Category: Crap For Brains

Observation O’ The Day:
Well, maybe it’s that ‘lizard sized brain’ you say you have that inhibited your intellectual development past moron level. What a hypocrite of an editor, sitting behind your desk, using rights protected by the 1st amendment to denigrate rights protected by the 2nd.

As Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit put it:
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.

From my cold dead hand: Gun groups perpetuate militia myth to keep whatever arms they dream of

About the Second Amendment: I have questions.

I cannot wrap my lizard-sized brain around the notion that the reason for people to keep and own guns is to protect against tyranny.

Spare me the historical discourses about the establishment of the Second Amendment, because I realize a bunch of a rag-tag colonists rose up against the lobsterbacks and sent the British running.

That was when the average firearm for both sides could take more than a minute to load one bullet or any other trash you could find to pack down the barrel. Saying Americans should still own any gun or as many as they want isn’t the same as saying we rose up once with muskets, swords and cannons. One is set against a historical backdrop when dysentery and smallpox killed as many soldiers as bullets. Today’s backdrop is set against a scene of unspeakable firepower often used against innocent citizens, many times kids at school.

One was in defense of an entire country; the other, killing for the sake of killing – and quickly.

Everyone has accepted that the primary reason for accepting guns everywhere is because of the concept that those same firearms may be needed to fight against a tyrannical government.

Few, though, really question how sound that rationale is.

You see, I am all for keeping my guns for a lot of different reasons, but I’d rather say it’s for self-defense before tricking myself that I am just a soldier-in-waiting for the government to go full-tyranny on the country.

Continue reading “”

Like Vermont has a problem.

Vermonters, lawmakers await decisions on contentious gun reform bills

MONTPELIER, Vt. — One year after the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Vermont lawmakers looked back on firearm-related bills passed in the 2023 session that they believe will make Vermont a safer state.

One of those will implement a mandatory 72-hour waiting period from the time you purchase a gun to when it enters your possession.

“When somebody has the impulse to buy a gun and use it for a sinister purpose like maybe a school shooting or something like that, or if they intend on harming themselves, those 72 hours can be so vital,” Rep. Conor Caser, Executive Director of GunSense Vermont, said.

Some believe the bill violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. Gov. Phil Scott has not said he will veto the bill but has expressed strong concerns in recent weeks.

“I don’t doubt that if this goes into law that there will be a constitutional challenge,” said Scott.

However, the governor is expected to sign off on a bill that strengthens penalties on straw purchases and the defacing of serial numbers on firearms, which lawmakers believe will reduce crime in and out of state.

“They go in and buy them [guns] and then trade them for drugs, and the folks who can’t possess obviously have the firearm. And we’ve seen them used in crimes in other states,” Sen. Richard Sears said.

It remains clear that lawmakers will not agree on the policies of all the bills, but both sides of the aisle say the fact that three firearm reform bills made it to the governor’s desk this session is something they have never seen before.

“Passing three is a first, I must say, but the dynamics have changed also in the last 15-20 years. The makeup of the body, the numbers in the body, you’ll see on most of those bills they are predominately supported by Democrats,” Rep. Patrick Brennan, a Republican, said.

Sears believes public tragedies such as what happened in Uvalde also played a role.

“I think Vermonters’ views of firearms have changed dramatically due to the mass shootings we’ve seen in other states such as Uvalde a year ago,” Sears said.

Most bills passed by the Senate and House within the last two weeks of the session, including the two firearm bills, have still not officially made it to the governor’s desk as the legislative council finishes the process of looking them over.

Once they do, Scott will have five days to make a decision on whether to sign them or not.

Joe Biden isn’t speaking coherently enough to fact-check him

If he didn’t bear the title of president of the United States and you met Old Joe Biden in any social setting, you’d smile and nod and not try to make any sense of what he was saying, because it would be abundantly clear that this is a man who is not in full possession of his faculties. But the poor WhiteHouse.gov transcript wonks have to try to turn Old Joe’s dementia-addled ramblings into something remotely approaching sense and accuracy, and he had them working overtime at a G7 Summit press conference on Sunday.

Observation O’ The Day

It’s clear this crook cannot function, which begs the question, who is running things & making decisions? Kamala? Um, no. Nancy’s gone. Klain is gone. Jill? Maybe. Either way, it’s clear nobody elected the actual boss(s), whomever that may be & the press remains uninterested

“OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER SEE SNOW”

The scientific method works as follows: 1) You come up with a hypothesis. 2) You look for the implications of the hypothesis. What will be the case if the hypothesis is true, but will not be the case if the hypothesis is wrong? 3) You carry out observations or run experiments to find out whether the facts implied by the hypothesis do or do not obtain. 4) If you find that a fact implied by the hypothesis is indeed the case, it provides support for the hypothesis. If you find a number of such facts to be true, as implied by the hypothesis, then you may have strong support. 5) But it is not conclusive: if a fact or condition implied by the hypothesis is shown by observation or experiment not to be the case, then the hypothesis is refuted, and you go back to the drawing board.

Global warming hysteria is politics or religion, not science. This conclusion follows from the fact that the global warming models have generated many predictions that turned out to be wrong. A single wrong prediction is enough to disprove a model. Numerous, consistently repeated failures mean that the model is a joke.

The global warming models predict that rising temperatures will cause a precipitous decline in snowfall. Thus, alarmists like Dr. David Viner of the University of East Anglia, the main center of global warming research and propaganda, predicted 23 years ago that:

…within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

This prediction, like so many others generated by defective models, has failed to come true. In fact, there has been no decline in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the last 50 years:

Speaking for myself, I will add that my four children have come of age during this time when alarmists assured us that snow was about to stop falling, and they have not lacked for winter fun. This year, we had a long, cold, snowy winter and a late spring. We had an unseasonably late snow storm on April 1 that dumped massive amounts of heavy, wet snow on the Upper Midwest, bringing down many trees, including one that narrowly missed my house.

If the global warming alarmists actually cared about science, they would admit that their models have proved to be wrong, apologize, and shut up for a while. But the imperative of left-wing politics allows no respite from their misguided labors.

Fact Check: New Mexico’s Democrat Gov. Claims an AR-15 Is an ‘Automatic Weapon’

CLAIM: During Friday’s airing of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) claimed an AR-15 rifle is an “automatic weapon.”

VERDICT: False. AR-15s are semiautomatic firearms.

Grisham made her comments during a discussion of the May 16, 2023, Farmington, New Mexico, shooting that left three people dead.

CNN identified the Farmington gunman as an 18-year-old male and noted his family had worried about his mental health. He used three different guns in the attack and was ultimately killed by police.

One of the guns was an AR-15, which Grisham described as an “automatic weapon.” She said:

Frankly, no one that isn’t in the military — this is a weapon of war — or a trained police department, in my view, no one in America who isn’t in one of those two situations should own an automatic weapon. There is no reason to own one of those.

Contrary to Grisham’s assertion, AR-15s are semiautomatic firearms. They fire one round, and one round only, per trigger pull.
The AR-15 has a safety on the lower that allows the owner of the gun to switch between “safe” and “fire.” Automatic weapons, on the other hand, have a select fire switch that allows the owner of the gun to switch between “safe,” “semiautomatic fire,” and “automatic fire.” (In some cases the choice is a three-round burst of auto fire instead of unlimited auto fire.)

M16s and M4s are exampled of automatic weapons with the select fire switch.

M16s and M4s are actual “weapons of war,” but the AR-15 is just a semiautomatic rifle that shoots one round per trigger pull.

Grisham’s claim that an AR-15 is an “automatic weapon” is false.

Barking mad Nebraska State Senator really wants you to know that she’s pro-trans.

I don’t know whether it is an overstatement to suggest people with “gender dysphoria” have a mental illness, or whether there is a social contagion at work (like the anorexia epidemic among young women a couple decades ago that ultimately faded out to a large extent), but scenes like this state legislator in Nebraska aren’t reassuring that there’s a rational defense of the trans-phenomenon. (Wonder what she will do when told that Trans World Airlines went bankrupt 30 years ago. Probably another screech about capitalism or something.)

This video is about one minute long, but it seems much longer.

I have not often seen stupidity of this level. It’s like the concept of the black market doesn’t even enter the thought process since it might hash the narrative.

The ability for innocent people to have guns DIRECTLY allows perpetrators to purchase firearms as well. If you do not get to have one, a school shooter doesn’t get to have one as well.
— Lesser G

Maine Democrat Wants Gun Control for “Abnormally Dangerous Assault Style Weapons” But She Doesn’t Know What That Means

In a public hearing by the Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, Rep. Rebecca Millett (D-Cape Elizabeth) struggled to clearly define the terms “abnormally dangerous” and “assault style weapons” in relation to her proposed bill to hold firearm manufacturers liable for damages inflicted by people who use their products.

WATCH: Rep. Rebecca Millet Crumbles Under Question From Rep. John Andrews

Rep. Millett’s LD 1696, “An Act to Create a Civil Cause of Action for Persons Suffering Damages Arising from the Sale of Abnormally Dangerous Firearms,” would allow firearm manufacturers to be held liable for the manufacturing, marketing, importing, wholesale or retail sale of a firearm that is considered “abnormally dangerous” and causes “unreasonable risk of harm to public health and safety” in Maine.

Millett began her testimony before the Judiciary Committee by saying that every industry other than firearm manufacturers are held accountable through civil liability. She gave the examples of toy manufacturers selling defective toys, and toxic fumes in buildings.

Millett went on to blame the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) for allowing firearm manufacturers to be knowingly irresponsible in their distribution of firearms and to “recklessly skirt” federal regulations.

The PLCAA is a federal law which prohibits civil liability actions from being brought against firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers for damages resulting from crimes committed with their products.

Under the PLCAA, firearm manufacturers may still be held civilly responsible for damages caused by defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, or any other direct responsibility for the damages in question.

Millett said that her proposed bill would only apply to “abnormally dangerous” firearms, not those made for self-defense, hunting, or recreation.

Millett hopes that her bill will compel firearm manufacturers to stop selling to dealers who fuel the criminal market, and encourage basic safety measures among manufacturers and retailers.

However, upon taking questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Millett struggled to answer seemingly basic questions about the terminology used in her proposed bill and claims made in her testimony.

When asked by Rep. John Andrews (R-Paris) to define “abnormally dangerous,” Millett said that any “assault style weapon” would fall under that category.

Rep. Andrews asked Millett to point to where in her proposed bill “assault style weapon” was defined, and Millett was unable to provide a definition.

Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland), Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, asked Millett to provide a citation on the claim that firearms were flowing from manufacturers to criminal dealers. Millett was unable to provide a citation for this claim.

John Andrews asked Millett to give an example of any firearm manufacturer who does not go through the federally mandated process of selling firearms to federally licensed dealers. Millett was unable to give any examples of any firearm manufacturers violating federal law.

Continue reading “”

CAUGHT! Biden using fake data to gaslight Americans on mass shootings
Biden proves once again he’ll do anything to win his war on our guns.

Joe Biden has always struggled with the truth. Whenever he wanders off script and speaks extemporaneously, he invents personal anecdotes — boldfaced lies, actually — in which he assigns himself the starring role.

Whether he’s getting arrested in South Africa for trying to bust into Nelson Mandela’s prison cell, or bravely confronting AR-toting hunters in a Delaware swamp or going toe-to-toe with the arch-criminal, CornPop, no one actually believes him or takes his tall tales seriously. It’s just Joe being Joe, right?

But when Biden’s lies are actually signed and set into type, it’s a bit more serious. He loses his normal litany of excuses: he was tired, he was confused, he misread the teleprompter, he was sundowning.

In an editorial published Sunday in USA Today and reprinted in scores of other newspapers, the Fabulist-in-Chief dropped a whopper — even for someone who has lowered the presidential-truthfulness bar so significantly.

The editorial was titled, “President Biden: I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more.”

Most of Joe’s opus we’ve heard many times before. AR-15s are bad, so is anyone who owns one. Red flag laws and universal background checks will save the world. Congress needs to do more by banning “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and of course his ubiquitous: “For God’s sake, do something.”

But then there’s this: “We need to do more. In the year after the Buffalo tragedy, our country has experienced more than 650 mass shootings and well over 40,000 deaths due to gun violence, according to one analysis.”

The hyperlink whisks readers to the Gun Violence Archive — a blatantly anti-gun nonprofit we debunked years ago for their fake news.

Founded in 2013, the GVA has become the legacy media’s source of choice for mass shooting data because they hype the numbers. The GVA came up with its own broad definition of a mass shooting. Anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm, the GVA labels it a mass shooting, and politicians, gun control advocates and the legacy media treat their reports as if they’re pure gold. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition.

USA Today’s vaunted fact-checkers never balked at Biden’s use of the fake GVA data. They use it too, as does CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, so they didn’t question the President’s numbers, even though they equate to nearly two mass shootings per day. They were just happy he chose their struggling newspaper to publish his biased screed.

To be clear, if anyone actually believes Biden wrote this editorial himself, I’ve got an ocean-front property in Rehoboth Beach to sell them, complete with a $500,000 taxpayer-funded wall. Lately, Biden has difficulty even reading much less writing. He spars daily with the teleprompter, and the teleprompter usually wins. Of course, he didn’t write the editorial, but that doesn’t matter. It bears his byline: “Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States,” so he gets the credit and/or the blame. That’s the way the presidency is supposed to work.

That Team Biden would have to juke the stats to buttress their latest anti-gun hit piece is no surprise. They’re getting desperate. No one is listening. Guns are still flying off the shelves, especially ARs, and Black females are now the largest gun-buying demographic, because they realize Biden’s rants are hollow and won’t protect them or their families.

Biden’s editorial should be seen as a warning: He will do anything it takes to win his war against our guns, including gaslighting the American people with fake news. That, too, is no surprise.

Supreme Court Decides Against Early Intervention in Illinois AR-15 Ban Case

The Supreme Court has declined to issue an emergency injunction request against an Illinois city’s “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday.

The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which has challenged a ban on AR-15s and similar firearms enacted by Naperville, Illinois. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit the case is filed in, requested a brief from the city in defense of its law after the gun-rights group asked the Court to intervene because a lower court upheld the ban.

“The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is denied,” the order in NAGR v. Naperville reads.

Barrett’s request for a brief in the case opened the possibility that the Court might be willing to jump the line and block the city’s ban on an emergency basis. That would have been a rare move, which the Court also declined to do in two recent Second Amendment cases challenging New York’s latest gun restrictions. The Court taking the less aggressive path of allowing the case to play out on the merits in the lower courts before deciding whether or not to get involved represents a setback for gun-rights advocates who had hoped they could achieve a quick win on the issue of assault weapons bans.

Naperville said it is “pleased” with the decision and vowed to continue defending its ban.

“The City’s ordinance is intended to protect the health and safety of our community,” Linda L. LaCloche, director of communications for the city manager’s office, told The Reload. “We will continue to defend the ordinance against legal challenges and expect future court decisions as the legal process runs its course.”

The case against Naperville’s ban is separate from the newer statewide ban. Naperville enacted its ban in August 2022. State lawmakers passed their ban in January 2023. Both have faced significant backlash from gun-rights supporters but the statewide ban has come under even more intense scrutiny since its passage.

The statewide ban has since been ruled unconstitutional in state and federal court, though those rulings have since been stayed by higher courts. Oral arguments in the case against the statewide ban were heard at the Illinois Supreme Court yesterday. It has also faced backlash from a majority of Illinois sheriffs who say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

The Naperville ordinance has fared better by comparison. A federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected NAGR’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the Supreme Court has done the same.

The Court’s denial of NAGR’s request in the Naperville case was done without any comment or noted dissents. That sets it apart from one of the emergency injunction denials in the New York Second Amendment cases. In Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted the Court’s decision not to intervene on an emergency basis reflected its deference to lower court proceedings rather than an endorsement of New York’s new gun restrictions.

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case,” Alito wrote.

The pair said the New York law in question presents “novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments” and went on to praise the district court’s ruling against much of the law as “a thorough opinion.” It noted the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had issued “unreasoned summary stay orders” against the injunctions in Anyonyuk and several other cases involving the New York law before encouraging the plaintiffs to refile for emergency relief if the lower court drags its feet.

“Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Alito wrote.

In NAGR v. Naperville, none of the justices said anything about the district court’s decision to uphold the city’s ban on the sale of AR-15s and other popular firearms. That provides less insight into how the justices may feel about the case itself beyond agreeing not to get involved at this point.

NAGR did not respond to a request for comment on the Court’s denial.

Comments O’ The Day

Again, just like in NY SCOTUS has chosen their procedure preferences over the rights of millions of Americans

Justices will not get involved with lower courts giving the anti-gun states whatever they want. We get screwed until a case on the merits reaches cert petition.

To these types, the court become ‘illegitimate’ when it rules opposite to what they want. That’s childish ‘stampy footing’ as most proggies do when they don’t get their way. The court, by definition, isn’t illegitimate, but if you don’t like how they rule, you either follow the methods provided in the Constitution, or get yourself classed as domestic enemy of the same.

Democrat Senator Says People Will ‘Revolt’ If Supreme Court Blocks Gun Control.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed over the weekend that the American people would “revolt” if the United States Supreme Court continued to block new gun control laws.

Murphy made the comments to NBC’s Chuck Todd during Sunday morning’s broadcast of “Meet the Press” — after which he dug in even further, going on to attack the credibility and legitimacy of the current court.

Murphy referenced a 2022 Supreme Court decision — authored by Clarence Thomas in the 6-3 majority — that struck down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry, along with the more recent decision from Virginia District Court Judge Robert Payne. Payne ruled that a ban on gun sales for 18-20-year-olds would effectively impose restrictions on certain citizens that “do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”

Complaining that the courts had often halted any progress toward stricter gun control measures by interfering in anything legislators were able to get done, Murphy said, “If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.”

The Connecticut Senator then turned his attack on the Supreme Court directly, adding, “A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode.” He went on to promise that legislators would continue to “regulate who owns weapons and what kind of weapons are owned” — with or without pushback from the courts.

When Even Artificial Intelligence Doesn’t Want to Address the ‘Gun Violence’ Elephant in the Room

It’s like the other current in “gun control” stories we often move past quickly. I asked ChatGPT a question about that issue we are required to ignore and ChatGPT even danced around it. Here’s the exchange:

Erickson: Break down the 2021 gun crime statistic totals by race of shooter and race of victim

ChatGPT: I’m sorry, but as an AI language model, I don’t have access to real-time data and statistics beyond my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021. Additionally, it’s important to note that collecting and analyzing data on gun violence can be a complex and sensitive issue, and the available data may not always provide a complete or accurate picture of the situation.

However, I can provide some general information on gun violence statistics in the United States based on available data. According to the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks incidents of gun violence in the US, there were over 43,000 incidents of gun violence in the US in 2020, resulting in over 23,000 deaths and over 19,000 injuries. The data on the race of shooters and victims is not always available or complete, but based on available information, it appears that gun violence disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic communities.

According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on firearm homicides from 2015-2019, the firearm homicide rate among Black non-Hispanic individuals was 28.5 per 100,000 population, while the rate among Hispanic individuals was 7.8 per 100,000 population. In contrast, the rate among White non-Hispanic individuals was 3.3 per 100,000 population. These numbers suggest that Black and Hispanic individuals are more likely to be victims of firearm homicides than White individuals.

Regarding the race of shooters, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) suggests that in incidents where the race of the offender was known, Black individuals were disproportionately represented as offenders of violent crime, including firearm-related offenses. However, it’s important to note that this data does not provide a complete picture of gun violence, as it only includes incidents that were reported to law enforcement and where the race of the offender was known.

Overall, it’s clear that gun violence is a serious issue in the US, and efforts to address the problem should take into account the disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic communities. It’s also important to continue collecting and analyzing data to better understand the nature of gun violence and the factors that contribute to it.

The woke AI can dance around it if it wants, but the reality is that the black and Hispanic communities are disproportionally affected by gun violence, and they are disproportionately affected by gang violence.

Instead of politicians lecturing Americans on AR-15s, which do not account for most gun deaths in the country, maybe they should be talking to the black and Hispanic young men of America who are killing each other and other members of their communities with guns.

There were 48,830 gun deaths in America in 2021. 54% were suicides. 43% were murders. Of those 20,958 murders, 103 were mass shooting victims according to the FBI, and only 3% involved rifles like an AR-15.

Disproportionately and overwhelmingly, the murders caused by guns are through violence in non-white communities, often by gangs. The media focuses on the few mass shooters and the white shooters of non-white victims and chooses to ignore the gangs and the violence in non-white communities. The media demands we ban the AR-15 and rarely comment on handguns.

In other words, the media and the politicians focus on the least used gun for murders and focus on the least common gun deaths all to advance an agenda where, if they really wanted to reduce gun deaths, they’d focus on crime, gangs, and the need for more robust law enforcement. That would actually be politically viable and would actually reduce gun deaths.

But that would not focus on white supremacy, Republicans, and gun owners. It’d cover the problem, not the political opposition.

— Erick-Woods Erickson in The Data and the Silence

9-Year-Old Boy’s Life Hangs in the Balance: Denied Transplant Over Vaccination Status

Despite the fact that COVID-19 is no longer a major threat to anyone, the COVID cult is still in effect, and it could cost a nine-year-old boy his life. The COVID regime has already caused immense damage and ruined far too many lives. But, unfortunately, it appears the cult is not through with us just yet.

Tanner Donaldson, a 9-year-old boy with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, was born with a rare birth defect causing irreversible kidney damage. Tanner’s father, Dane Donaldson, is a suitable live kidney donor, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital has refused to conduct the transplant surgery because Dane is not vaccinated against the coronavirus.

The hospital has a policy that requires all organ donors to be fully vaccinated to minimize complications during and after surgery. Dane questioned the hospital’s hypocrisy, pointing out that deceased organ donors are not required to be vaccinated. He even offered to sign a waiver freeing the hospital from liability.

But the hospital still rejected him.

In April, the Epoch Times reached out to the hospital for an explanation. “Individuals who are actively infected with COVID-19 have a much higher rate of complications during and after surgery, even if the infection is asymptomatic,” the hospital responded.

Dane opposes the vaccine for religious reasons. But he has also been hesitant “because he has seen a rising number of clients get critically ill after receiving it,” according to the news outlet.

The hospital acknowledged that live donors are the best for kidney transplants but said they are “not without risks.”

“We continually strive to minimize risk to our living donors, and vaccination is an important component to ensure the safest approach and optimal outcomes for donors,” the hospital asserted.

Dane Donaldson indicated that he and his wife are trying to find another hospital to perform the operation.

This is one of several stories in which people have been unable to donate their organs because of faulty COVID policies. There is no telling how many people have perished because hospitals are more concerned with making sure people are vaccinated than actually saving lives.

Denying life-saving medical treatments to individuals based on their vaccination status is ethically wrong for several reasons. Firstly, it goes against the fundamental principle of medical ethics, which is to prioritize the well-being and best interests of the patient. In these cases, the patients in need of organ transplants are being denied potentially life-saving procedures solely because their potential donors are unvaccinated.

Even worse, there seems to be no real evidence that an unvaccinated donor would place people like Donaldson in more peril than the ailment they are suffering from. This decision disregards the urgent medical needs of the patients and places a higher priority on vaccination status rather than the health and lives of individuals.

Secondly, it creates a dangerous precedent of discrimination based on personal medical choices. Medical decisions, including the choice to receive a vaccine or not, should be made by individuals based on their own assessment of risks and benefits, taking into account their unique medical conditions and personal beliefs.

By denying medical treatments to individuals who have made a different choice regarding vaccination, healthcare institutions are effectively punishing and stigmatizing those who have made a different decision, undermining personal autonomy and the right to make informed medical choices. Unfortunately, their religious adherence to the COVID cult could result in more loss of life because of unnecessary policies.

We must Doooooo Something!™

Tennessee Governor Announces Special Session for ‘Red Flag’ Style Gun Law

The Tennessee General Assembly will officially reconvene this summer to consider legislation aimed at preventing future mass shootings.

On Monday, Governor Bill Lee (R.) formally announced a special legislative session starting August 21st. The goal of the session will be to “strengthen public safety and preserve constitutional rights,” according to Lee, and will likely involve debate over his take on legislation aimed at temporarily taking guns from those determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

“After speaking with members of the General Assembly, I am calling for a special session on August 21 to continue our important discussion about solutions to keep Tennessee communities safe and preserve the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” Lee said. “There is broad agreement that action is needed, and in the weeks ahead, we’ll continue to listen to Tennesseans and pursue thoughtful, practical measures that strengthen the safety of Tennesseans, preserve Second Amendment rights, prioritize due process protections, support law enforcement and address mental health.”

The announcement sets the stage for what is shaping up to be one of the most interesting debates in gun politics as a Republican-controlled state legislature debates a policy that has rarely seen adoption in red states. It comes weeks after a shooter murdered three students and three staff members at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee. While he remained non-specific in his announcement, Lee’s “order of protection” proposal is expected to be a key feature of the special session.

Continue reading “”

Vermont Gun Bill Creating 72-Hour Waiting Period Passes

The Vermont Legislature on Friday passed a bill that requires a 72-hour waiting period for the purchase of guns and includes other provisions aimed at reducing suicides and community violence.

The Vermont House concurred with a Senate amendment by a vote of 106 to 34. But Republican Gov. Phil Scott “has significant concerns about the constitutionality of the waiting period provision,” his spokesman Jason Maulucci said Friday.

The legislation also creates a crime of negligent firearms storage and expands the state’s extreme risk protection orders so that a state’s attorney, the attorney general’s office or a family or household member may ask a court to prohibit a person from purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon.

Supporters say it’s time to take action against gun violence and the rate of suicide in Vermont, which is higher than the national rate.

Opponents say the bill violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Per Heller and the Bruen Standard, it mostr certainly does

According to the bill, more than 700 Vermonters died of gunshots from 2011 to 2020 and 88% of those deaths were suicides. In 2021, the state’s suicide rate was 20.3 per 100,000 people, compared to a national rate of 14 per 100,000, the bill states. Children in a home with a firearm are more than four times more likely to die by suicide than those in a home without one, the legislature states.

PA’s Insane Ammunition Registration Database, Wants All Your Ammo to Have Separate Serial Numbers

Proposed Pennsylvania House Bill 586, introduced on March 20, 2023, proposes significant changes to ammunition regulations that would impact law-abiding gun owners in the state. The bill, which was introduced by 12 state Democrats, including prime sponsor Representative Stephen Kinsey, seeks to give the Commissioner of Pennsylvania State Police and the Secretary of Revenue the power to enforce the new rules and collect a tax on ammunition to fund the changes.

Encoded Ammo Database, Pennsylvania House Bill 586

The bill has several provisions, including a requirement that all ammunition sold in Pennsylvania must be encoded with multiple serial numbers. This means that a manufacturer must add individual serial numbers to all ammunition provided for retail sale in a manner yet to be established by the Pennsylvania State Police commissioner. Each bullet would have a unique serial number located at its base, inside the cartridge casing, and outside the box of ammunition.

In a related article that alerted us to this crazy bill, Riley Bowman, Vice President of ConcealedCarry.com pointed out that this could pose significant challenges for producers and negatively impact ammunition produced for law enforcement, even though they are exempt from this bill. He noted that ammo producers are already struggling to keep up with demand, and the time required to produce a single round of ammunition could increase from seconds to minutes.

The bill also requires anyone who possesses non-encoded ammunition to dispose of it by January 1, 2024. Is what they are proposing that millions and millions of rounds of ammunition be shot in less than a year by Pennsylvania gun owners?

Continue reading “”