Category: Politics

I think Schumer did this thinking it would fail but then using that for political electioneering to ‘rock the vote’ for the elections this fall.
I think that’s a losing proposition and here’s why:
My Baby Needs Formula, And I’m Getting Scared She Won’t Have It.

According to analysis from Datasembly, 40 percent of top-selling baby formula products were out of stock at retailers across the United States as of April 24. That’s up from 11 percent in November of 2021. Six states — Tennessee, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota — hit shortages of more than 50 percent. Why is this happening?

As in the previous post, economic issues – which includes food – will override cultural/philosophical issues every time. The party that screws that pooch gets kicked out of office

Schumer Show Vote on Radical Abortion Bill Goes Down in Flames

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has repeatedly shown his ineptitude when it comes to leading Democrats in the upper chamber, and he did so again in spectacular fashion on Wednesday afternoon. In what he seems to think was a grand gesture to prove his party’s commitment to a woman’s (birthing person’s?) right to kill her unborn child only put Democrats on the record supporting a bill that’s more radical than Roe ever was.

After the unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion signaling that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, Schumer jumped into action and called for the passage of a bill to supposedly “codify” Roe in federal law. But he once again failed to do the math among his own caucus or the Senate as a whole before holding what became nothing but a failed show vote to prove Democrats support radical abortion rights that go beyond what even most pro-abortion Americans support.

The vote to break a Republican filibuster and move to the final vote on the “Women’s Health Protection Act” came down 51-49, with every Democrat but one voting to move ahead — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia joined all the Republicans to block the legislation from moving forward.

Sixty votes were necessary to end debate on the bill and move ahead — but that threshold was never going to be met. Even if, somehow, enough Republicans agreed to vote with all the Democrats to move forward to a vote on the bill, Schumer didn’t have the 50 votes necessary to achieve a tie that would be broken by Vice President Kamala Harris to pass the measure after Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he opposed the Women’s Health Protection Act outright.

The legislative vehicle for Schumer and Democrats’ plan, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi previously passed through the House of Representatives, does far more than “codify” the right to abortion manufactured in the Court’s decision in federal law. That claim was thoroughly debunked by Guy here in a deep-dive on the “appalling and extreme departure from the current status quo” the bill Schumer pushed to a failed vote on Wednesday would be:

Continue reading “”

Missouri: Self-Defense Bill Eligible for Senate Floor

Yesterday,[Monday] the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and Fiscal Oversight voted to advance House Bill 1462, to reduce areas where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless. It is now eligible for debate on the Senate floor. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT HB 1462.

House Bill 1462 repeals arbitrary “gun-free zones” that do nothing to hinder criminals, while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless. It removes the prohibition on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms for self-defense on public transit property and in vehicles. This ensures that citizens with varying commutes throughout their day, and of various economic means, are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The bill also repeals the prohibition in state law against carrying firearms for self-defense in places of worship. This empowers private property owners to make such decisions regarding security on their own, rather than the government mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Again, please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT HB 1462.

Politics vs. Reality: Iron Sharpening Iron ~ or Not

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

Continue reading “”

New Maine GOP Platform Includes Banning Sex Education, Critical Race Theory in Schools

AUGUSTA, Maine (WGME) – Maine Republicans adopted new positions Friday that could change what kids learn in school.

The Maine GOP laid out its platform on several issues over the weekend during the Republican State Convention, including gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage’s proposal to eliminate state income tax. Also outlined Friday were Republicans’ long-standing goals, including welfare reform and enactment of “right to work laws” that limit the power of labor unions.

It was culture war issues in schools that dominated the changes to the state party platform. Some of the specifics include banning sex education and critical race theory in schools, as well as banning teaching genders other than male or female, with the party calling it “child sexual abuse.”

Lawmakers also want to ban books that encourage students to choose their own gender, sexual orientation or pronouns.

The Maine Democratic Party slammed the Republican Party’s new platform, calling it hateful and anti-LGBTQ, but members of the GOP say they are sticking up for families.

Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau accused Republicans of attacking their fellow Mainers.

New Maine GOP platform includes banning sex education, critical race theory in schools (WGME)

“It shows that they are more interested in attacking fellow Mainers and relaunching culture wars from the last decade than actually dealing with real issues affecting Maine’s hardworking families,” he said.

Donald Trump Jr. forms gun rights group

Donald Trump Jr. was the pro-gun voice in his father’s White House. While the president often spoke pro-gun words, there were many who said it was his son who gave them to him.

I’m glad there was someone there who could give the elder Trump some guidance on that sort of thing.

Now, though, it seems the younger Trump has decided to take his pro-gun work to a different level.

Donald Trump Jr. is launching a new gun rights group that he says will be a vehicle for fighting against Democratic gun control efforts.

Fox News Digital has learned that Trump Jr. will be launching the Second Amendment Task Force and will serve as the chairman of the group as it works to protect Americans’ right to bear arms.

“The Second Amendment is the whole ballgame; it’s the freedom that protects all of our other freedoms. Unfortunately the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress are hellbent on eroding our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, whether it’s nominating radical gun-grabbers to senior positions in the executive branch or pushing anti-gun legislation,” Trump Jr. told Fox News Digital. “The Second Amendment Task Force is entirely devoted to ensuring the Left is never successful in disarming American citizens.”

The Second Amendment Task Force is the first advocacy group that Trump has launched and been directly involved with. The group plans to make a push in the upcoming midterm elections this year, especially in the voter registration sphere.

OK. Um…why a new group?

Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with the mission in and of itself. Voter registration isn’t a bad thing, though I suspect gun owners are far more likely to be registered to vote than the general public.

No, my question is more about why form a completely different gun rights organization when there are already a number in existence. If you’re not a fan of the NRA, then there are Gun Owners of America, Firearm Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and a number of others.

I can’t imagine many who wouldn’t want Donald Trump Jr. on their board of directors and would be more than willing to listen to him regarding areas he believes the Second Amendment community is underserving.

So, again, why?

My concern is that there’s only so much support for any cause. A new organization will dilute the pool and potentially provide fewer resources for everyone. If Trump thinks someone isn’t doing what they should and he wants to push them out of the picture, then so be it. That’s the beauty of the free market and all that.

Yet the problem is that we don’t know that. We don’t know why he’s forming a gun-rights group right now, and I’m curious as to the answer.

Will I lose sleep over it? Probably not. However, I’ll also be paying attention to what they do going forward to see just how they’re fitting into the Second Amendment ecosystem. Who knows, maybe he’ll attract new voices to Second Amendment activism and increase the pool of resources for everyone. If so, that’ll be a huge win.

It should be interesting to see how everything unfolds.

California Gun-Grabbers Are Scapegoating Lawful Gun Owners (Again)

As gun-controllers exploit a California mass shooting, even mainstream media are expressing skepticism.

In the wake of the recent shootout in Sacramento — now thought to be a gang battle involving at least five shooters — gun-control zealots are determined to take away the people’s rights and give them more of what doesn’t work.

California has more gun laws than any other, yet state lawmakers are still exploring new ways to disarm peaceable residents and leave them at the mercy of criminals. Meanwhile, President Biden has already taken advantage of the tragedy, calling on Congress to pass the same laws that didn’t stop the carnage in California.

Surprisingly, even the mainstream press, which tends to be favorable toward gun control, has shown skepticism.
It was reported on April 19 that “several bills” to further restrict guns in California have “gained momentum from recent mass shootings,” especially the April 3 Sacramento massacre. Predictably, many of these bills have no connection to that incident. Instead, they’re items from the wish list of anti-gun groups: enabling lawsuits against gun manufacturers, further burdening lawful firearm dealers, restricting gun marketing, and “targeting ghost guns.”  Less predictably, NPR, notorious for left-wing anti-gun bias, would question the value of passing more gun-control laws in California.
Following the Sacramento massacre, NPR reported on “at least 24 more bills” to restrict guns in California. The piece had a borderline-snarky headline that a gun-rights advocate could have written: “After the Sacramento shooting, the state with the most gun laws may soon get more.” In many ways, the piece itself was typical NPR. But it also contained flashes of realism.
“Even when states make it harder to get guns, gun violence still occurs all too often,” reporter Laurel Wamsley noted. “In a state that already has more gun restrictions than anywhere else in the U.S., how much further can the law go?” As Wamsley pointed out, the violence-plagued state already gets Giffords’s highest rating for gun control.
NPR wasn’t alone in raising questions. Amazingly, the Trace — an outlet dedicated to gun-control advocacy — seemed skeptical about the California push. Its April 4 Daily Bulletin was headlined by the Sacramento shooting. It concluded, as the bulletin often does, with a statistic: “107 — the number of gun control laws on the books in California, more than any other state.” The same day, the Trace reported that the Sacramento shooting “likely involved” an already-illegal gun modification.
An even clearer note of skepticism came from Politico, reporting on President Biden’s reaction to the Sacramento shootout.
In his gun-grabbing response — basically a rehash of old material — Biden called on Congress to “ban ghost guns,” “require background checks for all gun sales,” “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” and “repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability.”

Continue reading “”

Pro-Gun Group’s Increasing Power and Influence Upsets All the Right People in Oklahoma.

Wayne Shaw seemed to have all the conservative credentials needed to win reelection to his state Senate seat in Oklahoma two years ago. The mild-mannered pastor with deep ties to the community had a solidly conservative voting record during his eight years in office.

But when Shaw, as chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, declined to hear a bill to allow people to carry guns into bars, he drew the ire of an unemployed truck driver who was passionate about gun rights.

The angry gun advocate, Don Spencer, belonged to a local pro-firearms group. In short order, he and his friends recruited a Republican challenger for Shaw, held a fundraiser in his district and helped defeat the incumbent in the primary.

“I’m not opposed to guns,” said Shaw, who was stunned by the development. “But that (guns in bars) is a good way of throwing gasoline on a fire.”

Spencer’s feat is an example of a phenomenon in red states where the Republican Party is moving farther and farther to the right: The most potent political forces aren’t always the long-established organizations that have groomed candidates and advanced legislation for decades. In the current climate, little-known outsiders, even without pedigree or money, can become powerbrokers quickly if connected to incendiary issues like guns or abortion. And almost any officeholder can become vulnerable.

Continue reading “”

“If you caucus with gun grabbers, you are a gun grabber.”

Can “Pro-Gun” Democrats Be Trusted?

(No. And you can barely trust “Pro-Gun” Republicans)

From time to time, the topic comes up in which we are tasked with deciding if a Democrat deserves our vote based primarily on their support of the 2nd Amendment. I was in a discussion about this topic and realized that there’s a major problem with this. Often, we hear Democrats announce that they are “gun-owners” and/or “hunters” prior to some sort of anti-gun statement.

I have my doubts as to whether their “gun ownership” amounts to much more than a dusty old war rifle that grandpa left in the attic and their implication to be “one of us” is often a tactic used to gain some sort of “authority” in a gun-control debate, but let’s look at this from a practical perspective. If I were to support a Democrat who claims to be “pro-gun,” (whether that be a Senator, Representative or even the President,) what other policies am I inadvertently supporting, and how high on the hierarchical scale of values are gun rights for this person?

Show me a Democrat who claims they don’t support universal background checks, red flag laws, magazine capacity restrictions, waiting periods, 21-year-old age requirements, semi-automatic rifle bans, bump-stock bans, suppressor bans, forced reset trigger bans & suing manufacturers out of business, and I will show you a liar.

What makes them a Democrat? Isn’t the very reason they vote on the left, to support the policies of those on the left? How many more left-wing policies do you want your children and grandchildren to be burdened with? Is it likely that they will actually go against their party on gun rights when you need them to? Have you ever seen that happen, and in the rare case it might, where else are they compromising your values? Some strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment are willing to support a Democrat who claims to support gun rights. Is this because they believe we are converting them? Good luck with that. The real question is, what else are we getting in that dysfunctional social package?

In an announcement on April, 11, 2022, on “ghost guns,” Joe Biden revealed this exact hypocrisy when he called firearms dealers “merchants of death,” yelled and screamed about “weapons of war” and then went on to say, “and by the way. It’s gonna sound bizarre. I support the 2nd Amendment.”

When we support a so-called “pro 2nd Amendment Democrat,” are we also supporting their position on open borders, abortion, CRT, bisexual bathrooms, “sex-ed” for Kindergarteners, the termination of oil drilling in America, the green new deal, ESG, the early release of prisoners, bail reform, never-ending medical mandates, the defunding of our police departments, welfare dependency and the overall forfeiture of our basic ability to make our own decisions? Because if so, I’m out.

So why are any of us being asked to put at risk, and most likely compromise, traditional American values and Conservative beliefs, just to get a “2A-friendly” vote in Congress by some politician who claims to support our gun rights? (Which by the way, probably wouldn’t happen when it comes down to actual voting behavior due to massive Congressional pressure from their peers.) Could it be Democrats recognize how strong the 2nd Amendment is and how protective of it, most Americans are? Could presenting a so-called “pro-gun Democrat,” be a way of coercing Republicans into unwittingly compromising at the voting booth with the hopes of saving our 2nd Amendment?

Sorry. The 2nd Amendment is not up for debate or compromise.

When I hear people suggesting that I should support a Democrat because they are “pro-gun,” I smell a rat. I have a problem trusting most Republicans with the 2nd Amendment. Now you’re asking me to vote for a Democrat? I don’t think so.

To recap:
CDC APPROVES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S APPEAL TO BRING BACK AIRLINE MASK MANDATE.

Psaki Admits Appealing the CDC Mandate Ruling Is All About Preserving Power

In Wednesday’s White House press briefing, Jen Psaki was asked about the Biden administration’s rather disjointed reaction to a federal judge in Florida striking down the CDC’s mask mandate for travelers and its delayed response to the ruling — as Townhall reported earlier this week.

But when given the opportunity to explain and justify the Biden administration’s decision to appeal the federal judge’s invalidation of the CDC’s federal mask mandate, Psaki admitted that the White House would fight the ruling in order to “preserve that authority for the CDC to have in the future.” That is, it’s not about The Science(TM), it’s about protecting power.

Continue reading “”

I can guarantee with near metaphysical certitude that if you hear this on the MSM, it’ll be spun to appear as racist as possible.

Experts Say the ‘Defund the Police’ Movement Led to a Massive Spike in Black Murders.

The immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd saw a dramatic increase in violent crime across the country. But the political movement Floyd’s death spawned — “Defund the Police” — ended up creating a massive spike in the murders of black people as law enforcement pulled back from policing black communities in what’s referred to as “The Ferguson Effect.”

The left sniffs at the Ferguson Effect because it, in essence, blames their coddling of violent protesters for the spike in crime. But given the anecdotal evidence from every large city about the reality of the effect —some police making a conscious effort not to get involved — it would seem that the Ferguson Effect can certainly be included among any causes for the increase in violent crime.

The year 2020 may have been unique because of the pandemic and conditions surrounding the lockdowns.

Continue reading “”

California bill targets First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters

Buying your kid a Browning t-shirt could soon be impossible, at least if you live in California. Democrat Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has introduced a bill that is starting to get some attention in the state legislature, and it poses a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters.

In Bauer-Kahan’s view, AB 2571 “seeks to restrict the malicious and manipulative firearms marketing geared towards children and youth,” but a perusal of the text shows her real aim is to crack down on parents who aim to educate their kids about safe and responsible gun ownership.

According to the current language of the measure, the proposed law would “prohibit a person or entity that publishes materials directed to minors in this state in any medium from marketing or advertising firearms in that material, as specified, and would prohibit a person or entity that publishes a marketing or advertising communication from publishing or disseminating marketing or advertising for firearms that is attractive to minors, as specified.”

What makes a particular communication “attractive to minors”? The bill is open-ended, but includes things like using cartoon characters to promote firearms or firearms products; offering firearm brand name merchandise, such as hats, t-shirts, or stuffed animals, for minors; or even offering firearms or firearms accessories with colors or designs that are specifically designed to appeal to minors.
Violations of the law could result in a $25,000 fine, which is clearly an attempt to chill pro-Second Amendment speech.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva tells Bearing Arms that it’s clear that state lawmakers “aren’t satisfied” with curtailing Second Amendment rights and now trying to infringe on the First Amendment as well.

“Commercial speech is still protected speech,” says Oliva, adding, “California’s bought-and-paid for gun control politicians might find it disagreeable that parents actually teach their children safe and responsible firearm ownership, but that is a reality, albeit one they are attempting to erase. Advertising images of parents and youths hunting together would be illegal. Youth hunting clothing branded with firearm and ammunition maker logos would be banned. The bill authors know this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights, but they give no consideration to fundamental rights when it comes to advancing a gun control agenda.”

Why would they, honestly? Most California Democrats don’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental right that must be protected. At best they see it as an anachronism that has no place in 21st Century America, and far too many of them see our right to keep and bear arms as an evil that must be eradicated. They don’t see AB 2571 as the censorious pile of rat droppings that it is. No, they honestly believe they’re protecting innocent children from the evil and twisted firearms industry.. not to mention the deplorable gun-owning dupes those kids might have as parents.

Here’s my question for Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and other backers of this bill: even if gun companies were marketing their products to minors (which I don’t think is actually the case), shouldn’t all of the gun control laws on the books in California prevent minors from getting their hands on a gun? I mean, minors can’t legally purchase firearms or ammunition in the state, and there are background check requirements for all gun transfers and ammunition purchases. If California’s gun control laws work as well as Democrats say they do, then why do they believe this bill is necessary?

Sadly, I know the answer. This legislation isn’t about preventing minors from illegally acquiring firearms. It’s about demonizing the firearms industry.

I would love to say that this bill is going nowhere, but it already has the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and appears to be gaining some traction in the state Assembly, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. The time for California gun owners to speak out is now. I don’t know that even a wave of opposition from gun owners across the state will be enough to derail the bill in the legislature, but it’s the first step in what’s likely to be a long campaign to defend our First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment.

Rep. Stefanik backs new bill protecting gun rights in bankruptcy situations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (WWTI) — Local lawmakers are voicing their support in new legislation aiming to protect second amendment rights.

On April 11, the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2022 (H.R. 7493) was introduced to Congress by House Republications to amend Title 11 of the United States code pertaining to a federal bankruptcy law.

According to lawmakers, if passed, this legislation would modify the federal bankruptcy law to allow an individual debtor to exempt one or more firearms from their bankruptcy estate. These firearms could have up to a total maximum value of $3,000.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik cosponsored this legislation and said it would “ensure an individual’s right to self-defense is not stripped due to financial hardships.”

“I am proud to sponsor legislation to ensure gun owners can always maintain their Constitutional right to bear arms. The government should not be allowed to take advantage of lawful gun owners who have declared bankruptcy,” Stefanik said in a press release.

Stefanik added that the bill also labels firearms as household goods that are not subject to liens. This would be a claim against assets used as a collateral to satisfy a debt in bankruptcy situations.

The full legislation can be read below:

Protecting-Gun-Owners-in-Bankruptcy-Act-of-2022

TODAY’S INSTALLMENT IN THE FEINSTEIN COUNTDOWN

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, a reliable barometer of certified liberal opinion inside the Beltway, has a column up about the matter of Dianne Feinstein, which even a careless reader can make out as another loud note in chorus of coordinated voices that has determined that Feinstein needs to be forced from office.

The article breaks no new ground in terms of news value or reporting, as with one small exception it simply recycles the details of the San Francisco Chronicle story. The one small exception is this passage:

Feinstein’s handling of the 2018 Brett M. Kavanaugh confirmation hearings — in particular, her decision not to alert fellow lawmakers to the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford — prompted a near-insurrection by her Democratic colleagues.

I hadn’t heard previously that other Democratic Senators had been annoyed by being blindsided by the Blasey Ford allegations, and I am not sure I believe it.

The column pretends to be a high-minded meditation on the general problem of people staying too long in office, and here, too, there is an interesting tell. As Marcus explains it:

Feinstein is the oldest sitting senator, but she is far from the only official whose mental acuity has been called into question. . .

So one question raised by the focus on Feinstein must be whether, as some of her defenders insinuate, there is sexism at work. I think I have pretty good radar for sexism, and I just don’t see it. . . To the extent that there is differential treatment, the explanation might be less gender than ideology. Progressive Democrats long frustrated by Feinstein’s centrism are eager for a more liberal replacement.

There it is. (Never mind that Feinstein’s “centrism” is largely a myth, but it is easy to pull off that con when your fellow Senator is Barbara Boxer and then Kamala Harris.) And beyond this candid admission, we have to wonder whether this effort to drive Feinstein from office is a dry run for how the left will try to remove President Biden at some point soon.

Why not just say it plainly? Biden is a bald faced liar, and always has been.

Biden Is Truth-Challenged When It Comes to the Second Amendment (and Much Else)

Since taking office, Joe Biden has been busy weaponizing the federal government against Americans who make or desire to purchase firearms. Naturally, he defends this by trotting out false claims about the Second Amendment. A favorite of his is the statement that when the Second Amendment was adopted, people couldn’t buy a cannon.

He’s taken to task for that assertion in this Truth about Guns post. 

Since he first made that statement, it has been refuted several times, such as in this article by Robert Wright.

Does Biden know or care? Of course not. The truth or falsity of a claim doesn’t matter, only advancing his agenda.

Even if it were true that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow anyone to buy a cannon, that would not logically lead to his conclusion that the feds should prevent buying all kinds of other firearms. Neither truth nor logic are of any concern to Biden.

If you’d like to be well armed to argue with Bidenistas over the meaning of the Second Amendment, I suggest reading America, Guns, and Freedom by Miguel Faria.

Kemp’s pro-gun retort to challenger Perdue is glorious

Gov. Brian Kemp has signed constitutional carry into law. It’s now in effect here in the state of Georgia, which means your’s truly doesn’t need a permit anymore unless I leave the state and want reciprocity.

And since the two states I generally travel to are also constitutional carry states…

Anyway, I appreciate what Kemp did, but the truth is that we’d have liked to have seen it happen much sooner. I think everyone feels that way.

Yet, political realities are what they are.

Despite that, it’s a point of contention in the GOP primary where the governor’s challenger, former U.S. Senator David Perdue has taken issue with it not being done earlier

“I think that’s great,” said David Perdue. “It’s too bad it took four years to get it done and it’s too bad it took me getting in the race for them to get any energy to get that done, but I’m glad it’s getting done.”

Now, understand that it would have passed last year were it not for House Speaker David Ralston deciding the bill shouldn’t advance because of the mass shooting in Atlanta. I don’t really see how you can put that on Kemp.

However, Kemp had a response to Perdue’s criticism.

“Well, you had to get the votes in the legislature,” Gov. Kemp explained.  “But look, he was in the United States Senate for six years.  I don’t ever remember him pushing this bill up there.  It’d be great if they did that at the federal level.  We wouldn’t have to do it with all the states.”

OK, I don’t care who you are, that’s amazing.

Look, even though I live in Georgia, I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. I’m skeptical of Perdue’s claims that he’s the only one who can beat Stacey Abrams when he couldn’t even beat career candidate Jon Ossoff while Kemp actually did beat Abrams.

Yet either is preferable over an anti-gun Abrams.

However, Perdue’s attacks on Kemp for not doing something earlier seem more than a little bizarre considering Kemp actually got it done.

The governor is also right about how great it would be to have a law like this at the federal level. It would be absolutely amazing. Then even California and New Jersey residents could enjoy the benefits of constitutional carry.

Look, I’m not doubting both of these two men support the Second Amendment. I also know that it’s a primary and they’re going to fight it out.

However, I can’t help but feel like Perdue is counting on Georgia gun rights advocates to buy into this idea that Kemp could have just snapped his fingers at any time and made constitutional carry happen. It’s like he’s counting on the ignorance of a segment of the base he’s desperately courting, and I don’t like that at all.

Yet the governor flipped the script on him in a way that works for me.

Frankly, I can’t find Perdue  sponsoring any pro-gun legislation during his time in the Senate. As such, he probably needs to sit the gun arguments out

Nebraska concealed carry handgun bill comes short of votes

LINCOLN — In a surprise, state lawmakers failed to muster enough votes Monday to advance a concealed carry handgun bill, called “constitutional carry” by some.

The vote to invoke cloture was 31-9, two short of what’s needed to stop a filibuster and advance a bill. It was also four fewer senators than the number who supported advancement of the bill from first-round debate.

“To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement,” said State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon, who has made passing the bill a priority during his six years in office.

25 other states

At least 25 other states have passed such laws. In Nebraska, it would have allowed people to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a $100 state permit, undergoing a criminal background check and passing a gun safety class.

Brewer had worked for several weeks to negotiate a compromise to Legislative Bill 773 with the Omaha police union and police department, which had expressed concern about the bill watering down existing gun control ordinances in the state’s largest city and complicating their job of reducing gun violence.

The compromise amendment would have left in place an Omaha ordinance that requires registration of handguns. It also would have allowed for the continued prosecution of the crime of “carrying a concealed handgun” if a concealed gun was used in a long list of “covered offenses,” from robbery and kidnapping, to cockfighting and disorderly conduct.

NRA urged ‘no’ vote

But the powerful National Rifle Association urged a “no” vote against the amendment, calling it “a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law.”

Senators failed to pass the compromise amendment on a 13-29 vote — 12 fewer “yes” votes than needed.

The defeat pushed the Omaha Police Officers Association from neutral on the bill to oppose and sparked a debate over whether voting for LB 773 was a vote against law enforcement.

Continue reading “”

Once more, into the fray……….
I think they shouldn’t be regulated as a firearm at all, but getting them off the NFA is a compromise I can live with, for the time being. It would mean that a person would be able to make their own, because, even with this new ‘ghost gun’ regulatory crap, there’s nothing, except state laws, that would stop that.

Hyde-Smith cosponsors bill to reclassify suppressors with regular firearms

U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), of Brookhaven, announced Monday she has cosponsored legislation to reform the regulation of suppressors and make them more available to help preserve the hearing of sportsmen and their hunting dogs.

The Hearing Protection Act (S.2050) would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like a regular firearm.  U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) authored the measure.

“Eliminating a lot of the red tape that restricts access to suppressors could help hunters and sport shooters in Mississippi avoid permanent hearing damage,” Hyde-Smith said.  “The Hearing Protection Act would make commonsense improvements to make it easier for responsible, law-abiding Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights and protect their hearing.”

Regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA), suppressors are subject to additional burdens that often exceed those imposed by more liberal European nations that actually require their use to reduce hearing-related injuries.

S.2050 would:

  • Reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms;
  • Remove NFA jurisdiction over suppressors;
  • Replace the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun;
  • Tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the costly NFA, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.

The Hearing Protection Act would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressors, nor does it get rid of the requirement of a background check.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America, and National Rifle Association support this legislation.

Nebraska Constitutional Carry Set for a Monday Vote!

Next Monday, the Nebraska Senate is poised to vote on important Constitutional Carry legislation, Legislative Bill 773!  The measure is still progressing through a series of votes before it officially passes out of the Senate to the Governor’s desk.  That is why it is more important than ever that you immediately contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT Legislative Bill 773 without further amendments!

Half of the Nation has now enacted some form of Constitutional Carry.  Nebraska can lead the charge for the second half to do so as well.  However, an attempt is being made to add Amendment 2106 to this important self-defense measure, which codifies Omaha’s firearm registration, stigmatizes firearms by increasing penalties for non-violent offenses, and makes “failure to inform” a felony.

The point of Constitutional carry is to make it easy and affordable for everyone to exercise their right to self-defense.  Amendment 2106 is a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law, only affecting Nebraskan’s in Omaha.  Your NRA-ILA stands staunchly in opposition to these additions to LB 773.

Legislative Bill 773 recognizes that a law-abiding adult who is legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm, can do so without first having to obtain government permission.  This ensures that citizens have the right to self-defense without government red tape or delays.  Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing concealed handgun license system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

I used to attribute this to ignorance. No longer. This is straight up stupidity and mendacity

Warriors Coach Steve Kerr Wants Gun Laws that Already Exist in Wake of Sacramento Shooting

Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr reacted to Sunday’s shooting in Sacramento by pushing gun laws that already exist in California.

FOX News quoted Kerr saying, “I don’t think moments of silence are going to do anything. At some point … our government has to decide are we going to have some common sense gun laws, it’s not going to solve everything, but it will save lives.”

He added, “Despite the fact that 80 to 90% of Americans support background checks and you know, you think about all of the common sense laws we could and should put in place.”

Background checks via the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) have existed in every state since the mid-1990s. Moreover, California adopted universal background checks in the 1990s, which means every gun sale in the state–retail or private–requires a background check in order to be legal.

So the background checks Kerr is pushing already exist in California.

Breitbart News noted that President Joe Biden also responded to the Sacramento shooting by pushing gun controls that are already the law in California.

FOX News quoted Biden:

Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. Pass my budget proposal, which would give cities more of the funding they need to fund the police and fund the crime prevention and intervention strategies that can make our cities safer. These are just a few of the steps Congress urgently needs to take to save lives.

California already bans “ghost guns,” has universal background checks, bans “assault weapons,” and bans “high capacity” magazines.

Police noted there were multiple gunmen involved in the Sacramento shooting and also pointed out that the incident was preceded by a fight.

CNN quoted Sacramento Police Chief Kathy Lester saying, “We know that a large fight took place just prior to the shootings. And we have confirmed that there are multiple shooters.”

A stolen gun was recovered at the scene of the shooting.

I suspect, not much, except blabber some more.

Putin Won’t Go, Russia Won’t Collapse—So What Will Biden Do About Ukraine?

Another séance with the ghost of Cardinal Richelieu explains Putin’s objectives in Ukraine: Russia will ruin and depopulate Ukraine, the way Richelieu reduced large parts of Germany to cannibalism during the Thirty Years War. Shortly after I conjured the spirit of Europe’s greatest (and nastiest) strategist, the Telegram channel of Russia’s most fanatic nationalist, Aleksandr Dugin, featured the item below:

NATO says the military phase of the conflict in Ukraine is far from over. Of course, no one will let Zelensky make peace.

Ukraine is not a subject, but an object, where the Zelensky regime is not an actor, but a tool.

Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the intentions of the enemy and use the period of the military phase of the operation to continue the methodical destruction of the military infrastructure of Ukraine, and taking into account NATO’s course of prolonging the conflict, it is advisable to consider moving on to the destruction of industrial facilities in the territories of Ukraine that lie outside our interests, especially paying attention to those objects that Ukraine, for obvious reasons, will not be able to restore. Later, such a convenient opportunity to complete the deindustrialization of Ukraine may not present itself.

An “opportunity to complete the deindustrialization of Ukraine.” Putin isn’t defeated or baffled or confused. He’s turning the crank on the meatgrinder. One doesn’t have to read too far into these lines to conclude that Putin hoped that Zelensky would cut a deal on his terms once Russia invaded, but when Zelensky refused to cut a deal, Putin moved to Option B, which is to erase most of Ukraine from the face of the earth. That’s not as difficult as it sounds. Putin will keep the bits he wants in the Southeast (Donetsk and Luhansk), leave the West to factory farming, and pound the rest to rubble with artillery and air power.

Ukraine’s national population of 45 million had fallen to just 33 million by 2020 because half the working-age population left. Another 5 million refugees have fled, and millions more will leave before Russian cannons fall silent. There won’t be enough working-age Ukrainians left to begin reconstruction. Putin claimed on Feb. 23 that the West intended to turn Ukraine into a NATO missile platform with a 300-mile distance to Moscow. If he can’t get Ukraine to accept neutrality with Russian control over its southeast provinces, he’ll eliminate the threat Richelieu-style.

It’s horrible. But what’s going to stop Putin? To flatten Ukrainian cities, all the Russians need is artillery. All the Javelin anti-tank missiles in the world won’t do any good.

Continue reading “”