Category: Crap For Brains

Law Professor Misfires On NYSRPA v. Bruen

It’s going to be nearly impossible to address and report on every single solitary bit of non-sense that’s coming from the anti-freedom caucus as we approach November 3rd. Next Wednesday has been marked up as a proverbial “judgement day” for those who wish to keep the citizenry unarmed, as the arguments in NYSRPA v. Bruen will be delivered.

It’s almost as if the concerted effort and universal message from those that wish to enact their will on others, is that what they say will somehow be gospel if they repeat it enough. That might be true about lies, repeating them enough they become fact, but at least in this country we do have legal precedent and historical accounts to lean on. Versus the very scientific “feelings” which the freedom-grabbers use to “prove” their often baseless claims. Take for example an Assistant Professor of Law from Southern Methodist University and his claims:

The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction on carrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.

Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a National Rifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country.

Ruben, the Assistant Law Professor must not have gotten the memorandum about other “most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history.” Yes, he’s correct in asserting that the stakes are high, however this is beyond dramatic. I don’t know if Ruben studied Heller in law school himself, or if they talk about Heller, at Southern Methodist University, but I’d say that case was pretty significant.

We all know that Heller and subsequently McDonald dealt with the complete prohibition of the possession of handguns in certain jurisdictions. I think a complete prohibition trumps the fact that the Bruen case only really applies to the last few hold-out bad actors that don’t recognize the Second Amendment in its full form. How many states is that really? By the books, we’re talking about nine states that are “may-issue” when it comes to carry permits. Of those nine states, the worst offenders on actually not issuing permits, or having really bad jurisdictions that don’t, are: California, Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey. Those four states are the worst offenders.

To have Ruben say that “a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs…could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country” leads me to believe he needs to go to geography class. Four states is not “many parts of the country”. Mathematically that’s 4/50 or 2/25 or 8%. I can see 8% equating to “many parts.”

Ruben reassures us though.

In my view as a Second Amendment scholar, this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches its conclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weapons laws in the future.

Sir, agree this can affect the Second Amendment analysis of weapons laws in the future. I can hardly accept you as a “Second Amendment scholar”. If you’re a “scholar”, who owns you and funds your “research”? Your analysis is biased. Turn in your sheepskin or get a refund. Our scholar goes into the history:

In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted a handgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended to address concealed carrying.

For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit application showing that they have what the law calls “proper cause.”

To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” such as by showing they are being stalked.

Yes, in 1911 the Sullivan Act. was implemented in New York. For those of you looking for a “scholarly” way of presenting that information, you now know it’s called the Sullivan Act. The history of this section of law is much more complicated than “an increase in homicides”. More accurately, it’s laid out in this Post article:

In 1911 — in the wake of a notorious Gramercy Park blueblood murder-suicide — Sullivan sponsored the Sullivan Act, which mandated police-issued licenses for handguns and made it a felony to carry an unlicensed concealed weapon.

This was the heyday of the pre-Prohibition gangs, roving bands of violent toughs who terrorized ethnic neighborhoods and often fought pitched battles with police. In 1903, the Battle of Rivington Street pitted a Jewish gang, the Eastmans, against the Italian Five Pointers. When the cops showed up, the two underworld armies joined forces and blasted away, resulting in three deaths and scores of injuries. The public was clamoring for action against the gangs.

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them as shtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

I don’t expect Ruben to be reading the New York Post, however I do expect him to be familiar with the facts laid out in the extensive piece. The piece gets at the crux of all the issues in may-issue systems:

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

Yeah, convenient. This all speaks for itself and holds true today.

What else did Ruben have to say in his love-letter to anti-freedom?

In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.

When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4 majority struck down Washington, D.C.‘s ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This is where we’re going to have to part ways widely dear sir. True, in Heller, it was the first time THE COURT held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That’s because prior to that, the matter did not really surface. At least not in such an in your face kind of way. This leaves me to wonder if Ruben, or any of the anti-freedom caucus members have ever actually read the Second Amendment. I know there is so much squabbling over this “militia” thing and what on earth “regulated” means, but that does not change the largest portion of the amendment, the who. Who’s rights shall not be infringed?

…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don’t know how much more plain English the founders could have made that statement. The progressive push to say that the Bruen case may reduce restrictions and all this other hogwash is grossly inaccurate, as the court has an opportunity to right a wrong. A restoration of rights that were infringed upon for over a century. Any “scholar” should be able to figure that out.

No anti-freedom caucus rant would not be complete in 2021 if somehow Trump was not brought up. Kudos! Ruben for working that in there.

Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before. But he will hold little sway if the three justices former President Donald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court’s two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.

Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett – all of whom received the gun group’s blessing.

The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.

Yes Eric, this is significant. It’s also sad. It’s sad it took Trump to step up to the plate and find justices that are willing to read the plain language of the amendment, and possibly hold that it’s meaningful. I’m quite interested in Ruben’s scholarly view on the matter of this case after an opinion. I’m always in need of a good chuckle.

We’ll have to see. Waiting until June of next year or so is much better than the 100+ years of infringement we’ve been dealing with. At least we’ll know where we stand…as citizens or subjects.

Ignorance Isn’t Why We Don’t Bend Over For Gun Control

Gun control has been an issue in American politics for decades. Back in the 1970s, there was a concerted push to try and ban handguns. After all, they were used in most crimes and you didn’t need them for hunting. Of course, hunting wasn’t what the Second Amendment was about, but that argument was still a thing.

And that wasn’t even the start of the discussion.

Since then, the debate has continued to varying degrees. Today, we’re in the midst of still more gun control talk. And it seems some believe that the only real reason we don’t advance their anti-Second Amendment agenda is ignorance.

This is from a piece titled: “Dumbass nation: Our biggest national security problem is America’s ‘vast and militant ignorance’”

With apologies to Paul Simon, and despite all of the information available to the mortal man, there are still millions of Americans who currently believe they’re gliding down the highway when in fact they’re slip slidin’ away.

As President Biden prepares to travel to Europe to meet with the Pope and our NATO allies next week, there remains a huge national security problem for him to grapple with, one that hasn’t been addressed in any meaningful fashion for many years.

It is the root cause of our problems with China. It’s why some people don’t want to get vaccinated. It’s why some people still gleefully follow Donald Trump. It explains why Congress can’t get together in a bipartisan fashion to deal with infrastructure, health care and gun control. 

It’s why we have problems understanding climate change.
It explains voter suppression.
It’s why “critical race theory” has become controversial, why elements of our population on the left and right are at war with each other and why some believe the earth is flat and the Holocaust didn’t occur.
It’s why some of us believe we’re still the “No. 1” nation in the world when — other than having the largest military — we clearly lag behind other major nations in many critical factors.
More than anything else it explains why we fail.

Of course, the reason we don’t accept their will on gun control is that we just don’t know any better.

Granted, I look at all the same studies they do. I read all their arguments and do so each and every day. To believe that I, as an example, oppose gun control because of some kind of ignorance is, well, ignorant.

See, I know the studies they cite, but I also recognize the problems with the studies. That supposedly massive support for background checks? The questions are written in a way that respondents likely think they’re talking about the current system we have in place. I did more than look at the media reports and accept them at face value. I actually read the study.

The whole “you’re four times more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the home” thing? That study didn’t differentiate between lawful gun owners at criminals who happened to have guns. That’s a significant oversight since criminals are engaged in activities that may result in them being shot while the lawful gun owner doesn’t.

I read that study too.

And here’s the thing: I’m not alone.

Those of us who support the Second Amendment do so from a position of knowledge. We understand both what our Founding Fathers intended with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. More than that, we understand the limitations of the studies cited by anti-Second Amendment types as well as the studies they like to pretend don’t exist. Those are the studies that show guns are used more often to save lives than take them, the studies that show gun ownership reduces crime and that gun control doesn’t work.

And more than that, we hold our elected officials accountable.

The reason there’s been no bipartisan deal on gun control is that Republicans want control of Congress again. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. Kevin McCarthy both recognize they can’t do that until gun owners trust them to protect our rights. Bending over for gun control isn’t going to help them and they know it.

None of that comes from ignorance, though. It comes from a firm understanding of the facts.

Biden’s Folly Armed the Taliban, But He Still Wants Your AR-15

A long the long, dusty roads that connect Afghanistan’s city of Mazar-e-Sharif, capital of Balkh province, to the country’s northern neighbor of Uzbekistan, I saw remnants of Afghan army uniforms, as well as beaten-down Humvees and armored personnel carriers. This was in the immediate aftermath of Balkh province’s fall to the Taliban in August, but within a week, such high-priced goods—courtesy of the United States taxpayer—were simply picked up after being abandoned and shuffled into the new regime’s burgeoning arsenal.

Indeed, members of the brutal outfit wasted no time in recovering the billions-of-dollars-worth of equipment left behind by the fleeing, defeated Afghan National Security Forces. Moreover, the Taliban foot soldiers were quick to start showing off the loot; many even took and sent selfies posing with their new American guns. In Kandahar—the symbolic birthplace of the Taliban—U.S.-funded military hardware was paraded through the streets.

And, according to news reports, in the rare cases a citizen possessed a firearm, the Taliban quickly stripped them of it. “It is terrifying,” one resident in the freshly fallen Kandahar city said to me from his home, which he had barely left for weeks on end. “We weren’t even allowed to buy a single small gun to defend ourselves. Now, this.”

The hard-line Islamic insurgency now has its hands on everything from guns and ammunition to night-vision equipment, helicopters and heavy weapons. It is all courtesy of Washington’s chaotic and hasty withdrawal from a country that was clearly unable to stand on its own feet despite reassurances from the Biden administration, decades of training Afghan military and police forces and gargantuan sums of money tossed its way.

Even more disconcerting is that the Taliban were able to seize and keep their U.S.-financed arms right under the nose of the Americans, with little being done to recapture or destroy the weapons that had tumbled into dangerous hands.

The U.S. military at least disabled some of its high-powered goods just prior to departing Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA) in one small attempt to make sure they didn’t add to the terrorist stockpile.

Matériel the Biden administration left behind for the Taliban

Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans must ask why the Biden administration did nothing to stop the Taliban—and the terrorists in their ranks—from getting actual “weapons of war,” even as Biden and anti-Second Amendment extremists are doing all they can to take ordinary semi-automatic rifles away from American citizens.

On the campaign trail, both President Joe Biden (D) and Vice President Kamala Harris (D) pledged to enact more onerous Second Amendment restrictions. Now, national security adviser Jake Sullivan has been forced to admit that the Taliban has recovered a “fair amount” of U.S.-provided military equipment and that they “don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defense materials has gone.”

“We don’t have a sense that they are going to readily hand it over to us at the airport,” Sullivan said wearily, prior to the final evacuation of HKIA by American forces.

Intelligence estimates suggest that the Taliban now possesses thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of aircraft, along with countless guns. Additionally, over the course of the war, the U.S. supplied the now-defunct Afghan forces with hundreds of thousands of small arms and millions of rounds of ammunition. One of the biggest reasons why the Taliban was able to capture key terrain so quickly toward the end of the Afghanistan fall was because they were able to scoop up and use the U.S. weapons.

Yet, the Biden administration doesn’t think Americans can be trusted with the freedom to protect themselves. Instead, Biden thinks American citizens should have to entirely rely on the government to protect them. In June, the Biden team asked the U.S. Senate to “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” In stark contrast, no one on the Biden team seems too disturbed by the number of Afghans who will suffer at the receiving end of U.S.-issued weapons inside the beleaguered country.

It should also be stressed that whatever happens in Afghanistan does not stay in Afghanistan. And whatever the Taliban possesses now will not likely remain solely in their bloodied hands. The Haqqani network, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, is considered a branch of the Taliban, and has already been put in charge of running Kabul’s security. Kabul’s new leadership is also closely aligned to the few hundred al-Qaeda personnel still operating in Afghanistan.

Adding insult to injury are the disturbing ground reports and imagery indicating the moving of arms and machinery to Iran, where these weapons could be used against American interests in Iraq.

The region has a robust black market that is used by all sides of the equation; meaning that there is little doubt the weapons will be bought and sold to members of the even-more-brutal ISIS-K affiliate that also operates in the region. In addition, the Taliban is already showing signs of leadership struggles and internal power plays, multiple sources warn, which means that splinter terrorist groups, including elements even more hard-line and vicious than the Taliban, could pose additional international security threats in the weeks and months to come.

Chillingly, the Taliban may now be the first terrorist organization with an air force, and the Biden team is unwilling to do anything about it. Instead, they continue to go after the guns used by law-abiding American citizens to protect themselves and their loves ones.

It must be awkward for demoncraps who want a police state, but don’t want police.

Who You Gonna Call — the Covid Cops?

Last January, I wrote a piece here on the Pipeline called “When the Sheepdogs Become the Sheep.” In that piece I lamented the ongoing transformation of America’s police officers from crime fighters to Covid code enforcers. Alas, ten months later, that transformation is coming nearer to completion.

There is a growing chasm among two distinct groups of police officers: those who genuinely invest themselves in the fight against crime, whether as a patrol cop or a detective, and those who seek to promote up the ranks to the higher levels in their departments. A Venn diagram of these groups would show a miniscule intersection of the two circles, and recent events will have that intersection grow smaller still.

Among the cops actually engaged in police work, political considerations have no role in their decisions on whom to stop, detain, or arrest. This is not to say every law violator who comes to a police officer’s notice should be arrested and hauled into court. Every good cop knows the value of discretion. Sometimes there are more serious problems that demand his time, or there may be dividends paid in the future when someone is given a pass for some minor violation.

Continue reading “”

I’ll say that using the First Amendment to protect a lie is a threat to the whole Bill of Rights.
The – well known to be leftist hacks-  editors of The Atlantic see the ability of their political enemies to defend their rights as a problem for the advancement of their agenda…..and it is.

The Second Amendment Has Become a Threat to the First

Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.

This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.

These kind of data fill a void in ongoing debates about the compatibility of free speech and firearms at protest events. For example, is the phenomenon of armed protests new? Is it frequent? The open display of firearms at public protests, including long rifles and what are sometimes called “assault-style rifles,” is a relatively new phenomenon. Although many states allow firearms in public places, until recently few Americans have openly toted firearms to political demonstrations. The Everytown/ACLED study examined thousands of protests, showing a marked uptick in protests at which people were visibly armed following the police murder of George Floyd. It found that at least 560 events involved an armed protester or counterprotester. Loose state firearms laws are part of the explanation for this phenomenon. The incidence of armed protests was three times higher in states with expansive open-carry laws, the study noted.

Such research makes much clearer the implications of open carry for public safety, public protest, and constitutional democracy. Some have argued that open carry will make protests safer. In fact, tragedies were far less frequent at protests that did not involve firearms, the Everytown/ACLED research revealed: One in 37 turned violent or destructive, and only one in 2,963 unarmed gatherings turned fatal.

In short, the visible presence of firearms increases the risk of violence and death when exercising one’s First Amendment rights. The increased risk of violence from open carry is enough to have a meaningful “chilling effect” on citizens’ willingness to participate in political protests. Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations. In addition, concealed carry may not have the same chilling effect; it’s possible that without weapons visible, protesters will not be deterred. But at the same time, merely knowing that people might be armed could keep people away from public protests.

Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study on the impact of open carry of firearms on the exercise of protest rights, and confirmed what common intuition suggests but included some surprises. The study found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

Participants were asked about their willingness to participate in protests in two groups. In the control group, firearms were not mentioned in the questions. In the experimental group, they were. The questions did not specify whether the participants were visibly carrying firearms or not. The participants in the experimental group were much less willing to participate in expressive activities than participants in the control group to whom firearms were not mentioned.

That hesitation was present regardless of respondents’ political ideology. It was experienced by gun owners and nonowners alike. Survey respondents’ explanations as to why they would refrain from participating in protests where arms are present revealed the significant chilling effects of guns at protests. Among other things, respondents indicated:

I feel like I would be antagonizing [firearms carriers] and that could lead to me being injured.

If they started shooting, I would be concerned they would target me for what I said.

I’ll let the people with the guns do the talking.

Nothing is important enough to be shot over.

Some open-carry proponents insist that they bring firearms to protests to defend themselves against potential violence or to ensure that the First Amendment rights of all participants are respected. However, the Everytown/ACLED study concluded that 77 percent of armed protests during the observed period were “driven by far-right mobilization and reactions to left-wing activism.” The study also found that 84 percent of armed protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were counterprotesters from extremist groups such as the “boogaloo boys,” the Proud Boys, and other right-wing groups. Rather than being motivated by self-defense or civil-rights concerns, the decision to carry a gun tends to follow far-right political ideology.

Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be, the clear social perception of would-be participants is that armed protests are unsafe. That finding is crucial to understanding the potentially devastating effect that bringing guns to protests can have on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether there is a Second Amendment right to carry firearms and other weapons in public places, a question it has yet to weigh in on. A pending case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, involves restrictions on concealed-carry permits. To decide it, the Court will need to determine whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. As the studies show, the answer has profound implications not just for public safety but also for constitutional democracy. As courts and legislatures consider gun regulations, they ought to bear in mind not just the physical dangers of armed protests but also the social harms associated with them. For many—perhaps an increasing number of—Americans, participation in armed public protests may simply not be worth the risk. Even if public protest survives, only those willing to risk their life, or who are inclined and able to carry weapons in defense of their own right to protest, may want to participate. Rather than serving as a democratizing means of expression, protest may become an armed contest and the exclusive preserve of the non-peaceable. Most concerning is that public protest as we know it may cease to exist at all. That would deprive Americans of participating in one of the greatest traditions of this country: expressing their views, engaging in public life, and advocating for democratic change.

One More Time™:
When the people who say its a crisis, start living their lives like it’s a real crisis, I’ll think about considering that it may be a crisis.

Joe Biden Forgets Mask, Coughs into His Hand, then Shakes Hands with Democrats

President Joe Biden again forgot to put his mask back on after a speech in New Jersey on Monday and even coughed into his hand before greeting Democrats with handshakes as the coronavirus pandemic continues.

The president arrived at his event wearing a mask but after removing it to speak, he walked away from the podium without it.

Coughing into his hand, Biden exited the stage without his mask and began shaking hands with several New Jersey Democrat officials before an aide rushed up to give him another mask.

All other New Jersey officials were wearing masks as they greeted the president.

Biden continues to promote mask wearing across the country, even though he frequently forgets to put his mask on after a speech.

Last week, Biden was caught exiting a Washington, DC. restaurant without a mask, even though the mayor continues to keeo a mask mandate in place.

The White House defended the president’s mistake as a “moment” that should not distract from his overall support for masks.

“We know masks work. They are uncomfortable sometimes, and they get tired of wearing them. I understand. I really do,” Biden said in September. “And I wear them in the White House.”

 

The Brit MP got stabbied by a moslem jihadi import, but **Giffords** tries to use this BS article to push for more gun control over here.

**Not Giffords herself, her handlers.  Anyone with one more functioning synapse one can listen to her speak for more than 5 words and can tell she’s nothing more than a cabbage head ChattyCathy pull the string doll, which makes the odds she can write such an article as this highly unlikely.

Opinion: Gabby Giffords: The stabbing of a British MP is another example of how violence eats away at democracy

As the stabbing of Amess makes all too clear, the problem of politicized violence is endemic around the world. But in the United States, this problem is exacerbated by our tragically lax gun laws……………

This is getting out of hand. At some point, when a child/spouse/elderly parent is denied care, I can see a family member deciding that who made that idiotic decision pays for it more dearly than they can possibly imagine.

Covid Unvaxxed Teen Boy Denied Medical Treatment

A teen boy in Indiana was refused treatment for multiple infections because he was not vaccinated against Covid 19. In the video made by the teen’s mother, it’s not just the denial of treatment but the borderline violent behavior of a medical personnel that is shocking.

Let us stipulate that states mandate vaccines for students attending government schools. Measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria and tetanus vaccine requirements are a good thing, in my opinion. There should also be exceptions, even with those vaccines. The death rate, before vaccines, for measles was quite high. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

In 1912, measles became a nationally notifiable disease in the United States, requiring U.S. healthcare providers and laboratories to report all diagnosed cases. In the first decade of reporting, an average of 6,000 measles-related deaths were reported each year.

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

On the other hand, the death rate from Covid for teens 15-19 is .00049, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. When one takes into account the lack of reliable data regarding long term effects of the mRNA jabs, we could understand parents who thought 100 or more times before jabbing their teens. There is also the fear of myocarditis:

Federal health officials have verified 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in people ages 30 and younger who have received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and are investigating about 250 more reports.

While rare, the rates for ages 16-24 following a second dose are above what is expected, prompting an emergency meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) next week.

Teens and children are not good spreaders of the Covid. The have a very, very low death rate. So, parents could be forgiven for casting a gimlet eye at a vaccine that could put their teen out of commission for three to six months and whose long term effects have not begun to be studied.

When our children are sick, mothers (fathers, too) turn into vicious beasts with killing claws. Don’t get in our way, because we will cut you. You may not even know when we will take our revenge on you or how. Case in point is the Indiana teen boy who was denied treatment for multiple infections. I got this story from Defiant America.

The mother, in this case, brings her teen boy in to be checked because he is not feeling well. The young man looks athletic. What we don’t see before the mother starts filming is that the Nurse Practitioner has already diagnosed the teen with sinusitis, an ear infection and bronchitis. Then, because the teen has not been vaccinated for Covid, the Nurse Practitioner refuses to prescribe antibiotics. That is when the mother starts filming. This is short. Don’t miss a second:

Now go back and watch that again.

Having had a teenage son, I know that my son would be saying, “Mom, Mom”, too. I feel for the kid. But that Nurse Practitioner is one sick twisted Nurse Practitioner Karen Ratched. How inhuman can one person be? Don’t answer that. I know. The hatefilled Leftists have been “othering” the unvaccinated for months. This is the logical outcome of this othering. This woman has already diagnosed the young man. She is refusing to prescribe antibiotics. That is some sick shite.

Let’s watch it one more time:

When NP Ratched tried to grab the Mom’s phone, I gasped. That’s some crust. Power drunk Ratched there. I understand why the mother didn’t bite off Ratched’s hand, her son’s prescriptions were more important. Yes, Ratched go call security.

In case you are interested, this power mad woman works at the RediMed in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

We used to believe in our medical professionals. We used to have faith in them. We believed their Hippocratic Oath. Everything has been politicized.

Nurse Practitioner Ratched let down her patient and her profession. Her license should be cancelled.

They’re stupid enough to believe they will be immune to any consequences if things ever go kinetic.

Democrats aim to make anyone who disagrees with them an enemy of the state.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-The Moon) made the Democratic position clear Thursday: If you’re not with us, you’re terrorists.

During his opening statement for the Attorney General Merrick Garland hearing, Nadler said there was no difference between the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and parents who are angry about what is being taught in schools.

“This growth in extremist ideology is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation directed at our health care professionals, teachers, essential workers, school board members and election workers,” Nadler said.

Nadler, a partisan loon who spent the past four years stirring up every conspiracy theory against President Trump, claimed there was a “broader pattern” here, including “the growing threats of violence against public servants.”

Yes, it is terrible when a sitting senator is harassed and followed into a bathroom . . . Oh he wasn’t talking about Krysten Sinema? The incident President Biden said was just “part of the process”? Huh.

We’re sure he was inspired by the climate change activists who stormed the Department of the Interior last Thursday, breaking down the front door and attempting to occupy the building. He was calling on AOC and others to denounce them. No?

How about the fact that the letter the National School Boards Association sent to Garland asking for the FBI for help, as reported by columnist Christopher Rufo, “cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official.” That the letter is in fact hyperventilating bunk, describing shouting as “violence” and people who disagree with school boards as “domestic terrorists.”

Turns out the White House knew about the letter before it was made public. Did the president order Garland to get the FBI involved?

It seems like the Biden administration is guilty of what they always accuse Republicans of: Politicizing the Department of Justice, and stifling free speech through intimidation.

Continue reading “”

When dishonesty is their stock in trade, it’s only logical to conclude these people want to disarm you because they want to do something they know they would likely be shot for.

Everytown Lies Their Tongues Off With Claim on Child and Teen Deaths

Everytown is one of the largest deep-pocketed anti-Bill of Rights organizations out there. They do serious lobbying and litigation. Their “reporting” arm is The Trace, a publication whose bias should be obvious from who is buttering their bread.

Everytown has a documented history of lying to advance their cause. Those of us on the pro-Rights side are jaded by their behavior, but if you thought that their boldness and daring in peddling falsehoods had peaked, you would be wrong.

Back in August, Everytown posted the following tweet:

 

“Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in America ages 0-19. Our kids shouldn’t have to die like this.”

Really? Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in America? That sounded off, so I went straight to the motherlode of statistics: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC has a page where you can get detailed information on Leading Causes of Death and Injury.

Trying to get a quick answer, I checked out their “Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury” infographic images. For both 2018 and 2017, the top cause of death is “unintentional injury,” not firearms, as Everytown claimed above. So, I dug in further to see if Everytown’s claim was buried somewhere, and it was all just a misunderstanding. For both 2018 and 2017, the top categories of “unintentional injury” were dominated by traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation. So, again, I decided to give Everytown the benefit of the doubt and dug into an even smaller subset of “violence-related injury deaths.” And yet again, for both 2018 and 2017, I found that the top causes were dominated by traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation. Firearms were clearly not the “leading cause of death” as Everytown claimed.

But what if the infographic images were not providing the accurate picture because the range of years covered (2017-18) was too narrow?

So, to be sure, I ran a custom report on the “Ten Leading Causes of Death.” This report includes all the data available from 2001–2019. Once again, I didn’t see firearms as the leading cause in the report data. Drilling down, the same pattern of traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation persisted. For the 15-24 age range, poisoning made a cameo; diving into that revealed that drug overdoses are listed as poisoning and were the leading cause of death in the poisoning category.

What if the above report was inaccurate because the age groups were too broad? After all, the CDC’s 15+ range went from 15-year-olds all the way to 24-year-olds.

So, I ran another custom report, this one covering data from 1999–2019. (Note that this custom report was not available for 2001–2019.) Under the “Advanced Options,” I was able to set a custom age range from “<1” to 19, which was the age range that Everytown claimed in their tweet. Yet again over this 20-year period, unintentional injury deaths (184,060) – the top cause – were almost 3.5 times higher than homicides (53,628), and almost twice as high than homicides and suicides (44,595) combined. Homicides and suicides included all means, not just those committed using firearms. Again, this report didn’t substantiate Everytown’s claim. Out of curiosity, I limited the age range from “<1” to 17, because 18- and 19-year-olds are voting-age adults; homicides and suicides dropped even lower with these criteria.

I still wasn’t giving up on Everytown; what if I messed up somehow and Everytown was actually correct. So, I ran a final report with the data the CDC has going back to the 1981–1998 period. And yet again, unintentional injury deaths (257,110) vastly outnumbered homicides (60,768) and suicides (38,215); note that the homicide and suicide numbers include all means, firearms, cutting instruments, blunt objects… you name it.

Based on the CDC’s reports and readily available infographics, I was not able to substantiate Everytown’s claim. If Everytown has any data that’s not conjured out of thin air, they need to come clean and disclose it. Until then, their deliberate misinformation needs to be stopped by those of us on the pro-Rights side, using free speech and facts, not by calling for censoring or silencing them.

Very likely another Parkland Springs type shooting has been averted.
Maybe these fools in Florida will start treating these kids as the dangerous criminals they are instead of coddling them.

Teen killed by police while pointing ‘military-style rifle’ at drivers in Tarpon Springs

TARPON SPRINGS, Fla. – Police in Tarpon Springs say a suspect, killed Saturday [?] for waving a “military-style rifle” at cars and officers, was actually a high school student with an Airsoft pellet gun.

17-year-old Alexander King was shot and killed by officers at the intersection of Pinellas Avenue and Tarpon Avenue shortly before 9:30 p.m. Sunday.

Investigators say police responded after multiple 911 calls about a “white male wearing dark clothing pointing a military-style rifle” at passers-by.

According to Chief Jeff Young, when the officers arrived, the suspect lifted the weapon, charged it, and pointed at the officers.

Video of the incident recorded by a bystander appears to show King yelling “shoot me” toward officers.

Taking cover behind a nearby vehicle, officers said they were forced to open fire. King was hit multiple times and was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

King, a junior at Tarpon Springs High School, had 22 prior run-ins with police, 11 with other Pinellas County law enforcement agencies and 11 with the Tarpon Springs Police Department, including a felony arrest for battery on a school board employee in 2017 and one for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in 2018.

Continue reading “”

Update: He deleted the post and is trying to apologize. If you’ll read it you’ll see that while he calls what he wrote ‘rude’, he doesn’t specify what and he also doesn’t repudiate anything.
In other words, he hasn’t changed what he thinks of people.

“cleanse our gene pool”?
I did NAZI that coming.

He left his email. Maybe let him know how we hold him in contempt. I did. I told him that that – right there, if for nothing else – made me hope it blows back on him so bad he goes bankrupt.

This is by the owner of NAA – North American Arms

September 2021 Soapbox – I believe in Vaccinations; So Should You.

Just when you thought the end of this life-threatening COVID pandemic was in sight, it’s become painfully clear that it is not.  In fact, we’re heading in the wrong direction.  What makes this realization even more painful is that, not withstanding our missteps regarding wearing masks, social distancing, economic shutdowns and the like, the end could have been in sight.  If only more of us had embraced the simple protocol of getting vaccinated, we’d be well on our way to leaving this scourge in our wake.  Instead, we’re back, smack in the middle of it and “life as we knew it” is still a distant dream.

I continue to believe in vaccinations.  I believe they are far and away the most effective means of protecting oneself from contracting the COVID virus, AND is the key to eliminating the ongoing threat of the virus – and its increasingly more threatening variants – worldwide.  I also believe that, if a vaccinated person DOES contract the virus, he/she/(they) will suffer far fewer and less severe symptoms that those who are not vaccinated.  Is there any doubt?

Over the past few months, my thoughts about those who don’t believe in the value of vaccinations has transitioned from disinterest to sympathy to incredulity to contempt.  I believe that those who don’t take advantage of the opportunities to become vaccinated are ignorant, misguided &/or selfish, or any combination of the three.  Despite all the unarguable reasons in favor of getting vaccinated, there remains a surprisingly large number of people who stubbornly refuse to do so.  Why?  There seems to be a variety of excuses that are proffered, almost none of which hold any validity.  I offer some of the more popular ones, in no particular order.

“I don’t believe the vaccines are safe”.  How much data, gathered over what period of time, will it take to put this false narrative to bed?

“I don’t believe the vaccines are effective”.  While there have been some, few instances of people contracting COVID after having been vaccinated, the effects they suffer are, almost without exception, an order of magnitude less severe than they would have been otherwise.

“I have already contracted the disease and so I already have some level of immunity and see no benefit from vaccination”.  Right on the first count, wrong on the second; you can be certain that your immunity will only be bolstered with a vaccination.

“I am afraid of suffering side effects from the vaccination”.   While some have reported this to be the case, there are stunningly few and the effects are modest/weak and very short-lived.

“My circumstance puts me at a heightened risk from being vaccinated”.  I don’t know what circumstance that is; it most certainly does not apply to those attempting to become pregnant, for example.

“I have a history of adverse allergic reactions”.  Maybe.  That alone has a taint of legitimacy.

“I claim a religious exemption”.  For the life of me, I can’t understand the basis of such a thing.  What religion would advocate against something that will protect your life and that of others?  Certainly none that I’ve ever heard of.  Go ask the Pope.

“I can’t afford it”.  Bullshit; it’s free.

“I don’t know where to find it”.  Are you living under a rock?

“I’m a freedom-loving American and I simply don’t want to”.  Ahhh, here we go.  This is far and away the most frequent – and lamest – excuse.  Even Donald Trump, the poster-child for the selfish exercise of frequently nonsensical individual freedoms (“I’m not wearing a mask because I don’t want to”.) has been vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well (NB he’s also previously contracted the disease, above).  As a member of a society, you have an obligation not to threaten the health and well-being of others, particularly when doing so comes at no risk or expense to you.

I’ll admit I enjoy no small measure of schadenfreude reading stories of those stubborn people who find themselves stricken and on death’s door, suffering from their earlier foolish decision not to get vaccinated.  I look at it almost as a Darwinian effect, helping cleanse our gene pool.  Excuse my lack of sympathy.  Too bad.  Completely avoidable.  Didn’t have to happen.

I know that this is one of my more controversial and likely to be one of my least popular rants.  I take this personally.  There are individuals in my own family who are the subject of my (heretofore silent) disdain, as well as several other friends, as well as people on my team at NAA, people who I otherwise respect and whose company enjoy.  Not so much so now.

I acknowledge that it’s your decision to make but, I’ll admit, I don’t have much regard for those who lack any sense or moral obligation to the greater community – and to there own friends and loved one whose health and safety they so cavalierly threaten.

Please get vaccinated.  The life you save may well be your own – or mine. Please feel welcome to share your reactions with me at Sandy@NorthAmericanArms.com

BMJ Urges Doctors to Cut Back on Treatment Because Climate Change

Doctors should think less about the health of their patients and more about the health of the planet, an editorial in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) has urged.

The editorial, published as part of a special edition dedicated to the forthcoming COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, says that medical treatment contributes significantly to “greenhouse gas emissions” and that this carbon footprint can be reduced if only “health professionals” can learn to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment”.

Healthcare contributes 4-5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the NHS, 62 per cent of these emissions are from its supply chains and 24 per cent from delivery of care. Health professionals can be institutional leaders who drive decarbonisation in hospitals through reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in healthcare, eliminating waste, streamlining services, and better managing suppliers and procurement. All of these efforts will bring us closer to making healthcare more sustainable.

One of the bigger problems, a separate piece argues, is all those pesky suspected cancer patients who tiresomely insist on getting as early a diagnosis as possible. They need to learn to wait, argues one Rammya Mathew:

The pressure to diagnose cancers earlier and earlier is another major contributor to modern medicine’s carbon footprint. Over successive years we’ve been told to continually lower our threshold for suspecting cancer, and we’re encouraged to investigate sooner and more extensively. In primary care, most patients with mildly elevated or even high normal platelet counts now undergo a barrage of investigations in case thrombocytosis is an early indicator of underlying cancer. What does the yield of these tests have to be to make this an acceptable approach? And shouldn’t we be considering the environmental impact of putting so many patients on a conveyor belt of investigations, as part of cost-benefit calculations?

But hey, why stop at letting the occasional undiagnosed cancer patient die? What we should really be doing is forcing everyone to go vegan and make everyone travel by bicycle…

Adopting the largely plant based planetary health diet and taking most journeys using a combination of walking, cycling, and public transport would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve our health.

Animal sourced foods (meat, dairy, fish) generally use much more land and water and create more greenhouse gases than plant sourced food. Sustainable and healthy diets consist largely of diverse plant foods with low amounts of animal source foods, unsaturated rather than saturated fats, and limited amounts of refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars. The nature and scale of change required depends on existing dietary patterns and nutritional status of local populations. For example, to meet the planetary health diet recommendations, average meat consumption in Africa can slightly increase (2 per cent), whereas in North America and Europe it needs to fall by 79 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively.

Sustainable land travel will involve substantially fewer journeys by car and more journeys taken by foot, bicycle, and public transport, ensuring that all transport is carbon neutral and powered by renewable energy. This requires a transformation of the energy sector and transport infrastructure, prioritising active and public transport over road building. Estimates of the nature and scale of change needed vary. In the UK, for example, a central net zero pathway includes car mileage per driver falling by 10 per cent by 2050, whereas other analysis calls for a reduction between 20 per cent and 60 per cent by 2030, depending on the speed of transition to electric vehicles.

Old fashioned types who imagine doctors should be concentrating on healthcare rather than engaging in environmental activism may be puzzled by this. But they shouldn’t be. The Climate Industrial Complex — and the sinister billionaire backers behind it, such as the World Economic Forum — has run a hugely successful gaslighting operation in which schools, universities, the entertainment industry, big business, and the mainstream media now broadcast nothing but environmental scare stories. Any stories providing evidence that the global warming scare has been massively overblown are ruthlessly suppressed.

Hence, for example, the recent announcement by Google that it will demonetise media that “contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change”. (Spoiler: there is no such thing as “consensus” in science. There is definitely no “consensus” on climate change, neither on the causes nor the solutions. If there were a consensus Google would not need to indulge in censoring dissident voices because everyone would agree on the subject already).

People are saying that SloJoe has lost his mind,
but that would mean he had a mind to lose in the first place.

Crap-For-Brains Econut believes her dog is a vegetarian.
By the way….it does not go as planned….
There was never any other way this was going to end

Remember; Morons like this vote.

I wonder why gun grabbers were pushing RFID in ‘smart guns’………..

Military Units Track Guns Using Tech That Could Aid Foes

Determined to keep track of their guns, some U.S. military units have turned to a technology that could let enemies detect troops on the battlefield, The Associated Press has found.

The rollout on Army and Air Force bases continues even though the Department of Defense itself describes putting the technology in firearms as a “significant” security risk.

The Marines have rejected radio frequency identification technology in weapons for that very reason, and the Navy said this week that it was halting its own dalliance.

Continue reading “”

Just another confirmation that the editors at the Washington Post are clueless morons.

 

Stephen Gutowski Profile picture
 Twitter logo
Nobody on The Washington Post’s editorial board noticed the irony of putting these two paragraphs back-to-back? Does on the opinion side of D.C.’s biggest paper even know what the gun laws there are? washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Image
WaPo’s editorial board says solution to the accidental shooting it highlights is to pass an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and a safe storage law. But, the place it happened ALREADEY HAS all of those laws. 
Here is DC’s assault weapons ban: code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…
Here is DC’s law that requires all sales, and even transfers, only occur between people who have a registration certificate which requires a background check and more: code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…
Here is DC’s safe storage law. Anyone who stores a gun in a way that minor is likely to gain access to it could face up to 5 years depending on the circumstances: code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…

Milley confirms he told China he would call ahead of US attack, claims Esper ordered calls based on intel

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley confirmed that he told his Chinese counterpart that he would “call” to warn of any potential U.S. attacks on Beijing, maintaining he had that conversation at the direction of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper after assessing intelligence suggesting heightened Chinese concerns about escalation between the two “great” powers.

Milley addressed allegations that he held “secret” calls with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, in October 2020 and days after the Capitol riot in January 2021, which were included in “Peril,” a book co-authored by Washington Post correspondents Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

Milley has faced calls to resign since the revelations were made public earlier this month. The book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa claims that Milley contacted Li after he had reviewed intelligence that suggested Chinese officials believed the United States was planning an attack on China amid military exercises in the South China Sea. The book claims Milley contacted Li a second time to reassure him that the U.S. would not make any type of advances or attack China in any form.

On Wednesday, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee focused on the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, Milley responded to questions about the allegations.

Continue reading “”