Category: Politics

Democrat Conniptions Continue in Wake of SCOTUS Second Amendment Decision

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary I keep by my desk defines “conniption” as “a fit of rage or hysterics.” To illustrate more clearly what a “conniption” means in modern parlance, a picture of Gavin Newsom, the Democrat Governor of California, should accompany the definition. It is he and his anti-Second Amendment colleagues in other deep blue states who are having recurring conniptions over the June 2022 Supreme Court decision commonly known as Bruen.

That decision, which arose factually in New York but applies to the entire country, declared that the Second Amendment means what it says, and that it is to be interpreted according to the historical context in which it was written and ratified in the late 18th Century.

What exactly is it that sends these public officials, who regularly profess devotion to other civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, up the wall?

At its core, it’s all about control.

Under the century-old New York “Sullivan Act” law that the six-member Bruen majority struck down last June, local officials had enjoyed virtually absolute control to decide which citizens were deemed worthy to be permitted to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. That power was deemed “arbitrary” by the High Court’s majority and therefore fatally defective as a limitation on an individual’s fundamental right to “keep and bear arms” expressly guaranteed by the Second Amendment against being thus “infringed.”

For decades California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and a handful of other firearms-averse states had permitted officials to exercise similar control over citizens within their jurisdiction.

Bruen swept away such noxious power and established – finally – what should have been obvious to public officials all along; namely, that playing word games, such as forcing a citizen to show “proper cause” and a “special need” before being allowed to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is not what our Founders intended and is not consistent with any reasoned and historically premised interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In clear defiance of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, New York’s legislature quickly passed, and Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation that did precisely what the Supreme Court just days before had ruled unconstitutional. This left virtually every New Yorker desiring to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense still unable to do so.

Even more irksome to the likes of Newsom and other anti-gun Democrat governors and legislators, is the fact that the language and reasoning in Bruen provide valid arguments with which to successfully challenge other restrictive gun control laws, such as bans on high-capacity magazines and so-called “assault rifles.” Myriad challenges to these gun control laws are pending in courts in California and across the country.

Defending such restrictive laws against these constitutional challenges perfectly reflects Newsom’s well-known disdain for judicial decisions not comporting with his liberal philosophy.

Thankfully, most federal judges have a sounder view of judicial precedent and understand that when the United States Supreme Court speaks – especially when, as in Bruen, it does so clearly and pointedly – political and personal views must take a backseat to the Court’s decisions. Interestingly, even some Democrats in the California legislature appear to understand this.

Last Fall, for example, Newsom and his cohorts in the state legislature attempted to pass legislation similar to New York’s defiant response to Bruen, that would continue to make it virtually impossible for Californians to obtain carry permits. In what must have been a shock to Newsom, a handful of “moderate” Democrat members joined with the GOP minority and defeated the legislation – forcing the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times to blast such turncoats and join the ongoing, anti-Bruen conniption sweeping across blue states.

There also are blue-city sheriffs, such as San Francisco’s Paul Miyamoto, who may not like the Bruen decision but understand their oaths of office require them to follow it, and now are approving carry permits that previously were routinely denied.

Since Bruen, law-abiding citizens, including those in Democrat-controlled states like Maryland, are eagerly lining up by the tens of thousands to obtain formerly unattainable carry permits. These Americans exhibit no conniption, simply a yearning to freely exercise a God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense.

AR-15 ban, waiting period advance at New Mexico Capitol

SANTA FE — A proposal to ban AR-15-style rifles in New Mexico began moving through the Roundhouse on Tuesday as Democratic legislators pursue aggressive new gun-control measures intended to address mass shootings and other crime.

On a series of party-line votes, members of a House committee advanced legislation to establish a two-week waiting period for firearm purchases and prohibit the sale and possession of certain semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

The ban would go into effect in March 2024, with some exemptions for people who already have the prohibited firearms.

Republican lawmakers and other opponents who crammed into a packed committee room to testify on the proposals said the restrictions would interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to deter crime.

Supporters showed up in force, too, and a crowd filled the hallway as people waited for a seat.

Continue reading “”

GOP Senators Offer ‘SHORT’ Act to Stop Gun Owner ‘Harassment’

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Seventeen U.S. Senators recently introduced legislation aimed at removing the guts of the National Firearms Act—taxation, registration and regulatory requirements—and they are calling it the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act.

Sponsored by Sens. Roger Marshall (KS) John Kennedy (LA), John Barrasso (WY), John Boozman (AR), Ted Budd (NC), Mike Crapo (ID), Ted Cruz (TX), Steve Daines (MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), Mike Lee (UT), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Markwayne Mullin (OK), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Risch (ID), Mike Rounds (SD), Rick Scott (FL), John Thune (SD), and Tommy Tuberville (AL), the six-page measure may have a short life span—it probably will not get out of the Senate with Democrats in control—but it might raise a few eyebrows and some important political issues.

In a report from KIDO Radio in Boise, Crapo and Risch both took nasty swipes at the Biden administration.

“This Administration’s vendetta against lawful gun ownership is a gross violation of Constitutional rights. A federal gun registry has no place in America, yet this Administration is forcing millions of law-abiding Americans to either register these commonly owned firearms or become felons,” Risch said.

“As the Biden Administration continues to seek creative methods of advancing their anti-gun agenda, Congress must be resolute and oppose all efforts to undermine Second Amendment rights,” Crapo added. “Burdening law-abiding Americans with additional firearm restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public.”

Continue reading “”

Yeah, that’d really cramp the style of the Holiday.

New Mexico: Radical Gun Restrictions on Deck in Committee Next Week: Magazine Limits, Waiting Periods, Semi-Auto, Suppressor & NFA Bans

On Monday, February 6, the New Mexico Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 171 by Sen. Bill Soules (D-Las Cruces), legislation that attempts to supersede federal law and make it a FELONY to manufacture, sell, transfer, or acquire a firearm sound suppressor and other National Firearms Act items, as well as certain semi-automatic pistols. Please contact members of the Senate Health & Public Affairs Committee and urge them to OPPOSE SB 171. Also, make plans to attend this hearing in-person, on Monday, at 1:30pm, in Room 311 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe, and testify against this misguided proposal. You may also participate in this hearing via Zoom or phone, but the best way to make sure your voice is heard (as the committee almost always decides to limit testimony) is to be present in the hearing room!

ZOOM WEBINAR: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9124526531
or via telephone at 1 253 215 8782 Meeting ID: 912 452 653

On Tuesday, February 7, the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee will hold public hearings on three extreme gun control proposals:

House Bill 50 by Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-ABQ) makes it a FELONY to transfer or possess any standard capacity magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition. The 9-round limit would be the lowest in the nation and would effectively ban the use of some of the most popular pistols and rifles purchased and owned by law-abiding New Mexicans.

House Bill 100 by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) expands New Mexico’s so-called “universal background check” law to include a mandatory 14-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. This criminal protection bill would delay your ability to exercise your Second Amendment right to defend yourself, your family and your property.

House Bill 101 by Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) bans the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale or transfer of countless commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns dubbed “assault weapons” under the act and standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Current owners would be required to move them out of state, sell them to a federal firearm licensed dealer or surrender them to a law enforcement agency prior to July 1, 2023 – or face FELONY charges.

Please contact members of the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee and urge them to OPPOSE HB 50, HB 100 & HB 101. Also, make plans to attend this hearing in-person, on Tuesday, at 1:30pm, in Room 317 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe, and testify against this misguided proposal. You may also participate in this hearing via Zoom or phone, but the best way to make sure your voice is heard (as the committee almost always decides to limit testimony) is to be present in the hearing room!

Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89037370054 
Or One tap mobile: US: +13462487799,,89037370054# or +16694449171,,89037370054# 
Webinar ID: 890 3737 0054 

Move to restrict minors with guns gains traction in Missouri House

The legislation is House Bill 301.

JEFFERSON CITY — The gun-friendly Missouri House appears to be settling on one new firearm limit: restricting minors from possessing guns in public without adult supervision.

The limit was included in wide-ranging crime legislation by Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin, following a recommendation by a bipartisan working group appointed by House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres.

“Our state is pretty fanatical in our defense of the Second Amendment, and I certainly don’t want to diminish that, but this kind of conduct is not what the Second Amendment was meant to protect,” Roberts told the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee on Thursday.

The working group, made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, unanimously recommended legislation to prevent minors from carrying guns in public, along with several other measures aimed at public safety.

Democrats on the panel included Reps. Marlon Anderson and Donna Baringer of St. Louis, and Robert Sauls of Independence. Republicans included Roberts, as well as Reps. Ron Copeland of Salem and John Black of Marshfield.

A recommendation allowing for a special prosecutor for high-crime areas such as St. Louis has generated the most attention.

But minors in possession of firearms became an issue following the state’s passage of “constitutional carry” legislation in 2016.

Continue reading “”

The Sky is falliiiinnnggg!!! Blood will flow in the streets! Aauugghh!
What else is new with these mental midgets?

FL ‘Constitutional Carry’ Bill Ignites Anti-Gun Hysteria

Florida anti-gunners moved quickly Monday to attack a proposal that would make the Sunshine State number 26 on the roster of states with so-called “constitutional carry” statutes, following the announcement that Republicans will introduce House Bill 543, which will allow lawful concealed carry without a license.

The measure is being introduced by State Rep. Chuck Brannan (R-Lake City) with a companion bill in the Senate coming from Sen. Jake Collins (R-Tampa). The announcement came Monday morning from House Speaker Paul Renner (R-Palm Coast), surrounded by other officials including several lawmen.

But the gun prohibition lobby almost immediately launched an effort to defeat the legislation. According to WFLA News, Giffords Florida called the measure “reckless” and claimed it will allow almost anyone to carry a gun in public, without any training or background check.”

However, there is nothing in the bill that allows a felon or anyone else disqualified from owning a firearm to carry it concealed. There is also nothing in the proposal about open carry. This is strictly a concealed carry measure.

 

The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported a group called Prevent Gun Violence Florida is claiming in a statement “Permitless carry laws endanger the public by removing vital safety measures designed to ensure that those carrying concealed weapons have been properly trained and vetted.”

But Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called such rhetoric “nonsense.”

“The gun prohibition lobby will say anything to convince people permitless carry is an awful idea,” Gottlieb stated. “Remember, they also predicted blood flowing in the streets when they opposed shall-issue concealed carry laws from being passed a generation ago. All they could talk about was minor fender-benders and neighborhood disputes turning into gunfights.

“It’s the same rhetoric and the same nonsense all over again,” he observed.

According to the Tallahassee Democrat, Florida now has 2.6 million active concealed carry licenses. In its report, the newspaper noted, “The permitless carry approach backed by state Republican leaders doesn’t change current laws for buying a gun. But it would lift the need for a state permit with firearms training.”

Get Ready for Another Cynical, Useless, Gun-Control Push by Democrats

The first question any reasonable person asks after a horrible crime is, “What could have been done to stop it?” Yet after every mass shooting, gun controllers suggest unworkable, unconstitutional, completely ineffectual ideas that target people who will never commit a crime.

After the twin mass shootings in California last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom (flanked by armed guards) told CBS News more federal gun-control laws were needed because the Second Amendment is “becoming a suicide pact.” What he didn’t mention was that California has passed not only every law Senate Democrats are proposing in Washington but a slew of others. Anti-gun group Giffords gives California an “A” rating for having the “strongest gun safety laws in the nation and has been a trailblazer for gun safety reform for the past 30 years.”

California already has “universal” background checks. It has a 10-day waiting period limit for handgun purchases, a microstamping system, a personal safety test, the ability to sue gun manufacturers even if they haven’t broken any law, an age hike on the purchase of certain firearms including rifles from 18 to 21, “red flag” laws that allow police to confiscate guns without due process, a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, among many other restrictions. Short of letting cops smash down the doors of peaceful gun owners, California has a law for it. And all it’s done is leave its citizens defenseless.

The day of the Monterey Park shooting, President Joe Biden again called on Congress to pass a federal “assault weapons” ban. So-called assault weapons have been banned in California since 1989. Last year, the state passed another bill making them super-duper illegal: SB 1327. From 1989 until today, gun trends in California mirror those of the nation at large. Which is unsurprising. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, despite Biden constantly claiming otherwise, did nothing to alter gun violence trends. Homicide rates began to ebb nationally before the ban was instituted. When the ban expired in 2004, and the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in the country, gun violence continued to precipitously fall — by 2014, gun homicides were the same as they were in 1963 — until the appearance of COVID.

Then again, the shooter at Monterey Park didn’t use an assault weapon. He used a Cobray M11 9mm semi-automatic gun — “one of the most useless handguns in existence” — which some reporters referred to as an “assault pistol.” It’s a scary looking, if antiquated gun (out of production since 1990) that, in this iteration, fires one cartridge with a single trigger squeeze like almost every other gun owned by civilians — including AR-15s.
The gun was already illegal in California.
As is carrying any gun into a no-gun zone.
As is murder.

After the killers of Monterey Park (72 years old) and Half Moon Bay (66) struck, Biden, naturally, called on Congress to pass legislation to raise the minimum purchase age for “assault weapons” to 21. Many mass shooters are young men, but the average age of mass shooters is 32. The number of ARs used in the commission of murder in the hands of a person under 21 is a fraction of 1%.

All mass shooters obtain guns illegally, or legally before having any criminal record (or because of a mistake by the police, as was the case in Charleston and elsewhere). Most incidents are perpetrated by young men who have exhibited serious antisocial behavior. In many, if not most, cases, the shooter is already on the cops’ radar because he has threatened others, as was the case from the Parkland shooter to the Highland Park shooter to the Half Moon Bay shooter and many, many others. In a study of mass shootings from 2008 to 2017, the Secret Service found that “100 percent of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors, and in 77 percent of shootings, at least one person — most often a peer — knew about their plan.” The best thing we can do is uphold laws that already exist.

None of this is to argue that simply because some people ignore laws, they are unnecessary or useless. It’s to argue that laws that almost exclusively target innocent people from practicing a constitutional right, and do nothing to stop criminals, are unnecessary and useless. The central problem in this debate is that Democrats believe civilian gun ownership itself is a plague on the nation, so it doesn’t really matter to them what gun is being banned or what law is being passed, as long as something is being “done.”

The other side believes that being able to protect themselves, their families, their property and their community from criminality — and, should it descend into tyranny, the government — is a societal good. They see gun bans as autocratic and unconstitutional, and, also, largely unfeasible. And they’re right.

Every two years like clockwork, her staff dusts off the same old bill, changes the title to match the year, and resubmits it. It will never go anywhere, and everyone knows that, but it’s her pet bill ever since the old ’94-’04 ban didn’t have the votes to get re-enacted. This will go on until she either finally decides to retire, or one day doesn’t wake up.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Introduces Bill to Ban 205 ‘Assault Weapons’

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced legislation Monday to ban “205 military-style assault weapons by name” and prohibit transfer of “high capacity” magazines.

Feinstein cited the January 21, 2023, Monterey Park shooting as the impetus for the reintroduction of the “assault weapons” ban.

She said, “We were tragically reminded this weekend of the deadly nature of assault weapons when a shooter used one to kill 11 people and injure 9 more at a Lunar New Year celebration in California.”

In addition to banning the “sale, manufacture, transfer and importation” of 205 specific firearms, Feinstein’s bill requires “a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.” (This would apply to guns grandfathered in, if the bill were to become law.)

Her bill also contains an addendum to “[prohibit] the sale of assault weapons to individuals under 21.”

The alleged Monterey Park attacker was 72 years old and Monday’s alleged Half Moon Bay attacker was 67 years old.

Well, they better

Second Amendment Groups Expect New House Majority to Stand and Fight For Gun Owners
Pro-gun advocates say Congress must defend Constitution

Newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tried to make hay with Republicans by starting the 118th Congress with a move to defund 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents, but Second Amendment groups see the new Congress as a mixed blessing at best.

While McCarthy was touting efforts to rein in the IRS, Gun Owners of America (GOA) decried what it called a misguided effort to address illegal immigration and placate gun control proponents.

This does not align with the pro-gun agenda GOA and the National Rifle Association (NRA) hope will be pushed by the House majority.

According to a statement on the GOA website, a proposed law requiring the FBI to report anyone illegally in the country—based on information found in firearms purchase background checks—to Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “not a pro-gun bill.”

“This is why gun owners can’t blindly trust Congress to fight for our Second Amendment rights. We just ended Pelosi’s majority, but the new majority wants to use your gun rights as a bargaining chip in the border crisis,” the statement reads.

The GOA states that the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) is unreliable. It has prevented law-abiding citizens from making a legal gun purchase because an unqualified buyer shared the same last name, the GOA claimed.

The Act was initially introduced during the last session and is expected to be brought up again. However, one bill that has been reintroduced is getting a much warmer reception.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) sponsored HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (CCRA). The bill has 118 original cosponsors.

It would require a concealed firearm carry license from one state to be recognized in any other state as long as the license holder obeys the laws of that state. It also allows residents of constitutional carry states that don’t require a state-issued concealed carry license to carry a gun in other states as long as they obey those states’ laws.

Hudson first introduced CCRA in 2017. At that time, the bill passed the House on a vote of 231-198 but was not taken up by the Senate.

In a statement on his website, Hudson said constitutional rights should be recognized regardless of geography.

“HR 38 guarantees the Second Amendment does not disappear when crossing an invisible state line,” Hudson wrote in his online statement.

Representatives of pro-Second Amendment groups lauded the bill and called on other members of Congress to support it.

Continue reading “”

PRINCIPLES ARE A GRAND THING – A GUEST POST – BY JOHN RINGO

This was pulled from a long twitter thread on the subject of the PRINCIPLES! Crowd and their insistence that DeSantis shouldn’t have lead a charge against Disney, ‘Don’t call them groomers! That’s naughty!’ because PRINCIPLES!

And I’m going to use Dien Bien Phu as an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

At Dien Bien Phu, the French Foreign Legion was slowly surrounded by the Viet Min. The Communists slowly took high ground position after high ground position. At first the French tried occasionally to push them out and occasionally succeeded.

But eventually the Viet had all the high ground with artillery sited on the base.

At first the shelling was a nuisance. Then it got heavier. More and more guns, more anti-aircraft.

Eventually, the French were pounded into surrender.

The Left has been ‘boiling the frog’ for a long time and it has mostly been by weaponizing empathy around ‘cultural issues.’ The Dems have always been win/lose against Republicans but the Left has taken over every major cultural high ground. Academia. Media. Entertainment. Now major corporations.

And the effect has been horrible for conservatives. (And for everyone else I might add.)

‘Practically everyone with a PhD is a progressive! So that shows we’re smarter than you stupid conservatives!’

For decades it has been a major pain in the ass to be a conservative on a college campus. It was bad in the 1980s AT UGA. ‘If you believe in God you’re too stupid to be a scientist.’

If you create a massively hostile environment for people, deliberately destroy their career, you don’t get to then say ‘We’re the smart ones cause we have all the advanced degrees.’

You don’t get to say ‘We’re the only creators because no conservatives can write’ when you deliberately ensure that cons can’t get any awards.

Except that’s exactly what the Left does.

And, remember, lack of a college degree on average cuts long term earnings substantially. Which means less money on the right all things being equal. If you look at the graph of right wing money vs left over time the right has been losing more and more ground. Which is one of the few reasons the Left has been able to advance. It’s sure as hell not their insane, failed, policies.

The Right are the French, being continually bombarded. By Marxists at the least if not communists. The Left has all the high ground. We’re damned near at the point we’re going to be forced to surrender. And we’re at Will To Power. The Left has gotten so powerful, it’s openly defiant of any ‘norms’ or ‘equality’ or even laws.

When the Left burned cities, 99% got a slap on the wrist and rarely jail time. Cons go wandering around the capital and they get a vast panoply of human rights violations against them. Obama was the most corrupt administration in recent history except Biden. But they don’t get investigated. Cons get dragged out of their house in the middle of the night by SWAT teams and shown off to the media over obscure regulations. Trump was investigated repeatedly and illegally for things that were never even CONSIDERED worthy of investigation in previous administrations.

Hillary’s pay to play scams are fine. A conservative gets a parking ticket and they’re destroyed.

Why? Why does the Left get away with all of this? Why does nobody stop them?

James Carville said it recently in the reverse: ‘Nobody is afraid of the Democrats!’

Nobody has been afraid of the Republicans in my LIFETIME. Lois Lerner can laugh at a congressional committee the Republicans are running and gets away with it. Strosz can smirk and preen. Bureaucrats and businessmen flat out lie to Republican leadership and nothing happens.

But they don’t do that to Democrats. Why?

Because if you do, the Left will kill you. They will f’ing DESTROY YOU.

See Joe the Plumber or any number of other examples of ‘nobodies’ that were destroyed for questioning the Left.

So why doesn’t the Right (metaphorically) kill people who disrespect their leadership? Why do the bureaucrats and businesses think they can screw over the Right but not the Left?

PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

The PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! crowd has been a Conservative Surrender Chorus for as long as I can remember.

You can’t attack a bureaucracy that is treating Republicans like something under their shoe! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

You can’t cut funding to academia just because they’re tweeting #KillAllRepublicans. PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

You can’t smack down a company that involves itself, overtly and partisanly, in politics! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

Why?

It goes back to Buckley and National Review.

Buckley set out to create a ‘new’ conservative movement after HUAC and McCarthy burned out. They would purge the icky John Birch, anti-communist, Goldwater wing of the party and campaign on PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

‘Take the high road.’ ‘If you get into the mud with a pig you get covered in mud and only the pig enjoys it.’

If you take the high road, you’re silhouetting yourself and you’re just going to get shot.

If you don’t get in the mud with the pig, it takes you out at the knees and gores nine kinds of stuff out of you.

But PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

Which got us to here. Teachers are openly grooming kids and convincing them they’re… something they are not. Children are being permanently chemically castrated for kicks and money. Two weeks to flatten the curve turned into two years of random medical tyranny. The sitting President that most represented the Right, far more than the eGOP, was investigated over a hoax THAT THE FBI KNEW WAS A HOAX.

The list goes on and on.

We’re in the bunkers, being pounded by artillery. Every time some leader on the Right tries to break out, tries to rally the troops, they get bombarded by fire from every direction.

Reagan was constantly bombarded. Newt to the point he was destroyed. Tea Party was taken out by investigations and the IRS refusing to process their paperwork. Then the leadership was audited to death.

We could fight that. We could rally round a flag. But the worst part. The part that is absolutely INFURIATING, is the Surrender Chorus.

YOU CAN’T FIGHT BACK! THAT’S ICKY! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

Stay in the bunker. Learn to cope. The dinner parties are loverly.

I’m sick to death of the principles crowd. David French, leader of the Conservative Surrender Chorus, once tweeted “If I supported Trump, I’d never be invited to another dinner party.”

If your politics is based on whether you get invites to dinner parties, you don’t have ‘Principles’. You have the opposite.

We’re in the bunkers being bombarded. We’re Dien Bin Phu. We’re Mariupol. We’re overrun and bleeding to death.

But the worst part. The absolute worst. Is the TrueConservatives that every time we start to take a position quite frankly stab us in the back shouting PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES!

If you’re more worried about PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! than @libsoftiktok being doxed, if you’re more worried about PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! PRINCIPLES! than a mulit-billion dollar supposedly ‘family friendly’ corporation with loads of largesse given to it by the taxpayers coming out, very publicly, in favor of chemical castration of children…

Then you can take those principles and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

And when the Left learns to fear the Right, when the woke corporation boards gulp and go ‘Okay, we’ll stay out of it’, when the bureaucracy comes to heel…

Then you can be nice. Then you can take the high road.

Until then…

DRIVE YOUR ENEMIES BEFORE YOU! TAKE THE TALLY OF THEIR SLAIN AND THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN!

And, yes, salt the earth.

When that is done, we can have a discussion about ‘principles.’

SloJoe isn’t being negligent about the ‘border crisis’, he and the rest of the demoncraps want this.

The Data Is In: Democrats Embrace ‘Replacement Theory’ in Plot to Displace Republican Votes

In simple terms, “replacement theory” holds that welcoming immigration policies are part of a plan designed to undermine or “replace” the political power of conservatives in the U.S. Make no mistake: replacement theory is real — and the Democrat Party blatantly continues to embrace it at the southern border.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has in the past been all but burned at the stake by the rabid left for daring to discuss replacement theory on his program, including by Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which laughably describes itself as an “anti-hate” group, went after Carlson in early 2021:

In the days following Tucker Carlson’s vitriolic, xenophobic commentary about demographic change, most white supremacist reactions were supportive of the Fox News personality and praised him for railing against “white genocide.” Some suggested that Carlson is finally showing his true colors and fully embracing white nationalism.

Not to be outdone, CNN in April 2021 declared: “Racist ‘replacement theory’ has it all backward.”

White supremacist groups, conservative media personalities, and now Republicans in Congress are trying to inflame nativist feelings among conservative Whites by warning that liberals want immigrants to “replace” native-born Americans in the nation’s culture and the electorate.

But that racist “replacement theory” inverts the real consequence of immigration for its target audience of Whites uneasy about social and racial change: Many of the Whites most drawn to the far-right argument that new arrivals are displacing “real Americans” are among those with the most to lose if the nation reduces, much less eliminates, immigration in the decades ahead.

The verdict: Carlson was right, and “shockingly,” the left is lying.

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros
Associate Attorney at Michel & Associates Los Angeles
Represents California Rifle & Pistol Association

Yes, “assault rifle” has an actual meaning while “assault weapon” was more of a political invention (though there is some history of the gun community using the term before that).

But getting hung up on terminology is an unconvincing exercise. It’s also why I stopped caring

about correcting “clip” when someone means “magazine” (except when that person earnestly wants to learn) because it is beside the point.

Instead, our position should be that all semiautomatic* small arms should be legal to own, regardless of what grips or attachments or  magazines come with them and regardless of what term, political or otherwise, is used to describe them. I don’t care if you call them a “weapon of war”. Good. The Second Amendment was indisputably meant to protect such small arms most of all, as the historical record proves.

I have to admit I roll my eyes when I hear “modern sporting rifle”.

Just say semiautomatic rifle. It’s useful for sport yes, but also personal defense, hunting, and of course, the core purpose of 2A – opposing tyranny. Own it. They are going to hate us either way. 

*the logic applies equally to full auto small arms, but that’s a future battle. I don’t think this Supreme Court is striking Hughes down quite yet, hope I’m wrong. 
19th century texts show us that access to “weapons of war” was seen as the core purpose of the 2A, even towards the end of the century when revolvers and lever-action rifles proliferated, which were orders of magnitude more capable than their predecessors.ImageImage
Even those of the era that thought small weapons could be restricted nevertheless saw the 2A as protecting access to the arms of modern warfare.Image

This is a great intellectually honest video about the AR15.

And for what I mean by the use of the term “assault weapon” among the gun community, there are a few examples. This is from 1986.Image

MAYORS ON GUN CONTROL LETTER HAVE ONE BIG THING IN COMMON

Dozens of mayors from America’s biggest cities are demanding the U.S. Senate pass more gun control.

“We write to urge the Senate to pass during the lame duck session gun safety legislation that has passed the House…,” the mayors’ letter states.

An answer to the crime problem plaguing these cities might not be found in Congress. Rather the mayors should look closer to home for solutions. Or better yet, take a good long look in the mirror.

The First Demand
The letter was sent by The United States Conference of Mayors and was signed by 74 mayors. They made two demands of U.S. Sens. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). First, they want the Senate to pass S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, which would ban an entire class of firearms – Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) — that are commonly-owned and commonly-used. Industry data estimates there are more than 24.4 million in circulation since 1990, with ownership exploding in recent years.

Enacting the ban on MSRs, or the semiautomatic centerfire rifles the mayors misleadingly deem “assault weapons,” would not “in any way infringe on Second Amendment rights,” the mayors suggest. They claim two-thirds of Americans support banning MSRs but The Reload reported that’s flat false – revealing less than 50 percent of Americans support such a ban. That’s likely because more law-abiding Americans than ever before – including women and minorities – have purchased MSRs to use for self-defense, recreational shooting and hunting. In any event, Constitutional rights are not decided by a popularity contest.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows more murders were committed by individuals using knives, fists and clubs than by those using any rifle – not just MSRs like AR-15s. The Senate bill would likely not even receive 50 votes, let alone the 60 votes required, as Sens. John Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) have repeatedly voiced opposition.

The Second Demand
The letter’s second demand is for the Senate to pass a bill enacting a universal background check system to track all firearm transfers, including private ones. The mayors say this is “closing loopholes” and stopping buyers from “circumventing the law.” Those two phrases are oxymorons as the law is the law as written – it’s not loopholes or circumvention.

The legislation, S. 529, The Background Check Expansion Act, has severe legal problems as its implementation requires a national firearm registry. That’s specifically prohibited under the 1986 Gun Control Act and the 1993 Brady Act. It is unlawful because history teaches us that registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation by the government.

The legislation would also, “aid law enforcement’s ability to trace crime guns.” They want to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment which restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk. They also fail to mention that their own law enforcement agencies have access to trace data for their cities, that they can share data with other agencies and that ATF has joint task forces and regularly shares intelligence with state and local law enforcement often derived from examining trace data.

Who Signed?
The signers are a who’s who of gun control supporters, with one glaring similarity. Democrats make up 92 percent, or 68 of the 74 letter co-signers. The mayors of several of the Top 10 cities which had the most Americans fleeing them in recent years signed, including San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, Chicago and Detroit. Surging crime and soft-on-criminal policies have been a significant issue in those cities.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams signed. He ran his campaign on getting tough on criminals but has instead deflected action and pushed for national gun control.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler signed the letter. His city descended into chaos and saw a federal courthouse set on fire by rioters. Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell signed too. Criminals in Seattle under previous mayor Jenny Durkan set up a “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” or CHAZ, where law enforcement was prohibited. That’s where “Raz the Warlord” was captured on video handing out AR-15s from his Tesla’s trunk, violating several of Seattle’s existing gun laws.

Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot has been too busy making dance music videos to address the surging crime problem plaguing the Windy City and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo already passed gun ownership restrictions on residents even though he admitted to CNN his plans won’t address the crime problem. “Skeptics will say that criminals won’t comply. They’re right,” he said.

Several of the mayors who signed the gun control letter come from Red states where voters have approved Constitutional carry laws in the past years and expanded the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase legal firearms, including MSRs, for self-defense.

What the mayors refuse to accept is that criminals don’t follow their laws. They should focus their efforts closer to home and hold criminals accountable instead of running to Washington, D.C., and passing the buck.

Who In the US Is Objectively Racist? The Left. As the Data Show Definitively.

Joe Biden and the Democrats keep gunning for your guns. Research like this is a major part of their argument. What it shows–definitively–is that it isn’t guns. It’s a particular social pathology enabled by a social psychosis that reached epidemic proportions in 2020. The data are irrefutable.

One graphic tells the tale:

The increase in gun homicides documented in the Emory University study is attributable almost exclusively to one factor: a nearly 60 percent increase in homicide fatalities among black men. Not over a period of many years–but in a little over one year.

And what year was that? 2020. And what happened in 2020? The death of George Floyd, and the subsequent revelation that black lives especially matter.

Yes, but not in the way intended. Not by a long shot. That death and revelation brought in its train myriad consequences. Defund the police. The war on cash bail and the release of numerous criminals. The demoralization of police, who were instructed explicitly and implicitly that arresting black male offenders was a career risk, and the subsequent surrender of the streets to the thugs. And on and on. (The release of many from jail because of COVID didn’t help either.)

This is as close to a natural experiment as can exist in social science. An exogenous shock–the death of one man–leads to a tectonic shift in law enforcement, especially with regards to a particular demographic. The result?: a hyperbolic increase in homicide rates in that demographic. (I note that the previous uptick observable in the chart in 2014 corresponds to the proto-Floyd event, the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, which was the catalyst for Black Lives Matter.)

This is as close to a definitive proof of causation as is possible in observational social science.

This is not complicated. We sowed. We reaped. There is no other plausible explanation for the data.

It is sickly ironic–and mainly sick–that so many black lives have been sacrificed on the altar of Black Lives Matter.

But it gave an opportunity for Nancy Pelosi and the like to demonstrate their superiority over us plebs by taking a knee wearing kente cloth, so it was all for the best, right?

The whole ugly spectacle makes me literally nauseous. (And yes, I literally know what it means to say “literally.”) Hell is not hot enough to torture properly all those preening better-thans who have cost more black lives in a couple of years than the KKK did in its entire, horrid, sordid history (which dates to 1866).

But you are the problem you see. You and your icky guns.

No, the real problem is the social psychosis that is modern American leftism, which obsesses over race, and in the name of helping one race is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of that race.

So tell me: who are objectively the racists here? (See Orwell on “objectively pro-Fascist” if you don’t catch my point.)

If this does not make you incandescent with anger, some serious self-reflection is definitely in order. Unless you are a leftist, in which case that is something of which you are constitutionally incapable.

Always of interest are the gun laws of New Mexico, and possible effects on the Shootists Holiday

Gun safety bills could spark debate at Roundhouse amid rise in firearm deaths

SANTA FE – Over the last three years, New Mexico lawmakers have passed bills expanding background check requirements for firearm purchases and allowing guns to be seized from individuals deemed to pose a threat to themselves or others.

Now, with the reelection of Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, more gun safety proposals are expected to be brought forward during the 60-day session that starts next month, amid a recent spike in New Mexico firearm-related deaths and after several high-profile school shootings around the nation.

The measures likely to be considered include raising the minimum age for purchasing certain assault rifles from 18 to 21, making the failure to safely store firearms out of children’s reach a crime and creating a new office of gun violence prevention within the state Department of Health.

Continue reading “”

GOP senators behind bipartisan gun control say they’re done

Following Uvalde, a small group of Republican senators broke with the rest of the party and negotiated a bipartisan gun control deal. It wasn’t the broad, sweeping anti-gun measures that many wanted, but it was gun control.

Now, following a series of mass shootings, there’s a renewed push for anti-gun legislation, this time in the form of an assault weapon ban.

Unfortunately for those pushing it, the Republicans behind the last bill aren’t interested in a repeat performance.

Republican senators who, in the past, have worked with Democrats on gun control told the Daily Caller News Foundation they will not support new attempts to pass a more far-reaching firearm ban in the lame-duck session of the 117th Congress, following a mass shooting in Colorado Springs on Nov. 20.

In June, 15 GOP senators voted with Democrats to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, following the killing of 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which added “domestic violence abusers” to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and enhanced the review process for gun purchasers under 21 years of age.

However, none of these lawmakers who responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation indicated they would support a bill that encompasses the AR-15, a popular rifle among American gun owners.

“Senator [Pat] Toomey [of Pennsylvania]…does not support a ban on assault weapons because it would prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning what are some of the most popular firearms in the United States,” a spokesperson for Toomey told the DCNF.

The office of Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, meanwhile, shared an article with the DCNF about Graham owning an AR-15, indicating his opposition to the ban.

A spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who also voted for June’s legislation, said that he had been “consistently opposed” to an assault weapons ban and would not be supporting new legislation. This was echoed by an aide to Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said that Sasse would not support the ban even though he is leaving the Senate at the end of the year.

Without those lawmakers, an assault weapon ban cannot happen.

Even as Democrats are set to have control of the Senate come January, they would still need many of those same senators. Just how many depends on the outcome of the run-off election in Georgia, but that’s only one potential seat that won’t change the math all that much on this regardless of the outcome.

And the only hope for the Biden administration to get gun control passed is to do it during the lame-duck session.

After the new Congress starts, Republicans will control the House and have enough votes in the Senate to block any legislation they want. Gun control becomes a non-starter at that point, regardless of what Biden and his fellow Democrats want.

Unless, of course, he can manage to get enough Republicans to cross the aisle on this issue.

However, since the handful who already showed some willingness to do so have said no, there’s just not a lot of chance of that happening.

So the president can call for assault weapon bans all he wants–and make no mistake, he will, even when it’s not remotely relevant–but that’s about all he’ll be able to do.

Democratic Senator’s Admission Dumps Cold Water on Joe Biden’s Gun Control Agenda–For Now

President Joe Biden has long been calling for a ban against so-called “assault weapons,” which he just doubled down on this holiday weekend, causing quite a concern with his language for those who care about the Second Amendment. Democratic senators, however, are a bit wiser on the likelihood of such sweeping legislation passing that chamber. During his Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted to host Dana Bash that when it comes to whether they have currently the votes to pass such a ban, the answer is “probably not.”

“He wants to pass a so-called assault weapons ban in this lame-duck next month. You know the math on how difficult that is better than most people. You have been working on this for a long time. Is there any path to getting that done,” Bash  asked Murphy, referring to Biden and his priorities.

Murphy’s acknowledgment of “probably not” refers to whether or not the ban has those 60 votes in the Senate “right now.” That doesn’t mean he’s given up for good, though. “But let’s see if we can try to get that number as close to 60 as possible. If we don’t have the votes, then we will talk to Senator Schumer and maybe come back next year with maybe an additional senator and see if we can do better,” he offered.

Come next Congress, Democrats will still be in the majority, with at least 50 senators who are Democrats or caucus with the Democrats, in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote. It’s possible they’ll expand their majority, if Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) holds onto his seat against Republican opponent Herschel Walker, with the runoff election coming on December 6.

Bash also pressed Murphy as to if there’s “any action on guns that’s possible,” or whether they will keep pushing for this ban, to which Murphy reminded her that was the legislation that passed the House and is now before the Senate.

The senator claimed “we would see less mass shootings in this country” with such a ban, and also downplayed concerns with the legislation, offering “nobody’s talking about taking those weapons away from individuals, we’re just talking about stopping new sales. ”

When Bash to her credit did push Murphy on how criminals don’t follow laws, as the shooter at the Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, used an illegally-purchased handgun, Murphy was forced to admit that “if you pass an assault weapons ban, you’re not going to magically eliminate mass shootings in this country.”

He did tout the 1994 ban on such “assault weapons,” as Biden has done. As Mia covered in early September, after the president also made remarks on August 30 calling for such a ban, the ban was not as successful as he claims it had been.

Sen. Murphy was a big part of negotiations to pass gun control laws, laws which, as Bash pointed out, did not actually stop the recent shootings in Colorado and Virginia.

Murphy did begin his conversation with Bash by praising the president on the issue, including when it comes to that legislation. “Well, first, let me say, the president’s been heroic in standing up for victims of gun violence. We passed the first gun safety measure in 30 years this summer. It’s going to save thousands of lives. And that wouldn’t have happened if Joe Biden hadn’t led,” Murphy said. The senator also categorized Biden’s recent remarks as how “he stood up and spoke his mind, as he did this weekend.”

When speaking specifically about the law incentivizing states to pass red flag laws, with Bash pointing out that Colorado and Virginia already had them in place, Murphy offered “I think it’s important to know that the bill that we passed is being implemented as we speak. But it takes a little while for these big, complicated laws to be put into place.”

He went on to blame law enforcement in Colorado, referring to as a “so-called Second Amendment sanctuary state,” where gun control laws are not enforced. “That is a growing problem in this country,” Murphy warned, who went on to threaten further action.

“And I think we’re going to have to have a conversation about that in the United States Senate. Do we want to continue to supply funding to law enforcement in counties that refuse to implement state and federal gun laws? Red flag laws are wildly popular, right? You’re just temporarily taking guns away from people that,” he claimed.

When asked by Bash if that means Murphy “want[s] to withhold money for law enforcement,” the senator did not deny it. “I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws,” he said. “I will talk to my colleagues about what our approach should be this problem, but 60 percent of counties in this country are refusing to implement the nation’s gun laws. We have got to do something about that,” he again warned.

So much for Democrats trying to claim they don’t actually want to defund the police. It looks like Murphy may have dumped cold water on yet another Biden administration talking point, inadvertently or not.