Category: Politics

The Gun Control Industry and the Media Want New Laws in Maine That Would Have Done Nothing to Stop the Lewiston Shooting.

Despite the failures that are being discovered that led to the Lewiston, Maine shooting, the Gun Control Industry is, as usual, pointing at the state’s allegedly lax regulation of guns. Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop outlet The Trace asked, Will Maine’s Permissive Gun Laws Change After the Lewiston Shooting?

It’s certainly possible. Democrats are in full control of state government, so the odds are in their favor in that regard. That doesn’t mean, however, that there would be any merit to changing Maine’s gun laws. Not given the laws they’re talking about.

It’s becoming clear that they see this as a “grab bag” opportunity to enact more gun control laws in the Pine Tree State. They aren’t just talking about laws that could plausibly have made a difference in this case, either. They want to crack down on gun rights in general.

Maine doesn’t have restrictions on AR-style rifles, like the one apparently used by the Lewiston gunman, nor does it regulate high-capacity magazines.

If the killer had used a Mini-14 with a ten-round magazine, would the death toll have been lower? That seems a tenuous claim, considering how fast reloads actually happen when someone knows what they are doing (as this veteran and firearm instructor did, sadly). And it was reported that the Parkland shooter used 10-round magazines on purpose because they fit better into his backpack. Yet he managed to kill and wound a similar number of people.

…a measure requiring the prompt reporting of lost or stolen firearms…

This is one of the rare gun laws I do support, so long as it provides a fair amount of time to comply, and conditioned on when you become aware of a lost or stolen gun. If you become aware you lost a gun or had one stolen, tell the police about it ASAP. But such a law, of course, wouldn’t have done anything to stop the Maine shooting if it had been on the books.

But [Bates College professor Michael] Rocque said the state’s “inconsistent” rules around guns — which require residents to take a safety course and exam to qualify for a hunting license but don’t require anything of concealed handgun carriers — are in dire need of an update.

This is where the push for more gun control after a tragedy really becomes something of a loot-fest, trying to take full advantage of the situation while it’s still in the news. Carry permit requirements are completely irrelevant to mass shooters. They obviously aren’t going to be concerned in the slightest about not having a carry permit when their intention is to commit mass murder.

It’s an utterly absurd argument that, again, would have had no impact at all on what Robert Card did.

Even outside of the mass shooting context, Professor Rocque’s implication is that the lack of a permit requirement is inherently unsafe. That’s an extraordinary claim, given that Maine has one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation. Maine’s homicide rate is so low that more people were killed in Lewiston in this one incident than are usually murdered in the state in an entire year.

The Trace article concludes that while other gun control pushes aren’t possible under the state’s rules until next year, they can still try to enact universal background checks in January.

Again, that would have had zero impact on the Lewiston shooter. The Lewiston killer bought his guns legally. When that happened or whether or not he lied about his history of mental illness at the time isn’t yet clear, but he did undergo a background check.

As is so frequently the case, the Gun Control Industry and politicians seem determined to punish the community of law-abiding gun owners for the inherent failures of the regulatory system they’ve built

As more details are learned about Robert Card, his mental history, and the failures of law enforcement in this situation, the more it becomes clear that Maine’s allegedly lax gun laws did nothing to make the Lewiston shooting possible. And the new laws The Trace and gun control advocates are calling for in response would do nothing to prevent another similar situation.

Maybe Jill Biden Is Sauron

Longtime readers of this Briefing know that I find First Lady DOCTOR Mama Jill Biden to be an extraordinarily loathsome human being. If the woman had even an ounce of decency, she wouldn’t have let her husband near a camera after his tenure as vice president was up in 2017.

Jill Biden is a power-hungry lunatic though, so she doesn’t care if her husband continues to embarrass himself in front of the whole world. As long as she gets power, access, and a curious amount of money for a teacher, she doesn’t care if her husband’s sad and rapid decline is witnessed by everyone on Earth.

Victoria wrote a lengthy examination of Doctor Mrs. Sir Sniffsalot, and hit on an angle that I hadn’t yet thought of:

Americans are beginning to think that Joe’s smiling, 72-year-old presidential arm candy didn’t have the country’s needs at heart when she told her husband, “You gotta run.” It’s in that way she reminds Americans of Hillary Clinton.

Call her Jillary.

The reasonable criticism goes that any person who pushes their mentally incapable husband to become president is naturally a bad person committing an act of elder abuse, but Jill Biden’s happy warrior-like smiles may hide something even more sinister. Could Jillary be the force behind the so-called Biden Crime Family?

Whoa, if true.

There must be some brains behind the operation somewhere, and the missus does seem the most likely candidate when you think about it.

We talk a lot about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline these days because it’s important to acknowledge that the President of the United States has completely lost it. The thing about Joe Biden, however, is that he never really completely had it.

Let’s be honest — we don’t live in an era when being an intellectual heavyweight is a prerequisite for rising to the top of American politics. Despite the fact that he’s been around Washington since Precambrian times, not too many people have lauded Joe Biden for his brains.

In the interest of being accurate, I should probably say that no one has ever lauded Joe Biden for his brains. Heck, Joe Biden would probably admit that Joe Biden is a dullard, if he knew who Joe Biden was.

Then there’s the boy Hunter. I’ve generously referred to him as a mediocrity here on several occasions, proving that I can be nice when there’s nothing in it for me. I’m available to pick up my humanitarian award at any time.

If Hunter Biden weren’t the son of a politician who had an endless supply of favors to call in, he’d be picking bugs out of his hair in a crack house somewhere in central Florida. In fact, that’s probably what Hunter wants to be doing.

It’s safe to say that the men in the Biden family aren’t masterminding anything.

Jill Biden’s cold-heartedness has been on public display since the 2020 presidential campaign. She’s got the icy veins needed to run a criminal operation. I frequently refer to Joe Biden’s puppet masters. What if Jill is the only one? The cabal may be comprised of several political veterans, but it’s easy to believe that Her Doctorness is the one issuing the marching orders.

Jill Biden may very well be Hillary Clinton sans the drunken bitterness.
Which might make her more dangerous in the long run.

Another citizen who always voted for demoncraps asks the Question O’ The Day
“If silence is the answer, why should I ever vote for a Democrat again?”

Thanks, to a Politician Who Did His Job

When the IRS visited my home, Jim Jordan actually did something about it. Why couldn’t I call a Democrat?

A new report about IRS home visits has just been released by the House Weaponization of Government Committee, chaired by Ohio congressman Jim Jordan. It outlines disturbing issues, including confirmation that IRS agents making home visits may come without warning, using aliases, and without informing local enforcement agencies of their presence.

One of the cases outlined is my own. My home was visited by the IRS while I was testifying before Jordan’s Committee about the Twitter Files on March 9th. Sincere thanks are due to Chairman Jordan, whose staff not only demanded and got answers in my case, but achieved a concrete policy change, as IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel announced in July new procedures that would “end most” home visits.

Anticipating criticism for expressing public thanks to a Republican congressman, I’d like to ask Democratic Party partisans: to which elected Democrat should I have appealed for help in this matter? The one who called me a “so-called journalist” on the House floor? The one who told me to take off my “tinfoil hat” and put greater trust in intelligence services? The ones in leadership who threatened me with jail time? I gave votes to the party for thirty years. Which elected Democrat would have performed basic constituent services in my case? Feel free to raise a hand.

If silence is the answer, why should I ever vote for a Democrat again?

Democrats now want US split into ‘blue’ states and ‘red’ states

Liberals laughed when conservatives, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), called for dividing the United States into red and blue states because of national disunity and partisanship.

But they’re not laughing now. In fact, about a third of Democrats believe a political break from conservative-leaning states is needed.

In a survey of 2,008 voters conducted by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, 31% of “Biden supporters” want Democratic-controlled states to secede from the U.S. to form their own country.

Among voters who back former President Donald Trump, 41% support secession.

What’s more, large groups of both think it’s time to end democracy.

“Disturbingly, nearly one-third (31%) of Trump supporters and about a quarter (24%) of Biden supporters at least somewhat agree that democracy is no longer a viable system and that the country should explore alternative forms of government to ensure stability and progress,” the analysis from the center said.

Backing up reasons for secession, the analysis found that people generally are becoming more politically divided despite an inauguration promise made by President Joe Biden to unite the country.

Consider these results:

  • A majority of both Biden (70%) and Trump (68%) voters believed electing officials from the opposite party would result in lasting harm to the U.S.
  • Roughly half (52% Biden voters, 47% Trump voters) viewed those who supported the other party as threats to the American way of life.
  • About 40% of both groups (41% Biden voters, 38% Trump voters) at least somewhat believed that the other side had become so extreme that it is acceptable to use violence to prevent them from achieving their goals.

The survey found that on most topics tested by the center founded by Larry Sabato, people are split, as they are on the choice of Biden or Trump in the 2024 campaign. The center said that in a head-to-head election, Biden leads Trump 52%-48%. A CNBC survey also out Wednesday found Trump leading Biden by 4 points, 46%-42%.

GOV. NEWSOM SENDS GUN CONTROL RUBBER STAMP TO U.S. SENATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ensuring that his gun control agenda is in safe hands with the appointment of Laphonza Butler to serve in the U.S. Senate following the passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Butler was sworn in this week, a Democrat who until the announcement was residing in Silver Springs, Md., and has spoken little on gun control issues. However, her progressive track record and history of working for liberal causes assures that she will pick up the gun control mantle.

Sen. Feinstein was the longest-serving female senator at the time of her death on Sept. 29. She was also the matriarch of the Senate’s gun control agenda. She helped author the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law lasted 10 years and was not reauthorized in 2004. Since then, Sen. Feinstein introduced legislation in every Congress to revive the ban on America’s most-popular selling centerfire rifle. In fact, if she had it her way, gun control would have gone much further.

Sen. Feinstein told 60 Minutes in a 1995 interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” she said. “I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Sen. Bulter’s selection to fill the remainder of Sen. Feinstein’s term promises that not much will change. Sen. Butler is deeply tied to gun control politicians and causes that will surely seek to expand efforts to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Who is Laphonza Butler?

Gov. Newsom heaped praise on Sen. Butler for shattering glass ceilings in the Senate. He noted that she is the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the Senate, first Black lesbian to openly serve in Congress and third Black woman to represent California in the Senate following Vice President Kamala Harris.

He also noted that Butler will pick up where Sen. Feinstein left off with gun control.

“As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Sen. Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss., and attended Jackson State University. Her father died when she was just 16. She worked in the labor movement for 20 years and at 30, was elected president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. She was also SEIU international vice president and president of SEIU California’s state council.

Sen. Butler also ran political campaigns and was part of Vice President Harris’ campaign for the vice presidency. She was previously a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She has been president of Emily’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing abortion rights-supportive women candidates to office.

Political Pals

While little in her personal or professional career points to gun control, the list of supporters lining up to congratulate her is telling.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered her endorsement, saying, “A great choice for California and the Senate. Congratulations Laphonza Butler!”

That was echoed by twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, as well as former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and California Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Lieu, Jimmy Gomez, Ami Berra, Ro Khanna, Sara Jacobs, Mark Takano, Brad Sherman, Gloria Johnson, Nanette Barragán and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. All are ardent gun control supporters.

Even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered congratulations, despite the fact that he’s thrown his hat into the ring for the seat she’s filling until 2024. He’s facing a crowded Democratic field including California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter – and Sen. Butler if she decides to compete for election.

Gleeful Gun Control

It’s not just gun control politicians that are gleeful at Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler to fill the Senate seat. It’s also gun control groups too.

President of Everytown for Gun Safety’s (and its mouthpiece The Trace) John Feinblatt, the gun control group bankrolled by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Laphonza Butler is an advocate’s advocate and we’re thrilled with her history-making appointment to the Senate. We look forward to working alongside her to keep communities safe from gun violence.”

The Everytown-affiliated Moms Demand Action got in on the action too. Executive Director Angela Ferrell-Zabala wrote on X, “Laphonza Butler is an incredible leader and a fierce advocate for women and girls. I’m thrilled to watch her make history as the first Black lesbian senator to openly serve in Congress. Moms Demand can’t wait to work with her to continue California’s leadership on gun safety!”

Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler is a calculated move to ensure his gun control agenda – including his maligned 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is preserved. This is his attempt to export California gun control to the rest of the country and potentially pave the way for his own White House bid.

‘Turning into Jello’: Glenn Greenwald says some Dems are looking to ‘sabotage’ Biden

Journalist Glenn Greenwald said Wednesday some Democrats were looking to sabotage President Joe Biden due to his age and mounting scandals surrounding his family’s business dealings.

Biden came under fire from reporters after he falsely claimed that he was at Ground Zero the day after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Biden’s aides hastily cut off a press conference during his trip to Vietnam after he randomly said he was going to go to bed.

WATCH:

“If they ramp up these impeachment inquiries and they start airing this dirty laundry everywhere, the voicemails, the text, the emails, the phone calls, it is a disaster for the entire Washington establishment and everybody that’s been lying about this and covering it up,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said. “Do you think this is a way for them to say, you know what, let’s not make all of us look bad?”

Continue reading “”

That means you can have near metaphysical certitude, it’ll happen.

KJP: No Pardon for Hunter – No Way, No How

Let me be clear. When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says, “No,” she means, “No.” Well, for now, anyway.

On Friday, Jean-Pierre was asked again about whether President Joe Biden would pardon his son, Hunter, or commute his sentence, were he to be convicted of the federal gun charges filed against him in the indictment filed by Special Counsel David Weiss on Thursday. Jean-Pierre gave a categorical, unequivocal no. (Which is how you know there’s more to the story.)

Asked during the daily briefing if the president would pardon or commute his son’s sentence if he gets convicted on the gun charges against him, Jean-Pierre told reporters he would not. It’s the first time the White House has explicitly said a potential pardon is not on the table following Hunter Biden’s indictment this week.

In her response, Jean-Pierre noted that she answered a similar question after the president’s son was first hit with a felony gun charge.

“I’ve answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no,” she said, referring to previous comments from the podium.

If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu, it’s because — believe it or not — Jean-Pierre is right. She has answered this question before — though it was more than a couple of weeks ago. The initial exchange occurred on July 27, the day after Hunter’s original sweetheart plea deal got scuttled.

Our Bob Hoge reported on it at the time:

As we reported, a sweetheart plea deal Hunter’s lawyers had negotiated with the Department of Justice exploded spectacularly Wednesday when the judge raised questions about the blanket immunity Hunter would receive.

Fox News reporter Mark Meredith asked if the president would consider intervening:

MEREDITH: I know you said not a lot has changed since yesterday and that it’s a personal matter, but from a presidential perspective, is there any possibility that the President would end up pardoning his son?

KJP: No.

MEDEDITH: [Tries to pose a follow-up question, she cuts him off.]

KJP: I just said no—I just answered. [Points to another reporter.] Go ahead, go ahead.

So, how do we know there’s more to the story? Because I can’t think of another answer Jean-Pierre has given from the podium that was that clear and direct. Not one.

Granted, I’ve not watched every single daily briefing. But I’ve certainly edited (and read) enough of them to get a flavor of how she normally responds when questioned:

KJP Goes Full Metal Biden, Butchers Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Name and Lies About GOP Debt Ceiling Plan

WH Can’t Keep Their Stories Straight, Get Busted on Lies as They Announce Troops to Border

Karine Jean-Pierre Has a Snit Fit When Asked About Durham Report, Abruptly Leaves Podium

Karine Jean-Pierre Showered With Receipts After Blatant Lie on Biden and the Debt Ceiling

Karine Jean-Pierre Flounders While Addressing the Topless Trans Incident at the White House

(I could go on, but I think you get the point.)

So, why would Jean-Pierre, who’s seemingly never met a question she can’t dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge in spectacular fashion, so succinctly and directly answer a question on such a thorny topic? Could it be because Joe Biden has drawn a line in the sand and vowed finally to employ some tough love and hang the son attached to his hip out to dry?

No — I don’t think that’s it at all. I think the reason that Jean-Pierre can answer that particular question so definitively is because there’s literally no downside to having it prove untrue down the road. If we’re at the point where Hunter has been convicted and Joe is faced with the prospect of pardoning him, I predict Joe will pardon him without batting an eye…on his way out the door.

BLUF
If you want people to believe that the government is going to attempt to ignore the Constitution, seize their weapons, and forcibly subjugate them, you do exactly what Michelle Lujan Grisham chose to do here. You ignore the U.S. and state constitutions, you ignore your state legislature, you ignore the need to build consensus before you make a dramatic change in the law, and you accuse law-enforcement officials who object to the change, citing the Constitution, of being “squeamish.”

Gun Order and New Mexico: Michelle Lujan Grisham Breaks Badly.

On the menu today: New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declares war on her own state’s constitution and mocks her state’s police for being “squeamish,” and a new book reveals how much the U.S. government and its contractors deliberately hindered the Afghan military’s ability to protect itself as the Taliban approached Kabul in the spring and summer of 2021.

Gun Order Backfires

Let us begin by being clear: The governor of a state does not have the right to unilaterally suspend laws or portions of the state or U.S. constitutions by an emergency declaration, absent an actual indisputable emergency and justification that will hold up under judicial review. The National Conference of State Legislatures summarizes:

In times of war, disease or other extraordinary conditions, each state authorizes its governor to declare a state of emergency. Once an emergency has been declared, executive powers expand until the emergency ends. These powers include authority normally reserved for legislatures, such as the ability to suspend existing statutes or effectively create new laws — albeit temporarily and only as needed to respond to the emergency situation.

Although governors need to be able to respond to emergencies quickly, legislatures have an important role in making sure these powers are not abused and that they do not undermine the separation of powers vital to our democratic system of government.

What is at stake in these circumstances is nothing less than whether the U.S. remains a country with a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as Abraham Lincoln described in the Gettysburg Address.

Continue reading “”

Does Grisham have an end game with her gun ban order?

The Albuquerque police chief says he won’t enforce it. The Bernalillo County sheriff says the same thing. Even the District Attorney in Albuquerque says he won’t enforce Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s order suspending open and concealed carry in the city for 30 days, calling it “clearly unconstitutional“. With gun owners rallying in Old Town Albuquerque over the weekend, many of them openly carrying firearms in defiance of Grisham’s order, gun control activists divided over her announcement, and the governor herself unclear about what enforcement might look like, I can’t help but wonder if she has an actual end game in mind or if she’s just making it up as she goes along.

Armed American Radio’s Mark Walters joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to kick around Grisham’s order suspending the right to carry in Albuquerque for the next 30 days, and we’re both in agreement that gun owners in Albuquerque should be disregarding the governor’s edict. I won’t even call continuing to carry an act of civil disobedience, because Grisham has no lawful authority to suspend the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms simply by declaring a public safety emergency. Gun owners who continue to carry, either openly or concealed, are simply continuing to exercise their Second Amendment rights as they always have, and the multiple legal challenges that have been filed in response to Grisham’s declaration should soon make that abundantly clear to the governor and any state official willing to try to enforce it.

The biggest question isn’t whether or not Grisham’s order will stand up to legal scrutiny, but why she made the ill-fated decision to unilaterally suspend the Second Amendment right to bear arms inside Albuquerque city limits in the first place. Grisham’s move doesn’t appear to have been coordinated with any major gun control organizations, and it appeared to blindside local Democrats and public officials, including Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and police chief Harold Medina, as well as Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen.

Political consultant Joe Monahan says the governor’s “grand but ultimately feckless gesture” is a sign that New Mexico Democrats are at odds with each other when it comes to addressing the high violent crime rate in the state’s largest city.

Continue reading “”

1. While we already have preemption by state law, having it in the state constitution would make it extremely difficult to remove in the future.
2. Always some sort of poison pill. As stated in the article, the legislature voted down a proposed age restriction. It’s like it’s a feature, not a bug. I know the purported reason behind this: Young criminals in Kansas City & St Lousy, but I can see it turning people off of voting for it, almost like  Mr Berry knows that would likely kill it, but as an act of Kabuki Theater, he could stake a pro-gun claim for political street cred.

Amendment Would Ban Local Gun Laws, Limit Minor’s Access To Guns

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — The Democratic stronghold of St. Louis and other cities in the Republican-leaning state of Missouri would be blocked from cracking down on guns under a newly proposed constitutional amendment.

A petition for a November 2024 vote on the proposal, filed this week, also would require parents’ permission for minors to use and carry firearms. Missouri currently has no age restrictions on gun use and possession, although federal law largely prohibits minors from carrying handguns.

The proposed measure makes exceptions to the parental permission rule in case of emergencies and for members of the military. Each branch of the military requires that people be at least 17 years old in order to enlist.

Paul Berry, a suburban St. Louis Republican, filed the proposal with the secretary of state’s office in response to efforts by the city to sidestep the state Legislature and impose restrictions on gun use.

“Constitutional rights should apply to all individuals of the state or the country equally, regardless of your zip code or your financial status or the style of community that you live in,” Berry said.

St. Louis is annually among the cities with the nation’s highest homicide rates. City leaders have been trying for years to persuade Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature to enact stricter gun laws, but without success. The state has among the most lenient gun laws in the nation.

In February, the Missouri House voted down a bipartisan proposal that would have put limits on when and where minors may carry guns. St. Louis officials renewed calls for action after one teenager was killed and 10 others were hurt at a downtown party that devolved into a shootout on June 18. Survivors ranged from ages 15 to 19.

While Missouri lawmakers passed a law in 2014 preventing cities and counties from enacting any gun policies, another constitutional amendment filed by St. Louis advocates would work around that law by enshrining in the constitution local governments’ right to adopt their own gun rules.

Berry is challenging those proposals in court.

He needs to gather signatures from 8% of voters in six of the state’s eight congressional districts to get the proposals on the ballot in 2024.

Berry, a 45-year-old businessman, also on Friday announced he is running for lieutenant governor in 2024 in a GOP primary that includes state Sen. Holly Thompson Rehder.

Berry previously lost several bids for St. Louis County executive and the state Legislature. He failed to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Ann Wagner in 2022.

The crimes that are ‘felonious’ has been so broadly expanded that it’s almost like it’s a plan, a feature, not a bug, to disarm as many people as possible. Also, it’s only been an actual federal prohibition since 1968.

Ramaswamy: Former felons should be allowed to carry guns
The GOP presidential candidate fleshes out what it means to be a “Second Amendment absolutist” on a podcast.

Vivek Ramaswamy says convicted felons should be allowed to carry weapons.

Appearing on former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s podcast, set to air on Thursday, the Republican presidential candidate was asked to flesh out what it meant to be a “Second Amendment absolutist,” as Ramaswamy has labeled himself.

“Everyone has a gun?” asked Cuomo, once a prominent figure in Democratic Party politics. “Everyone has an assault weapon? A former felon? No background check? Concealed carry?”

“Has the right to,” Ramaswamy responded. “And I do think concealed carry is important, constitutional carry is important.”

He said background checks are “absolutely a legitimate part of the process” but that “law-abiding” gun ownership “deters many violent criminals from being able to roam the streets with guns as they do today.”

Ramaswamy emphasized high crime in cities and inadequate mental health resources while calling for more support for police officers. The discussion of guns was part of a wide-ranging conversation on Cuomo’s “As A Matter Of Fact” podcast.

Ramaswamy, as he has before, endorsed the idea of re-institutionalizing people deemed dangerous and brushed aside Cuomo’s description of a mass school shooting, saying, “That case that you described is not a real case that presents itself very often, compared to real-life violence between a lot of violent criminals in cities who are breaking a lot of other laws.”

Cuomo — who resigned from office amid sexual abuse allegations he has denied — said after recording the podcast: “The Republican candidates all insist on trying to appeal to the ultra conservatives within their own party and take positions that alienate a majority of Americans. Deporting millions of immigrant families who have been here for years peacefully and successfully and arming felons with guns, everyone carrying a concealed weapon, returning to the Wild West, etc. It’s all absurd.”

McConnell can resign without leaving the Senate.

Senator Mitch McConnell appeared to have another elderly moment in Kentucky following an event today, where a question about whether he would run for re-election in 2026 left him silent as the cameras tracked the awkward scene.

It is obviously not the first time that this has happened for McConnell — and the eighty-one-year-old deserves the grace that we would grant to anyone struggling with the inevitability of age. But this is also a moment that presents a challenge for the Republican Party, an effort that is larger than just one man (despite what diehard fans of Donald Trump would sometimes have you believe), and one that Senate Minority Leader McConnell will have to consider in the coming days.

The simple fact is this: in his lucid moments, which is the case more often than not according to multiple Senate staffers, McConnell is just a slower version of his younger self. Speaking off the cuff to the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce minutes before the media gaggle, McConnell seemed fine. But the attention he receives as the Senate’s leader of the GOP is far more than your average senator. In the context of 2024, his prominence causes problems for other Republicans forced to defend his status even as they assail Joe Biden as too aged and decrepit to lead the nation.

It is an open secret who wants McConnell’s job should he decide to step down, and the three Johns — Cornyn, Thune and Barrasso —  have previously engaged in the kind of outreach that indicates their intention to replace him. But none of them are so gauche as to try to unseat him directly. The decision is left up to McConnell himself, out of deference to his tenure as leader.

There is also a feeling in some anti-McConnell corners, including outside activists, that they prefer him in this weakened mode, where he is less of a force in determining the direction of the party. They would prefer to see the House and the more conservative Kevin McCarthy take the lead in setting the direction for Republicans, as he has.

Many Republicans point out that McConnell needs to stay in his seat to prevent Kentucky’s Democratic governor Andy Beshear, currently being challenged by McConnell ally Daniel Cameron, from naming a replacement. But that is a reason for McConnell to stay in the Senate, not one that requires him to stay on as its minority leader. 

The truth is that McConnell is not so dramatically reduced in his capacity that he needs to step down as a senator. He shows far greater capacity than current Senate Democrats Dianne Feinstein or John Fetterman, nor does he have the health struggles of the likes of Thad Cochran or Johnny Isakson in their final years. But continuing on as minority leader headed into a critical election year is a different question entirely. Stepping down from one role doesn’t necessitate stepping down from the job entirely — Nancy Pelosi is still around here somewhere, keeping things running on time.

Republicans should consider what picture they want to offer the country in 2024. If they truly want to depict the Democratic Party as behind the times, a whisper-thin ghost of the past, in contrast to a party focused on the future, with a rising generation of new leaders and an expanding and more diverse base of working- and middle-class voters, they can help their cause a great deal by moving on with leadership where press conferences aren’t a tightrope walk. When it comes to knowing when it’s time, everyone on Team McConnell is going to defer to the boss. But it really is time for someone new.

And even so with these multiple cuts, he slurring words together like he’s doped up (which is likely) and they included captions, just to make sure he could be understood. They believe we’re so stupid we’ll believe this BS.

 

Biden campaign co-chair uses gun control to deflect

In the past, we’ve seen a couple of politicians get themselves out of some hot water by declaring an intention to focus on pushing gun control.

They make the announcement and the controversy around them seems to evaporate almost overnight.

That doesn’t work so much for President Joe Biden.

After all, this isn’t exactly a new push from him.

However, that isn’t going to stop his campaign co-chair from trying to use the tactic to deflect questions about his age.

President Biden‘s 2024 campaign co-chair CedricRichmond pivoted to talk about gun control when asked Sunday about the 80-year-old president’s age presenting challenges at the ballot box.

“While they continue to talk about age, we’ll continue to talk about the fact that they’re not talking about banning assault weapons, while they’re banning books but they’re not protecting our children in schools,” Mr. Richmond said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The fact that none of them raised their hand to talk about climate as a real issue when we see fires in Maui, we see hurricanes hitting California, we see the destruction of wildfires. But they’re not talking about that.”

So, as you can see, it’s not just gun control that Richmond tried to invoke to stave off criticism that Biden might just be too old to do the job.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that so-called assault weapons is something very different than the president’s age.

A new assault weapon ban isn’t really going to happen, in part because enough people understand that the issue with mass shootings isn’t because of AR-15s but with people who seem to think killing people wholesale sounds like a swell time.

In contrast, the books being “banned,” in many cases actually aren’t being banned, they’re simply being removed from curriculums or, if they are being removed, there’s a good reason. I’ve seen pages from a couple of notable examples that were pretty sexually explicit, after all.

Meanwhile, we have a president who can barely piece together two coherent sentences as a general rule, who seemingly falls asleep during important events, and who can’t seem to remember that his one son died of cancer rather than being killed in Iraq.

Granted, that last may just be a case of lying, but I’m not sure that makes anything better.

Bringing up his age is certainly valid, and even 69 percent of Democrats think he’s too old.

So why try to pivot to gun control? Because, frankly, that’s all the Biden campaign has at this point. They need to deflect from the very real concern over Biden’s mental faculties. When more than two-thirds of his own party think he’s too old to do the job, there’s a huge problem and they know it.

But they’re hoping the media will focus on the gun control angle instead because it worked with former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and his blackface controversy and with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his brownface controversy.

Both declared they would push for gun control and all was forgiven.

With Biden, though, there’s no reason to think he can step up any anti-gun efforts, that he could get them through Congress even if he did, or that with his age being what it is, he’d remember anyway.

That doesn’t mean the media won’t try, but they won’t make those concerns disappear by pretending they don’t exist.