House Dems’ gun package to raise age limit for semi-automatic rifle purchases, ban ‘high capacity’ magazines

The House Judiciary Committee is set to hold an emergency meeting Thursday to pen an extensive gun control package.

Democrats are currently pushing a series of eight bills aimed at suppressing gun ownership, referred to collectively as the “Protecting Our Kids Act,” Fox News confirmed.

The bills contain proposals raising the minimum age for purchasing a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21, a ban on “high capacity magazines,” a registry for bump stocks, and more.

The House will vote on some form of the package when they return to session next week.

The House package is expected to go nowhere in the Senate and is seen as more of a show vote, as a bipartisan group of senators tries to agree on a bill that could pass the Senate.

Continue reading “”

Liberals Want the Government to Save Us from Guns, Conservatives Want Guns to Save Us from the Government

Guns aren’t going away. Yes, school shootings are horrific, we all agree. Liberals who whine that “conservatives love guns more than children” are stupid, entitled cucks who have never been punched in the face for their shooting off their mouths. They jump and scream on cue when tragedy strikes but they are nothing more than useful idiots for the REAL reason the far left wants to take away our guns.

FACT-O-RAMA! Liberals are fighting for the right to kill a kicking, heart-beating baby minutes before it’s born but are happy to stand on a pile of dead kids to take away guns from law-abiding Americans.

We Need More Gun Laws!

Your liberal sister-in-law is all over Facebook with this nonsense, but guess what?  New York is as red as Lavrenti Beria’s lucky underpants, and its stringent laws couldn’t stop the left-leaning Buffalo shooter from blazing up a grocery store full of black people.

Stalin would smile at Chicago’s stifling gun laws, but that doesn’t keep the Windy City denizens from perforating each other every time the thermometer hits 88 degrees.

FACT-O-RAMA! Memorial Day Weekend kicks off Chicago’s summer “Festival of Lead.” Check out heyjackass.com for real-time updates of the carnage. As of this writing, Chicago has seen 1,165 of its citizens ventilated this year so far. Let’s check back Tuesday morning to see how many Chicagoans gained 10 grams of weight over the weekend.

Liberals look to politicians to “save” them from the very Constitutional amendment written to protect them. This is a level of stupidity not seen since the introduction of Ayds weight loss candy, which hit the U.S. at roughly the same time as the AIDS virus got to America–and a young Dr. Fauci screwed that up too.

 

We Need More Gun Training!

I’m all for gun training for sane, law-abiding gun owners, but training is a bad idea for murderous nutters who want to annihilate innocent people. When someone buys a gun to slaughter kids, the last thing you want is to teach him how to do it better.

Conservatives know liberals are too dense programmed to realize gun confiscation and an unarmed population will lead us into two deadly traps:

1) We will be easy pickings for criminals who will NOT give up their weapons. Liberals aren’t even allowed to mention the wildly out of control crime problem ripping up our large cities lest they be seen as “racist.” Better to sacrifice their kids to the crime wave than admit there IS a crime wave.

2) We will be easy pickings for the commies currently running the Democrat party. THAT is the reason the left wants our guns. If you think Joe Biden cares about dead kids please show me a picture of him in Waukesha, WI, after black supremacist Darrell Brooks mowed down almost 70 white people, many of them children.

REMINDER-O-RAMA! Politicians swear to uphold the Constitution. That includes the 2nd Amendment. Those attempting to vaporize the 2nd Amendment are therefore enemies of the state and need to be imprisoned.

Sure, Biden will likely go to Uvalde, TX. It’s a shame it took 19 dead kids to actually get the cabbage-in-chief to the border. But don’t believe the old man’s rhetoric about guns. He doesn’t care about dead kids; he wants you vulnerable.

Biden is a dinosaur in a tar pit. He pretends he hasn’t spewed a lifetime of racism from the same lips he used when sucking up to career segregationists like West Virginia’s favorite klan klown, Sen. Byrd. Gropey Joe knows the Democrat Party has been taken over by pinkos and toes the line to keep his head off the chopping block, or his wife “Dr.” Jill knows the score and does what it takes to keep AOC and her commie squad from sending Joe to the cornfield.

Unlike the pink-haired, gender-free toilet people on the left, conservatives fight to keep children alive from the moment of conception and beyond. The bolshie harpies fight to dismantle a fetus minutes before its birthday, then have the audacity to pretend they care about kids when a crazy train shoots up a school. I’d invite them to bite me but I don’t want a scorching case of monkeypox.

My favorite mouth feces that flies out of lefty lips is this, “Conservatives only care about a baby before it’s born. They don’t care what happens after that!” I invite these dolts to search the words “Catholic adoption agencies.” Now search “Antifa adoption.” Checkmate, prags.

I know it can be hard for conservatives who value life and guns to wade through a spate of mass shootings. The lefty politicians and news outlets do that on purpose. For me, the answer is simple: more guns. I find it maniacal that progressives can watch unarmed people get massacred and think, “We need fewer firearms.” What they somehow seem to miss is that EVERY mass shooter is stopped by good guys with guns.

FACT-O-RAMA! Making schools “gun-free zones” is arguably the dumbest thing to come out of Washington D.C. since Nancy Pelosi. You know where mass shootings NEVER take place? Gun ranges, because madmen know that they are FULL OF GUNS.

A man in Las Vegas tried to steal a gun from a gun store. Guess what happened? He got shot by a lot of guns.

The mainstream news is happy to bring you tragic stories of schizos slaughtering innocent people but no one cares to mention how many people stop crimes with firearms.

Memorial Day Weekend is here. Let’s remember those who have died fighting defending the same Constitution the Democrat party is looking to chop up into convenient (for them) bite-sized morsels, leaving out the most important part, the 2nd Amendment, which was intended to stop them from doing just that.

If Republicans Collaborate with Dems to Betray Us on the 2A, They Will Lose the Midterms

Not one inch. The GOP better not give up one single inch on gun freedom.

The Democrats are giddy. They were hoping that SCOTUS putting the kibosh on kid killing was going to save them from annihilation in November. That did not work – Americans were less interested in preserving a non-existent right to snuff out a life two minutes from crowning than in $6 gas. But this scumbag’s murder rampage in Texas has given them new hope, they think. All the GOP has to do is be spineless and stupid.

So, they’re feeling pretty confident.

We could discuss the facts, like how the real issue is mentally ill kids (lib COVID lockdowns were no help) and lax security at schools where some cretin can wander in with a rifle and hang out unchallenged. We can also point out the obvious – that disarming law-abiding citizens only empower the criminals Democrats excuse and the tyrants they want to be. But facts and evidence will not stiffen the spines of the noodle caucus that thinks that the regime media will let up if they only “DO SOMETHING” even though the doings the Democrats demand are acts of political onanism.

No, the GOP caucus in Congress needs to understand if good policy and a respect for the Second Amendment are not reason enough for them to derail the runaway freight train of bullSchiff exploitation legislation the Dems are pushing then our vengeance at the ballot box will be.

Stop fearing mean tweets from blue-checked Kaden O’Geebo of Politico and start fearing your voters.

We saw the effect of weakness in response to the death of that fentanyl and pregnant lady-threatening enthusiast that preceded 2020s summer of rioting. It helped hamstring the response to the violent chaos. And it showed us that only we can protect ourselves – with guns. Gun sales are setting records, and it’s not because the American people think the government is going to do a competent job and not ever try to treat us like peasants as they do to the Aussies who obediently turned in their rifles and ended up locked in COVID camps.

Guns are not a luxury. They are essential to what it means to be citizen as opposed to a subject. I write about the importance of an armed populace in my upcoming new nonfiction book We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America:

“Americans own more guns than there are Americans, and that is an unalloyed good thing. Citizens should own guns, and lots of them – the possession of cold steel that shoots hot lead distinguishes citizens from lower forms of life, like ‘subjects,’ ‘serfs,’ and ‘gulag residents.’ In a nation meant to be by and for the People, it is important that the People never cede to the State, which is their tool and not their master, a monopoly on violence. Having guns in the hands of citizens is the ultimate veto over tyranny.”

So, guns aren’t just fun toys. They are not optional. They are critical to our identity as citizens. Taking them turns us from the rulers into the ruled. And that’s exactly why the Democrats want us disarmed, demoralized, and disenfranchised.

So, we GOP voters are all one-issue voters on gun rights and you best be on the right side of that one issue. Republicans, understand that if you betray us – by which we mean pass any item off the garbage Trojan Horse gun-grabbing laundry list the Democrats had been holding ready to spring the next time some worm decided to shoot up a school – then we will abandon you and you will lose the midterms.

Continue reading “”

Suppressing the Truth About Suppressors

Big government leftists aren’t only trying to silence your voice on social media and through the Department of Homeland Security’s new Ministry of Truth, they’re also trying to silence your ability to simply possess a firearm suppressor.

Hollywood, the “besties” of the left, likes to make it seem as if a suppressor completely silences a firearm, as seen by clever TV assassins and action-movie stars. Last year, New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson-Coleman backed this up, calling silencers “tools of murder.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (also from New Jersey) said, “Gun silencers are dangerous devices with one purpose and one purpose only—to muffle the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims.”

I’ll give you one guess as to which two Washington politicians have been watching a few too many Hollywood movies. Hint: they’re the same two who introduced legislation in 2021 to ban all Americans from simply possessing a gun suppressor. Not using one. Possessing one.

Gun suppressors (called “sound moderators” in the UK) only decrease the noise of a gunshot by 20 to 35 decibels. That leaves them still “louder than your average ambulance siren,” according to an article by the Associated Press posted by Police1. That organization is a part of the nation’s leading content, policy, and training platform for public safety. Their job isn’t to kiss babies and raise money; their job is to tell the truth when it comes to how guns work in the real world.

As much as the left would have you believe these devices are only used for Hollywood hitman-style murders, the truth is that the greatest use of silencers is for sporting professionals (pdf). Many shooting pros build private ranges in their basements and use silencers out of respect for their neighbors—literally the opposite of committing a crime.

Second to sporting, suppressors are used with small-caliber subsonic ammunition to rid local areas of disease-carrying vermin, like rats (pdf). Stopping disease from a distance is a good thing.

Fortunately, not all politicians believe big-action Hollywood movies are documentaries. Rep. Bob Good, from Virginia, looked to protect Americans from the suppressor-grab introduced by Menendez and Watson-Coleman. Good’s 2021 legislation sought a complete deregulation of gun suppressors at the federal level and it preempts state laws that would regulate, tax, or prohibit the possession of these devices.

“The Second Amendment is the guarantor or protector of all other rights,” Good told Breitbart News. “If our Second Amendment right is not safe, no rights are safe. Democrats continue to fear-monger and spread misinformation as a justification to undermine our constitutional rights. I’m pleased to introduce legislation that will remove regulatory burdens from purchasing accessories that protect hearing and promote safety.”

There are more than 60,000 legal federal gun-suppressor permits throughout the United States. If suppressors are so dangerous and used only as “tools of murder” then one would expect there to be a plethora of federal prosecutions for crimes committed with a firearm fitted with a suppressor. In reality, such federal prosecutions are rare occurrences (pdf), and the vast majority of those are not because a crime was committed but rather because someone hadn’t properly registered the suppressor. In other words, Menendez was flat-out lying about how they’re used.

It’s ridiculous to use Hollywood and fear to limit a person’s firearm use for competition, sport shooting, hunting, self-defense, teaching children about being responsible gun owners, or for any other constitutionally protected purpose. Don’t be fooled—bills like this do nothing to stop a criminal. They only serve to hurt your ability to use your firearm in a responsible manner.

A suppressor is not a firearm and is incapable of discharging any projectile, yet it’s regulated in the same manner as a machine gun. A firearms suppressor is a simple accessory, like a scope, holster, or any of the hundreds of other firearms accessories available, and ought to be available for purchase over the counter like any other lawful product.

Maybe President Joe Biden’s new Ministry of Truth should look at the Menendez and Watson-Coleman bill as their first order of business when rooting out misinformation. Somehow, I doubt they will.

Don’t Surrender To Do-Somethingism On Guns

Law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions.

Before we even knew how the killer of 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, had obtained his guns, Chris Murphy was engaging in his customary performative emotionalism on the Senate floor, literally begging Republicans to “compromise.”

Compromise on what exactly? Murphy has never once offered a single proposal that would have deterred any of these mass shooters. Literally minutes after his routine, Murphy was asked about the obvious mental illness prevalent among most of these shooters. “Spare me the bullsh-t about mental illness,” the Connecticut senator responded, “ripping” the GOP. “We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world.” That’s how serious he is about compromise.

Whether America is more prone to mental illness or not, these incidents are almost exclusively perpetrated by young men who have exhibited serious anti-social behavior. All of them break a slew of existing laws. All of them have either obtained guns illegally, or legally before having any criminal record. In many, if not most, cases, the shooter is already on the cops’ radar because he has threatened others or written insane, violent manifestos. In a study of mass shootings from 2008 to 2017, the Secret Service found that “100 percent of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors, and in 77 percent of shootings, at least one person – most often a peer – knew about their plan.”

Rather than focusing on these tangible entry points for potentially useful legislation, instead of proposing ideas on better identifying shooters before they act, instead of thinking about how schools could be structurally safer, instead of debating the efficacy of putting more cops in schools — and none of these are panaceas, mind you — Senate Democrats were busy dunking on Republicans for failing to support bills that have absolutely zero to do with mass shootings.

Chuck Schumer planned to introduce H.R. 8, an expanded background check bill, and H.R. 1446, a bill that would close the alleged “Charleston Loophole” (before he realized it wouldn’t be politically expedient.) “Alleged” because Dylann Roof, who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston in 2015, got a clean background check, not because of any “loophole,” but because local prosecutors had failed to respond to the FBI’s request for information. It was a case of human error, or negligence. So maybe Democrats should be promoting a “law-enforcement-should-do-its-job” bill. Because all “universal” background checks do is stop friends and families from gifting guns. Straw purchases are already illegal, as Schumer, Pelosi, and Murphy already know. And passing expanded background checks after a school shooting is tantamount to demanding stricter drivers tests after a hit and run.

Democrats, obsessed with largely irrelevant issues like AR-15s and “universal background checks,” are largely living in the early 1990s. Joe Biden’s address to the nation consisted of a litany of hackneyed talking points he’s been regurgitating for decades now — including that transcendently stupid joke about deer in Kevlar. “As a nation, we have to ask, when in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” Biden said — again.

Democrats love to hammer the strawman “gun lobby” because they don’t want to openly attack tens of millions of gun owners. The NRA, whose power has significantly diminished over the past decades, could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn’t alter gun policy one bit. Either another organization would emerge — probably a more rigid one — or gun owners and Second Amendment advocates (we’re in the midst of the largest expansion of gun ownership in American history) would continue voting for politicians who oppose restrictions aimed at peaceful gun ownership.

Meanwhile, Republicans will have to deal with a barrage of preposterous smears. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

This was indicative of the sort of demented accusation thrown around these days. One suspects liberals who take to the internet to accuse Republicans of abetting infanticide aren’t really interested in compromise. Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, who champions laws that empower people to terminate the lives of the viable unborn, I don’t know of a single Republican who supports the gunning down of elementary school children.

Indeed, law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions. Nor is there any reason for them to surrender their right to self-defense so that Chris Murphy, who, evidenced in many of his comments, is only interested in incrementally limiting gun ownership. That’s his right, of course. He should try and repeal the Second Amendment. Until then, however, Democrats interested in genuine compromise may want to offer realistic, productive, and germane ideas, rather than using another horrific tragedy to dunk on their political opponents.

They learned the hard way from the 1994-2004 ban that resulted in guns that didn’t have the ‘dread features­™’ being made. They hated that and, despite Feinstein’s continued submission of her pet ban, realize that their best gambit is some vague statutory definition that will let a bunch of unelected bureaucraps write regulations to fit whatever the ‘eee-vil feature’ of the day is.


Biden ATF Nominee Says He Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban But Offers No Definition for Term

Steve Dettelbach says he does want to ban “assault weapons” even though he does not have a working definition of which guns would fall under such a ban.

The ATF director nominee told Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) he could not explain which guns he believed should be banned. In an exchange during his Wednesday confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dettelbach said he hasn’t attempted to define the category of guns he hoped to ban. Instead, he said Congress should decide on the definition.

“When I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on assault weapons,” Dettelbach said. “I did not define that term. And I haven’t gone through the process of defining that term. That would only be for the Congress if it chose to take that up to do.”

Dettelbach’s hearing comes just a day after the horrific massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman murdered 19 children and two teachers. President Joe Biden (D.) has argued he needs a permanent ATF director to help institute his plan to reduce gun violence. The President has also called on Congress to institute a new assault weapons ban in the wake of the shooting.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
At least half of this country knows why Biden did this:

First, to focus Americans’ attention on “white supremacy” rather than on the inflation, looming recession, food crisis and energy crisis he and his party have created with their policies.

Second, to keep black Americans voting Democrat by saying to them, in effect: “You need protection from your fellow hate-filled Americans; we Democrats are your protectors.”

Meanwhile, 9,941 black Americans were killed in 2020. Nearly all were killed by other black people. But to Joe Biden, his party, and the mainstream, i.e., left-wing, media, those black lives don’t matter. At all. Why not? Because they weren’t killed by white supremacists, and they therefore don’t serve the Democrats’ deliberately divisive narrative.

Joe Biden’s Buffalo Speech Was the Speech of an Indecent Man

If an American president has ever given as mendacious, anti-American and hate-filled a speech as President Joe Biden did in Buffalo, New York, last week, I am not familiar with it. Nor are you.

Biden used the terrible mass shooting of black people in a Buffalo grocery store to smear America, divide Americans and foment race-based hatred. A decent man would have given an entirely different speech.

A decent man would have gone to Buffalo and said something like this:

“My fellow Americans, what happened here in Buffalo was pure evil. Let there be no equivocating about this moral fact. If evil exists, what happened here was evil. But, my fellow Americans, this young man and his race-based homicidal hatred represents an infinitesimally small number of Americans, white or otherwise. The overwhelming majority of Americans of every race, ethnicity, and religion get along with each other beautifully. We work alongside each other, date each other, socialize with one another and marry one another. We are the most successful experiment in creating a multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious country in world history. The actions of a deranged teenager do not change this fact.”

Instead, the hater-in-chief went to Buffalo and said:

“What happened here is simple and straightforward: terrorism. Terrorism. Domestic terrorism. Violence inflicted in the service of hate and the vicious thirst for power that defines one group of people being inherently inferior to any other group. A hate that, through the media and politics, the internet, has radicalized angry, alienated and lost individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced. That’s the word. Replaced by ‘the other.’ By people who don’t look like them.

“Look, we’ve seen the mass shootings in Charleston, South Carolina; El Paso, Texas; in Pittsburgh. Last year, in Atlanta. This week, in Dallas, Texas, and now in Buffalo. In Buffalo, New York. White supremacy is a poison. It’s a poison. It really is. Running through our body politic. And it’s been allowed to fester and grow right in front of our eyes. No more. I mean, no more. We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America. None …

“Look, the American experiment in democracy is in a danger like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. It’s in danger this hour. Hate and fear are being given too much oxygen by those who pretend to love America, but who don’t understand America. …

“Now is the time for the people of all races, from every background, to speak up as a majority in America and reject white supremacy …

“We have to refuse to live in a country where black people going about a weekly grocery shopping can be gunned down by weapons of war deployed in a racist cause …”

As noted earlier, this was not only a hate-filled speech; it was a speech of the Big Lie. The Big Lie of white supremacy as a major threat to America generally and to black America specifically.

Let’s examine each of the examples of white supremacist mass shootings he gave:

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ Latest Phony Inflation Scapegoat: Credit Cards

In this administration, it’s always someone else’s fault. Inflation is now the No. 1 concern of voters, so the White House first blamed COVID. Then Donald Trump’s tax cuts. Then Vladimir Putin. Then meatpackers and the poultry industry, Big Oil and pharmaceutical companies.

Now, Democrats have identified a new inflation scapegoat: plastic. Visa, Mastercard, American Express and other credit cards hidden away in your wallet.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) has had it out for credit cards for almost two decades, even though over that period, credit cards, which were once reserved for the rich, are now nearly ubiquitous in our society. Many stores don’t even take cash anymore in the post-COVID world. The benefits and conveniences of paying with a plastic card are easily in the tens of billions of dollars to retailers and shoppers. Stores benefit because shoppers don’t have to have cash on hand to make purchases. They also benefit from not having to deal with the exchange of cash, which can lead to theft by unscrupulous employees at the register.

Credit cards are convenient for consumers because we don’t have to walk around with hundreds of dollars in our wallets.

But Democrats allege that the interchange fee that credit card companies charge retailers and merchants for their service on transactions is excessive. This interchange fee typically ranges between about 1% to 3% of the retail price of the transaction. If retailers don’t want to pay the cost because they think it is exorbitant, they don’t have to accept cards and can take cash only. Few retailers don’t take plastic every day to avoid paying the fees. It’s a free country. But the vast majority of retailers see the benefits far exceeding the costs.

Durbin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, doesn’t see it that way. Instead, he blames Visa, Mastercard and Discover for making food and gas more expensive. At a recent hearing, Durbin fumed: “Today, we’re going to talk about a hidden fee that fuels the fires of inflation across America every day. What they may not know is this swipe fee is contributing to the problem of inflation.”

But for this to be true, interchange fees would have to be higher than before Joe Biden became president and before inflation surged to 8.5%.

But the fees aren’t rising. Industry sources report that over recent years, the average merchant fee (for debit, credit and prepaid cards) has fallen slightly.

By the way, merchants and retailers get concrete benefits in exchange for the fees they pay to accept credit cards. Those fees cover the cost of security and fraud protection, infrastructure improvements and consumer benefits programs such as cash back and rewards.

What Durbin and the Democrats want is government price controls on credit card companies. They say there isn’t enough competition, but there are at least five major credit cards the public can buy. There is plenty of competition in the industry. Nor is there any evidence that cutting the fees to the retailers will lead to lower prices paid by consumers at the gas pump or the grocery store checkout line.

Today, about 70% of retail transactions take place with credit cards in part because nearly everyone, except those with terrible credit histories, has a credit card these days. Projections say in the next decade, more than 80% of payments will be made with plastic as we move inevitably to digital transactions and a cashless society.

The significant impact of Durbin’s price controls will not be to tame inflation but to restrict who can get access to credit cards. In other words, the poor will get hurt the most. Isn’t that turning out to be the case with nearly every liberal policy these days?

What that verse? ‘A house divided cannot stand’? Well, may their house collapse on them the same way the Samson collapsed the temple of dagon on the philistines.


Gun control activist admits Dems “divided” on pushing new 2A restrictions

I wish we were talking about a true change of heart on the part of many Democratic politicians, but the reluctance to pursue new gun control legislation in the wake of the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York appears to be based far more on political calculations than any scales falling off the eyes of gun-banners in Congress.

Still, there are growing grumbles of dissatisfaction among gun control activists who say Democrats should be pushing for new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, even if the prospects of passage are slim to none.

Alex Barrio, with the Center for American Progress, says following the mass shooting in Buffalo, Senate Democrats are largely avoiding talking about new control measures. Barrio explained “Democrats are divided.”

“The House, which can act, which has acted, which wants to act on this feels this sense of futility. Because again, a handful of senators who would rather just wash their hands of the whole issue, side with the conservatives and pretend that nothing’s going to happen – pretend that they can’t do anything,” Barrio said.

Barrio didn’t say what, exactly, anti-gun senators can do other than to bring forward bills that don’t have the votes for passage, but I guess at this point the gun control lobby is willing to settle for political theater on Capitol Hill if they can’t actually pass legislation.
Last week we talked about the reluctance of Senate Democrats like Dick Durbin to indulge the desires of the gun ban crowd, and now other senators are going public with their reluctance to spend much time on the issue between now and the midterms, though most of them are portraying their reservations as more frustration with Republicans than anything else.

Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) explained “I think people are frustrated, that again and again despite best efforts the Senate has been unwilling to just work through what universal background checks would look like.”

Senators John Hickenlooper and Mark Warner both expressed no hope of passing a universal background check bill.

“Do I think it’s going to get 60 votes? Probably not. But I do think it’s important that the American people, you, are able to judge senator by senator where you stand on responsible gun safety legislation,” Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) said.

Note, by the way, that both Hickenlooper and Warner are talking specifically about a universal background check bill; a measure that, even it had been law at the time of the Buffalo attack would not have had an impact because the suspect went through and passed a background check before legally purchasing a firearm at retail. The reason why gun control activists have decided to make that the focus of their (ineffective) lobbying efforts at the moment has nothing to do with the actual policy at hand and far more to do with the politics of the moment. They view universal background checks as the easiest lift in the Senate, especially since a bill has already passed the House, so even though they can’t plausibly claim that the measure would have prevented the heinous crime in Buffalo, it’s still their “do something” soundbite solution.
Fortunately for those of us who don’t believe that an ineffective and unconstitutional gun control law is the best way to fight the scourge of violent crime and targeted attacks like the one in Buffalo, it looks like even the “easy” lift is unachievable for Senate Democrats… at least at the moment. Democrats could probably get to 60 votes on a bill that would expand access to mental health resources, but that doesn’t appear to be a priority or even an option for Schumer and his Senate cohorts in the Democratic caucus.

BLUF:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): “This bill glaringly ignores the persistent domestic terrorism threat from the radical left in this country and instead makes the assumption that it is all on the white and the right.”

House Passes ‘White Supremacism’ Domestic Terrorism Bill After Buffalo Shooting
The bill only mentions white supremacy and neo-Nazis because obviously, those are the only people who terrorize others.

 

I should say the bill passed along party lines because Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) isn’t a Republican.

A white supremacist, who should have been caught a long time ago, murdered 10 people and injured three people. He purposely targeted black people.

The Democrats used this opportunity to push through The Domestic Terrorism Act: “To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.”

Domestic terrorism only means white supremacy in this bill.

Continue reading “”

Politics is a dirty business, akin to war and we all know that all’s fair in war. Playing by ‘nice guy’ rules when the opposition doesn’t, is stupid.


Gun owners should be glad we don’t have Justice Garland

Boy did we dodge a bullet when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States. Although we all need to be braced for impact, as the tides can change quickly, the mortality of man is not endless. We can at least celebrate the fact that current Attorney General Merrick Garland is not seated at the High Court.

Granted, the atmosphere is made of up the swampyness of the administration as a whole, and whoever is the driving force behind everything, it’s still safe to say lovers of freedom and civil liberties should be thankful that Obama’s pick did not end up being sworn in. Garland rendering an opinion on a firearms case would be tragic. A threat to democracy! This is the same guy who’s now been charged with offering some added protection to the current members of the court and responded with the speed of a sloth.

The opinion leak that may affect Roe has created a stir of epic proportions. Most pundits and commentators have been looking at the crazed reaction to the leaked draft and comparing it to how the woke rage mob of the left will handle the potential dismantling of may-issue carry schemes. What the readers of Bearing Arms knows is that these reactions, those directed towards the fate of Roe or potential overturning of restrictions on the bearing of arms in public, only further solidify the importance of the latter of the two’s abolishment. There’s not much more of a better case for allowing lawful self-defense than having to deal with angry violent mobs.

Garland’s got the justices’ back though. So longingly staring at the seat that he just never will fill, but was so close, had to offer up the services of the DOJ to aid in the protection of the last semi-stable and sacrosanct institution in the Union.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland this afternoon convened a meeting with Justice Department and Supreme Court officials to discuss the security needs of Justices and the Court since the unauthorized release of a draft Court opinion. At the Attorney General’s direction, the U.S. Marshals Service accelerated the provision of around-the-clock security at the homes of all Justices, among other actions, last week.

Attendees also discussed ongoing efforts to enhance coordination, intelligence sharing, and technical support as it relates to judicial security. The Attorney General reiterated the Department’s commitment to take all appropriate actions to further enhance the security of Justices and the Court.

This was on May 18th. How many days have passed since things have started to heat up? So nice of Garland to come down from his pedestal to walk among the justices and give them his assurances. What he had to say is interesting. Pay close attention to what he did not say though, rather than what he said. Read between the lines.

“The rise of violence and unlawful threats of violence directed at those who serve the public is unacceptable and dangerous to our democracy,” said Attorney General Garland. “I want to be clear: while people vote, argue, and debate in a democracy, we must not – we cannot – allow violence or unlawful threats of violence to permeate our national life. The Justice Department will not tolerate violence or threats of violence against judges or any other public servants at work, home, or any other location.”

Nowhere did Garland address the court directly. Nowhere in his statement did he take a chance to separate these “judges” or “public servants” from the rest of the .gov schmucks that we deal with on a day to day basis. Nope, nowhere. Perhaps there’s some enmity because the Senate and Orange Man stole his glory? Garland is maybe complicit with watching the justices have to deal with something that’s unheard of in recent history. Justices…not judge, nor “public servant.” But we’re all keenly aware Garland, Biden-Harris, and the rest of the marsh covered creatures of the current administration love to sit back and just watch it burn. At least Obama watched it burn with style.

I don’t expect the DOJ or Garland to speak out against any ironic nonsense that may come from a favorable opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, if one is delivered as such. The White House keeps on with the “mostly peaceful” protest rhetoric we’re all too accustomed to hearing, while people are harassing and seeking to intimidate, what was once the only near untarnished institute we have. NYSRPA will make Garland’s head explode, and there’s nothing he can do about it, he just was not fit to sit on that bench. Can we fast forward to a freedom loving supermajority, with a pro civil liberties chief executive, and get on with national reciprocity already?

Anti-gun groups, Eric Swalwell try to fundraise off Buffalo massacre

Wasting little time in the aftermath of Saturday’s mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, gun control groups and at least one Democratic lawmaker are already using the monstrous, racially-motivated crime to try and fill their campaign coffers.

Screenshots of fundraising emails sent out by Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady PAC and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) were shared on social media this week.

“This weekend’s mass shooting in Buffalo is yet another horrifying reminder of how white supremacy is deadly, especially when it’s combined with easy access to guns,” read a screenshot of an email from Everytown for Gun Safety that was tweeted by Second Amendment activist Robert Romano Monday.

Continue reading “”

Manchin gives Democrats a reality check on gun control

Democratic lawmakers are calling for new gun control legislation in the wake of the racially motivated massacre in Buffalo, New York, last weekend, but once again Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is standing in the way of the most fervent progressives.

President Joe Biden went to Buffalo on Tuesday and visited with the families of 10 people who were killed and three others wounded by a white supremacist gunman. In a speech, the president denounced the attack as an act of “domestic terrorism,” condemned white supremacy, and renewed calls for a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“There are certain things we can do. We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when I passed the crime bill,” Biden said, referring to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a 10-year assault weapons ban.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), also speaking in Buffalo Tuesday, vowed that Democrats would “work towards finally ridding our streets of weapons of war.”

But Manchin, speaking to reporters shortly before Biden spoke, gave his realistic assessment that in the 50-50 Senate, the only gun control legislation that has a chance of passing is a bipartisan compromise on background checks that previously failed. That bill, named for Manchin and his chief co-sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), would expand federal background check requirements to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and over the internet.

“I support the Manchin-Toomey, I’ve always done that,” Manchin told reporters, according to The Hill. “The Manchin-Toomey is the one. I think if you can’t get that one, then why try to do something just for basically voting for the sake of voting?”

While some Democrats want action on a universal background check bill that passed the House in March last year, the West Virginia moderate has previously said that bill goes too far because it would extend to private transactions, such as those between neighbors, hunting buddies, or even family. The Manchin-Toomey bill exempted those transactions.

“The best piece of legislation that we’ve ever had, that most people agreed on, was the Manchin-Toomey. We didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights privately,” Manchin said.

But if Manchin-Toomey was the bill “that most people agreed on,” that wouldn’t mean much — the bill failed in 2013, coming six votes short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster at a time when a stronger Democratic majority held the Senate. Only two Republicans voted for it, Toomey and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

It is far more unlikely that 10 Republicans would cross the aisle to vote for any sort of gun control bill this year, especially before the midterm elections in November.

Gun control groups issue new (and impotent) demands to D.C. Democrats

A day after the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate publicly stated that he doesn’t see a reason to hold a vote on any gun control proposals because they’re doomed to failure, a coalition of 38 gun control organizations (who knew there were that many?) is demanding that Congress not only vote on, but approve Joe Biden’s gun ban and more.

The gun control activists laid out three demands for the Democratic-controlled Congress, none of which are likely to happen. First, the gun control lobby wants the House to approve spending $750-million on “evidence led Community Violence Initiatives”, which is on top of the roughly $2-billion that was approved in Biden’s “American Rescue Plan”. Just a few days ago the White House even issued a call for these groups to apply for grants because the money is there for the taking. Nancy Pelosi might be willing to go along with this demand, but I doubt there are 60 votes in the Senate.

The second demand from the gun control groups is House passage of “legislation banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines,” which is also going nowhere in Congress. Nancy Pelosi, who put a universal background check bill on the floor of the House for a vote, hasn’t pushed for a similar vote on Biden’s gun ban plan, and while that could change, any bill that would pass the House is going to die in the Senate.

The gun ban fans are also specifically calling on the Senate to “live up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s pledge to hold a Senate debate and vote on legislation expanding background checks to all gun purchases and addressing the Charleston Loophole,” though oddly they don’t say anything in their demand letter about the Senate voting on Biden’s gun ban and compensated confiscation scheme.

“Following the most recent racist act of domestic terrorism in Buffalo, New York and the increase in gun
violence across the country, we are calling on you to immediately do everything and anything in your power to live up to the promises you make to voters every election year,” the groups wrote in their letter.

The groups also asked the Biden administration to answer the calls of survivors and “establish a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in order to expedite the government’s response and issue further executive actions that will save lives.”

“With voters expressing concern about public safety and rising crime, you have a moral and political
responsibility to fight for the safer future you promise Americans on the campaign trail every election season,” the groups wrote.

The White House has resisted that particular demand for well over a year now, and new press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked again yesterday about the idea, but was decidedly non-committal in her response.

Q    Further on the issue of guns: Gun prevention groups or gun violence protection groups — prevention groups, rather — have been pressing the White House to start an office of gun violence protection.  Is that something that President Biden is considering, particularly in light of this most recent attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I would have to go back to the team and see if that is something that’s actually on the table.  I have not heard of that.  I could understand why that is being requested or asked, especially what we have been seeing these past — this past weekend.  I just don’t have anything more to share or preview or anything to —

If Jean-Pierre hasn’t heard about the idea, then that means no one in the White House is seriously talking about it, because that particular demand has been made for well over a year. My guess is she knows far more than she was willing to disclose in a press gaggle; namely that the White House has no plans to acquiesce to this particular demand from their anti-gun allies.

I’ll confess that I’m a little surprised that Biden hasn’t thrown the gun control lobby this particular bone to appease them, but whatever internal politics are in play seem to have kept that option off the table. Still, with Congress a dead-end for their anti-gun agenda at the moment (and likely for the next two years as well, begging the White House to help make them relevant is the best option the gun control lobby has left.

The Supreme Court Leak
The overturning of Roe v. Wade will intensify the battle between the progressives’ constitution and the founders’ Constitution.

Lenin allegedly said, “There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happen.” He was supposedly discussing the Bolshevik Revolution, but the saying could be applied to America’s growing turmoil at home, too. After almost a half century of Sitzkrieg in the abortion wars, the recent leak from the Supreme Court suggests that within a month or two a major legal breakthrough may occur. The lines long established by Roe v. Wade in 1973 may be penetrated and overthrown.

Just how much of a revolution this will be remains to be seen. Justice Alito’s draft opinion would strike down Roe’s nationwide regime of permissive abortion rules but, rather than erecting a contrary regime, would basically return the question to regulation by the states. The abortion lobby will insist that resurgent federalism is a new and contrary regime. For five decades American abortion “law” has been set by the Supreme Court. The people’s representatives had almost nothing to do with it.

The idea that the people of each state, making their own laws and constitutional arrangements, might choose their own abortion statutes is a breath of fresh democratic air and might even be called revolutionary, had not state governments been preparing for this moment for years—states like Utah and Mississippi to tighten their restrictions, California and New York to loosen them in order to become abortion sanctuaries.

Liberals believe, somewhat quaintly, that they command the moral high ground in American politics. They define that high ground as a series of ever-expanding doctrines of rights, designed to liberate minority groups whom they consider unpopular and oppressed, most recently, for example, the transgendered. (But not high-scoring Asian-American students, whom they seem to consider oppressive, not oppressed, and thus rightly unpopular.) The right to abortion liberals consider the holiest of holies, because this is both a socio-economic and an identity right, spanning racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and especially white, single women, a key constituency. Is it only a matter of time before transgender abortions become the rage?

There is something, too, about the very unnaturalness of abortion that is attractive, particularly when celebrated as a right, of which recipients ought to be proud. It was 30 years ago when liberals like Bill Clinton took the demure position that abortion is basically a necessary evil that should be safe, legal, and rare. Neither he nor any other recent Democratic president would dare now to take that position.

The rights revolutions of the past half century were mostly secured by liberal judges, handing down what they hailed as epic decisions, and by helpful bureaucrats, writing and applying regulations based on those holdings. Those epic opinions were often a muddle—none more so than Roe v. Wade, as even its candid supporters admitted. “It’s a very bad decision,” wrote John Hart Ely, a Yale Law professor and former clerk to Chief Justice Warren, “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in the 1970s led the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, supported the holding but criticized the opinion for the rest of her life: it went too far. In the draft opinion smuggled out of the Court this week, Alito pronounced nothing controversial when he noted that Roe’s “reasoning was exceptionally weak.” Paradoxically, its very weakness as legal doctrine encouraged a fanatical political devotion to it.

Our new-fangled rights grow by means of what Robert Higgs, in a different context, called a “one-way ratchet.” Often in response to some crisis or scandal, our “rights” enlarge but never recede to the pre-crisis level. Ever upward is the only path liberal government permits, which is why the repeal of Roe would be devastating. “Our democracy,” as they call it, depends not only on never turning back the clock of social reform, but never even admitting such a thing is possible.

Even if, as is likely, almost half the states would enact abortion regimes as permissive as, or even more permissive than, the current one, the game would be up. The nature of such modern rights would be exposed, unforgettably. It would be, as the liberals fear, a kind of revolution.

Which is why they have little choice but to object not merely to the leaked decision and the brave justices who support it, but to the whole system. To President Trump, who appointed three of those justices but never was “fairly” elected with a popular, non-Russian majority vote. To the Senate, which embraces minority rule through the filibuster and equal representation of the states.

To the Constitution, systemically racist among other evils. Prepare for decades to happen in the next year or so of our politics, as the battle between the progressives’ constitution and the founders’ Constitution intensifies.

It was often said that SloJoe never had a chance, so Lieawatha Fauxcahontas bears watching.


Democrats Already Trying to Position Themselves for 2024.

Have you noticed that Elizabeth Warren keeps putting herself in front of every new current thing? When Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter was the hot story, she put herself front and center, then did the same thing with abortion.

Do you think this is a coincidence, or is it more likely that Warren is trying to remind Democrat voters that she is standing by, ready to jump in when they drop Biden?

It’s not just Warren who’s doing this. Bernie Sanders has recently said that he is prepared to run again.

This report from NBC News is very revealing:

Top Democrats jockey for 2024 presidential campaign position

In recent months, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ political team has noticed a marked shift in the 80-year-old former presidential candidate: His campaign fires are burning hot.

On Thursday, Sanders, I-Vt., will travel to Pittsburgh to headline a rally for Summer Lee, one of a half-dozen hard-core progressives he has endorsed in contested Democratic congressional primaries. He also plans to meet with Starbucks workers in the city to show solidarity in a store-by-store unionization push…

All of that might be unremarkable if Sanders were shadow boxing himself against the backdrop of an inevitable Biden re-election bid.

Instead, he is just the most openly ambitious of an emerging field of Democratic hopefuls who are positioning themselves to run if Biden doesn’t, more than a dozen Democratic insiders said in interviews. Most of them weren’t authorized to speak on the record or insisted on anonymity to avoid upsetting one or more of the potential candidates.

The set of would-be contenders is widely viewed as including Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to Democratic sources…

The top adviser on a past presidential campaign said potential hopefuls are inflicting damage on fellow Democrats, most notably Biden.

“It looks like Warren, Newsom and some of the others are looking to run down Biden and the party, which is unhelpful,” he said. “It’s like they’re on the Titanic and they’re sending out for more icebergs.”

In Warren’s case, people have noticed her increased visibility.

Axios recently reported:

Elizabeth Warren grabs center stage

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is eclipsing President Biden with endorsements and, at times, as the Democrats’ leading voice on major issues, including abortion and canceling student debt.

Why it matters: The progressive’s prominence is pressuring the incumbent president and White House to move left. It’s also raising questions about her ambitions, especially as the Democratic Party faces electoral apocalypse this fall and questions about whose voice — and issues — are best to rebound.

– While Warren has ruled out another campaign for president in 2024, her high profile would buttress any bid should Biden himself not run for a second term.

Warren will deny she is running in 2024, right up until she is running in 2024.

The minute it becomes clear that Biden can’t or won’t run, Warren and other Democrats will all scramble to fill the void and become the party’s standard bearer.

Once again, just like Finestein’s ‘Assault Weapon’ ban.


Congressional Democrats introduce gun licensing bill

The state of Illinois requires every lawful gun owner to get a Firearm Owner Identification Card. You can’t have a gun without out and you have to jump through the hoops to lawfully get one.

They also have the city of Chicago, where violent crime is rampant. It seems gun licensing doesn’t actually help as some want to believe.

In fact, two Illinois Democrats believe it so hard that they want to make it federal law.

May 11, 2022 Press Release WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) reintroduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, today, to help reduce firearm violence in Illinois and across the country. This legislation would prohibit unlicensed firearm ownership and the transfer of firearms without a valid firearms license, as well as direct the U.S. Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system and conduct fingerprint-based nationwide criminal background checks — which could have prevented the gunman who killed five people in Aurora, IL in 2019 from acquiring the firearm he used in the shooting.

Of course, it should be remembered that as I noted previously, it hasn’t done jack to stop the violence in Chicago.

Further, the shooter in the Aurora, IL case was a convicted felon who actually passed the FOID background check and NICS check

Whoops.

Continue reading “”

Senators Threaten Court-Packing – Again – As Americans Embrace Their Second Amendment Rights

The unauthorized leak of a draft abortion opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court has Democrats up in arms (again) about packing the U.S. Supreme Court. This isn’t a new argument and one gun control advocates publicly pitched before.

Senators are openly calling for court-packing again and that’s before the Supreme Court has rendered a final opinion on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen or finalized the opinion of the leaked abortion draft decision. Even before the nine justices heard arguments on the New York case challenging the states arbitrary and restrictive “may issue” concealed carry permit criteria, there were calls for court-packing.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. New York supporting restrictive gun control but took arguments beyond supporting the law with threats to upend the court’s structure. That case was ultimately declared “moot” by the Supreme Court after New York City altered the law to avoid the Court striking down the law.

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal,” Sen. Whitehouse wrote.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) led a 2019 letter excoriating court-packing threats and urged the justices to render opinions based on Constitutional interpretations, not public opinion polls. The letter was signed by 53 Republican senators.

“It’s one thing for politicians to peddle these ideas in Tweets or on the stump,” Sen. McConnell wrote. “But the Democrats’ amicus brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”

Continue reading “”

Vermont: Suppressor Hunting Bill Passes Legislature

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/05/vermont-suppressor-hunting-bill-passes-legislature/#ixzz7T5bejBWa
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

[Yesterday] morning, the Vermont State Senate passed an amended version of S. 281 – legislation that includes a provision to make The Green Mountain State the 41st state to allow the use of suppressors while hunting. The suppressor hunting language, which was championed by Representatives Pat Brennan (R-Chittenden-9-2) and George Till (D-Chittenden-3), was added to S. 281 during the floor debate in the House of Representatives and subsequently passed on May 10th. The bill now heads to Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) for his signature. Once enacted, the new law will take effect on July 1st.

“It is my pleasure to announce that with today’s passage of S. 281, the legislature has taken a tremendous step forward towards expanding the right of hunters to use suppressors in the field,” said Rep. Brennan, Co-Chair of the Vermont Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus. “For the past seven years, law abiding citizens in Vermont have enjoyed suppressor ownership, but their use has been restricted to sport shooting at ranges only. With the passage of S. 281, Vermont outdoorsmen and women finally have the ability to protect their hearing and the hearing of the youth hunting community as well. This bill was a long time in the works, but it has finally come to fruition thanks to the cooperation of many, most especially the Department of Fish and Wildlife and its Commissioner.”

The American Suppressor Association has been fighting for suppressor rights in Vermont for a decade. Over the years we have helped draft legislation, provided written and verbal testimony, and hosted multiple live-fire suppressor demonstrations for legislators, law enforcement officers, and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. In 2015, legislation introduced by Rep. Brennan legalized the ownership of suppressors in the state, but not their use in the field. Today’s passage of S. 281 brings us one step closer to full suppressor legalization nationwide.

“What Representatives Brennan and Till have accomplished is nothing short of extraordinary,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “It highlights the value of hard work, persistence, and bipartisanship. There should be nothing controversial about protecting hearing. We could not have asked for better partners in the fight for your suppressor rights.”