Category: Crap For Brains

The Post-Bruen New York and California Punitive Gun Control Laws are Clearly Unconstitutional

After Bruen, a notable noncomplier is New York Governor Kathy Hochul. She also follows in the footsteps of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. Both passed their big gun control bills by sending a “message of necessity”—a maneuver to prevent legislative hearings and to deprive legislators of time to read a bill before they vote on it. As the New York State Sheriffs’ Association explained:

The new firearms law language first saw the light of day on a Friday morning and was signed into law Friday afternoon. A parliamentary ruse was used to circumvent the requirement in our State Constitution that Legislators—and the public—must have three days to study and discuss proposed legislation before it can be taken up for a vote. The Legislature’s leadership claimed, and the Governor agreed, that it was a “necessity” to pass the Bill immediately, without waiting the Constitutionally required three days, even though the law would not take effect for two full months.

The Sheriffs’ Association criticized “thoughtless, reactionary action, just to make a political statement,” and “the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions.” “We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Continue reading “”

For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing. Acts 17:21-31

BLUF
None of this is to say that whatever the Current Thing happens to be is trivial or unimportant; it’s only to say that Current Thingism is a sign of democratic decay that erodes the vital role of deliberation that is essential for our system of government. With all this in view, the fact that so many of the self-professed defenders of Our Democracy are so adamantly devoted to the Current Thing calls their motives into question. The next time you see an American flying a Ukrainian flag, ask yourself: could they find the nation on a map?

The Tyranny of the ‘Current Thing’

There is no better evidence of the managed nature of what passes as “democratic deliberation” than the recent development of “Current Thingism.” Even if you aren’t familiar with the term, you know the phenomenon well. There are many crises unfolding in contemporary America, and the “Current Thing” is whichever one our elites insist should be the focus of our attention at the present moment.

For a while, the Current Thing was #MeToo. From 2016 until 2018, the Current Thing was Russian collusion. After that scheme unraveled, we moved through a series of Current Things, each of which was said to compound the grave threat Trump supposedly posed to Our Democracy: in March 2020, it was Covid-19; for a few months that summer, it was systemic racism; then, it was the Delta variant; finally, for a stretch of early 2021, it was the January 6th “insurrection.” And when Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine became the Current Thing. You knew it was the new Current Thing because all the smart people suddenly changed how they spelled and pronounced “Kiev.”

So, you know what the Current Thing is. What, then, is “Current Thingism”? Current Thingism is the default mindset of a certain segment of the American population: typically, the professional, liberal, educated, urban caste of society. Current Thingism is an enduring assumption that whatever the Current Thing happens to be, it should, in fact, be the Current Thing—the issue among issues.

Current Thingism also enables some judgment on the part of the Current Thingist. Because the Current Thing deserves our total attention and deference, anyone who disputes the existence or the urgency of the Current Thing is a problem. The person who does not concede the urgency of the Current Thing is dumb, dangerous, or both. Remember the treatment of those who doubted the efficacy of masks? Those who were reluctant about mRNA vaccines? Those who doubted the wisdom of sending billions of dollars to fund Ukraine’s defense? Such is the fate of those who don’t get in line with the Current Thing.

Although America has many pressing problems, Current Thingism itself is a threat to the nation. To some degree, it is a threat because America is facing so many crises. Current Thingism artificially elevates one political concern over all the others, which justifies inaction on other matters that may, in fact, be more urgent. Some will argue that while the term “Current Thing” is new, the phenomenon is not: they might say that certain issues have always been prioritized over other issues. They’re right and wrong.

Continue reading “”

In the course of 5 seconds Biden forgets that he already shook hands with Chuck Schumer

Schumer shakes Biden’s hand. Turns and shakes other hands, then Biden just sticks his hand out again as if he didn’t just shake hands with Chuck.

Or maybe he’s shaking hands with the invisible man again.

What is going on in this man’s brain? He is not well.

Portland mayor admits homicides have increased 200% over last year

One of the bitter ironies in the gun control debate is playing out right now in Oregon, where years of progressive policies have led to a huge spike in shootings and homicides and gun control activists have successfully used that staggering rise in violent crime to put a voter referendum on the ballot this year promising increased public safety at the expense of the right of self-defense; outlawing the sale, transfer, and possession (in most circumstances) of “large capacity” magazines, imposing a new “permit-to-purchase” requirement on all firearms, and creating a state-run database of all permit holders.

Legal gun owners aren’t the drivers of Portland’s crime spike, but that’s not stopping these anti-gun advocates from blaming them for the actions of criminals, even though most folks might point to the city’s opposition to policing as a bigger factor in the increasing dangerousness of Portland’s streets.

It was just a little more than two years ago, after all, when Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler announced he was disbanding the police department’s gun violence reduction team, and in the months afterwards violent crime and shootings soared across the city. A little more than a year later Wheeler reversed course and launched a new Focused Intervention Team with the same mission, only to find a lack of volunteers within the Portland Police Bureau eager to sign up for the job. After months of struggles the FIT unit hit the streets in January of this year, but so far it hasn’t had much of an impact. As Wheeler acknowledged during a recent interview with public radio program Here & Now, homicides in the city are up a staggering 200% over the past year, and are double the national average.

“We engaged an organization to do a study, and what they concluded for the city of Portland is that more than half of the shootings involved group or gang activity. There’s a very small population of people, about 200 people in our city driving the vast majority of gun violence in Portland. And black teen and adult men continue to be disproportionately impacted by shootings and homicides. They represent nearly 47% of suspects and victims in these shootings, but they only make up 6% of the city’s population.”

If a tiny fraction of Portland’s 650,000 or so residents are driving the “vast majority” of violent crime in the city, it makes even less sense to impose new gun control restrictions on millions of law-abiding Oregonians, but Wheeler is also insistent that an increase in gun sales is to blame for the violence in his city.

“The ‘why’ of it is an increase in purchasing of firearms, disinvestment in communities that are struggling even more than ever under the impacts of COVID, and tensions are really high and people are settling their disputes with firearms. We had one shooting earlier this year where three adults settled a fight that they had during lunch at a really nice restaurant in a nice part of the city with gunfire.”

If the “vast majority” of gun violence is stemming from about 200 people across the city, then it shouldn’t matter how many people lawfully purchased firearms over the past couple of years, but Wheeler is largely following the Democratic playbook in targeting guns and not the trigger-pullers. I say largely because Wheeler told Here & Now that with his latest proclamation of a state of emergency over “gun violence,” the city does indeed want to focus on “those who we know are directly impacted by gun violence,” but only through “non-law enforcement interventions.”

While Wheeler and other Portland progressives are loathe to use police against the most violent and prolific offenders in the city, they’re fully on board with creating new non-violent, possessory crimes out of our right to keep and bear arms… crimes that will be policed not by community activists but by law enforcement officers.

Given Oregon’s leftward tilt, IP17 stands a very good chance of passing, though the odds of it being struck down by the courts are also strong. Regardless of what happens with the gun control initiative, however, Portland’s murder problem is going to remain in place as long as anti-gun politicians like Ted Wheeler recognize the problem is being driven by a relative handful of violent and prolific offenders but choose to target law-abiding gun owners and their Second Amendment rights instead.

California Had the Most Active Shooter Incidents in 2021: FBI

In a report issued by the FBI, California ranked first for the most active shooter incidents in 2021. The state has been in the top spot in three of the past five years.

According to the study, a total of 61 active shooter incidents occurred across 30 states last year with 103 people killed and 140 wounded. This is up from 40 incidents and 38 killed in 2020.

California had 6 incidents that claimed the lives of 19 people with 9 wounded. Texas and Georgia each had 5.

California, which has some of the strictest gun laws, saw 0.015 shootings per 100,000 people. Texas, which has very unrestrictive state gun laws, had nearly the same at 0.0167 per 100,000 people. Georgia had 0.045 per 100,000 people.

Criminal attorney Arash Hashemi told NTD, a sister outlet of The Epoch Times, that in his opinion there’s no easy answer to how gun laws should be handled.

“We need both sides to sit down and listen to what’s going on. I know one side says we need to ban guns, one side said there would be no regulation. But there needs to be a meeting of the minds in the middle,” Hashemi said.

California is moving ahead to implement more gun restrictions. The new state Senate Bill 918, which is currently on its way through the legislature, would ban the carrying of guns in most public areas, regardless of whether someone has a carry license or not.

However Hashemi suggested a slightly different approach. He said the Second Amendment can’t be violated, but he thinks certain people should be restricted from owning a firearm.

“I think California needs to implement these background checks but at the same time make sure they don’t infringe on people’s rights to bear arms,” Hashemi said.

He said vetting gun buyers for red flags like mental illness or psychiatric medication is important.

He added that the importance of the Second Amendment is to give the civilians of the United States a check on the government.

The greatest number of casualties and injuries at an active shooter incident in 2021 was 15, at both a FedEx center in Indiana and a Kroger grocery store in Tennessee.

June had the most with 12, and December had the least with 1.

The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more people engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. The 2021 report is limited to these incidents and does not include other gun-related situations like self-defense, drug violence, or gang violence.

Federal Prosecutor Sets Up Hotline for Reporting, Among Other Things, People “Espousing … Hate-Filled Views.”

A press release Wednesday by the U.S. Attorney in charge of the federal prosecutor’s office in Massachusetts, Rachael S. Rollins announced the rollout of an “End Hate Now” telephone hotline (emphasis added):

The “End Hate Now” hotline [1-83-END-H8-NOW] is dedicated for reporting hate-based incidents or potential criminal activity. Massachusetts residents and visitors are encouraged to call the hotline to report concerning or troubling incidents of hate, potential hate crimes, or concerns regarding individuals believed to be espousing the hate-filled views or actions we learn of far too often in the wake of mass shootings and/or acts of hate-based violent extremism. Callers are encouraged to leave their contact information but may remain anonymous….

Hate crimes are illegal acts committed based on a victim’s perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Beliefs are not hate crimes. Distasteful ideologies, advocacy of political or social positions, use of discriminatory rhetoric, or the general philosophic embrace of biased or hate-filled beliefs are not crimes. Under federal law, investigations may not be based solely on an individual’s beliefs or their protected First Amendment activity.

“With the uptick in horrific mass-shootings and unimaginable acts of racially motivated violent extremism we have seen across our country, people are scared. In Massachusetts, we have recently seen multiple incidents of groups espousing deeply offensive and hurtful ideologies displayed on our streets. A recent act of hateful vandalism at the future PRYDE senior housing facility in Hyde Park threatened burning and death against the LGBTQ+ community. Enough is enough. My office is offering our residents and visitors a new outlet for bringing these critical and concerning issues seeped in bigotry and hatred to the attention of law enforcement,” said U.S. Attorney Rollins. “I am asking people – when you see hate, call this number and let us know. If you have serious concerns about a loved one, a friend, or even an acquaintance, call this number and let us know….” …

 

“Protecting Massachusetts residents from violence and hate is the top priority of my administration,” stated U.S. Attorney Rollins. “In Massachusetts, we have a long history of standing up to hate and intolerance. Today, we continue that honored tradition. By establishing this 1-83-END-H8-NOW hotline and a Civil Rights and Human Trafficking Unit, my office is fully equipped and dedicated to fighting hate-fueled criminal activity across our Commonwealth.”

A sound means for a prosecutor’s office to investigate potential violent crimes or vandalism? (Though saying, for instance, “killing [police officers / Jews / my ex-wife] is completely morally justified” is constitutionally protected speech, if such a killing had actually happened nearby, prosecutors might reasonably want to look into whether the speaker actually acted on his beliefs and didn’t just express them.) A tool that, if indeed effectively publicized, would chill public expression even of constitutionally protected speech by people who have no plans for crime? Both? Neither? I’d love to hear what people think about this.

No, the 13th Amendment isn’t a “new path” for gun control advocates

Gun control supporters really aren’t doing a good job of coping with the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Not only have we seen a number of blue states defiantly respond to the Court by adopting new laws that will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional, they’re struggling mightily to come up with legal arguments that might convince the Court to uphold some of their most treasured restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

One of the more interesting (though not convincing) arguments I’ve seen made since Bruen was handed down came from attorney Kirk Jenkins, who believes that the Thirteenth Amendment is a useful vehicle for gun control activists going forward… because, in his view, the only reason the Second Amendment came into existence was to promote the continuation of chattel slavery.

Properly interpreted as constitutionalizing the slave-holding South’s ability to arm its slave patrols brings the Second Amendment squarely into conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that the Thirteenth Amendment extends beyond merely abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude to giving Congress power to sweep away its badges and incidents as well: power that Congress used in enacting the Civil Rights Act.

But is Congress empowered to decide what the badges and incidents of slavery are, or is that task assigned exclusively to the courts? The answer is yes: subject only to a test of rationality, Congress has the power to define the badges or incidents of slavery and enact legislation to address those practices.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull was clear: “the second section declares that Congress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to carry this provision into effect. What that ‘appropriate legislation’ is, is for Congress to determine, and nobody else.” Rep. Burton Cook agreed during the debate over the Civil Rights Act, saying that Section Two “meant … that Congress should be the judge of what is necessary for the purpose of securing to [the former slaves] those rights.”

Although for the first century following ratification the Supreme Court held that certain discriminatory practices could not rationally be found to be badges and incidents, the court has never questioned that Congress has the power to determine what the badges and incidents of slavery are.

It’s a creative approach, but it falls apart upon the slightest application of historical scrutiny. First, there was plenty of support for the individual right to keep and bear arms in northern states, despite the relative scarcity of slavery within their borders. In Federalist 46, Virginian James Madison made an explicit argument in favor of ratifying the Constitution by pointing out that the people, with their right to bear arms, would serve as a check on federal tyranny, not a slave uprising. Federalist 46 predates the ratification of the Constitution, much less the Bill of Rights, and clearly spoke of a non-racist motivation behind ensuring that right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed if the Constitution was adopted as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation.

Shortly after the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress and the states as well, and during the congressional debates over the protections afforded to newly-freed slaves, it’s clear that Congress intended to protect their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

Deprivations of freed slaves’ Second Amendment rights featured in debates over bills leading to enactment of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. Thomas Eliot, sponsor of the former, explained that the bill would render void laws like that of Opelousas, Louisiana, providing that no freedman “shall be allowed to carry fire-arms” without permission of his employer and approval by the board of police. He noted that in Kentucky “[t]he civil law prohibits the colored man from bearing arms . . . .”

Accordingly, the Freedmen’s Bureau bill guaranteed the right of freedmen and all other persons “to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

Senator Garrett Davis said that the Founding Fathers “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.”

Many of those members of Congress who voted to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment were around for the debate and ultimate vote to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as well, and if they viewed the Second Amendment as a stain on the soul of the nation that needed to be repealed in the name of abolishing badges of slavery they could have.

They did not. Instead, they chose to ensure that all law-abiding Americans, including freed slaves, possessed the right to use arms in defense of themselves, their families, and their communities. Today, black women are the fastest growing demographic of new gun owners; a badge of freedom and the individual right of self-defense, not slavery or subjection to violent actors.

That’s reason enough for the courts to reject Jenkins’ approach, but his biggest problem is going to be convincing the Supreme Court that it got it wrong in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen.

Heller was wrongly decided. The Second Amendment would never have been ratified if the slave state ratifiers had been told that it protected an individual right of all persons, including free African Americans, to stockpile and carry concealed weapons in public. Properly understood as guaranteeing Southern states their “right” to organize and arm slave patrols, the Second Amendment was a fundamental pillar of the slave system—every bit as essential as the infamous slave codes and Reconstruction-era Black Codes. As such, the Second Amendment is an incident of slavery that the Thirteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to regulate.

The problem with Jenkins’ argument is that it places more importance on an assumption of what the Founders would have done rather than the reality of what they did do. You could also make the argument that the First Amendment never would have been ratified is slave state ratifiers had been told that it would one day protect the sending of abolitionist pamphlets through the mails to southern states, or that it would one day protect an individual right of all people, including free African Americans, to advocate for the freedom of those who continued to be held in bondage.

But the First and Second Amendments weren’t rejected by the Founders. They were added in to the Constitution because, in the words of the Bill of Rights’ preamble, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

Jenkins’s entire argument is a misconstruction and abuse of the Constitution’s powers, but that’s pretty much the only legal argument the gun control lobby has left; the Supreme Court got it wrong, and everything it’s said to date about the right to keep and bear arms should be disregarded. That might make them feel better about themselves, but it’s not going to carry the day at the Supreme Court.

Tags: GUN CONTROL GUNS SECOND AMENDMENT VIDEO GUN OWNERS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

From all the breaks, up to that point, it’s clearly apparent he’s having problems just keeping on teleprompter. My most probable guess is, he finally ran out of steam from all the takes, and had to get another shot of whatever cocktail of stimulants he gets loaded up with so he could finish. And with all those edits, there’s no telling how long it takes to get him back on his feet if they could at all, for each take they then splice together.

Democrats shocked… Shocked! To learn that gun companies charge money for firearms

Today the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held the first in a series of hearings designed to support efforts to enact new gun control laws. Invited to testify at the hearing were the CEOs of a number of prominent firearms manufacturing companies, including Daniel Defense, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer and others.

If you find yourself wondering what these CEOs have to do with this ongoing process, you’re not alone, but most of them agreed to show up. Ahead of the hearing, the committee released a lengthy statement penned by Democratic Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney. In it, she indicated that they would be releasing their findings from an “investigation” into the sales reports of the various companies as if it was really all that difficult to find their sales records.

Maloney announced what she clearly seemed to think was a shocking statistic. The combined companies racked up more than one billion dollars in sales of certain styles of semiautomatic long rifles that Democrats refer to as “assault weapons.” Oh, and they advertise their products. You’re shocked, I know. Here are a couple of excerpts from Maloney’s letter.

“How much are the lives of America’s children, teachers, parents, and families worth to gun manufacturers? My Committee’s investigation has revealed that the country’s major gun manufacturers have collected more than $1 billion in revenue from selling military-style assault weapons to civilians.

These companies are selling the weapon of choice for mass murderers who terrorize young children at school, hunt down worshippers at churches and synagogues, and slaughter families on the Fourth of July. In short, the gun industry is profiting off the blood of innocent Americans.

“My Committee has found that the business practices of these gun manufacturers are deeply disturbing, exploitative, and reckless. These companies use aggressive marketing tactics to target young people—especially young men—and some even evoke symbols of white supremacy. Yet we found that none of these companies bothers to keep track of the death and destruction caused by their products.

Maloney is obviously just trying to gin up anger against the firearms industry in hopes of forcing a vote on more gun control legislation. But let’s take a moment and look at the three major complaints she raises in the letter. One can only hope that she doesn’t come across this article and read it because I would hate to see her become even more traumatized than she clearly already is.

First, she notes that the various firearms companies have “collected” more than one billion dollars selling these rifles. (I love the use of the word “collected” to create some sort of sinister connotation.) To her credit, Maloney is absolutely correct. These companies do charge money for their products. The reason they “collect” so much for these various “Bushmaster” style rifles is that they are some of the most popular models in the country. But while the mass shootings draw a lot of media attention, it’s also worthwhile to point out to the congresswoman that the FBI has told us year after year after year that long rifles of any type are the least common type of firearms used in the commission of crimes, including murder. More people are killed on average every year by murderers using blunt objects, knives, or even their bare hands. Moving on.

She complains about the advertising themes that the firearms manufacturers employ when trying to boost sales. Again, she is correct. These companies produce advertisements to attract customers. In not one single ad we’ve ever seen have any of them suggested that these products should be used to kill human beings, though it’s clear that such a thing might happen if you are forced to defend yourself and/or your family from a home intruder. They are most commonly used for hunting or target shooting. This is another nonsensical “accusation.”

Her final complaint is that none of the gun companies are “bothering” to keep track of the number of people killed by people using these products. Really? How shocking. You’re telling us that civilian manufacturers of firearms are not in the business of collecting crime data from law enforcement agencies? Of course, if they did “bother” to do that, assuming they could legally extract the information from law enforcement agencies all around the country, they would discover that the number is minuscule compared to deaths caused by handguns, knives, and baseball bats, as I mentioned above. Perhaps they should start including that data in their advertising.

It’s kind of admirable that these CEOs were willing to travel to Washington and sit through all of this nonsense with a straight face. The Democrats in Congress are once again putting on yet another circus to try to distract the country from the disastrous state of the country at the moment and the failures of their own policies. But it’s a midterm election year so we probably should have expected this.

Joe’s eyes don’t move or blink in this whole clip and it has to be a deepfake but it’s his official account. Please help me understand.

Those eyes

Are they taping them open?? Is it the Botox??

Is the dude amped up on Adderall???

Also, is he trying to turn cops against Americans for disagreeing with unconstitutional Democrat power grabs and calling it insurrection?

I don’t know… I can’t think about anything other than those eyes.

House Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Prohibits Semiautomatic Pistols Too

The “assault weapons” ban legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday not only prohibits AR-15s and AK-47s, but numerous semiautomatic pistols and shotguns as well.

The legislation, H.R. 1808, is sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI).

On July 15, 2022, Breitbart News warned that H.R. 1808 bans the manufacture and sale of at least 45 specific AR-15 rifles , including, “Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles, Colt Match Target rifles, CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles, Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles, Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles,” as well as the Diamondback DB15 rifles.

Moreover, it bans the manufacture and sale of all AR-pistols, and thirteen are specifically listed: “American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II, CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol, Daniel Defense MK18 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol, POF USA AR pistols, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol,” and the “Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.”

But the language of H.R. 1808 also makes clear the legislation bans numerous semiautomatic pistols as well.

The ban applies to semiautomatic pistols with detachable magazines and threaded barrels. Because of the popularity of suppressors for hearing protection, nearly every semiautomatic pistol manufacturer makes pistol models with threaded barrels. This means an untold number of semiautomatic pistols would be banned by H.R. 1808.

Also, any semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds would be banned, as would any semiautomatic shotgun with a fixed magazine holding more than five rounds.

H.R. 1808 also bans semiautomatic shotguns that accept detachable magazines and have a pistol grip.

‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers

“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”

I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.

You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:

“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”

Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.

“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)

Two points:

Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:

“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)

The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?

As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”

Continue reading “”

To have a volunteer force requires…..volunteers. When you have policies that insult and denigrate the largest group of people that volunteer, well…..
If a foreign government forced this on our military, it would righteously be called an act of war.

US Army Abandons Recruitment Goals, But Not Its Woke Policies

The Army cut its force size projections for 2022 and 2023 Tuesday in the midst of a historic recruitment struggle, raising questions about overall readiness as it clings to its “woke” agenda.

The Army could miss its recruitment goal for 2022 by 25%, Army Gen. Joseph Martin, vice chief of staff for the Army, told The Associated Press. Projected end strength, the total size of the Army including active and reserve components, is set to decrease by 10,000 troops this year and an additional 14,000 to 21,000 in 2023.

“Do we lower standards to meet end strength, or do we lower end strength to maintain a quality, professional force? We believe the answer is obvious—quality is more important than quantity,” Lt. Col. Randee Farrell, spokeswoman for Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, told the AP.

Investigations into extremism in the ranks, diversity quotas, rigid vaccination mandates and other “woke” policies have undermined military recruitment by alienating families, the military’s largest recruiting market, according to Center for Military Readiness founder Elaine Donnelly. The Pentagon’s insistence on social justice over meritocracy, lowering of standards and “anti-recruiting messages” pushes away potential recruits, Donnelly told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Secretary Wormuth is ignoring the ‘check engine’ light on her dashboard. She keeps driving on, failing to notice how the administration’s policies are making the recruiting crisis worse,” said Donnelly.

The Army has achieved only 50% of its overall recruitment goal of 60,000 soldiers for fiscal year 2022 that ends in October, according to the AP.

The Army attained 17,800 new recruits to active duty service out of a 2002 goal of 26,000 as of April, according to data from the Department of Defense. The recruitment objective fell 20% from 2021, when by April the Army had brought on 28,000 active duty recruits, well on its way to the yearly goal of 32,000.

For comparison, by April 2017, the Army had achieved nearly 100% of its active duty recruiting goal.

Addressing ways to improve Army recruitment, Martin focused on improving climate within the service, including on issues like extremism.

“To compete for talent, the Army must provide a workplace environment free of harmful behaviors, to include sexual assault, sexual harassment, racism, extremism, and the risk factors which lead to death by suicide,” he said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

Despite force size drawdowns and plans to increase personnel spending, service leaders have argued that Congress is underfunding military readiness accounts that deal with maintenance and operations, according to House Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Republican Rep. John Garamendi of California, who spoke at the hearing Tuesday.

“On the spending issues, Congress should start asking very specific questions about the costs of LGBT mandates, experimental training like the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) fiasco, replacements for personnel discharged due to COVID issues, etc.,” Donnelly told the DCNF. “Woke attitudes and mandates are not free.”

The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment. The Army declined to comment.