Author: TXGRStaff

August 6th, 2024 

On July 30, 2024, FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate stated that the agency still doesn’t know how Donald Trump’s would-be assassin got his rifle onto the roof on which he attempted his attack from. 

Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-CA) grilled Abbate if the FBI had any knowledge about how Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old gunman, was able to get onto the roof armed with a rifle. Abbate responded with the following, “We don’t have definitive evidence yet as to how he got the rifle up there. Based on everything that’s been collected thus far — photos, video, eyewitness accounts — we do believe he likely had it in the backpack.”

Abbate added, “We’re still assessing that. Our laboratory has taken, looked at the rifle itself and measured that against the backpack itself and, if placed in the backpack, it would extend outside, it would have been visible. The FBI Deputy Director noted that no witness has come forward to reveal that a rifle was sticking out of the Crooks’ backpack. 

Abbate posited, “It’s possible that he broke the rifle down, although we don’t have conclusive evidence of that, and took it out of the bag on the roof in those moments before and reassembled it there, that’s one of the theories we’re looking at and working on right now.”

On July 13th 2024, Crooks attempted to assassinate former President Donald at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He fired multiple shots, with one shot piercing Trump’s right ear. The assassination attempts unfortunately resulted in the tragic death of volunteer firefighter Corey Comperatore, who leaped in front of his family to prevent them from being struck by gunfire. Two other individuals were wounded by Crooks’ botched assassination attempt.

This incident has raised many concerns about security at mass public events and the potential role the corporate media played in inciting a deranged individual like Crooks to carry out such a heinous act.

Naturally, many conspiracy theories have emerged to try to explain this tragic set of events. While many of these theories are far out and often just stroke the ego of self-proclaimed “influencers” who are looking to generate clicks. There are many questions that have yet to be answered.

For one, how was Crooks able to climb onto a manufacturing plant roughly 130 yards from where Trump was delivering his speech? There were rally participants who recounted seeing Crooks visibly carrying a rifle as he made his way to the top of the building. Some of these individuals desperately tried to flag down authorities to act on this situation. It was from this elevated vantage point that Crooks was able to fire multiple shots. 

Since Trump’s assassination attempt, several elected officials have exploited this incident to try to push for gun control measures. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently called on both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to push for a so-called “assault weapons” ban, while President Joe Biden himself has called for a prohibition on AR-15s when it came to light that Crooks used an AR-15 style rifle to carry out his attack. There are still many elected officials who believe that passing gun control legislation will magically solve gun violence issues 

Clearly, these politicians are abiding by former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s axiom of never letting a crisis go to waste. However, none of these measures do much to address the elephant in the room that is the absolute security collapse that occurred on that fateful day of July 13. If we had a serious political class, that would be the issue to focusing all our attention on. Talking about gun control is a dangerous side quest at best. 

After the failed assassination attempt, the Congressional Oversight Committee held a hearing on July 22, where then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle was put on the spot about the Secret Service’s failure to stop the assassination attempt. Cheattle eventually resigned from her position on July 23 after it became clear that the answers she gave to elected officials were unsatisfactory. 

Nevertheless, many questions remain unanswered about the events of July 13. Grassroots voters will have to continue holding their politicians accountable and demand a clear response to what unfolded on that fateful day. 

One thing is certain, however: Passing gun control measures will do nothing to prevent politically motivated shootings and other actions committed by unhinged individuals with an ideological ax to grind. 

We must come to grips with the idea that the US has a competency crisis where the government is increasingly incapable of providing basic public security services. By disarming people and not addressing the country’s competency crisis, the US’s political class is not only putting public officials at risk of being assassinated, but also average rally attendees of being massacred in potential terrorist attacks. 

Civilian disarmament is simply not an answer to the US’s heightened degree of political polarization.

July 31st, 2024 

The failed assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, was a godsend for demagogic gun controllers nationwide.

The average Democrat politician abides by former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s axiom of never letting a crisis go to waste. The events of July 13 were tragic to say the least.  A deranged gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on Trump and his supporters, which resulted in Crooks piercing the upper part of Trump’s right ear. Even more tragic, was the death of Corey Comperatore, a volunteer fire chief who heroically threw himself in front of his family to shield them from gunfire. On top of that, two other people were struck by gunfire during this assassination attempt but were thankfully able to survive their injuries. 

Naturally, gun controllers are using the horrific tragedy of July 13 to justify a slew of gun control measures. In an appearance (D-MA) on Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show on July 16, Sen. Elizabeth Warren declared that Republicans and Democrats should prohibit “assault weapons” in an effort to promote unity.

The Massachusetts senator wants to prohibit these firearms through the imposition of a national ban.  Such a proposal is clearly a demagogic ploy to justify further encroachments on the Second Amendment. Warren is convinced that banning this arbitrary category of firearms is a justified response to the failed assassination attempt on Trump.

 Warren posted the following on X:

“We didn’t hear about gun safety reform at the RNC this week—but it’s an issue where Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together. Let’s ban assault weapons nationwide.” 

“Assault weapons” are an arbitrary category of weapons that often include AK-47 and AR-15 style rifles. Despite being single-shot weapons, these rifles’ cosmetics may appear intimidating to those not plugged into the broader culture. Many erroneously believe that these kinds of rifles have burst or automatic fire settings. In the case of Trump’ s failed assassination attempt, the gunman used an AR-15 style rifle — a firearm the anti-gun Left is obsessed with banning. 

There were some Republican politicians that did not buy the hype surrounding the calls for banning so-called weapons. During a speech he gave at the Republican National Convention on July 16, Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) defended the concept of owning AR-15 rifles.

“There are 400 million guns currently in circulation,” Hunt noted. “Guns aren’t going anywhere. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And that son-of-a-b**** is now dead because a good guy with a gun shot him.”

Hunt correctly warned that “the left is using the AR-15 as a scapegoat for infringement on your rights.  “So what they’re going to try to do is demonize the AR-15 to make it seem like everybody is a crazed mass shooter even though that’s completely false. So my message to you all is to be vigilant here. They cannot go after a pistol braces, they cannot go after bump stocks, they cannot go after AR-15s. Because the second we allow them to infringe on that we are letting the fox in the henhouse,” Hunt concluded. 

The US already had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. The 1994 assault weapons ban was part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which received the signature of then-president Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.

Pro-gun researchers have contended that the 1994 assault weapons ban had no real impact on crime. According to research from pro-gun economist John Lott, “there was no drop in the number of attacks with assault weapons during the 1994 to 2004 ban. There was an increase after the ban sunset, but the change is not statistically significant.”

Ultimately, there’s nothing magical about an assault weapons ban. The research clearly demonstrates they have a minimal impact on crime. What’s more at play here is the Let’s endgame of complete civilian disarmament. 

It’s no secret that the Left hates the right to bear arms. However, they recognize that there are many institutional constraints and a well ingrained pro-gun culture in the American polity that makes it increasingly difficult to pass gun control. As a result, Gun Control Inc. will turn to gradualist measures such as “assault weapons” bans to gather more momentum. 

We must not give the Left an inch here. Any gun control they pass puts them one step closer to their goal of abolishing the Second Amendment. Any wrench we throw in the Left’s plans to subvert the right to bear arms, gives the pro-gun community more breathing room and more flexibility to go on offense to restore our rights.

July 31st, 2024

During a campaign speech on July 25, 2024, before the American Federation of Teachers, Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris ridiculed “extremists” who want to grant teachers the ability to arm themselves for the purpose of classroom defense.

During her speech, Harris told the AFT audience: “While you try to create safe and welcoming places where our children can learn, extremists attack our freedom to live safe from gun violence. They have the nerve to tell teachers to strap on a gun in the classroom.”

The idea of arming teachers is not a fringe concept. AWR Hawkins of Breitbart News noted that on December 13, 2018, almost 10 months after the Parkland high school massacre took place, the commission investigating the shooting made the recommendation that teachers should have the ability to arm themselves for self-defense in the classroom. According to a report by the Associated Press, the commission wanted school districts to adopt policies that let “teachers who volunteer and undergo extensive background checks and training…to carry concealed guns on campus to stop future shootings.”

In a similar vein, Breitbart News reported that on November 21, 2018, 

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, the key individual spearheading the probe, said the investigation into the mass shooting compelled him to change his views on having armed staff at schools. Initially, he was an opponent of such a concept. He noted, “People need to keep an open mind to it as the reality is that if someone else in that school had a gun it could have saved kids’ lives.”

One interesting thing that Hawkins noted about the Parkland shooting is that the gunman paused five times to reload during his massacre, however no teachers or staff members were armed to halt the bloodshed. 

Curiously, there were no armed teachers present at Sandy Hook Elementary School when a gunman shot up the school and killed 27 people — including himself — on December 14, 2012. 

There’s nothing magical about schools that make them immune to attacks from deranged individuals. The fact of the matter is that as gun-free zones, schools are criminal safe spaces that allow would-be mass shooters to potentially achieve enormous kill counts. Hence, the alarming amount of mass shootings that have occurred in schools in the last three decades. Per pro-Second Amendment researcher John Lott’s findings, 94% of mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones since 1950.

Kamala Harris can laugh like a hyena all she wants. But the idea of letting law-abiding teachers arm themselves to protect their classrooms is no laughing matter. It could make all the difference in preventing massacres from taking place at our educational institutions.  

We have to realize that Harris and her ilk are not interested in promoting public safety. They’re more animated by a desire to exercise full-blown control of the population. One way to achieve that is by pursuing measures that lead to civilian disarmament. 

At the end of the day, the real promoters of public safety and basic liberties are those who advocate for the right to self-defense and the full-fledged abolition of unconstitutional gun control measures at all levels of government.

July 17, 2024 

Coming to a store near you: American Rounds Express Ammo vending machines.

Fully automated, heavily stocked, and 24/7 accessible vending machines that dispense ammunition for pistols, rifles, and shotguns have been placed in multiple grocery stores throughout Oklahoma and Alabama.

American Rounds, the company behind this venture to revolutionize the bullet buying process, wants to provide customers the ability to “buy ammunition on your own schedule, free from the constraints of store hours and long lines.”

Grant Major, CEO of American Rounds, has reported significant success in sales and popularity of the machines. As a result, the venture is expanding, with new vending machines being installed in Texas and Colorado and further expansion in Oklahoma. 

The machines are equipped with TSA standard ID card scanners and AI-powered facial recognition software to ensure safety, security, and legality. This prevents underage or other prohibited individuals from purchasing ammo from the machines.

American Rounds has emphasized its goals of complying with federal and local regulations while simplifying consumer experiences. Due to discrepancies between state laws regarding age requirements to purchase ammunition, all machines require users to be 21 years of age or older.

Major also assured certain customers, who were skeptical of the ID verification process, that the obtained information is shared with no one and is strictly for the purpose of age verification.

Could this be the future of ammunition purchasing? Will customers nationwide trend towards the RedBox of self-defense? How could these machines impact traditional gun ranges and ammo shops?

There are many questions to be answered, but nonetheless, the expansion of ammunition accessibility for responsible Americans is undoubtedly a positive development. 

July 17, 2024 

In a bold move, President Joe Biden is poised to introduce sweeping reforms to the U.S. Supreme Court, aiming to impose term limits on justices and establish a binding code of ethics.

This proposal comes amid increasing scrutiny of the court’s conservative majority and recent controversial rulings.

Biden, who has traditionally resisted calls for such reforms, previewed this significant initiative during a call with progressive lawmakers last week, promising a “major overhaul” of the court.

An official announcement is expected in the coming weeks, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The proposed reforms would require congressional approval, necessitating 60 votes in the Senate, a steep challenge even if Democrats retain control of both chambers.

Additionally, Biden is considering a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity, a direct response to a recent Supreme Court decision protecting presidents from criminal prosecution for certain acts.

These proposals mark a stark shift for Biden, who, during his 2020 campaign, rejected the idea of expanding the court and instead formed a commission to study possible changes.

However, recent decisions by the court’s conservative majority—with pro-life rulings, blocking gun control measures, and eliminating affirmative action—have prompted Biden to adopt a more aggressive stance.

The push for reform reflects Biden’s response to mounting pressure from within his party, especially from progressive Democrats who doubt his re-election viability after a shaky debate performance.

As this initiative unfolds, the nation will watch closely to see if these significant reforms can navigate the legislative hurdles ahead and bring lasting change to the Supreme Court.

July 17, 2024 

On Thursday night, Joe Biden parroted a commonly repeated lie, used time and again by Leftists to fearmonger the American people into willful submission of their right to self-defense.

Biden falsely claimed that guns are the #1 cause of death for children in America. “More children are killed by bullets than any other cause of death,” the President asserted to a room of reporters and journalists. This is, of course, not the first time that Biden has uttered this frequent falsehood. Biden first said that “guns are the number one killer of children,” earlier in his presidency on June 2nd, 2022.

Presumptively, the Biden Administration is referring to a CDC figure showing that the amount of people ages 0-19 who died from gun violence in 2020 is 4,368, surpassing even car crashes which totaled 4,036. As evidenced, this figure includes military and voting aged people of 18 and 19 years old, skewing the figure and misrepresenting the category of “children.”

Deaths caused by firearms for the ages 0-17 in 2020 were equal to 2,281, while car crashes for the same age group totaled 2,503. Clearly, Biden and the Democrats are deliberately misrepresenting the figures in order to fearmonger support for increasingly restrictive gun policy.

Any number of children dying from guns is cause for concern, however it should be recognized that the vast majority of these deaths occur in either Democrat run urban centers with restrictive gun laws, or in so-called “gun free zones.” 

No matter what lies and deceitful tactics the gun-grabbing Radical Left throws our way, Texas Gun Rights will continue fighting preserving our Second Amendment rights to self-defense. The fear mongering displays put on by the White House and other tyrannical forces will not deter Americans in defense of their liberties.

July 12, 2024 

In a heated race for the U.S. Senate in Texas, incumbent Senator Ted Cruz is facing a formidable challenge from Congressman Colin Allred. Both candidates reported significant fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2024, with Cruz raising $12.6 million and Allred closely trailing with $10.5 million. Allred’s fundraising performance outpaces the totals of 2018 Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke at the same point in his campaign.

Cruz’s fundraising total broke all his previous records, more than doubling his first-half 2018 performance. “We continue to see growing support for Senator Cruz in every corner of the Lone Star State,” said Nick Maddux, Cruz’s campaign spokesman. “This quarter’s record-breaking fundraising numbers are indicative of Texans’ steadfast support for Senator Cruz, but the job isn’t done yet. Senator Cruz will continue working day in and day out to ensure victory in November to Keep Texas, Texas.”

Cruz’s total of $12.6 million includes contributions to his campaign account, his super PAC, joint fundraising accounts, and donations itemized for him by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Texas GOP. With an average contribution of $33.25, Cruz’s campaign shows widespread grassroots support across all 254 counties in Texas, bringing his cash on hand to $22.1 million at the close of the period.

On the other hand, Colin Allred’s campaign has amassed a total of $38 million since its inception, with an average donation of $33.59. Allred’s $10.5 million second-quarter haul slightly exceeds Beto O’Rourke’s fundraising total for the same period in 2018, a notable feat considering O’Rourke’s strong financial backing during his campaign. Paige Hutchinson, Allred’s campaign manager, emphasized the significance of this achievement. “Texans are sending a clear message to Ted Cruz that they are ready to move on from him and his policies that are hurting Texas families, and that they are ready to elect Colin Allred to bring a new generation of leadership to the Senate.”

Allred’s campaign is heavily backed by the gun-control lobby. Endorsed by Giffords, a prominent gun control advocacy group, Allred has centered his campaign on the promise of implementing stricter gun control measures. This endorsement is part of a broader strategy by anti-gun groups to make significant inroads in Texas, a state traditionally known for its strong gun rights stance.

The involvement of influential figures such as George Soros further underscores the intensity of the effort to flip Texas blue. Soros and other gun control advocates are significantly ramping up their financial support in Texas, aiming to turn the state into a Democratic stronghold. With significant funding funneled into the state, groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords are tripling down on their efforts to reshape Texas’s political landscape.

The race between Cruz and Allred is not just a contest of political ideologies but also a battleground for the future of gun rights in Texas. Cruz, a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, represents a traditional pro-gun stance, while Allred’s campaign, bolstered by gun control advocates, pushes for more restrictive firearm laws.

As the November election approaches, both campaigns are expected to ramp up their efforts, with even more significant fundraising hauls likely in the coming months. The outcome of this race could have far-reaching implications, not only for Texas but for the national conversation on gun control and Second Amendment rights.

Texas Gun Rights is mobilizing its members across the state to make gun rights—and stopping Biden’s anti-gun agenda—a winning issue in November.

July 15, 2024 

In a shocking turn of events on Saturday, former President Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The attack, which tragically resulted in one death and left two others injured, has highlighted severe security deficiencies and raised critical concerns about the radical left’s inflammatory rhetoric.

The shooter, identified as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, managed to climb onto a manufacturing plant approximately 130 yards from where Trump was speaking.

From this elevated position, Crooks fired multiple shots, grazing Trump’s right ear, killing an innocent attendee, and wounding two others before Secret Service snipers took him down.

The incident has sparked widespread outrage and questions about how such a significant security lapse could occur.

Israeli Special Ops veteran Aaron Cohen, speaking to Fox News, articulated the gravity of the situation: “God must have been watching over the president.”

Cohen noted that snipers are trained to aim at the cerebral cortex to ensure a fatal shot. “At 130 yards, it’s not a difficult shot to make,” Cohen stressed, underscoring the serious security failings that allowed Crooks to position himself and fire at the rally.

Eyewitnesses reported seeing Crooks with a visible rifle as he climbed onto the building and frantically tried to alert authorities.

One witness told the BBC, “We could clearly see the rifle. I was wondering why Trump was still speaking and why he hadn’t been pulled off the stage. We were pointing at the shooter for what felt like minutes before the shots rang out.”  This testimony raises serious questions about the Secret Service’s preparedness and response.

Images of a bloodied but defiant Trump raising his fist as he was escorted off stage have quickly become iconic, potentially boosting his chances in the upcoming election. Entrepreneurs have already capitalized on the moment, selling merchandise featuring this dramatic image.

Following the attack, a congressional oversight committee has demanded a hearing with Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to address these glaring security issues.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theories abound, with some left-leaning voices suggesting the attempt was a right-wing plot to martyr Trump, while some right-leaning voices allege that the Biden administration deliberately reduced Trump’s security detail.

This incident must be seen within the broader context of the radical left’s hostile and aggressive rhetoric.

For years, the left has demonized their political opponents, fostering an environment conducive to violence. This strategy was evident when Maxine Waters urged leftists to confront Trump supporters and Cabinet members publicly, and when leftists harassed political figures in public spaces.

Incidents such as Kathy Griffin’s infamous photo with a severed Trump head, Snoop Dogg’s video depicting a mock assassination of Trump, and a New York play portraying Trump as Julius Caesar being stabbed all exemplify this dangerous trend.

More recently, Joe Biden’s inflammatory remarks about Trump, labeling him a “threat to democracy” and metaphorically placing him in a bullseye, have further fueled this divisive climate.

Comparisons of Trump to Hitler and derogatory labels for his supporters, such as Nazis, only exacerbate the situation. Biden’s Constitution Hall speech, Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment, and Obama’s remark about people clinging to “guns and religion” have all contributed to this toxic environment.

The leftist media’s attempt to create a false moral equivalency by repeatedly referencing January 6 while ignoring the violent acts committed by groups like Antifa, BLM, and Jane’s Revenge is misleading.

Their strategy, rooted in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” relies on intimidation, coercion, and violence.

Tragically, leftists have made enemies of anyone opposing their agenda, making an assassination attempt on Donald Trump seemingly justifiable to them. They seek to rationalize such actions through distorted narratives.

Yet it is these same far-left Democrats who are the loudest voices pushing for stricter gun control measures, aiming to disarm law-abiding citizens while stirring up a pot of violence.

The hypocrisy is glaring. On one hand, they incite aggression through their rhetoric and actions; on the other hand, they seek to strip away the constitutional rights of Americans to defend themselves.

This disarmament leaves citizens vulnerable while the left continues to fan the flames of division and hostility.

But in the wake of this assassination attempt, it is crucial to address not only the immediate security lapses but also the broader implications of disarming the public.

Law-abiding citizens must retain their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves in an increasingly volatile environment fueled by radical rhetoric.

The push for gun control under the guise of safety is exposed as another tactic to consolidate power and weaken opposition.

July 15, 2024 

Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has withdrawn his request for a new trial in his federal gun case after federal prosecutors criticized his legal approach as a “misunderstanding of appellate practice” and for neglecting prior court orders.

On June 11, Hunter Biden was convicted on three counts related to lying about his drug addiction to obtain a firearm. He filed a motion for a new trial on June 24, claiming that Delaware federal Judge Maryellen Noreika lacked jurisdiction over his trial. Biden argued that there were pending rulings in his appeals case that called Noreika’s authority into question.

Federal prosecutors from special counsel David Weiss’ office refuted Biden’s argument, emphasizing that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had already authorized Judge Noreika to proceed with the trial. In a filing on Monday, prosecutors pointed out that the appeals court had dismissed Biden’s appeals with orders marked “Issued in Lieu of Mandate,” a crucial detail that Biden and his legal team failed to acknowledge.

Prosecutor Derek Hines wrote in the Monday filing, “When trial began on June 3, the Third Circuit had already dismissed both of the defendant’s appeals with orders stamped ‘in Lieu of Mandate’ and denied his petition for rehearing.” He added, “While the defendant repeatedly insisted before trial that his appeals divested this Court of jurisdiction, this is the first time he has spun this tale of the missing mandates.”

Hines made it clear that the dismissal orders provided no grounds for the court to reconsider its previous rulings, as the orders indicated that the appeals were non-appealable and did not affect the court’s jurisdiction.

Following this, Hunter Biden’s lead attorney, Abbe Lowell, filed a brief on Tuesday admitting the oversight. “As it appears that the Third Circuit views issuing a certified order ‘in lieu’ of a mandate as compliant with … procedure for shortening the time for issuance of a mandate, Mr. Biden withdraws his motion,” Lowell wrote.

Hunter Biden, a notable figure in his father’s administration following President Biden’s controversial June 27 debate against Donald Trump, faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced later this year. However, federal sentencing guidelines suggest he is unlikely to receive the maximum sentence. Judge Noreika has yet to set a sentencing date.

Biden’s legal challenges do not end here. He is scheduled to go on trial on September 5 in Los Angeles, where he is accused of evading $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. An earlier attempt to delay this trial was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May, with prosecutors calling the appeal a “stunt to delay his trial.”

Public opinion is not in Biden’s favor. A recent poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 60% of Americans, including 59% of Democrats, agreed with the verdict in the Delaware trial, with nearly half supporting a prison sentence for Hunter Biden.

As these legal proceedings continue, the implications for the Biden administration and the wider political landscape remain to be seen.