Telfair County teen killed in shooting was robbery suspect
The GBI says three teens tried to rob the house, and the homeowner fatally shot one of them

LUMBER CITY, Ga. — A Telfair County teen died over the weekend, days after he was shot during an attempted robbery in Lumber City.

According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, they were requested by police around 11 p.m. Thursday to help with a shooting investigation.

When they got to the scene, the initial investigation showed an attempted armed robbery at the home.

The GBI later said the homeowner confronted the three alleged robbers and shot one of them.

On Friday, two of the suspects – 19-year-old Ulysses McMillan and LaKyle Harris, were charged with aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery.

The teen who was shot, 16-year-old Santana Joyner, died around 2 p.m. Saturday at Memorial Health Hospital in Savannah.


Man killed in exchange of gunfire in Akron in apparent robbery-gone-wrong

Yes. Wrong for the robber.

Akron police are investigating the shooting death Sunday night of man found on a city sidewalk in what appears to be a failed robbery.

The Summit County Medical Examiner’s Office said Monday afternoon that 22-year-old Jontae Alexander died in the incident.

He was shot multiple times after apparently using a gun to rob another man on in the 600 block of South Rhodes Avenue, according to Akron police.

The examiner’s office said an autopsy revealed that Alexander died of a gunshot wound to the torso. He was also shot in the leg.

The other man, 27, had non-life threatening gun wounds to an arm and torso, police said.

The man told police he was walking on Rhodes when Alexander brandished a gun at him and demanded money.

The man told police that the attempted robber became distracted and at that time the victim pulled out his own gun and shot Alexander, who then returned fire.

Residents in the area heard the gunfire and called 911.

The man with the non-life-threatening injuries was taken by paramedics to Cleveland Clinic Akron General.

Police said they found Alexander on a nearby sidewalk with multiple gunshot wounds.

He was taken to Cleveland Clinic Akron General, where he died in the emergency room at 11:06 p.m.


Burglary suspect nabbed after Carlsbad resident fires warning shot

Uncle Joe’s advise was not to be taken, literally or any other way.

A man suspected of breaking into two Carlsbad homes early Saturday was arrested after a third potential victim fired a warning gunshot into the air, police said.

The first burglary occurred about 12:30 a.m. on Paseo Frontera, in a neighborhood northwest of Alga Road and Melrose Drive. The suspect entered the house and touched the male resident while he slept, police said. The victim woke up to find the intruder in his bedroom, and the burglar fled.

Police got another report of a break-in at 1:12 a.m. on Unicornio Street. The residents awoke to find the suspect inside, and he fled when confronted.

At a third home on Xana Way, a resident saw the suspect trying to enter. The resident confronted the burglar through a window, causing the suspect to run away. The resident then stepped outside and fired a warning shot into the air, police said.

Officers were already in the neighborhood investigating the other burglary reports and they rushed to the Xana Way home after hearing the gunshot.

Police found Esparza Alan Arias, 26, of Los Angeles hiding behind a nearby vehicle. He was arrested on charges of burglary, attempted burglary, sexual battery, methamphetamine possession and being under the influence of drugs.

Dick’s CEO Says They Destroyed $5M Worth Of Assault Rifles
“This is an absolute failure of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack told CBS News that his company destroyed $5 million worth of “assault-style rifles” to keep them out of private hands.

Ed Stack told CBS News during an interview that the millions of dollars worth of inventory was turned into scrap metal. “I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them.”

The Hill:

The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods says that after the company made the decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles, more than $5 million worth of the weapons were destroyed.

In an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday, Ed Stack said following the decision last year to stop offering assault-style rifles, the question of what to with the remaining inventory lingered.

“I said, ‘You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,’” Stack said, adding that the company turned $5 million worth of the weapons into scrap metal.

Dick’s made the decision to stop carrying the rifles following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., which left 17 dead and reignited the national conversation surrounding gun control.

“We found out that we sold this kid a shotgun,” Stack said. “That’s when I said, ‘We’re done.’”

This is an absolute failure of fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Now, if I was a stockholder of Dick’s Sporting Goods, I would be suing them for destroying profitable products for no good reason.
In November 2016, Dick’s stock was selling at just over $60/share. Today, it’s at $38/share, a huge loss. When companies start jumping on the SJW bandwagon, it’s time for investors to start walking.

Something to consider.
Two articles that disagree with the conventional wisdom.

(1) Security Studies Group: The Syria Decision.

As we warned at the time, the American position was much more exposed and much less tenable than was commonly understood. The Turks, should they choose to press the issue, were in a much more powerful position unless the American military reinforced itself substantially.

The United States military currently deploys about two thousand personnel in an advisory role. Force protection for these elements is provided especially by air and fire support. Such support recently allowed a small contingent of American forces to wipe out a large Russian mercenary element. Nevertheless, the strength of the position should not be overestimated.

American personnel are spread out and isolated from one another in many places. They are advising, and are thus co-located with, irregular forces that could not have themselves withstood the Russian mercenaries. The Turkish military, which is likely to aim at America’s Kurdish allies, is far more powerful and has integrated air support, fire support, and the capacity to contest control of the air with fighters and anti-aircraft defenses….

It may be that the Turkish military can be convinced to accept an American plan that does not bring them into conflict with the Kurdish units we are supporting, but at this time there is no guarantee of that….The Trump administration must choose between withdrawing from an untenable position, or reinforcing that position so that it becomes tenable. Otherwise, the deployed American forces are at risk of becoming hostages to the enemy at best. At worst, they are at risk of being destroyed.

Just as allowing Iran to run wild hurts China much more than it hurts the United States, China is harmed by our allowing the Turks to provoke an insurgency that will bedevil the stability of the very region where China intends its massive investments. The wars that China’s own allies are starting are going to be the biggest tax on China’s growing power and influence, which means it will become China’s problem — and not America’s — to stop those wars. That means that China and Turkey, and not America, will end up paying the cost of Middle Eastern security. The danger they face is that they will overextend themselves, and provoke fights they cannot walk away from in the process. It may be a bigger burden than Erdogan or Xi imagine that they are taking on here.

It is unlikely that President Trump thinks so strategically or so ruthlessly. More likely he is simply convinced that these wars drain American blood and treasure in an unacceptable way, and he just intends to stop doing it whatever it costs. If the foreign policy community, the establishment or the Senate does not dissuade him, Trump will end America’s participation in this war to save American blood and American treasure.

(2) Trump’s Syria withdrawal bravely puts America First, the establishment last.

The foreign policy establishment is having a meltdown — and if you know anything about the last 20 years of U.S. history, then you know that means something good is happening…………

Nightmare predictions aside, Trump has shown great bravery with this decision, given the inevitable vitriolic political backlash. The president campaigned on putting America first, and he’s fulfilling that promise to voters no matter how angry the establishment gets. His decision will stop risking American lives and wasting taxpayer dollars on policing Middle East politics. This is long overdue, seeing as our security goals in Syria have already been accomplished.

To recap, the U.S. military first intervened in the Syrian conflict in 2014. Our goal was to destroy the Islamic State Caliphate, as the terrorist group had built up territorial control of much of the conflict-ridden region.

Mission accomplished.

In 2015, ISIS controlled large amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq, a territory “roughly the size of Portugal,” according to CNN. As of February 2019, it controlled just 50 square miles of territory.

No, the terrorist group hasn’t been entirely eradicated, but it has been degraded to the point of insignificance. It’s time to declare victory and come home. A complete and total elimination of all terrorist capability anywhere was never a feasible goal. To demand such a utopia prior to withdrawal is a recipe for indefinite occupation of half the world.

And the costs of our continued world-policing are serious. Just in 2019, at least five American service members have died in Syria, not to mention the countless civilians we’ve killed without even intending to. Those hawks who wish to continue our indefinite involvement in Syria until some mythical time in which the Middle East is not a conflict zone ought to look at the family of the deceased soldier Michael Thomason in the eyes — he died in April — and tell his loved ones we are going to keep putting the lives of young men like him at risk to play policemen of the world.

 

SAF HAILS HIGH COURT’S DECISION TO MOVE N.Y. GUN LAW CHALLENGE FORWARD

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to move forward with a case that challenges a New York City gun law that was so restrictive the city amended it, and then tried to get the high court to dismiss the case.

“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court will move this important case forward,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in support of overturning this egregious attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. We are confident that the high court will ultimately rule in favor of Second Amendment rights.”

The city scrambled to change the law once the court decided to accept the case for review earlier this year. The challenge is brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

“It’s outrageous that the city has furiously tried to derail this case by changing the law,” Gottlieb stated. “That says volumes not only about the city’s fear of having to defend their restrictive gun control law before the court, but it also suggests to us that the city knew all along their law would not pass the constitutional smell test under any level of scrutiny, and they panicked.

“New York, and other state and local governments, have been getting away with adopting ridiculously oppressive gun regulations because lower courts have thumbed their noses at previous Supreme Court rulings in favor of the Second Amendment,” he added.

“Equally outrageous, if not moreso,” Gottlieb observed, “was the attempt by Capitol Hill Democrats led by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to bully the high court by filing a brief to dismiss the case or face the possibility that Democrats would pack the court. How dare Whitehouse and his associates attempt such coercion. We’re proud of the Supreme Court justices for ignoring this threat to their independence as a separate branch of government.

“The Democrats’ political demagoguery obviously backfired, and rightly so,” he said. “It just might cost them in November 2020.”

Bump stock ban’s flop a bad omen for Democrats’ gun buyback plan

The federal government collected fewer than 1,000 bump stocks during the run-up to a new ban in March, despite estimates that hundreds of thousands of the devices that mimic machine gun fire are in circulation, according to federal data provided to The Washington Times by the Justice Department.

As the nation marked the second anniversary Oct. 1 of the Las Vegas massacre, which prodded the Trump administration to ban bump stocks, the numbers offer a cautionary tale on the scope and resources needed to enforce any sort of gun buyback program.

Between the issuance of the final rule banning the devices in December 2018 and April 4, 2019, shortly after the prohibition took effect in late March, 582 bump stocks were “abandoned” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to Justice Department records, and 98 bump stocks were kept as evidence.

The Times obtained the records through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The administration cited estimates that 280,000 to 520,000 bump-stock-type devices were in circulation when it published the final rule in December.

NYSRPA v. NYC: Mootness Denied It’s going to trial.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m648.pdf

18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. 10

The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

The court has finally decided to pick up the first RKBA case since Caetano v. Massachusetts in 2016

Nancy Gets A Wakeup Call.

According to Team Trump, Nancy Pelosi was greeted by at least 300 Trump supporters while attending a fundraiser at the Greenville, South Carolina Hyatt Regency on Friday. The Speaker was confronted by a sea of MAGA caps, “Impeach Pelosi” signs, and at least one woman draped in a “Women for Trump” banner and wearing a Pelosi mask. (A degrading task, but somebody had to do it.)

This is unusual for Republicans, who have traditionally maintained a live and let live policy toward the Democrats no matter what the circumstances. This is a large part of the “Republican as wimp” stereotype that has dominated the political scene for generations. The Demunnists were street fighters, toughies from the unions and the slums, whereas the GOP were the “little man on the wedding cake.”

This started to change in 2000 with the attempted Gore coup in Florida. Republicans actually set aside their plaid jackets and contrasting waistcoats to demonstrate in front of the vote-counting offices. This was the first time this had occurred since the civil war, and was a harbinger as to how things were beginning to change.

This is not something that Nancy could possibly welcome. Most of the Dem strategy is based on the assumption that the party of the Bushes, Romney, and Ryan will never strike back. But the ground is shifting, and a new GOP, brought to life by the Orange Cthulhu, is beginning to stir.

So far nobody has chased Nancy or Adam or Little Sandy from a restaurant or confronted them on the street. It would be a shame if anyone did. But these things have a logic of their own and will go the way they go. Fires of this type, once set, will burn until they burn out. The Dems, in their embrace of violence, lies, manipulation, and gutter tactics, have opened a door, and they must deal with whatever emerges.

Just the other day the lovely and demure Maxine Waters was whining about how she can’t even go into a grocery store in Compton without a bodyguard anymore. No doubt much the same was heard from Nancy on Friday. We’ll be hearing a lot more of it before this is over.

Domestic ISIS Arrests Are on the Rise Again.
Terror arrests have doubled since 2018

Police have arrested more than twice the number of domestic ISIS terrorists and sympathizers in the first eight months of this year than they charged in all of 2018.

The FBI and local police departments have arrested 24 people for ISIS-related offenses as of Sept. 3, according to data assembled by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism (POE). That arrest count—which includes individuals who attempted to travel to fight for the group overseas, provide material support for its efforts, or kill Americans in a terrorist attack—dwarfs the 11 arrests made in 2018. Authorities are on pace to exceed the 38 arrests made in 2017.

Andrew Mines, the research fellow responsible for the statistics, emphasized that a “small sample of individuals” prevents scholars from reaching statistically significant conclusions from his data set. Nevertheless, he said the uptick could be related to a shift in ISIS strategy as it transitions from a territorial entity focused on Syria and Iraq to a more decentralized terrorist organization.

“ISIS’s messaging received a revamp with the end of the physical caliphate,” Mines told the Washington Free Beacon. “They were taking a lot of hard hits throughout 2018 but with this kind of steady decline and now this resurgence through different affiliates through the globe, the messaging now is both remaining but also expanding, spreading throughout the globe.”

The U.S.-led coalition successfully annihilated ISIS as a territorial entity in 2019, prompting President Donald Trump to declare victory over the terror group. While coalition efforts destroyed the organization’s home base in Iraq and Syria, ISIS remains a persistent threat across the globe, with affiliates launching terror attacks in countries including Sri Lanka, Russia, and the Philippines. A 2018 White House white paper acknowledged that “ISIS remains the foremost radical Islamist terrorist group and the primary transnational terrorist threat to the United States.”

“Despite many setbacks, ISIS maintains a sophisticated and durable media and online presence that allows it to encourage and enable sympathizers worldwide to conduct dozens of attacks within target countries, including the United States,” the White House wrote. “The increase in attacks by persons mobilized to violence in the United States underscores the ability of ISIS to inspire terrorist attacks.”

The data also showed that ISIS sympathizers in the United States are shifting their interest away from attempting to travel to join the fight to committing acts of terror at home. More than 75 percent of offenders were charged for attempting to join the caliphate in 2014 compared to 36 percent in 2018. Domestic terror plots have meanwhile jumped from 12 to 45 percent of total arrests during that span of time.

Counterintuitively, coalition success might be driving this change in behavior, according to Mines.

“When that [ISIS] territory is shrinking and the international community is closing down the gateways and becoming a lot more savvy with how individuals are able to use different travel routes and entry points into countries [with ISIS presence,] … the messaging from the top is going to be that domestic attacks are a more viable option,” Mines said.

The program published court documents related to 18 of the 24 arrests this year. While some of the charges were for non-violent offenses such as violating a plea agreement or contacting ISIS affiliates, many arrests involved some violent plots that aimed to strike at prominent symbols of American life.

Harbor Freight Tools Recalls Gordon Folding Knives Due to Laceration Hazard

Recalled Harbor Freight Gordon brand folding knives

Recall Details

This recall involves Gordon brand folding knives. The knife is stainless steel with black metal on the handle and five cutouts on each side of the handle. The knife measures about 3-inches. The knife also has a silver-colored metal belt clip attached to the back of the handle. “China” is printed on one side and “Stainless Steel” is printed on the other side of the knife blade.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled knives and return them to a Harbor Freight Tools store for a full refund in the form of a $5 store gift card plus sales tax.

Harbor Freight Tools has received seven reports of the knife failing to lock, resulting in six reports of laceration injuries, including four that required medical attention.

Ignore the hype — this is not an impeachment inquiry

There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.

You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.

The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.

What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.

But standing committees do have subpoena power, so why not use it? Well, because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court.

They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” What a crock.

On Kickbacks and Democrats, Ukraine-Style

I believe there is a real nugget in POTUS’s quest to deal with Ukraine (and the Bidens) that has not been mentioned, and that nugget is what has the Democrats so up in arms and willing to march over the cliff politically with this impeachment ruse. There is a high likelihood that US taxpayer funds in the form of foreign aid were laundered through Ukraine (and other corrupt countries), with kickbacks to the likes of Hunter Biden and other politically-connected Americans. And there are even reports that Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Jr. was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, too! No wonder San Fran Nan is pressing ahead with the impeachment “inquiry.” Here is one of those reports:

Did you know that US foreign aid to Ukraine DOUBLED from $272M in 2015 to $513M in 2016? I wonder where that money went? Accountability under the Petro Poroshenko regime in Ukraine was a joke, and corruption was the key issue that led to Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s landslide victory in April 2019. I am certain that Poroshenko’s defeat was a severe blow to Democrats, in particular the Bidens, because they expected him to keep the lid on their corrupt dealings. However, the new Ukraine president is a reformer who is tackling corruption, and that is welcome news for those of us who, like our president and attorney general, want to find out about the likes of Crowdstrike’s and also various DNC operatives’ activities in Ukraine during the 2016 campaign.

Bottom line: I strongly suspect that the retainer Hunter Biden received was part of the kickback scheme involving US foreign aid laundered through Poroshenko’s regime using Burisma Holdings Ltd. as a cutout. In short, US taxpayers paid Hunter’s salary, thanks to a real quid pro quo executed by his father who was the vice president of the United States! And this misuse of foreign aid dollars is what POTUS is actually targeting, with the Bidens being the means of exposing it all. That’s what the Democrats cannot tolerate because Ukraine wasn’t the only country in which this kickback scheme was practiced during the Obama era. For starters, think about Obama’s Iran nuke agreement and the $1.5 billion…

In Oregon:
Lock Up Your Self Defense Moves Forward

ballot measure that will require you to keep your self defense firearms locked up and unavailable is moving forward.

Ballot Measure 40 has collected enough signatures to get a ballot title from the Attorney General.

In Oregon, the Attorney General is a vocal anti-gun radical. You can rest assured she will do all she can to write the most sympathetic ballot title possible. Of course, we will be doing all we can to prevent that.

The simple truth is, mandatory gun l0ck up laws are unconstitutional. This is not in doubt. The US Supreme Court made that clear in the Heller decision.

So now we have no choice but to gear up to fight them in court. We simply must not allow them to write a ballot title that misleads Oregon voters. They need to know that under the proposed ballot measure, victims of theft in Oregon will face harsher penalties than gun thieves will. It’s insane.

Sorry, Dems: It’s OK to ask for foreign help in a criminal justice investigation.

President Trump’s critics are now complaining that he asked the Australian prime minister to cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe and that Attorney General William Barr has traveled overseas to ask foreign intelligence officials to cooperate with that investigation. The New York Times called it another example of “the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests.”

No, it’s not. The president’s critics are conflating two different things: the investigation by Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, into Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and the inquiry by US Attorney John Durham into the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. The former is opposition research activity; the latter is a criminal justice matter.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking foreign heads of state or intelligence officials to cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation.

As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explains, “It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as in this case, by national security or justice officials.”

Americans support the Durham probe. For two years, they were told by Trump’s opponents that the president was “working on behalf of the Russians” and had committed “treasonous” acts that were of “a size and scope probably beyond Watergate.” Those were serious accusations, and Americans took them seriously. They waited for special counsel Robert Mueller to tell them whether the president had indeed betrayed the country.

Then Mueller issued his report, and they found out that none of it was true. They understandably wanted answers. How did it come to pass that our government was paralyzed for two years and spent tens of millions of their tax dollars, chasing a Trump-Russia collusion-conspiracy theory?

A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll following the Mueller report’s release found that 53% of Americans said that “bias against President Trump in the FBI played a role in launching investigations against him,” and 62% supported appointing a special counsel to investigate the investigation of Trump.

The Logical Fraud of Conflating “Gun Deaths” with Public Safety

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Vox recently published an article by German Lopez that makes a logical error. The article conflates an increase in “gun deaths” with a decrease in public safety. The jump is made from an article published last year, in 2018, where the Rand Corporation published a chart based on a number of different and dubious studies on “gun deaths”. From the previous article:

But there were some things that could be gleaned from the available evidence. While RAND as a nonpartisan group avoided any sweeping policy conclusions in its analysis, its review does seem to point in a direction, based on my own reading: More permissive gun policies lead to more gun deaths, while more restrictive policies lead to fewer gun deaths. Coupled with other evidence in this area, that supports the idea that more guns lead to more gun deaths.

The keyway the Rand compilation of studies is biased is by the focus on “gun deaths”. The major bone of contention in restrictions on gun ownership and use is *not* gun deaths. It is, first, a philosophical determination of political power;  secondarily, a question of practical effect, primarily about whether other methods will be substituted for guns in crime and suicide.  A major part of that equation is whether guns have significant benefits for defense, which has little to do with how many people are killed.

The claim is made that Rand is “non-partisan”.  The unstated assumption, made by Rand, and by Lopez, is that microscale pragmatism is the lens by which governmental decisions should be made. They implicitly reject the argument that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. That is a partisan assumption. They ignore Constitutional questions. That is a partisan approach. Rand is one of the think tanks that has prospered as the nation came under the sway of the Mediacracy. It has a vested interest in pushing increased regulatory schemes.  It assumes the regulatory state is benevolent.

 

New York Times Op-Ed Justifies Speech Control By Invoking Guns

Freedom of speech is one of those things that has a tendency to unite a large number of people on either side of the ideological divide. While you’ll have people in each camp opposed to certain forms of speech, most people see it as pretty much an unmitigated good for our nation. After all, if the government can limit speech, just how long until they start to limit speech critical of them? Don’t pretend it can’t happen in supposedly free societies. It has.

However, a writer at the New York Times has argued that free speech is “killing” us, and to make his point, he tries to invoke guns.

After one of the 8chan-inspired massacres — I can’t even remember which one, if I’m being honest — I struck up a conversation with a stranger at a coffee shop. We talked about how bewildering it was to be alive at a time when viral ideas can slide so precipitously into terror. Then I wondered what steps should be taken. Immediately, our conversation ran aground. “No steps,” he said. “What exactly do you have in mind? Thought police?” He told me that he was a leftist, but he considered his opinion about free speech to be a matter of settled bipartisan consensus.

I imagined the same conversation, remixed slightly. What if, instead of talking about memes, we’d been talking about guns? What if I’d invoked the ubiquity of combat weapons in civilian life and the absence of background checks, and he’d responded with a shrug? Nothing to be done. Ever heard of the Second Amendment?

The writer, Andrew Marantz, seems to believe that this simply proves that we should be willing to discuss speech control just as we talk gun control.

I, on the other hand, simply want to point out that this is something many of us have warned people about for years now.

You see, when you place restrictions on one right, regardless of how well-meaning you may be in doing so, you provide evidence that rights can be restricted. The plethora of gun control laws that exist in this country only serve as a reminder that there are those who are more than willing to restrict your rights.

Marantz justifies his tyrannical views, in part, by pretending that gun control is such an unmitigated good that we should expand such totalitarian ideas and restrict speech some people find repulsive.

In the process, though, he illustrates precisely why so many of us refuse to budge on the Second Amendment even if we were to see definitive evidence that gun control works.

We keep our guns because some jackwagon like Marantz will want to tell us what we can and can’t say and if that particular jackwagon has the power to make laws, we need a way to resist.

The effort begins with guns for a number of reasons, but the curtailment of rights will never end there. Someone will invariably seek more and more control. Someone like Marantz.

Do you want to know why I “need” an AR-15?

Because some wannabe dictator like Marantz thinks he has any business telling me where my right to say what I want should end. No, this isn’t a threat. Marantz is free to spout his nonsense position same as anyone else–that’s the thing about free speech. Either everyone has it or no one does–but it’s a warning. I will speak my mind, whether you agree with it or not, and I’ll defend my right to do so with my life if need be.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2019

John R. Lott
Crime Prevention Research Center
Date Written: September 27, 2019

Abstract

Despite the expectations of many after the 2016 elections the number of concealed handgun permits has increased for the third year in a row. In 2019, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to now over 18.66 million – a 304% increase since 2007. About an 8% growth over the number of permits since 2018. Unlike surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer some personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have on gun ownership across the United States. Still, an even larger number of people carry because in 16 states people don’t need a permit to carry.
Among the findings of our report:
■ Last year, the number of permit holders continued to grow by about 1.4 million. Despite 16 states where a permit isn’t required and expectations that permits were primarily driven by fears of Democratic presidencies, the growth in permits has continued at a similar pace after the November 2016 election.
■ 7.3% of American adults have permits. Outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8.75% of the adult population has a permit.
■ In thirteen states, more than 10% of adults have permits, down from just fifteen last year. The three states that now fell below 10% are now all Constitutional Carry states – Arkansas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, where people no longer need a permit to carry in their states. South Carolina was the one state that had been below 10% that was now above it.
■ Alabama has the highest rate — 26.3%. Indiana is second with 17.9%, and South Dakota, another Constitutional Carry state, saw its percent decline to 16.02%.
■ Four states now have over 1 million permit holders: Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the first state with over has over 2 million permits.
■ Sixteen states have adopted constitutional carry, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Some people in these states still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements with their states. However, because of these constitutional carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.