect is out with a new video featuring extreme marksmanship using a wide range of firearms, bows and blowguns.


Bureaucrats in California are ringing in the new year by doubling down on their failed policies to stop gun violence. As of January 1st, six new bills are being phased in that close the so-called ‘bullet-button’ loophole and require background checks to buy ammunition. Another policy would have banned magazines that hold over ten rounds, but in a surprise move, the magazine restriction was repealed on December 29th, just ahead of the deadline. Although California has always been a poster child for the progressive agenda, support for these extreme measures seems to have faded — especially since the result of the presidential election.

These new standards were signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the wake of the San Bernardino attack last December, and in many ways, they mimic the registry created in Connecticut after Sandy Hook. Even though the changes solidify California’s status as the most draconian state when it comes to gun rights, public opinion may be at a turning point.

The reality of a Trump administration has shocked many Californians into a newfound appreciation for the 2nd Amendment. Since November, there has been a record number firearms sold in the Golden State — and many of those buying them are liberals. Hopefully, instead of being blinded by identity politics, this can be a moment for both parties to realize gun ownership is a necessary check on centralized power. The 2nd Amendment has long been a point of contention between the left and the right, but perhaps a year like 2016 is what was needed to find some common ground.

Regardless of one’s beliefs, when the president has far-reaching, violative power, concerns of authoritarianism will inevitably come from both sides of the political spectrum. An armed populace, though, has much less to fear from the whims of a dictator, whether they are a fascist or a socialist.

Yet if the original magazine ban hadn’t been repealed, thousands of innocent people would have been turned into felons overnight. Those who don’t comply with the numerous other new stipulations are still at risk.

For this reason, those who oppose the drug war should empathize with gun owners who find themselves in the crosshairs of the State. People who have experimented safely with marijuana or psychedelics understand that when used responsibly, they can be important tools in improving quality of life. That’s why it’s infuriating to see politicians who have never experienced the benefits of these substances make laws that put people in jail for simply possessing a plant.

But why isn’t there the same anger when politicians who have never been in a fight or shot a gun (yet are protected by armed bodyguards) create laws criminalizing individuals’ choices on how they defend themselves? The drug war uses law enforcement on non-violent people to enforce arbitrary victimless crimes, but it is just as immoral when law-abiding gun owners are targeted by the State at the behest of a fearful public.

This targeting amounts to the collectivization of millions of people, the vast majority of whom will never harm anyone. In the same way, the majority of cannabis or psychedelic users do not harm others — let alone themselves — proving blanket bans unreasonably violate the rights of non-violent individuals.

Further, instances where firearms are used in self-defense are almost never covered by the press —  but lives saved by guns should carry significant weight in the discussion. Taking away legal firearms only limits options for those who become victims when the police aren’t close enough to intervene. Obviously, not everyone has the desire to carry a firearm, just as there are many people who have no interest in using drugs, but entrusting government as the mediator of what is reasonable and ethical is a fatal mistake that has been highlighted throughout history.

The well-known tactics of doublespeak and problem-reaction-solution have been deployed on the public to link society’s perception of gun ownership to criminality. Terms like bullet-button, high-capacity, automatic rifle, and ghost gun are all manipulative words that have been used to confuse those who aren’t assimilated into American gun culture. With little personal experience on which to base their opinions, many liberals unquestionably accept the State’s assertions that guns are to blame — accusations that inevitably follow these tragic scenarios.

Unfortunately, the government has a poor track record of addressing the root cause of the issue and not just a symptom of the disease. There is no amount of laws that can be written to solve the underlying societal problems driving the violence, and like it or not, the weapons of millions of Americans are here to stay. When crucial information from the media is being intentionally omitted, the result can be just as deceptive as an outright lie.

Even the infamous false claim that there were 355 mass shootings in 2015 made its rounds and was regurgitated on major networks. But deliberate wording was used to skew the data and guide the public’s reaction. Out of those 355 incidents, only a handful resulted in any loss of life, even though the audience associated mass shootings with the few mass murders they had seen broadcast non-stop.

The source of the data is a site called Mass Shooting Tracker, and their calculations are vastly different than most would assume. The organization clearly states how they define mass shootings on their web page:

The current FBI definition of mass murder, commonly accepted by the media as a proxy for ‘mass gun violence,’ is three or more people murdered in one event. We believe this does not capture the whole picture. Many people may survive a shooting based on luck aloneOur definition is this: a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot in a single shooting spree. This may include the gunman himself, or police shootings of civilians around the gunman.”

The statistics echoed throughout the mainstream media to convince the public that we’re in the midst of a mass shooting epidemic — and that assault rifles are largely to blame — has been a spectacle. Even something as simple as the number of gun deaths is consistently inflated by the rate of suicides, which are often included in tallies. The gun control position would at least have some integrity if they went after the weapons that are used in 68% of all murders — handguns. But instead of standing on the values they preach, gun control advocates turn to emotional manipulation that undermines logic to target rifles, which account for only 3% of all murders. FBI reports have consistently shown an overall decrease in violent crime, but only cities that have instituted the strictest gun control, like Chicago, have fallen victim to unprecedented turmoil — turmoil that, if state gun laws worked, would be avoided.

The democratic nature of the United States is only valuable if it remains representative of all opinions without marginalizing the rights of the minority. The rise of the Calexit movement has created a unique opportunity to open up the debate on the issue of state rights, which until now has mostly been associated with right-wing parts of the country.

Hopefully, the perfect storm of political upheaval and government overreach can bring people together behind individual freedom. The new laws being implemented in California exemplify a failed solution to a complex problem. If 2016 did one thing, it highlighted the differences in values and vision that separate the ideologies of the nation. In the pursuit of diversity, the differences in ideas have been placed on the back burner, but if progress that is more than skin deep is going to be made, then all views — even the unpleasant ones — need to be heard.

This article was written by Shaun Bradley and originally published at The Anti-Media.org.

Following the shooting death of 28-year-old armed robbery suspect Michael Renard Grace Jr., surviving family members are now speaking out and demanding answers as to why a restaurant employee would have been allowed to carry a firearm at their place of business.

As if the idea of a robbery victim fighting back in self defense were something completely unfathomable, the deceased suspect’s parents are calling his death undeserved and unjustified.

Predictably, Temia Hairston and Michael Grace Sr. told media outlet WBTV that even though their son walked into the Charlotte area Pizza Hut intent on robbing the business with two other armed men, was it just “an act of desperation” and that they do not believe he would have hurt anyone.

Image of Michael Grace Jr. via WISTV

“Why in the hell did this guy have a gun?” Hairston stated to WBTV… This is despite the fact that the most glaring and obvious possible answer to that question is that the employee carried a firearm for exactly this type of scenario. But I digress.


Police said Grace Jr and two other people tried to rob a Pizza Hut in the 3200 block of Freedom Drive. During the incident, an employee fired his own handgun and killed Grace Jr.

“If there was to be a death, it was not the place of the employee at Pizza Hut. That is the place of law enforcement,” said Hairston.

They said Grace Jr had fallen on hard times and resorted to crime to provide for his own child. They also said their son used to work at the same Pizza Hut restaurant where the robbery happened. They maintain he never would have physically hurt anyone during the robbery.

She said her son was shot in the head, and she thinks the shooting may have even been personal…

Sounds more like an individual with proper firearms training to me, but yeah, of course defending your own life is personal.

The family said they want Pizza Hut to release more information about the situation and acknowledge that their son used to be a Pizza Hut employee.

Hairston said she thinks the employee who shot her son needs to be in jail, and wants all parties involved in the situation to be honest about what happened.

The employee involved has reportedly been placed on leave. Pizza Hut released the following statement:

“The local Pizza Hut franchisee is fully cooperating with the Charlotte Police Department as they continue their investigation, but want to stress that the security of its staff is of utmost concern. They are providing support to the team members involved to ensure their health and well-being following this incident. The employee involved in the shooting has been placed on a leave of absence following further review.”

Thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section below.

Email Newsletter