Category: Crap For Brains

So what else is new?

Harris Might Own A Gun, But She Doesn’t Represent Gun Owners

Vice President Kamala Harris shocked a lot of people when she said she owned a gun during the debate last week.

Well, in the most technical sense, sure.

However, that doesn’t absolve her from her many anti-gun sins, so to speak.

ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis referenced the vice president’s flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, which amount to confiscation, during one question that was more about changing policy positions generally than it was about the Second Amendment specifically.

Near the end of the debate, Davis asked, “You wanted mandatory buybacks for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t,” Davis said before asking Harris why so many of her policy positions had changed, according to The Reload.

Vice President Harris didn’t address the question and was only forced to respond later to a criticism by former President Donald Trump warning voters that if elected, the vice president would have “a plan to confiscate everyone’s gun.” She jumped in with a comment that caught viewers’ attention.

“And then this business about taking everyone’s guns away, Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Vice President Harris stated. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”

The vice president’s remark about being a gun owner drew attention. She practically never mentions being a gun owner in all her calls for more gun control and the only reference before is a glancing mention in a 2019 CNN interview. Not surprisingly, Second Amendment supporters were skeptical of her statement.

“So now Harris owns a gun? Ha, I’d love to know what kind/caliber and how often she trains with it,” competitive shooter, GunsOut TV founder and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton posted on X.

Now, the truth is that there were previous reports of Harris owning a gun. As a former prosecutor in a city like San Francisco, it’s not overly surprising that she’d have a gun. A lot of prosecutors do, and for what should be pretty obvious reasons. It’s not like there isn’t some potential of such people to be targets, after all.

But there are gun owners and gun owners.

See, no nation has a complete and total gun ban. There’s always a way for some people to have a firearm and Kamala Harris is one of those people who will be able to get a gun no matter what the laws are.

What she’s advocating for are laws that will inhibit regular people, the actual gun owners, from having them. Both she and her running mate might own guns, but they’d gladly see us relegated to revolvers and pump-action shotguns for protecting our family while the criminals are running around with semi-autos and those converted to full-auto.

As for her response to Trump, she might not be taking everyone’s guns, but she most definitely wants to take some of them from us. I don’t care what she says, I’m not buying that suddenly she figures a mandatory buyback is a bad idea. At best, she knows it’s never going to happen so she won’t push for it anymore. It’ll come back the moment she thinks she can get away with it and we all know it.

I think the best way to view it is that Kamala Harris isn’t really a gun owner so much as someone who owns a gun.

The latter group figure they’re the exception, that they can be trusted with one but aren’t so sure about everyone else, so they should be restricted. The former recognizes that in order to protect their right to keep and bear arms, everyone else’s needs to be protected as well.

There’s no world I can imagine where anyone remotely like the Kamala Harris we’ve all seen would fall into that camp.

Federal Judge Upholds Gun Ban: What This Means for the 2nd Amendment

In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.

The Case: U.S. v. Christopher Chan

The case stems from an incident where Christopher Chan was found in possession of a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. These are firearms that, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), must be registered, and in this case, they weren’t. Chan’s legal team argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that these firearms are “arms” protected by the Constitution. They also challenged the Commerce Clause, arguing that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate the possession of these firearms.

However, Judge Watson’s decision struck down both arguments, claiming that neither the short-barreled rifle nor the machine gun falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing tension between federal gun laws and the constitutional right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Tim Walz promises that Harris will continue to radicalize and politicize the military by making sure there are more and more transgender military members and that your tax dollars pay for their surgeries.

The number of transgender soldiers in the military has doubled since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris started their term.

This administration has spent $26 million of your dollars paying for s*x change surgeries and procedures such as gender-affirming voice training and facial reconstruction.

Here’s How We Really Know Kamala’s CNN Interview Wasn’t Good for Her

There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris’s first interview since she took Joe Biden’s place at the top of the ticket was underwhelming at best — or a train wreck at worst — for her. I thought it was really bad. Kamala got a lot of softball questions that she couldn’t answer, and Tim Walz didn’t help much either.

But how do we know that the interview was a bust for Kamala? Let me explain.

As you know, Kamala has been under significant pressure to stop hiding behind scripted campaign events and speak to the media in interviews and press conferences. When her interview with CNN was announced, there was little reason to believe that it would satisfy her critics — between choosing a friendly network with an anchor who was gonna give her the softest of softball questions, the deck was going to be stacked in Kamala’s favor to come out looking pretty good after the interview.

She didn’t, and that’s not because I said so. Kamala’s performance Thursday evening didn’t exactly floor CNN pundits.

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod said he thought Kamala did well, but “It wasn’t a huge — I don’t think she moved the ball that much forward.”

Ashley Allison, a former Obama White House staffer, similarly tried to paint the interview in a positive light, by falsely claiming that Kamala “answered every question” but added, “Now, you might not like the way she answered them. But she answered them as a capable, qualified leader. And I do think she — I think she moved the ball forward a little bit. Maybe she didn’t score a touchdown, tonight. But she definitely moved down the field.”

One goal that Kamala wants to achieve in the campaign is putting distance between her and the Biden-Harris administration. CNN political analyst Astead Herndon clearly doesn’t think she succeeded.

“I don’t think there’s a policy separation that they’ve created with Biden. Obviously, she gave a kind of personal defense of him. But they’re also very clearly trying to position her as a change candidate,” he said.

Another devastating blow for Kamala is that even CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale admitted that she was being dishonest about her flip-flopping on fracking.

Remember, this is CNN. This network wants Harris to win, yet its attempts to put lipstick on the pig that was this so-called “interview” let enough truth come through to make it clear that nobody really thought she did that great of a job.

Biden’s Surgeon General Warns That Parenting Is Hazardous to Your Health.

Joe Biden’s attorney general has made “mental health” a priority for the government. This has both good and bad aspects to it.

There is an epidemic of “mental illness” in America, including depression, obsessive-compulsive behavior, addiction, and other impulse control problems like gambling. More serious forms of mental illness, including eating disorders, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses, are dangerous to others as well as those afflicted.

Is parenting one of these “disorders”?

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy believes that parenting should have its very own warning label: parenting can be harmful to your mental health. It causes depression, dangerous levels of stress, and high rates of loneliness.

According to a survey by the American Psychological Association, “half of parents report overwhelming stress most days, compared with 26% of other adults,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

The temptation is to classify all sorts of situations and behaviors as “mental illnesses.” Everyday life for parents is stressful, period. Full Stop. End of story. Anyone who has sat up all night with a sick infant or a screaming two-year-old can define “stress” much better than childless couples.

But who isn’t feeling that way? Elderly people are lonely and stressed. Single men are lonely and stressed. College students are lonely and stressed. Gen X moms are lonely and stressed. There’s an epidemic of loneliness and stress in this country and it’s bad for our mental and physical health, which Murthy pointed out in a previous advisory.

His stark warning doesn’t necessarily help with the real problem. Fewer people are having children, some because they can’t—or can’t see a way to attain professional ambitions along with family ones. Politicians like JD Vance are outspoken on the primacy of parenthood, and lots of people feel the job is so sacred that it’s wrong to even talk about this.

Murthy believes that parents’ loneliness comes from their being totally and completely responsible for another human being. Frankly, I think that’s a bogus construct. Being responsible for another human being — a precious life that fills us at times, with unbearable joy and brings tears of happiness to our eyes — is not really a question of being alone. Yes, there are moments of sheer terror. But there are also moments of sharing that transcend any other human experience.

Continue reading “”

The Fourth Circuit ignores Bruen again

The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision held, with crystal clarity, the Second Amendment is an individual right, which extends to keeping and bearing arms not only in one’s home or on one’s property, but in public, with some limited exceptions. Not only did Bruen reaffirm the Second Amendment as a fundamental unalienable right–no second-class right—it established strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial analysis, for Second Amendment cases. Equally important was this holding:

When the  Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the  Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

In other words, anti-liberty/gun schemes are only constitutional if there was a clear historical analogue at the time of the founding.  As one might suspect, some states—Like Maryland—are determined to ignore the Second Amendment and Bruen.

Under current Maryland law,  no one may own, rent, or even touch a firearm without a 16-hour class which includes live fire. There is an 8-hour class required for each permit renewal. Only upon passing the 16-hour course, can one apply for a permit, and the State Police have 30 days to approve or deny applications. So while Maryland is, at least ostensibly, a “shall-issue” state the state puts as many barriers as possible in the path of gun owners, including a seven day waiting period for purchase, and gun registration.

In 2023 a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took up a challenge to the licensing law and struck it down in consonance with Bruen:

“The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one.”

On would reasonably think that would have been the end of it. No historical analogue, presumptively unconstitutional. Then the entire Court got into the act (decision available here):

We conclude that the Supreme Court in Bruen foreclosed the plaintiffs’ “temporary deprivation” argument by stating that, despite some delay occasioned by “shall-issue” permit processes, this type of licensing law is presumptively constitutional because it operates merely to ensure that individuals seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights are “law-abiding” persons.

We hold that the plaintiffs have failed to rebut this presumption of constitutionality afforded to “shall-issue” licensing laws like the handgun qualification statute. So the plaintiffs’ challenge to the HQL statute fails, and we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment to the state of Maryland.

Continue reading “”