Category: Crap For Brains

Bleat Zero opens wide again (It is interesting that he’s got enough ‘integrity’ that he’s still so open about his fantasies of gun control)

O’Rourke: Permitless Carry & AR-15s Prevent “Responsible Gun Ownership”

We’ve seen poll after poll in recent weeks pick up on the fact that Americans are souring on gun control, with organizations like Gallup and Quinnipiac noting plunging support for new gun control laws as violent crime rises around the country. Gun control supporters like UCLA professor Adam Winkler are urging their fellow activists to quit talking about trying to ban AR-15s and “large capacity” magazines and instead focus on issues that are supposedly more popular with the public like universal background checks. Joe Biden himself isn’t talking up his gun ban plans much these days, though he was quite vocal about banning AR-15s and forcing gun owners to either hand over their modern sporting rifles or register them with the federal government.

But while Biden has mostly stopped mumbling about his gun ban, the guy he said would be in charge of rounding up the guns is still very much in favor of the idea. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke isn’t in the Biden administration, however. He’s running for governor of Texas, and on Sunday he once again told Texans that he’s coming for their guns… and their right to carry.

The former Democratic presidential and senatorial candidate told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that Texas has a “long, proud tradition of responsible gun ownership.” But Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s support of civilians owning military-style weapons, now without training and background checks, has threatened that tradition, he said.

“Most of us here in Texas … do not want to see our friends, our family members, our neighbors shot up with these weapons of war,” he said. “So yes, I still hold this view.”

O’Rourke was responding to a question Bash posed about whether he maintains a position he shared in 2019 while expressing support for mandatory buybacks for semiautomatic weapons. He said: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, you’re not going to be allowed to use it against your fellow Americans anymore.”

I don’t want my friends, family members, or neighbors to die in a drunk driving accident, but I’m not trying to ban cars or liquor. Similarly, I don’t want my loved ones (or strangers, for that matter) to become the victim of a violent crime, but I don’t think that banning guns is the answer.

What Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke is really saying is that he’s willing to put people in prison for exercising their Second Amendment rights. He not only wants to criminalize owning the most commonly-purchased rifle in the United States, but wants to repeal the Constitutional Carry law that Gov. Greg Abbott signed earlier this year.

“I have also been listening to my fellow Texans who are concerned about this idea of permitless carry that Greg Abbott has signed into law, which allows any Texan to carry a loaded firearm, despite the pleadings of police chiefs and law enforcement from across the state, who said it would make their jobs more dangerous and make it harder for them to protect those that they were sworn to serve in their communities,” O’Rourke said.

“So, we don’t want extremism in our gun laws. We want to protect the Second Amendment. We want to protect the lives of our fellow Texans,” he said. “And I know that, when we come together and stop this divisive extremism that we see from Greg Abbott right now, we’re going to be able to do that.”

What’s more extreme; recognizing the right to bear arms without a government permission slip or putting people in prison for maintaining possession of an AR-15 that was lawfully purchased? Heck, even if you think both are equally extreme positions, wouldn’t you rather side with the “extreme” position that doesn’t involve jailing people for exercising a constitutionally protected right?

Would Texans be safer with some Beto-style gun control laws in place? Why not ask Baltimore residents? After all, AR-15s and other “assault weapons” have been banned for nearly 10 years in Maryland, and the state’s “may issue” laws prevent all but a handful of residents around the state from lawfully carrying a gun in self-defense. Baltimore also just surpassed 300 homicides this year; a grim milestone that has been reached for seven years straight.

The idea that we can ban our way to safety not only runs afoul of our Constitution, but is an affront to common sense. The fact that it’s also the fundamental premise of Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s public safety platform tells me that the Democrat is a true believer when it comes to infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. There are all kinds of reasons for O’Rourke to pivot from his gun banning desires, but instead he’s doubling down on his intent to criminalize our Second Amendment rights.

The leftist narrative has been set:

No matter what crap-for-brains automaton celebrities want, Kaepernick will never be a hero, and Rittenhouse is not a terrorist.
This is how they want people to think, which is typical for the left.

The author is a Harvard Professor, so you can see the low level that a university education has sunk to, when you have teachers who so openly lie. And what’s amazing is that they still lie in the age of the internet where just a little searching can find the facts of a matter.

While I have had my problems in the past in conversation with Attorney Branca on a gun control related subject (in reference to the definition of a ‘bullet core’ in relation to M855 ‘green tip’ ammo and federal law definitions of ‘armor piercing’ handgun ammo), his video reply to this article is on point.

Rittenhouse Verdict Flies in the Face of Legal Standards for Self-Defense

In a two-week trial that reignited debate over self-defense laws across the nation, a Wisconsin jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting three people, two fatally, during a racial justice protest in Kenosha.

The Wisconsin jury believed Rittenhouse’s claims that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense after he drove about 20 miles from his home in Antioch, Illinois – picking up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha – in what he claimed was an effort to protect property during violent protests. The lakeside city of 100,000 was the scene of chaotic demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, an unarmed, 29-year-old black man, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

In delivering its verdict, a Wisconsin jury decided that Rittenhouse’s conduct was justified, even though the prosecution argued that he provoked the violent encounter and, therefore, should not be able to find refuge in the self-defense doctrine.

As prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his closing argument: “When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”

The Wisconsin jury disagreed, and its decision may portend a similar outcome in another high-profile case in Georgia, where three white men are on trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery after they claimed the Black man was a suspect in a rash of robberies. Like Rittenhouse, the three men claimed they were acting in self-defense.

Self-defense arguments are often raised during trials involving loss of life. Juries are then asked to determine whether a defendant’s conduct is justified by principles of self-defense or whether the offender is criminally liable for homicide.

Complicating matters is that each state has its own distinct homicide and self-defense laws. Some states observe the controversial “stand your ground” doctrine, as in Georgia – or not, as in Wisconsin – further clouding the public’s understanding on what constitutes an appropriate use of deadly force.

Five elements of self-defense

As a professor of criminal law, I teach my students that the law of self-defense in America proceeds from an important concept: Human life is sacred, and the law will justify the taking of human life only in narrowly defined circumstances.

The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.

To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.

First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional.

Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm. The threat by the aggressor must be immediate. For instance, a person who is assaulted cannot leave the scene, plan revenge later and conduct vigilante justice by killing the initial aggressor.

Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable, meaning that a supposed “reasonable person” would consider the threat to be sufficiently dangerous to put him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. A person’s own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense.

Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification. Only those with “clean hands” can benefit from this justification and avoid criminal liability.

Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.

‘Stand your ground’

The proliferation of states that have adopted “stand your ground” laws in recent years has complicated the analysis of self-defense involving the duty to retreat.

Dating back to early Anglo-American law, the duty to retreat has been subject to an important exception historically called the “castle doctrine”: A person has no duty to retreat in his home. This principle emerged from the 17th-century maxim that a “man’s home is his castle.”

The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.
“Stand your ground” laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.

It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Zimmerman was the sole survivor; Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound.

In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin around and kill him without being liable for murder.

But, in a stand-your-ground state such as Florida, Zimmerman had a lawful right to patrol the neighborhood near Martin’s home. As a result, during his trial, all Zimmerman had to prove was that he was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

In Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was also able to put in evidence that he was in reasonable fear of death. “I didn’t do anything wrong,” Rittenhouse testified. “I defended myself.”

The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. They were unable to surmount it.

Ronald Sullivan is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

The reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict will be a sorting hat for America

And the Governor of California:

These men know that happened and have an army of lawyers that could explain it to them in detail.

The point is the narrative uber alles.

This will be used to sort Americans.

Did you watch the trial and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence?

Or

Did you accept the narrative and engage in the 14 month Two Minute Hate against the target designated?

Are you still one of those knuckle draggers who has to see things with their own eyes and have their own thoughts?

Or

Are you one of the Good People who accepts the opinions of the Credentialed Experts™?

This is the same sorting we saw with mask mandates and COVID compliance.

When all the data came out, do you still doggedly believe in masks and gloves and performative COVID ablutions, or did you go back to your normal life?

We know that people who supported Kyle before the trial were punished on social media and elsewhere, just like those who propagated “COVID misinformation.”

The ultimate goal is to sort us into the compliant and free thinkers with punishments and rewards dolled out accordingly.

‘I’m not gonna read that’: We don’t know what President Biden just signed because he gave up reading it

ABC News reported earlier that President Joe Biden was holding a signing ceremony Thursday of bills aimed at protecting first responders; we already showed you the clip where Biden takes an uncomfortable interest in a 7-year-old boy next to him and offers to show him around the White House. Maybe some people thought it was cute, but to us, it just came across as creepy … as usual.

Here’s a clip from later on in the ceremony, where Biden gives up on reading the name of the amendment he’s signing.

More SloJoe cluelessness. That rig starts at $110,000

BLUF:
Climate change is real, but adapting to it, mitigating it with technology is the most realistic solution. Will China and India just give up on coal, gas and oil overnight? No, and neither will the United States. But emissions already are falling in Western countries, the world is innovating.

We predict things are going to get better. Ten years. Twenty years, tops. Maybe 30.

50 years of predictions that the climate apocalypse is nigh.
The “end of the world” has been just around the corner for years.

Apocalypse . . . now?

For the past two weeks in Glasgow, Scotland, world leaders have gathered at COP 26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to listen to the same message: Disaster is just around the corner.

“The world has to step up, and it has to step up now,” former President Barack Obama said. “When it comes to climate, time really is running out.”

Professional yeller Greta Thunberg demanded the United Nations declare a “systemwide climate emergency,” and force countries to take action.

Press accounts were similarly Chicken Little-esque. If developed nations don’t phase out oil and gas and give $100 billion in “climate financing,” Paul Behrens, professor in environmental change, told Politico that “the only fact about the future I can declare with certainty is that the world as we know it is coming to an end.”

If it all sounds slightly familiar, consider this news story from 1972:

 

“We have ten years to stop the catastrophe,” said the UN’s environmental protection boss. That’s one of the headlines collected by Bjorn Lomberg, author of “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.”

Lomberg notes that, for more than 50 years, the United Nations and the media have regularly predicted we’re on the verge of calamity. And they always seem to forget about the last warning.

Continue reading “”

DOCTOR Jill And Superheroes To Indoctrinate Kids For Jabs.

DOCTOR Jill Biden is in Texas today to indoctrinate children into taking the Covid-19 vaccine. She is bringing along two DC comic book superheroes, Superman and Wonder Woman, and the Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy. Although Vivek Murthy is an actual medical doctor and could answer some general medical questions parents might have about the Covid vaccines for children, Superman, Wonder Woman and Jill Biden are not medical doctors. Superman and Wonder Woman are comic book characters and Jill Biden is a power mad, school teacher.

To be honest, I despise Jill Biden. She knew that Creepy Joe wasn’t capable of handling any Presidential responsibilities, but Jill wanted to be First Lady of the United States. She pushed that creepy, old man on us because she is power mad. I could go into my thoughts about her parenting skills, but I won’t. I would tell you to read DOCTOR Jill’s doctoral dissertation, but it’s too awful for words. No original research and lots of stupid. Victory Girls’ Kim wrote about Jill’s “You know, the thing” late last year and you can read that here. But, Jill is the perfect female icon for the Democrat’s because she is not deep and neither are they.

So, Jill is going to Houston today to hump vaxxes for kids. From ABC:

The first lady and Murthy are scheduled to visit Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, and team up with the comic book legends as part of their effort to encourage parents and guardians to get children ages 5 to 11 vaccinated. Kids who receive their COVID-19 vaccination at a Children’s Hospital clinic in November or December will receive bandages featuring DC Comics characters, as well as coloring and activity books — a collaboration among the White House, DC Comics and WarnerMedia.

I don’t know about you, but when I was six or seven, I would have sold my soul for cartoon character bandages and coloring books. And, that’s the whole point. Kids live in a magical world, as it should be. They don’t know about manipulation, long term effects or medical decisions. That’s their parents’ job. But, parents ask too many questions and puzzle things out. They don’t always accept what the State tells them to do. Kids will accept.

Let’s look at this video from Franklin Sherman Elementary School in McLean, Virginia from last week and then we’ll discuss:

That young man is charming and looks to be about ten years old. Yes, Franklin Sherman Elementary School was the first to be vaccinated with the polio vaccine. And, while now we know the miracle of the vaccine, it wasn’t universally accepted at the time. Franklin Sherman was first because many others dropped out. Even though the vaccine had been studied in mice and monkeys for forty years prior to the children being vaxxed, parents had questions. Keep in mind that the death rate from polio was 2-5% for children. The death rate for children from Covid is 0.00006. To be specific, from the beginning of the pandemic to October 16, 2021, there were 94 deaths in children from ages 5-11, with no reporting on co-morbidities.

In the video, Jill says, “We care about you and your beautiful children”. Jill cares about compliance. I know elementary school teachers are important and all that, but and I mean, but they are all about compliance. Everyone must sit quietly at their desks, feet flat on the floor, hands folded. I spent most of elementary school in the corner because they was nigh on impossible for me.

She tells us that the vaccine has been thoroughly tested. Really? For how long? When? Where? Jill is not a medical doctor and she doesn’t know shite.

I cannot tell you how angry it makes me to see children used this way. Jill is thoroughly vaxxed, I presume, but there she stands in her mask surrounded by beautiful children in masks. This mask theater is disgusting.

I remember just a few years ago when parents were questioning the routine children’s vaccine schedule. Too many and too close together. Now, the sheeple parents are bleating that your child needs to be vaxxed so that he doesn’t make her child sick.

I love it when First Ladies go to schools to read or talk up education. But DOCTOR Jill doesn’t know medicine from a hole in her head. Leave the children alone. As a matter of fact, it looks like there is to be a protest against Jill and the mandates in Houston:

With any luck “Let’s Go Brandon!” will be heard loud and clear in the hospital. Superman and Wonder Woman need to stay out of the indoctrination business. While DOCTOR Jill is at the hospital, maybe she can pick up a pack of Pampers for Joe.

I wonder how they’d feel if someone ‘lamented’ their misuse of the 1st amendment like Toobin is by sliding in lie or two?

CNN Laments Americans Exercising Their 2nd Amendment Rights

National media attention has focused in on the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man charged with murder after shooting his attackers during the Kenosha riots of August 2020. As Rittenhouse took the stand himself to testify, facing harsh interrogation from the prosecution and accusations of faking his own emotional breakdown while on the stand, even CNN’s own experts were forced to conclude that his testimony was compelling. On Thursday, the liberal cable channel took a different tack: actually complaining that people are allowed to carry firearms in public.

CNN’s chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, began by introducing the self-defense case as partly “a matter of public policy. What is a 17-year-old with no training, no gun permit, no ties to this community, doesn’t even live in the state of Wisconsin, going in the night — in the middle of the night to a riot to help out? Just an incredibly stupid irresponsible decision.”

Newsroom host Jim Sciutto appeared very concerned that people can exercise their Second Amendment rights by carrying firearms. Ignoring the fact that Rittenhouse was allegedly in Kenosha to provide medical aid and put out fires, Sciutto asked Toobin, “Do we as a country, in effect, allow people from anywhere to show up anywhere else and sort of self-appoint themselves sheriff, right? Or sheriff’s deputy. Are there any laws that govern that…are there any laws that bar me from showing up somewhere else and saying I’m going to help fight crime?”

Toobin replied by lamenting the fact that he has recently seen more people openly carrying guns:

One of the big changes in state laws over the last two decades are the increasing freedom that is being granted to individuals to carry concealed weapons, to carry publicly you know, visible, visible weapons. I mean, it is such a sea change in, in how the, how the law works. And, you know, I was just in Oklahoma the other day, in Arizona. You just see people carrying guns in public that you didn’t used to see.

He went on to suggest again that Rittenhouse was appointing himself as law enforcement, despite all the evidence in court thus far pointing to him acting solely in self-defense.

This commentary followed a line of questioning by the prosecution in the trial wherein the prosecutor seemed to imply that carrying a firearm is only acceptable when someone is actively in danger. This type of dangerous rhetoric tramples on the Second Amendment and makes everyday gun-carrying citizens into villains, just like the liberal media has attempted to make Kyle Rittenhouse into a villain.

Continue reading “”

I just wanted you to read this.
The author, having seen the evidence presented, is of the opinion that an acquittal he actually agrees with would be ‘unjust’.
He’s either lying through his hypocrite teeth, or the confused and irrational  mental and philosophical state he’s in has made a near perfect exemplar of what ‘Cognitive Dissonance’  looks like.
This is the kind of banal idiot we fight against everyday.

Acquitting Rittenhouse in Kenosha murder case would be the correct, if unjust, verdict
Before, I could see Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty. Now, having seen the rest of the evidence, I’d be shocked if he’s convicted of anything more than a weapons charge

Lawyers are scheduled to deliver their closing arguments Monday in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and then the case will go to the jury.

If I were a member of that jury, I expect I would reluctantly vote to acquit Rittenhouse of the most serious homicide charges based on the evidence that he was acting in self-defense when he shot three people in Kenosha in August 2020.

That’s without the benefit yet of hearing those closing arguments. Prosecutors might still be able to pull together their case in a more compelling manner than they have managed so far.

And it’s also without knowing the jury instructions about the applicable law, which possibly could leave room for a compromise verdict on a lesser charge that would reflect the truth — which is that Rittenhouse was hardly faultless when he shot two people to death and very nearly killed two more.

But the evidence is the evidence, and I don’t expect the legal instructions to significantly change the outcome.

In the moments before he pulled the trigger, it’s pretty clear Rittenhouse had valid reasons to fear for his safety — first from a mentally unhinged man chasing him with full knowledge that he was carrying an AR-15 rifle and later from what he perceived as a mob violently attacking him to avenge the first shooting.

Continue reading “”

Welcome back, Carter………..

By the way, SloJoe’S handlers had this group removed from the list of organizations that President Trump had designated as terrorists. These clowns simply can’t abide anything Trump did, so they’re stupidly trying to erase all of it, no matter the consequences.

Iran-Backed Militants Storm US Embassy in Yemen, Seize Hostages and Equipment
State Department ‘concerned about the breach of the compound,’ demands release of hostages

The State Department is working to secure the release of several kidnapped hostages taken by Iran-backed terrorists just a day after the militant group stormed the U.S. embassy facility in Sana’a, Yemen, U.S. officials told the Washington Free Beacon early Thursday.

A group of Houthi rebels reportedly stormed the U.S. compound on Wednesday seeking “large quantities of equipment and materials,” according to regional reports translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. The raid comes just five days after the Houthis kidnapped Yemeni nationals who work for the U.S. embassy. “The alleged raid comes after the Houthis kidnapped three Yemeni nationals affiliated with the U.S. Embassy from one of the employee’s private residences in Sana’a on November 5,” according to MEMRI. At least 22 other Yemenis were kidnapped by the Houthis in recent weeks, “most of whom worked on the security staff guarding the embassy grounds,” according to MEMRI.

The State Department confirmed to the Free Beacon that the Yemeni staffers are being detained without explanation and that the Iran-backed militants stole property after breaching the American facility in Sana’a, which housed U.S. embassy staff prior to the suspension of operations there in 2015.

“The United States has been unceasing in its diplomatic efforts to secure their release,” a State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon. “The majority of the detained have been released, but the Houthis continue to detain additional Yemeni employees of the embassy.”

Those still being held are “detained without explanation and we call for their immediate release,” the State Department spokesman said.

Among those who were kidnapped and held by the Houthis include a former embassy employee, an economic officer, and a U.S. Agency for International Development employee, according to MEMRI.

The United States is also “concerned about the breach of the compound” and is calling “on the Houthis to immediately vacate it and return all seized property.”

The Biden administration “will continue its diplomatic efforts to secure the release of our staff and the vacating of our compound, including through our international partners,” the State Department said.

The hostage situation is likely to further inflame tensions between the United States and Iran, which arms and funds the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Trump administration designated the Houthis as a terrorist organization, but that designation was removed when the Biden administration took office—a move that was seen as a goodwill gesture to coax Iran into diplomatic negotiations aimed at securing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear accord.

So the leftist media have crap-for-brains….
Do I need to cue the meme again?

ABC News Touts Gun, Ammo Taxes To Fight “Gun Violence”

For the past several days, my colleague Tom Knighton has been covering the ABC News series “Rethinking Gun Violence” and doing a great job of pointing out the bias in the network’s reporting. I’m going to tag in and take on ABC’s latest report in the series, which is all about the supposedly wonderful benefits of taxing the exercise of a constitutional right; in this case, slapping additional taxes on the purchase of firearms and ammunition.

Here is how advocates argue that a tax could be used as one policy lever in a holistic approach to ameliorating gun violence — not with the goal of keeping people from buying guns, but rather to claw back revenue from industry profits to raise billions for American communities.

Does ABC News even understand how taxes work? Any additional tax imposed on the purchase of guns and ammunition doesn’t “claw back revenue” from gun makers. It simply takes more money out of the pocket of gun owners. And why should law-abiding gun owners be singled out for a special tax if the money is supposed to be used to increase public safety for all?

A particularly bloody summer in California this year led lawmakers to propose a tax on guns and ammo to generate revenue specifically to fund community-based prevention programs. AB1223, which would have added an excise tax of 10% on handgun sales and 11% on long guns, precursor parts and ammunition, fell four votes short of advancing by super majority in the state Assembly last summer, but it’s set to be re-introduced in January.

“This tax is for funding gun violence prevention programs,” California Assembly ember Marc Levine, a Democrat who helped draft the proposed legislation, told ABC News. “It’s something everyone can agree on.”

Everyone? I don’t think so. There are certainly plenty of gun owners who are opposed.

Republican opponents of the bill have argued it’s unconstitutional.

“It is a clear violation of the First Amendment,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, told ABC News. “It is unconstitutional to require an excise tax, insurance, any monetary requirement before someone exercises an enumerated constitutional right.”

And even some on the Left see this for what it is; a shameless attempt by anti-gun politicians and the gun control lobby to go after legal gun owners instead of actually focusing on violent criminals.

“Unfortunately we have very little information, very little data to work with — there have not been that many really high-quality studies trying to look at this issue,” Robert McClelland, a senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told ABC News. A tax like the one proposed in California “really punishes people who are high-volume users, who are going to tend to be target shooters or hunters.”

“I don’t know if those people are really the ones that are responsible for most gun violence, but that doesn’t sound likely,” he added. “So an ammunition tax seems like it’s misdirected.”

As for any potential decrease in sales resulting from a tax, according to McClelland, “People who are on the borderline between making a purchase and not making a purchase, to that extent, yes, you would see fewer purchases. I would expect a much larger effect to be people would would simply go to private sales for used handguns and used firearms.”

I’m sure the gun control lobby has an answer for that too. Maybe a ban on private sales or transfers altogether?

I can’t help but wonder what the bean-counters and even reporters at ABC News would think about a special tax on each and every broadcast; something like 10-11% of all the commercial revenue generated, with the proceeds being directed at efforts to combat online disinformation.

My guess is that the network brass would be hollering about unconstitutional attacks on a free press, but I’d be happy to test that hypothesis if any congresscritter would like to conduct an experiment.

The moron is the problem, and now he complains about it?
I’m coming to the conclusion that the people actually running things don’t care about this, because they want us to see a senile puppet who anyone can tell isn’t really in charge of anything but doing what he’s told, and rub our noses in their belief that nothing can be done about it.

Biden: Can you believe how much things cost right now? Including gas?

Wait until Grandpa Simpson here finds out who the president is. Won’t he be surprised to learn where this particular buck stops.

Maybe his staff should tell him that Jimmy Carter’s still in charge. It wouldn’t be far from the truth.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. The president is now admitting it, and making a bunch of Republican attack ads in the process:

Continue reading “”

People who believe a person so mentally defective they’re intent on committing mayhem will be stopped by a law requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun, are mentally defective themselves.
And the Reverend Doctor is retired from pastoring? Good.

Pastor Blames Permitless Carry After Man Points Gun In Church

One of the many downsides of having a media class that’s largely ignorant about (if not downright hostile towards) gun ownership and gun laws is that many reporters are unable or unwilling to push back against questionable claims made by gun control supporters and those who take a dim view of the right to keep and bear arms. Case in point; a Nashville pastor believes that, were it not for Tennessee’s new permitless carry law, which took effect earlier this year, a man never would have pulled out a gun during the Sunday service at a north Nashville church last Sunday.

“This is the situation we find ourselves in, in a state that has passed laws that make it possible for persons to carry guns who have not undergone any type of background check and does not have to have any training and no permit,” said Rev. Dr. Judy Cummings, a recently retired pastor.

She says this latest incident and other gun violence should give state leaders reason to reconsider the permitless carry law.

I hate to break it to the pastor, but the guy who waved his gun around in church is currently facing 57 charges of felony aggravated assault, which is a pretty good indication that authorities don’t believe his actions were covered by the state’s permitless carry law.

To local television station WKRN’s credit, while reporters didn’t push back on Cummings’ statement directly, they at least sought a second opinion.

On the other hand, Bob Allen, who is director of training at Royal Range in Bellevue believes Sunday’s incident is not a direct cause of permitless carry.

“That has nothing to do with permitless carry. Zero,” said Allen. “That was either somebody who was either a crook or who might have been intellectually disabled — had something going on in the brain and just walked in there and pulled a gun out.”

The suspect allegedly declared that he was Jesus and made other disturbing comments that would indicate he’s not mentally well, but no matter his motivation, Tennessee’s permitless carry law wasn’t responsible for his actions. Depending on the suspect’s previous criminal history or any mental health prohibitions, it might have been legal for him to own and carry the firearm in public, but private property is another matter entirely. If the leaders of Nashville Light Mission Pentecostal Church wanted to ban guns from the premises, that’s their right, but it’s unclear if the church had any official policy in place.
Of course, it’s also downright silly to believe that someone intent on doing harm to others is going to be dissuaded because of a sign warning them that possessing firearms beyond that point is not allowed.
That may be one reason why the Tennessean newspaper reports that the pastor is considering adding a security presence during services, but didn’t say anything about whether or not the church would declare itself a gun-free zone.
With fewer than 100 congregants, hiring armed security might be a financial reach, but don’t be surprised if church members themselves step up to serve as guardians if requested.

Comment O’ The Day;
Its funny how there exists a clip of him contradicting himself on virtually every single point he’s ever made as president thus far.

In August of 2007…………

 

Comment O’ The Day
I will once again say: this whole Dem tactic of “Americans just don’t understand” doesn’t hold water when the guy saying it can’t properly read the teleprompter

Biden Accused Of Mocking Americans’ Intellect: ‘You Think They’d Understand What We’re Talking About?’

President Joe Biden was accused of mocking Americans’ intelligence on Saturday during remarks that he gave in the morning as he answered only a few questions from reporters.

Biden made the remarks about Americans’ knowledge of supply chains as he said that the pandemic has impacted the lives of every American.

Observation O’ The Day

Elderly people with failing memories often fall back on those sweet memories of the good old days:

 

The Navy can’t put out a fire on a carrier – USS Bonhomme Richard – or avoid running submarines aground on undersea mountains –
USS Connecticut – but it can name a ship after a homosexual activist and advocate of the People’s Temple and the murderous Jim Jones, who preyed on teenage runaways, and find a transvestite homosexual veteran to christen it.

Pray that when – not if, with BS like this, when – the time comes that China decides to take Taiwan, that they can take care of themselves because we’re certainly not going to be much, if any, help.

Just to point out, in case you were wondering. Drs. Wintermute & Hemenway are leftists and rabidly anti-gun/anti-self defense .

More Than Gun Violence That Differs Between US, Other Places

So-called gun violence is higher in the United States than in other first-world nations. It’s a point that is continually brought up, in part because we also are the only first-world nation to actually respect people’s gun rights.

As we’ve noted in previous posts, ABC News has been running a series about rethinking firearm-related violence here in the United States. We’ve poked an awful lot of holes in some of their stories, and today’s isn’t likely to be any different.

You see, they’re focused on comparing the United States to other countries on this subject.

The United States has a gun violence epidemic, and it’s not one shared by its peers. The nation that by one estimate has more guns than people has the highest rate of firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. Mass shootings, an all-too-common occurrence in the U.S., are also exceedingly rare in peer countries — where governments have often been quick to pass gun reform in the wake of such tragedies.

“Compared to the other peer countries, basically what we have is lots and lots of guns, particularly handguns, and we have by far the weakest gun laws. Not surprisingly, we have huge gun problems,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told ABC News. “I think if we had basically the gun laws of any other developed country, we’d be better off.”

It’s unclear if gun prevalence definitively impacts gun violence, though research by Hemenway’s center has found links between a large number of guns and more firearm homicides, suicides and accidents. The implementation of new gun restrictions has also been associated with a drop in firearm deaths, a 2016 review of 130 studies across 10 countries found.

The U.S. is “not necessarily a more violent society than others,” Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, told ABC News.

“What we have is unique access to a technology that changes the outcome — firearms,” he said.

It’s not uncommon to compare the U.S. with other developed countries, especially after yet another horrific mass shooting. There are developing countries with higher rates of firearm deaths than the U.S., though comparing gun violence among peers helps to control for other factors, Hemenway said. And while there are lessons in other nations’ policy measures that could help address the problem here, because the U.S. is on such a different plane when it comes to civilian gun ownership, it will also take more research and multiple, targeted solutions to address the scope of the problem, experts said.

“Other countries do better. We should be able to figure out how to do better,” Hemenway said.

Hemenway is essentially arguing that the only real difference between these other nations and the United States is our lack of gun laws and that we really should embrace how the rest of the developed world treats firearms.

Well, that might be a compelling argument if it wasn’t premised on such a faulty concept.

The United States is a unique experiment, one that may look like the other developed nations of the world, but isn’t, and for a number of reasons. One of those is indeed our Second Amendment protections of our right to keep and bear arms, but there are other differences as well.

For one thing, we tend to be more racially diverse.

England, as an example, is 87.2 percent white and only three percent black, three percent Indian, 1.9 percent Pakistani, two percent mixed, and 3.7 percent other.

Meanwhile, we’re only 61.6 percent white, 12.4 percent black, 10.2 percent classified as multiracial, six percent Asian, 8.4 percent other, 1.1 percent Native Americans, and 0.2 percent Pacific Islander. Then, by ethnicity, they have 18.4 percent Hispanic. In other words, we’ve got a lot more ethnicities trying to share this patch of land.

Now, I’m not saying that any of these minorities are more prone to violence than anyone else, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that all these ethnic groups rubbing together may create some kind of tension that we just haven’t resolved that results in that violence. After all, we live in a time when everyone is accusing everyone else of being racist. It’s possible that racial animosity–which goes in all directions–may result in people feeling like they don’t have to play by the rules.

Or, it may have no difference. We simply don’t know, but it is a data point that shows there are differences between us and many other developed nations.

But that’s only one potential difference.

Let’s also talk about poverty. America is the land of opportunity, but it’s also the land of falling on your butt if you’re not careful. Many people do just that and rebuild. Others don’t and some start off on their butts and foster resentment.

Among the 38 nations that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the majority of which are developed nations, the United States has the fourth-highest poverty rate. The three nations with more poverty? Chile, Israel, and Mexico. Of those three, only Israel can be universally considered developed and they have a problem with violence as well, though theirs comes in the form of terrorism.

So it’s not difficult to see that the United States has some stark differences that separate it from other developed nations. Poverty alone may account for all of the difference. This holds up upon more localized examination.

After all, we think of cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Saint Louis as being extraordinarily violent, but even there, you’ll see that the violence is generally localized. Where? In the poorer neighborhoods in the city.

In other words, poverty within our cities also seems to have a direct correlation with violent crime in our country. That’s poverty that doesn’t show up in other nations for various reasons.

Where is that in Hemenway’s examination?

It’s not there because it’s not useful for him to push his preferred narrative. It’s just that simple.

And I haven’t even gotten into all the nations with strict gun control laws that have much worse violent crime rates than we have.

So don’t come to me about what other countries do or don’t do. Those countries aren’t the United States, so their experiences are largely irrelevant.

Hit a search engine for ‘White House Walks Back Biden….”.

White House walks back Biden comments on payments to migrant families

White House walks back comments Biden made at CNN town hall

White House walks back Biden vow to use National Guard to drive trucks

White House walks back Biden’s plan to let pandemic payments stop

White House Walks Back Biden’s Statement About Defending Taiwan

White House walks back Biden’s predictions about Afghanistan withdrawal

White House walks back Biden comments on cybercriminals with Russia

White House walks back Biden’s commitment to gun control legislation

I could go on and on and on like the Eveready Bunny, but I think you get the point.
The question isn’t whether or not SloJoe is in charge – he’s not.
The question is ‘ Just who is actually running things in the White House?

Remember this?

Then this?

It’s clear that SloJoe got taken to the woodshed and schooled about what he was going to say.

Of course he’s lying and it’s clear he’s not in charge.