Beto O’Rourke: We’ll Use Fines to ‘Compel’ Compliance with AR-15 Ban

The opinion of some pretty informed political analysts is that O’Rourke knows his campaign is going nowhere. So, for some future consideration, he’s been tasked with being the rabid radical nutjob spouting these grandiosely idiotic plans so that the real gun-grabber agenda can be pointed at as more ‘reasonable’. But that still doesn’t cut him any slack with me.

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke explained he plans to use fines to “compel” American gun owners to comply with his AR-15 ban, during a weekend exchange with reporters.

O’Rourke made his claim in a video posted by Fox4 DFW’s Teresa Riley.

Liberals Want to Grab Guns…but Who Will Do the Grabbing?

I don’t think I’m alone when I say it’s frustrating having the same conversation over and over and over again.  I’m frustrated trying to explain the difference between a semi-automatic and a “military-style assault” weapon, parrying asinine retorts of how our Founding Fathers “only had muskets,” and being told by strangers what weapons I “don’t need.”  I’m frustrated with citing statistical evidence showing that the vast majority of gun violence in America is the result of suicides and of criminals who have obtained their guns illegally.  I’m frustrated with trying to justify my personal choices to people who are completely ignorant about guns and who are completely unwilling to learn.

I’m frustrated because it’s an exercise in futility.  They return the very next day to push their very same debunked talking points that I’ve spent the last conversation refuting.  Deploying factual evidence works only when dealing with people for whom factual evidence is valued, acknowledged, and conceded.  When they simply ignore it and continue to talk over you, there is no benefit in trying to make them see reason.  It is like talking to a brick wall.

If reducing gun violence were an honest aim of the Left, leftists would follow the evidence where it leads.  But leftists oppose gun ownership not out of any heartfelt reaction to mass shootings (though they routinely go through the necessary public genuflections).  They don’t care about dead students, dead Walmart shoppers, dead worshipers, dead police, or dead black Americans.  They don’t care about getting help for the mentally ill.  They care about the consolidation of political power into a centralized totalitarian entity, which they arrogantly assume they possess the competence to administer.

Lawmakers such as state senator Julie Morrison (D-Ill.) have smugly threatened mass confiscation, and others such as Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have suggested prosecution and prison time for noncompliance with mandatory buyback programs.  During the September 12 debate, the floundering Robert Francis O’Rourke (D-Nowhere) gazed up from his water bong to yelp, “Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15!”

Scary words, to be sure.  But these threats raise the question of who exactly they plan on sending out to do the actual confiscating.  Do something! they scream from the podiums and across the Twittersphere, with no intention of ever actually doing that “something” themselves.  The bell-collared audience who noisily bleated their approval for O’Rourke’s rhetorical feed bucket?  They’re not going to “do something,” either, other than demand someone else do it.

That’s the job of the police, they say?  Good luck with that.  Out of the 250 million adults living in the United States, approximately one third of them own one or more guns.  That’s over 80 million doors for police to bust down in unconstitutional searches and seizures (these would be clear violations of the Fourth Amendment, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if the Bill of Rights were something the Left even pretended to respect).

Like combat soldiers, police can refuse orders they deem immoral or unconstitutional.  Polls continuously show (herehere, and here) that police overwhelmingly support the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s.  So how successful will be the efforts of the anti-police Left to convince the very same officers they hate to bust into American homes to steal guns the police think they have a right to own?  The growing trend of elected sheriffs and officials creating Second Amendment sanctuaries by publicly opting to not enforce unconstitutional gun laws should give pause to leftists who feel that America’s police will do their dirty work for them.

Even if a hypothetical Presidente O’Rourke were able to cajole every American police officer to act as his own personal Stasi, such a force would still be inadequate for the task of disarming millions of gun-owners.  This reality is amplified by the fact that about three quarters of gun-owners say gun ownership is essential to their freedom, giving a sense of just how much non-compliance such an effort would encounter.

Nor should they count on the members of a woke population to voluntarily disarm themselves.  The much touted New Zealand buyback program has confiscated under 10% of known banned weapons.  Mandatory registration laws in deep blue ConnecticutNew York, and California have garnered compliance rates of 15%, 4%, and 3%, respectively.  This is not even for confiscation, but for registration only.  How well do they think buyback programs will fare in Texas or Ohio?

Nope.  If they want guns confiscated, they’ll have to do it themselves.

 

BIDEN AND CORN POP, KAVANAUGH AND PORN COP

The symptoms of age-related cognitive decline include being unable to remember whether you’re in Vermont or New Hampshire, and what the talking points of your own presidential campaign are, but recalling exactly what you said nearly 60 years ago when you had a summer job as a lifeguard at a pool in Wilmington, Del. and a ‘bad dude’ called Corn Pop took umbrage when you ordered him to put on a shower cap so he looked like an old lady and then, to further emasculate him in front of his ‘boys’, called him ‘Esther’……

The Kavanaugh and Corn Pop stories must at all times be considered separately, for two reasons. First, if taken together, these stories show the extent to which pro-Democratic media, even the upmarket kind which advertises its fact-checking, will go in order to slander its enemies and support its team — and that the obvious cognitive decline of the Democratic frontrunner might not be as alarming as the obvious ethical decline in the press, because a party can find a better candidate, but the Times, it isn’t a-changin’.

Second, there’s the risk that the two stories will merge into a single image in which Joe Biden’s friends push his penis into Corn Pop’s hand in order to prove his tolerance, while Brett Kavanaugh the Porn Cop stands pink and proud for family values. This composite is the true image of American politics today, so is best not considered at all, let along pushed into anyone’s face as part of a presidential nomination strategy

Warren’s fix for government corruption is to turn all power over to government

Statists gotta state you know.

Chief Elizabeth Warren, who lies constantly, has a plan to end corruption.

Repeating her anti-government rhetoric, in a piece titled, END WASHINGTON CORRUPTION, Warren writes that big insurance companies and hospital conglomerates put profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people, and dump piles of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts to block any move toward Medicare for All.

This comes from a woman who has no problem with unions and Planned Parenthood sinking a fortune into Democratic campaigns, including hers. She has no problem with their lobbyists or those of far-left groups.

In order to get her unaffordable Medicare for All through, she must demonize hospitals, many of which are just trying to survive.

Railing against fossil fuels, she claims they are promoting false studies and preventing the Green New Deal from seeing the light of day. That’s the same Green New Deal that will take away our planes, our cars, and our hamburgers but provides incomes to people who don’t’ want to work.

Pharmaceuticals and their lobbyists are also on her hit list.

Her answer to all of it is to spend trillions of dollars we do not have and to take away our liberties.

Her last paragraph calls for Universal Childcare, criminal justice reform, and affordable housing [paid for by the redistribution of wealth]. Naturally, she wants gun reform. Somehow, turning over control of all sectors of society to the big corrupt government will fight corruption in the big government and its cronyism.

She won’t admit middle-class taxes will go up under Medicare for All.

Pelosi And Schumer Had A Call With Trump About Gun Control. This Is Their Non Negotiable.

About 2/3rd of the deaths in the U.S. that involve the use of a gun are suicides. No kind of a background check will in any way do one thing to decrease that number. Of course, SanFranNan & ChuckU are being their standard operational demoncrap selves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday had a call with President Donald Trump about gun control legislation. According to a statement from Democratic leadership, universal background checks are a non negotiable that must be included in any proposal Trump moves forward with. Specifically, Democrats want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the legislation to a floor for a vote.

“200 days ago, the Democratic House took decisive action to end the gun violence epidemic in America by passing H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112: bipartisan, commonsense legislation to expand background checks, which is supported by more than 90 percent of the American people.  With the backing of the American people, we continue to call on Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us A Vote!’

“Yet, for 200 days, Senator McConnell has refused to give these bipartisan bills a vote on the Senate Floor, again and again putting his own political survival before the survival of our children.  Every day that Senator McConnell blocks our House-passed, life-saving bills, an average of 100 people – including 47 children and teenagers – die from senseless gun violence.  Some 20,000 have died since the House took action on February 27th.

“This morning, we made it clear to the President that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access.  For instance, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show and online loopholes that H.R. 8 would close. We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the President must sign it.  We even promised the President that if he endorses this legislation and gets Senator McConnell to act on what the House has passed, we would both join him for a historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden.

“Congressional Democrats will continue to join with law enforcement, survivors, students and parents, health care providers, mayors and public health officials across the nation to accelerate a relentless drumbeat of action to force Senator McConnell to pass our background checks bills.  We will not stop until these bills are passed and our children’s lives are safe.  We call upon Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us a Vote!’

McConnell has made it clear that he wouldn’t bring any gun control proposals to the floor for a vote if President Trump has vowed to veto the bill.

“My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature. They are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign,” McConnell said last week.

Kamala Harris Does Not Understand Why the Constitution Should Get in the Way of Her Gun Control Agenda
The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.

She fantasizes about being the tyrant in chief, that’s why she can’t explain the legal basis, because there isn’t one.
It’s the old “We could have a utopia on Earth if only we could get some of these pesky laws, and people, out of the way.”
No matter which end of the political spectrum you’re on, this is the exact reason the 2nd amendment was demanded to be included in a Bill of Rights.

During last night’s Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden admonished Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) for promising to impose new gun controls by executive fiat if Congress fails to pass the laws she thinks it should. That gave Harris a perfect opportunity to explain how her 100-day plan for gun control can be reconciled with constitutional restrictions on presidential power. The former prosecutor not only conspicuously failed to do so but literally laughed at the question.

The senator’s campaign website promises that “if Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris’ desk within her first 100 days as president—including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill—she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe.” Biden interprets that pledge as a promise to ban “assault weapons” without new legislation, something the president clearly does not have the authority to do.

Harris’ plan for unilateral action on “assault weapons” is actually more modest than Biden implies. She says she would “ban AR-15-style assault weapons from being imported into the United States,” noting that the Gun Control Act “empowers the executive branch to prohibit the importation of guns not ‘suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.'” As Harris points out, “both Democratic and Republican presidents,” including George H.W. Bush in 1989, have used that provision to block importation of “assault weapons.” But two other parts of Harris’ gun control plan do not seem to have any statutory basis.

Harris says she would “close the ‘boyfriend loophole’ to prevent dating partners convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns.” Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanors involving “domestic violence” are barred from possessing firearms. But crimes against dating partners count as “domestic violence” only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her. Harris seems to think she can eliminate those requirements without new congressional action, but it’s hard to see how. Congress has defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and only Congress can change the definition.

Harris also thinks the president can “mandate near-universal background checks by requiring anyone who sells five or more guns per year to run a background check on all gun sales.” Since only federally licensed dealers are legally required to run background checks, such a rule would require dramatically expanding that category.

The problem is that federal law defines a gun dealer as someone who is “engaged in the business of selling firearms,” which in turn is defined as “devot[ing] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” The statutory definition explicitly excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” Under Harris’ plan, a hobbyist or collector who sold more than four guns in a single year would be required to obtain a federal license and conduct background checks, which is plainly inconsistent with current law.

Instead of explaining the legal basis for the “executive action” she has in mind, Harris made a weak joke: “Hey, Joe, instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say, ‘Yes, we can.'” Then she launched into a description of the casualties from mass shootings, adding, “The idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just—it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills, elementary, middle and high school students, where they are learning about how they have to hide in a closet or crouch in a corner if there is a mass shooter roaming the hallways of their school.”

That is not an argument in favor of any particular gun control policy, let alone an argument for the president’s authority to impose it unilaterally. “Let’s be constitutional,” Biden said. “We’ve got a Constitution.” To which Harris replied, in effect, “Constitution, schmonstitution. Why should that get in the way of my agenda?” Even voters who tend to agree with Harris about gun control should be troubled by her blithe dismissal of the legal limits on the powers she would exercise as president.

Beto O’Rourke hands GOP, NRA golden ticket.

Thanks, Beto.

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said, on television, on the Democratic Party debate stage, for all to hear and see. “We’re not going to allow them to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”

And with that, all the Democrats who’ve tried for years to deny the gun confiscation motives behind their gun control pushes went — nooooooo.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that, does it?

“Hell yes,” we’re going to take your guns.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate your firearms.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to one day, make it so the Second Amendment is a Second Amendment In Name Only — and that whole God-given right to self-defend is a thing of the past.

Democrats have been trying for years to convince Americans that registrations and limits on assault weapons and universal background checks and other so-called common sense gun control proposals were harmless steps to curb gun-related violence that even hard-core Second Amendment activists should embrace. That the evil National Rifle Association and all those evil gun rights groups were trying to drum up fears of confiscations that just weren’t true.

That Democrats had no intention of taking away firearms from the legal gun owners. That if you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

And for some, the left’s talking points have been convincing. Particularly, as school shootings and tragic, heartbreaking stories of gun-related violence dominate far too many media cycles.

Then comes Beto, charging to clarify.

“Hell yes,” we’re going to confiscate.

It doesn’t get more honest than that.

There’s the golden ticket the NRA, the Republican Party, the patriotic Second Amendment supporters of this country needed to prove their argument, to prove their points, to showcase the truths about the Democrats’ ultimate gun controlling end game.

Democrats want to confiscate guns, pure and simple. Beto O’Rourke himself admitted it.

“Red Flag” Candidate Alyssa Milano Owns Two Guns and Has Self-Admitted Mental Illness — But Leads Charge to Take Away YOUR GUNS!

Alyssa also has self-admitted mental illness and owns two guns herself

As Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot points out— “Serious question. How does @Alyssa_Milano have two weapons for self-defense when she has self-admitted mental illness?”

https://twitter.com/ItsGitNWesterny/status/1171840816790347776

Here’s a good part of the meeting between Alyssa Milano & Senator Cruz. You’ll notice, Milano had to bring along two (2) ‘assistants’ for the emotive effect.

And here’s the whole thing

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S FATHER SUPPORTED BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION:

Last year, when Christine Blasey Ford emerged after then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to accuse him of attempted rape at a house party when both were teenagers, there were many unanswered questions both about her story and her credibility.

She offered no proof that she and Kavanaugh had ever even met. She couldn’t remember where it happened, when it happened, or how she arrived at or departed from the party. None of the four alleged witnesses she eventually named, including one of her closest lifelong friends, corroborated her accusations. Prior to airing her allegations with the media, she scrubbed her entire social media history that indicated she was a liberal activist.

To this day, there is zero evidence beyond her claims that the alleged assault ever happened. One detail, however, remains particularly intriguing. The Blasey family stayed conspicuously silent about the veracity of her allegations. A public letter of support for Ford that began “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family . . .” wasn’t signed by a single blood relative. Reached for comment by the Washington Post, her father simply said, “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” before hanging up…………………

So what was the point of the cavalcade of unsubstantiated allegations? Ford’s attorney Debra Katz offered not so much a hint as a confession. Ford testified that she had no political motivation. But in remarks captured on video, Katz admitted that Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh were at least in part driven by fear he might not sufficiently support unregulated abortion on the court.

“We were going to have a conservative” justice, she said, “but he will always have an asterisk next to his name” that will discredit any decision he makes regarding abortion. What’s more, she added, “that is part of what motivated Christine.”


Giving up the Game

Even before attorney Debra Katz took on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, as a client, she was someone the abusive and unscrupulous should have feared. At least, that’s how she was portrayed in the press.

“Those who know and have worked with Katz describe her as a meticulous and battle-tested attorney, as someone who vets her clients carefully and doesn’t take on cases merely because she sympathizes with victims of exploitation and abuse,” the Washington Post glowed. The Washingtonian described Katz as the capital’s “top attorney for women who want to fight back.” And that’s not a burden she took lightly. Litigating sexual harassment cases “hurts people in such a deep way,” she confessed. “We need to be fighting harder, and more strategically and more vocally.”

Katz was a serious person, and congressional Republicans took her seriously. Blasey Ford’s attorney made a variety of demands on the Judiciary Committee staffers who were slated to question her client, some of which were absurd but others—like her request for Blasey Ford to testify without Kavanaugh present and to be questioned by outside counsel and not lawmakers—were granted. These were small concessions in service to what Katz insisted was the effort to get to the truth. “Intention matters,” the lawyer told CBS News, “if we’re trying to really engage in an inquiry to get at the truth, a highly politicized environment such as the one were in is not designed to do that.”

As it turns out, Katz wasn’t as opposed to a “highly politicized environment” as she maintained. “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz told attendees at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference this past April. “He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him. And that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

Only someone with a lawyer’s gift for prevarication could fail to comprehend Katz’s meaning. In this textbook definition of the Kinsley gaffe, Katz has revealed that not only was she motivated to litigate the claims against Kavanaugh for the advantageous political effect they would have but that her client was, too. And what was that desired effect? Affixing an “asterisk” to Kavanaugh’s record so that his judgments and decisions would be regarded as animated by biases and prejudices and would be, therefore, suspect if not entirely illegitimate.

This is an admission entirely against interest, in part, because you do not have to announce the presence of an asterisk if it truly exists. The Democratic partisans who insist Justice Clarence Thomas has been similarly undermined are screaming into a void. His concurrences and dissents still carry as much moral and intellectual weight as any other justice. He still influences the evolution of legal thought as much as or more than his colleagues on the bench. His clerks still get confirmed to federal judicial appointments in striking numbers. The notion that Kavanaugh’s reputation had been irreparably tarred in some way by his confirmation hearings isn’t an observation. It’s a self-affirmation.”

Rutgers announces eight new studies on gun violence

Mr & Mrs Giffords have their hands in all of them.

Rutgers’ New Jersey Center of Gun Violence Research has announced eight studies on gun violence and prevention to be led by University faculty, according to a press release……..

Last year, The Daily Targum reported that, in a partnership with former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az.) and her husband Mark Kelly’s foundation, New Jersey donated a $2 million grant to the University to launch the New Jersey Center for Gun Violence Research.

Yes, the standard operational ‘we must DO SOMETHING!™’
Yes, she’s been changed alright.
Her ‘worldview’ has been broadened and illuminated beyond the safe cozy one she always believed in before the curtain was pulled aside and she got to see the world as it really is.
The nice little lady got the $#!+ scared out of her for the first time in her life and the “flight or fight” hormone dump response discombobulated her brain (and thus her rational and critical thought process).
She wants her fantasy of a nice safe, bubble wrapped world back and thinks politicians can get her there.

In England, the police go to great lengths to display just how hard they’re working to stop crime.
So they display a screw gun tape and a butter knife  they found……………

“I mean sure but is it really worth the tweet? You just look like idiots taking away butter knifes from Bob the builder.”

Commentary: A gun-control call for conservatives who cherish the Second Amendment

As I emailed him:
#1
The 2nd amendment isn’t about hunting.
#2
NO. Your move.

Today we must begin with a rather unusual request: Will all law-and-order liberals kindly butt out, just this once? We don’t need your help on this one.

We are talking today only to the millions of Americans who strongly support conservative principles, cherish the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and admire the iconic leadership of Ronald Reagan and Sen. Barry Goldwater………….

Reagan:
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47 is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” ………..

Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential standard-bearer who famously posed with his favorite rifle in ads that declared “I’m the NRA,” was an Air Force Reserve major general who opposed selling military-styled assault weapons to civilians………….

“I’ve never used an automatic or semi-automatic for hunting,” Goldwater said. “There’s no need to. They have no place in anybody’s arsenal. If any SOB can’t hit a deer with one shot, he should quit shooting.”………….

Close the background-check loopholes (like the one that mass killer in gun-proud West Texas just used). Ban bump-stock modifications and huge capacity magazines that transform civilian guns into battlefield-ready weapons. Ban the manufacture, sale and civilian ownership of military-styled assault weapons (and yes, let’s buy back assault weapons to keep us safe).

Finally, when gun lobbyists and their puppets push you to settle for only fixing background checks and nothing more, tell them this test about saving our family’s lives has only one correct answer: All of the above.

Martin Schram, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, is a veteran Washington journalist, author and TV documentary executive. Readers may send him email amartin.schram@gmail.com.

Exclusive: Feds Demand Apple And Google Hand Over Names Of 10,000+ Users Of A Gun Scope App

the app is: Obsidian 4.

Own a rifle? Got a scope to go with it? The U.S. government might soon know who you are, where you live and how to reach you.

That’s because the government wants Apple and Google to hand over names, phone numbers and other identifying data of at least 10,000 users of a single gun scope app, Forbes has discovered. It’s an unprecedented move: Never before has a case been disclosed in which American investigators demanded personal data of users of a single app from Apple and Google. And never has an order been made public where the feds have asked the Silicon Valley giants for info on so many thousands of people in one go.

According to an application for a court order filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on September 5, investigators want information on users of Obsidian 4, a tool used to control rifle scopes made by night-vision specialist American Technologies Network Corp. The app allows gun owners to get a live stream, take video and calibrate their gun scope from an Android or iPhone device. According to the Google Play page for Obsidian 4, it has more than 10,000 downloads. Apple doesn’t provide download numbers, so it’s unclear how many iPhone owners could be swept up in this latest government data grab.

If the court approves the demand, and Apple and Google decide to hand over the information, it could include data on thousands of people who have nothing to do with the crimes being investigated, privacy activists warned. Edin Omanovic, lead on Privacy International’s State Surveillance program, said it would set a dangerous precedent and scoop up “huge amounts of innocent people’s personal data.”

“Such orders need to be based on suspicion and be particularized—this is neither,” Omanovic added.

Neither Apple nor Google had responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. ATN, the scope maker, also hadn’t responded.

Why the data grab?

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department is seeking information as part of a broad investigation into possible breaches of weapons export regulations. It’s looking into illegal exports of ATN’s scope, though the company itself isn’t under investigation, according to the order. As part of that, investigators are looking for a quick way to find out where the app is in use, as that will likely indicate where the hardware has been shipped.

Geraldo Unzipped: It’s Your Brain That’s Small! Here’s Some AR-15 Truth

Let’s get something straight:  if there’s anything small out there it’s his brain and the same goes for those who agree with him.  His comment is nothing more than a junior high level bullying tactic, usually reserved for those who lack the intelligence to debate an issue like an actual adult.  We’re surprised he didn’t close out his tweet with “neener neener neeeeener!”  What’s more, Rivera’s adolescent disrespect for women gun owners – many of whom own and shoot AR style rifles – is both ignorant and thoughtless.

Rather than tease Geraldo about his reporting boo boos (and there are quite a few), GOC would prefer to cite some cool AR facts (more than 16 million are privately owned) courtesy of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.  Interesting that we didn’t notice even one bullet point that addressed the size of anyone’s private body parts as a criteria for ownership:

  • Modern sporting rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold today.
  • The “AR” in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
  • AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
  • If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an “assault weapon,” then they’ve been duped by an agenda. The only real way to define what is an “assault weapon” is politically, as in how any given law chooses to define the term—this is why the states that have banned this category of semiautomatic firearms have done so with very different definitions.
  • AR-15-style rifles can look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but by law they function like other semiautomatic civilian sporting firearms, as they fire only one round with each pull of the trigger.
  • Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in most states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
  • Since America’s founding, civilian sporting rifles have evolved along with military firearms. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that pattern.
  • These rifles’ accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
  • Modern sporting rifles are chambered in .22 LR, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and in many other calibers. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
  • These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they’re used for target shooting and in competitions.
  • AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the .30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
  • The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different “uppers” (the barrel and chamber) to the “lower” (the grip, stock).
  • They have been commercially sold to the American public since the 1960s.
  • They are commonly-owned, with more than 16 million modern sporting rifles owned by civilians by 2018.

And, last, but certainly not least, they are a lot of fun to shoot.  Take that you ignoramus…

 

This horse$#!+ for brains was rolled out years ago, when states began passing CCW laws. “Blood Will Run In The Streets!™” It’s simply stunning that Frum is so out of ideas that he has to go back 30+ years to try this on again.