Category: Politics

Milwaukee Brewery Killings Highlight How Suppressed Information Enables Infringement

“The people are tired of Moscow Mitch’s deadly obstruction,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared in response to the Milwaukee brewery murders in a tweet that has since been taken down and replaced with a longer statement citing “universal background checks” as some sort of solution. “A year ago, we took action in the House to save lives. Every day that he and the Republican-controlled Senate refuse to act, 100 Americans are killed by gun violence.”

Since so little information was released at that time, how any citizen disarmament bill floated by Democrats would have had any impact on saving lives is left unsaid. And that’s intentional.

Michael Bloomberg, the bodyguarded gun-grabber who almost let slip that he had “bought” Pelosi, was quick to slam President Donald Trump and call for “background checks,” per CNN Politics.

Bloomberg’s “seed money” venture, The Trace, wasted no time exploiting the killings to push its agenda. “True” to its journalistic “ethics,” the report aimed at disarming those of us who behave ourselves, was co-written by the “daddy issues”-plagued flack whose father was a mob hitman.

And Vox, ignoring that correlation does not equal causation, played to those who don’t think things through and tried to tie the killing in with Wisconsin Republicans rejecting disarmament laws that ignore due process. That’s hardly a surprise — being disingenuous about guns is SOP for those guys.

We still don’t know much about what laws (besides the obvious) the lunatic may have ignored. Reports citing the police say he had “two handguns, one with a silencer,” but do not mention their “legality.” If his suppressor was owned in accordance with the rules, Pelosi’s background check argument goes out the window. If not, background checks won’t stop black-market transfers anyway. And can you imagine the field day the antis would be having had he used a quote/unquote “assault rifle”? One with “20, 30, 40, 50 clips in a weapon”…?

What deterrents may have been in place are unknown (by me) at this writing. Per Molson Coors Employment Principles:

“Workplace Security Molson Coors is committed to maintaining a workplace that is free from violence, harassment, intimidation and other unsafe or disruptive conditions due to internal and external threats. Security safeguards for employees are provided as needed and will be maintained with respect for employee privacy and dignity.”

How they meet that commitment is unclear. Especially since the facility’s “No Guns” policy was ignored.

When I started gathering links for this article earlier today, his identity had been unannounced, and that was just revealed as I was writing this. That fits right in with what I blogged last night before going to bed, nothing prescient, just a realization of the way these things always seem to be handled:

It’s been hours and we still haven’t been told who the killer is?  No doubt any social media accounts will be shut down before we do, meaning we will be entirely dependent on “authorities” and “Authorized Journalists” for information and unable to find any dots for connecting on our own.

Lo and behold, once the killer’s identity was released, we’re told his photo  was “taken from a family member’s Facebook page that has since been removed.” Yet despite what appears to be an attempt to bury relevant background information, it was internet sleuths, not “Authorized Journalists,” who uncovered an Elizabeth Warren connection.

The first thing that’s obvious is we’re not talking about one of those “white right-wing nationalists” we’re constantly being warned are the greatest threat we face. If the killer had been one, and if he had social media posts brimming with sentiments that allow “progressives” to dismiss anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders as a Nazi, it would be headline news. It certainly would not have taken this long to release who he was, and odds are good some of his more egregious posts would have survived, at least in screenshot form. As it is, the victims are being blamed for racism, and that’s in spite of a corporate “code of conduct” policy that is now being alleged to work every bit as well as its “security safeguards.”

This in itself is dangerous to freedom. By hiding his identity until they’ve got their ducks lined up, and by ensuring his internet tracks have been swept to only release information supportive of the narrative being told by “the authorities,” our ability to glean public interest information, which is needed to be informed, self-governing citizens, is diminished and effectively deprived.  If our only source of that information is the government, disseminated and amplified through its media mouthpieces, our system becomes no more credible or any less manipulative and tyrannical than China’s or Iran’s.

When that’s the only information out there, demagogues like Pelosi and Bloomberg can say whatever they damn well please without fear of being contradicted, or at least given a reality check. That’s the stuff that influences public opinion and finds its way into legislation with real-world effects on our freedoms.

I’m not sure what the solution is, but it’s one I’d like to see made part of a wider conversation. One can make the case that some information should be withheld pending notification of family members, and other information is temporarily suppressible because public dissemination may have an impact on police investigations, criminal proceedings, national security and the like.

That said, there ought to be a way to find out more about such freaks without government automatically putting their backgrounds on lockdown. Questions about what kind of causes and candidates a killer identified with are unquestionably relevant, not only to protect innocent parties from being blamed and smeared, but to keep political opportunists from circumventing the truth, exploiting ignorance, and imposing more infringements. Significantly, they can only get away with that when key facts are suppressed by those whose mandate should be “to secure the Blessings of Liberty,” and to enforce rights as well as laws.

BERNIE’S OWN PRIVATE DENMARK

Whenever Bernie Sanders’s socialism comes up in the Democratic debates, he deflects criticism by saying he favors something along the lines of Denmark’s model. Sanders’s debate rivals almost invariably let this answer pass. (I think Pete Buttigieg tried to take it on in the last debate but couldn’t get the floor.)

In reality, the policies Sanders advocates bear little resemblance to those of Denmark and other Scandinavian countries today. They do resemble many of the policies these countries tried 50 years ago. However, these policies failed and were discarded.

The Vermont socialist is getting away with false advertising, including bait and switch.

But with Sanders now the clear frontrunner, and perhaps on the verge of nailing down the nomination, some liberals are starting to look behind Sanders’s Denmark dodge, as Buttigieg tried to do in the most recent debate.

Fareed Zakaria calls Sanders on it in this Washington Post op-ed. He writes:

The image [Sanders] conjures up is of a warm and fuzzy social democracy in which market economics are kept on a tight leash through regulation, the rich are heavily taxed and the social safety net is generous. That is, however, an inaccurate and highly misleading description of those Northern European countries today.

Take billionaires. Sanders has been clear on the topic: “Billionaires should not exist.” But Sweden and Norway both have more billionaires per capita than the United States — Sweden almost twice as many. Not only that, these billionaires are able to pass on their wealth to their children tax-free. Inheritance taxes in Sweden and Norway are zero, and in Denmark 15 percent. The United States, by contrast, has the fourth-highest estate taxes in the industrialized world at 40 percent.

The Scandinavian economies were once more in line with Sanders’s socialist vision, but these policies were ruinous. Accordingly, they eventually were abandoned:

In Sweden, government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product doubled from 1960 to 1980, going from approximately 30 percent to 60 percent. But as Swedish commentator Johan Norberg points out, this experiment in Sanders-style democratic socialism tanked the Swedish economy. Between 1970 and 1995, he notes, Sweden did not create a single net new job in the private sector. In 1991, a free-market prime minister, Carl Bildt, initiated a series of reforms to kick-start the economy. By the mid-2000s, Sweden had cut the size of its government by a third and emerged from its long economic slump.

The story is essentially the same throughout Northern Europe, including in Denmark, according to Zakaria. And speaking of Denmark:

A 2008 OECD report found that the top 10 percent in the United States pay 45 percent of all income taxes, while the top 10 percent in Denmark pay 26 percent and in Sweden 27 percent. Among wealthy countries, the average is 32 percent.

The United States has a significantly more progressive tax code than Europe, and its top 10 percent pays a vastly greater share of the country’s taxes than their European counterparts.

Sanders doesn’t want Denmark’s taxation policy. Nor does he advocate other key elements of the Danish model — flexible labor markets, light regulations, and a deep commitment to free trade.

Sanders favors policies much more along the lines of those that failed Scandinavia in the 1960s and 1970s. Or perhaps a mixture of those policies and the ones that are failing in Venezuela today.

As I said, liberals have been slow to point this out. If Sanders is the Democratic nominee, conservatives, with President Trump in the lead, won’t be.

Breaking: Pompeo to Sign Historic Peace Agreement With Taliban

Secretary of state Mike Pompeo is soon traveling to sign a historic peace deal with the Taliban, President Donald Trump said in a statement Friday.

Defense secretary Mark Esper will be signing a joint declaration affirming the administration’s partnership with the Afghan government in concert with the Taliban peace deal. The president described the ceremonies as ‘a powerful path forward to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home’.

President Trump has been pushing for a peace deal with the Taliban in order to keep his campaign promise of ending the decades-long war in Afghanistan. Under the proposed deal, the US would gradually withdraw troops from Afghanistan in exchange for promises from the Taliban that they will not engage in or fund terror.

he president ceased negotiations with the Taliban in September after the group took credit for a suicide car bombing that killed an American service member. However, talks resumed after the Taliban promised that they would be open to reducing violence, a huge change for a group that was committing violent acts at record highs last year. The US and the Taliban reached a seven-day reduction in violence agreement this past Friday, which was not equivalent to a ceasefire but expected the Taliban to avoid any major forms of violence.

Trump stated, ‘these commitments represent an important step to a lasting peace in a new Afghanistan, free from al-Qaeda, Isis, and any other terrorist group that would seek to bring us harm. Ultimately it will be up to the people of Afghanistan to work out their future. We, therefore, urge the Afghan people to seize this opportunity for peace and a new future for their country.’

Secretary Pompeo noted that the US would sign a fuller peace agreement ‘if and only if’ the reduction in violence was successful, adding that it would likely be signed ‘on or about February 29’.

Critics have warned that the Taliban may simply resort back to violence or seize control of the Afghan government after the deal is made, but the administration contends that they are clear-eyed about the risks of negotiating with the terror group and are willing to retaliate with military force if necessary.

Support the Constitutional Carry Bill in Louisiana

Maybe Louisiana and Tennessee will be added to the list of permitless carry states this year.

House Bill number 72 is the “Louisiana Constitutional Carry Act of 2020.” H.B. 72 says that you may carry a concealed firearm unless you are a prohibited person under state and federal law. This is commonly called constitutional carry or permitless carry. In short, if it was legal for you to get a permit and carry in public then the bill allows you to carry in public. If it was illegal for you to carry in public, then it remains illegal for you to carry in public.

The usual objection to constitutional carry is that we’ll have more accidents if untrained people carry in public. We have not seen more firearms accidents after constitutional carry when we look at the data. Where we have been able to measure it, we see people take more firearms classes once we remove the minimum state requirements to carry in public. The state permit acted as an artificial floor for training. Gun owners drove themselves to higher levels of training and competence when that floor was removed. It is past time for us to remove the firearms prohibitions that have their roots in the civil war.

Thomas Massie: If Voter ID Is a Tax on Voting Rights, Firearm Licensing Is a Tax on 2A Rights

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) used a Wednesday hearing to suggest that if Voter ID is a tax on voting rights, then firearm licensing is a tax on Second Amendment rights.

Massie made this point while cross-examining Voter ID opponents, contending that their arguments break down if they oppose issuance of ID’s for one constitutional right but look the other way when ID’s are required for the exercise of a a different right.

Fox News reported Timothy Jenkins, a witness in the hearing and board member of Teaching for Change, criticized Massie for bringing up licensing for gun rights during a discussion about licensing for voting rights.

Jenkins said:

Let me tell you this: that the whole business of being able to vote is not intermeshed with the business of bearing arms. You are taking the time that we’re trying to deal with a constitutional right to be a citizen and turning it into something else. Use another forum! We don’t have many opportunities to get a right to vote. We don’t have an opportunity to talk about the whole business of the way in which the Constitution has been distorted. And don’t take us off on some rabbit trail to talk about arms.

Jenkins also said, “Let the record show, that nobody has died because of their being deprived of bearing guns.”

Massie interjected:

What you’re saying, Mr. Jenkins, is absolutely incorrect. I had a staffer … who worked for me. She watched her husband be gunned down in front of her in a gun-free zone, because her firearm — she followed the law and left her firearm in the vehicle. So do not tell me, and do not tell her that nobody has ever died because they were deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.

In a separate but pertinent example, Breitbart News reported Carol Bowne applied for a license to possess a gun for self-defense in April 2015 and was stabbed to death on June 3, 2015, while waiting for the state of New Jersey to issue the license.

The Courier-Post reported Bowne sought state’s permission to have a gun so she could protect herself from a former boyfriend. It was he who was charged with stabbing Bowne to death as she waited for the state to grant her a license for gun ownership.

Gov. Bill Lee’s (Tennesee) permitless carry bill set to bolster penalties for stealing guns

Standing in a building that prohibits guns while surrounded by dozens of Republican lawmakers, Gov. Bill Lee announced Thursday plans to introduce legislation that would let Tennesseans carry handguns without first obtaining a permit while increasing penalties for illegal gun possession and thefts.

The governor’s sudden support for such legislation is a reversal from his previous public statements, a significant departure from his predecessor and a signal of Tennessee’s tilt toward the more conservative wing of the Republican Party.

“The Second Amendment’s clear and concise and secures the uninfringed right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,” Lee said inside the Old Supreme Court chamber at the state Capitol in Nashville. “Today, I’m announcing that we will be joining 16 other states in this nation by introducing a constitutional carry law in the state of Tennessee.”

Lee and his legislative colleagues presented the measure as one that would make Tennessee safer, a claim immediately met with pushback from critics.

The initiative would allow for both open and concealed carrying of handguns for people 21 and older. The permitless carry right would also be extended to military members who are 18 to 20.

The governor said the legislation is aimed at making theft of a firearm a felony, an offense that is currently a misdemeanor in Tennessee. It will also mandate a six-month incarceration sentence for the crime, up from the current 30-day requirement.

If approved, sentencing will be enhanced when a gun is stolen from a car, as well as for providing a handgun to a juvenile and unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon.

Bloomberg Tries To Control Others Because He Can’t Control Himself

He’s an arrogant snob, but we already knew that.

There used to be a social stigma against believing and behaving as if one is entitled to tell perfect strangers how to speak, what to do, or how to live.

Sadly, that stigma is all but gone today. More people than ever are willing to use the force of government to compel their fellow citizens to comply with their own changing set of mandates.

I am fascinated by the causes that have compelled so many Americans to lose perspective on this fundamental principle of freedom.

Take Michael Bloomberg, please! What drives this man with the freedom to enjoy his wealth in 65 billion different ways, to spend his time trying to curtail the freedoms and choices of others, even down to the size soda they drink and the amount of salt they ought to be allowed to sprinkle on their spinach?

Coloradans know all too well that the former New York Mayor and Democratic Presidential Candidate spent boatloads of cash pushing state legislators to clamp down on their God-given right to defend themselves and their families. He has pushed freedom-sucking and blatantly biased “Red Flag” bills in numerous other states around the country.

Mayor Busybody simply can’t stop telling others what to do. It seems to be an obsession with him—or maybe, a compulsion too. I gained insight into this when I returned to a New York Times article from 2009 that described Bloomberg’s eating habits.

“He dumps salt on almost everything, even saltine crackers. He devours burnt bacon and peanut butter sandwiches. He has a weakness for hot dogs, cheeseburgers, and fried chicken, washing them down with a glass of merlot. And his snack of choice? Cheez-Its.”

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is about control. Controlling one’s out-of-control thoughts, feelings and behavior by attempting to control his external environment. Consciously or unconsciously, those afflicted do this in vain, to the point where they feel unable to control the compulsion as well (as in excessive hand-washing).

Most sufferers aren’t dangerous unless they have 65 billion dollars and a God-complex.

The Times went on to report this delicious insight:

“…he (Bloomberg) is known to grab food off the plates of aides and, occasionally, even strangers. (“Delicious,” he declared recently, after swiping a piece of fried calamari from an unsuspecting diner in Staten Island.)”

Behavior like this exhibits a staggering and extreme lack of boundaries. The Times seems to only snicker at this, but it’s painfully clear that Bloomberg has great difficulty respecting the basic boundaries of civil society. No wonder it’s so easy for him to help himself to your freedoms and your choices, when he can’t stop helping himself to your calamari.

As a rule of thumb, the most flawed and arrogant people are most likely to believe they know what’s best for everyone else and should be allowed to trample on our freedoms. Those who are secure and comfortable in their own skin do not have a need to control others. They have the basic self-confidence to tolerate and even enjoy the uncertainty of others’ choices and behavior. They reserve more extreme action for times in which there has been the actual commission of a crime.

These cultural underpinnings of freedom have been essential to what is America. Socialists have been systematically unraveling these norms in a big way. They have not only been more open about their ideology, they have been working feverishly to put it into practice and prepare more Americans to accept it.

How can we put an end to the presumptuousness of these troubled, would-be tyrants? First, we can return the stigma attached to telling other adults what to do and how to live.
 We can once again elevate the notion that the right to think one’s own thoughts, make one’s own choices, and live one’s own life is sacrosanct, regardless of how flawed, unpopular or even offensive those choices might be.

The imperative of Liberty requires that the individual take responsibility for his own successes and failures so he can learn from his mistakes. In protecting others’ freedoms, he protects his own. We used to know this but it has been unlearned.

As for Michael Bloomberg, he has begun to help our side more than he could have imagined. His off-the-scale ignorance and arrogance was hilariously exposed in his first Democrat primary debate.

If we play our cards right, Bloomberg could help us take a “Big Gulp” toward returning a sensible social stigma of proclaiming oneself as lord and master over the rest of us.

It’s a reasonable strategy, and it shouldn’t cost 65 billion dollars.

Below the Radar: Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- We have been discussing a number of bills introduced in Congress that are often below the radar of Second Amendment supporters for various reasons. Sometimes, they are not given a lot of press. Other times, they simply seem insignificant. They may not even target our rights directly.

One piece of legislation under the “not a lot of press” category is S 1519, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2019. This is legislation introduced by two Second Amendment champions, Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Unlike a lot of the other legislation we have covered, this bill is much more comprehensive. In it, we have fixes to the National Instant Check System, we have something close to the FOPA improvement for travelers introduced by Senator Daines, we have efforts to tackle straw purchases, the expansion of Project Exile, and a host of other provisions that represent significant improvements for those who exercise their Second Amendment rights – or who might wish to do so.

According to a release by Senator Grassley’s office, he and Senator Cruz have been pushing this bill since 2013. That year, when these provisions were introduced as an alternative to anti-Second Amendment legislation favored by the Obama Administration, these provisions secured 52 votes in the Senate, being defeated by a filibuster carried out by anti-Second Amendment extremists.

“Our bill takes necessary steps to ensure that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not infringed and takes commonsense actions to prioritize school safety, punish and deter bad actors, and improve record submissions to NICS. Senator Cruz and I have worked diligently on this bill in the past, and I look forward to this continued partnership,” Grassley said in the release.

In a statement released by his office, Senator Cruz said, “Our bill seeks to increase support for school safety funding, ensure agencies accurately submit records to the NICS, and develop a federal task force to prosecute criminals who illegally purchase a firearm. I urge my Senate colleagues to take a stand with the people of our country and to vote in support of this legislation to stop criminals from getting guns once and for all.”

One other benefit of this bill is that it would not be hard to add additional pro-Second Amendment provisions to it – like Lindsey Graham’s Federal Firearms Licensee Protection Act of 2019, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, or HR 5301 by Kevin Hern. Those would make this bill even better than it already is.

Second Amendment supporters should contact their Representative and Senators and politely ask that they support S 1519, as well as amendments that would add HR 5301, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and the Federal Firearms Licensee Protection Act to this bill. They also should take the time to thank Senators Grassley and Cruz for their efforts over the last seven years to advance this legislation. This legislation would mark a huge step towards the protection of our rights if signed into law.

Dems Compete To Out Anti-Gun Each Other In SC Debate

Tuesday night’s Democratic debate featured a single question about gun control, but at least we got a chance to hear from all of the candidates. Unfortunately, every one of them tried to outdo the next in terms of their support for sweeping gun laws that would criminalize the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.

Joe Biden was first out of the gate, and talked about how he was able to pass the Clinton Gun Ban in 1994 before he took a swipe at Bernie Sanders for voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. Biden’s gaffes have been coming fast and furious as of late, and he bizarrely claimed that 150 million Americans have been killed by guns since 2007.  Biden finished by issuing a threat to gun manufacturers that he will come for them if he’s elected. This has been part of his stump speech for at least the past few days, and every time, he looks into the camera and points his finger. It’s such a scripted line, but the Democrat audience in South Carolina ate it up.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, completely changed the subject from gun control to her desire to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate, which she said is needed in order to pass gun control. The thing is, she never got back to the gun control bills she wanted to pass, but spent her entire time rambling about removing the filibuster in order to pass any number of her proposals.

When Bernie Sanders had the opportunity to respond, he swiped back at Joe Biden by noting he had voted for terrible trade agreements. The crowd in South Carolina didn’t like that, and booed Sanders for his dodge. Sanders said the point was that every politician makes a bad vote every now and then, and said his vote in support of the PLCAA was simply that; a bad vote. Sanders proudly touted his “D-” rating from the NRA. Right now, he said, we need to expand background checks, close gun show loophole, and do what Americans, not the NRA, wants.

Bloomberg, who earlier in the debate slipped and talked about having “bought” the congressional seats of dozens of Democrats in the 2018 elections, said that he “has a 6-million person organization” that has put background check laws on the books in twenty states (of course he didn’t talk about the fact that those new laws haven’t led to fewer crimes.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar stuck to her theme for the night, that Democrats need a midwesterner to win the nation’s midsection in November. She claimed that she was the only one on stage who won in Republican congressional districts while being for the assault weapons ban, hoping to portray herself as a moderate who can bring independents and some Republicans into the Democratic fold, at least on Election Day. And then she brought up her Uncle Dick in the deer stand, which she has done every single time she’s been asked about firearms in a debate setting. At this point, I’m starting to get worried for the guy. It sounds like he’s been up there for months, and it also sounds like Amy Klobuchar doesn’t know any other gun owners besides her uncle who lives in a tree stand.

Buttigieg also stuck to the same talking points he brings up when he’s asked about gun control; namely that anything that even resembles the weapon of war he carried in Afghanistan shouldn’t be sold in this country. And, as always, none of the moderators bothered to ask him a follow up question: if you don’t think modern sporting rifles should be sold in the United States, what do you think should happen to the roughly 18-million rifles in private hands?

The other billionaire on stage, Tom Steyer, was the last to answer, and he said that the real problem is that corporations have bought Washington, D.C., and that specifically, “gun manufacturers own the Senate,” which begs the question: Does Bloomberg then own the House of Representatives? Steyer didn’t bring up any specific gun control proposals, but said he believes that term limits need to be imposed on Congress, and Democrats need to win big in November to have the mandate needed to pass gun control laws.

If you notice, there really wasn’t much discussion about any of the actual proposals from any of the candidates, which are arguably the most anti-gun campaign platforms in our nation’s history. Some candidates didn’t even bother to mention any of their gun control plans, much less attempt a somewhat deep dive in the minute that they had to answer the question.

Gun owners didn’t learn anything new in Thursday night’s debate, but they definitely got a reminder of what’s at stake in the November elections. No matter which candidate on stage ends up as the eventual nominee, the future of our right to keep and bear arms depends on them losing on Election Day.

U.S. health officials urge Americans to prepare for spread of coronavirus

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO (Reuters) – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Tuesday alerted Americans to begin preparing for the spread of coronavirus in the United States after infections surfaced in several more countries.

The announcement signaled a change in tone for the Atlanta-based U.S. health agency, which had largely been focused on efforts to stop the virus from entering the country and quarantining individuals traveling from China.

“The data over the past week about the spread in other countries has raised our level of concern and expectation that we are going to have community spread here,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the CDC’s head of respiratory diseases, told reporters on a conference call.

What is not known, she said, is when it will arrive and how severe a U.S. outbreak might be. “Disruption to everyday life might be severe” and businesses, schools and families should begin having discussions about the possible impact from the spread of the virus, Messonnier cautioned.

In a teleconference later on Tuesday, Dr. Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s principal deputy director, said that while the immediate risk in the United States was low, the current global situation suggested a pandemic was likely.

“It’s not a question of if. It’s a question of when and how many people will be infected,” Schuchat said.

Separately, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar told a Senate subcommittee there will likely be more cases in the United States, and he asked lawmakers to approve $2.5 billion in funding to fight the outbreak after proposing cuts to the department’s budget.

11-year-old girl brings loaded AR-15 to gun legislation hearing in Idaho

Ohh the Horror! Eek! Gasp! Pearl-Clutch!
See? BS! Goes apoplectic. The Idaho legislators simply yawn.

An 11-year-old girl appeared Monday at a legislative hearing in Idaho, toting a loaded AR-15 assault weapon. Bailey Nielsen was with her grandfather, who is supporting a proposal that would allow visitors to Idaho who can legally possess firearms to carry a concealed handgun within city limits.

Charles Nielsen addressed the committee that voted to send the legislation to the full House as his granddaughter stood at his side with the weapon slung over her right shoulder. She did not speak.

“Bailey is carrying a loaded AR-15,” Charles Nielsen told lawmakers. “People live in fear, terrified of that which they do not understand. She’s been shooting since she was 5 years old. She got her first deer with this weapon at 9. She carries it responsibly. She knows how not to put her finger on the trigger. We live in fear in a society that is fed fear on a daily basis.”

He said Bailey was an example of someone who could responsibly handle a gun, and lawmakers should extend that to non-residents.

“When they come to Idaho, they should be able to carry concealed, because they carry responsibly,” he said. “They’re law-abiding citizens. It’s the criminal we have to worry about.”

There was no notable reaction among lawmakers to the girl carrying the AR-15, and none asked Charlie Nielsen any questions after he testified. Guns are not an uncommon sight in the Statehouse when gun legislation is being debated, particularly handguns on belt holsters. Long rifles such as AR-15s also appear occasionally.

Some Idaho lawmakers are known to carry concealed weapons in the Statehouse. State Police patrol the Statehouse, and one and sometimes two are typically present at committee meetings where emotions can become strong.

Republican Rep. Christy Zito, who is proposing the measure opposed by the three Democrats on the House State Affairs Committee, said the legislation is intended to clear up confusion about state gun laws. Backers also say it will give people the ability to defend themselves if needed.

Idaho residents 18 and older are allowed to carry a concealed handgun within city limits in Idaho without a permit or training following a new law that went into place last summer. The legislation would extend that to any legal resident of the United States or a U.S. armed services member.

Why Democratic presidential candidates’ obsession with banning guns is not the answer

With less than a month to go until voting is held in Super Tuesday primaries, Democratic presidential candidates may want to consider how their positions on gun control will affect their chances at the ballot, particularly in Virginia. At a minimum, they can expect a grilling on the topic during any campaigning in the Commonwealth.

The evidence from the peaceful, non-partisan Second Amendment protest in Richmond strongly suggests that voters there are passionate, vocal and well-informed on the issue. And you can bet the national audience will be listening intently as they answer difficult questions not much raised elsewhere so far in their campaigns for president.

For example: What are these politicians trying to achieve with their gun control legislation? Perhaps it is to stop mass shootings (certainly a worthy goal), but 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in “gun free” zones. Perhaps it is to reduce crime, but Virginia already has the fourth lowest violent crime rate in the nation — some 40 percent below the national average — so additional firearms restrictions seem unlikely to be of benefit.

In fact the only safer states are Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire — all of which have gun laws as lenient or more so than Virginia at the moment, while neighboring D.C., Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee all have higher violent crime rates. And Virginia’s violent crime and murder rates have fallen consistently over the last 20 years, while at the same time the population has grown by 10 percent and gun ownership by almost 50 percent. This would strongly suggest that tighter gun control brings no benefits but plenty of problems, and there is much additional data to suggest this holds true across the nation.

One of the avenues the candidates are all pursuing is to ban certain types of gun, which they have labelled as Assault Weapons. This despite the fact that the federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994-2004 showed no benefits and, on a thorough examination of the data, may even have increased the criminal use of such weapons. Any such policies would not affect automatic weapons, which are very tightly controlled at federal level. Instead they seem to be centered on AR-15 style rifles, despite the fact that rifles tend to be used in less than 5 percent of all criminal shootings, and would do nothing to limit criminal access to the handguns which feature in over 95 percent of shootings.

And a ban, which would affect around 1,000,000 Virginians and over 45,000,000 Americans by requiring surrender, confiscation and/or registration, is not limited to AR-15 style weapons (and one must wonder if they choose the features of such weapons because they incorrectly believe that AR stands for either Assault Rifle or perhaps Army Rifle instead of the Armalite Rifle company who originally designed it specifically for hunting) but any rifle with any single one of a number of similar features. Such a ban would therefore affect vastly more than just AR-15 style rifles.

In the wake of horrifying mass shootings such as the Virginia Beach and Virginia Tech shootings such a ban might seem reasonable to many, but in addition to the points made above, it would also fail to address additional substantial legal problems. For example the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that Second Amendment protections extend to weapons “in common use for lawful purposes.” With the sheer quantity of AR-15 style firearms involved, this most popular of rifle styles can certainly be considered to be “in common use for lawful purposes.” So what is the point in proposing policies which may be neither constitutionally permissible nor enforceable?

Such facts might lead town hall participants to ask Democratic presidential candidates how many law-abiding citizens they are prepared to criminalize and demean in their pursuit of gun control? Do they seriously intend to make felons of millions of residents of the Republic? How many casualties are they prepared to inflict on ordinary folks (and law enforcement) who would see themselves as standing up for their constitutional rights and might forcibly resist any attempts at confiscation? How many criminals (or criminally insane) would such legislation deter? And, perhaps most importantly, what benefit would actually derive from a ban on assault firearms?

It might be that what these politicians truly fear themselves is encapsulated in these questions. It may be symptomatic that Gov. Northam’s declaration of a state of emergency to ban guns around the Virginia Capitol on Lobby Day the other week (thus statistically increasing the risks to the crowds and despite much historical evidence of peaceful gun lobbying to the contrary) was because of his own fear of guns in the hands of angry citizens who might refuse to submit to his agenda. It could be that what politicians who advocate gun control truly fear is not violent crime or mass shootings but a future well-armed rejection of their own legislative over-reach.

What Utopia? Democratic Socialism is Communism

“There is no difference between Communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same end:

  • Communism enslaves men by force
  • Socialism, by vote

It is merely the difference between murder, and suicide!” ~ Ayn Rand

The “Socialist Utopia” of Denmark!

In the Democrat “debate” this week in Nevada, Bernie Sanders used Denmark as a shining example of “successful socialism,” and the model he wants to use for the USA.

He calls it “Democratic Socialism” and cynically denies its umbilical cord to Communism.

Yet, in Denmark taxes are the highest in Europe.

“Free” higher education there is poor, by any standard.

“Free” healthcare is extremely poor. Deaths from cancer are much higher than in America, and Danes in general have a lower life expectancy than Americans.

Danes still burn much coal, and they drive cars!

Both private and public debt among Danes is extremely high.

Danish work ethic is poor. There is a critical skills shortage. Productivity is the poorest in Europe.

Consumption of anti-depression drugs in Denmark is exceedingly high.

With oil revenues dwindling, Danes are poor, and getting poorer! Most Danes are on some form of public welfare.

Violent crime, particularly perpetrated by unassimilated Islamic immigrants, is very high, and getting worse.

Vote Against Socialism
What Utopia? Democratic Socialism is Communism

And, of course, legally owning any kind of gun in Denmark is all but impossible, and forceful self-defense is essentially illegal. Violent criminals have a right to expect no resistance from their victims.

The foregoing pretty-well describes the “socialist utopia” of Denmark.

Curiously, I don’t notice many Democrats moving there!

Yet, that is Bernie’s wet dream for all of us.

“It’s not an endlessly expanding ‘list of rights:’

The ‘right’ to education

The ‘right’ to healthcare

The ‘right’ to food and housing

That’s not freedom

That’s dependency!

Those aren’t ‘rights’

Those are the rations of slavery, hay and a barn for human cattle.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

Over half of NC counties have passed 2nd Amendment resolutions

RALEIGH — As of the end of the first week of February, 60 of North Carolina’s 100 counties have passed some form of Second Amendment resolution affirming the right of citizens to bear arms. That number is over four times the total from the end of January when only 12 counties had passed such a measure.

Brunswick, Carteret, Lee and Lenoir are the most recent to join the movement.

The Franklin County Commission passed their resolution on Feb. 3, stating the county will protect the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms and oppose any unconstitutional means to restrict such rights.

Onslow County commissioners met on Feb. 10 and unanimously adopted a Second Amendment resolution. By the recommendation from the county’s attorney, the Onslow resolution does not declare the county specifically to be a “sanctuary.”

Onslow Chairman Jack Bright said that they passed this resolution to let legislators know how their citizens felt after watching the introduction of laws restricting gun rights in Virginia.

On Feb. 11, Madison commissioners voted 4-0 to pass a resolution that declares Madison County to be a “Second Amendment Sanctuary.” The next day, on Feb. 12, Martin County commissioners unanimously passed a similar resolution.

Iredell County’s Board of Commissioners discussed the topic in January and unanimously passed a resolution at its meeting in early February, as did commissioners in Bladen, Columbus and Johnston counties.

The Columbus resolution was supported by Rep. Brendan Jones (R-Columbus) at the county commissioner’s January meeting.

In a letter to the commissioners, Jones said, “Recent gun control efforts by those around the country, however, have led various counties and towns to take a proactive stance to ensure there is no infringement upon this constitutional right. As a result, passing or enacting a resolution of this kind would work to oppose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.”

Gun control efforts in other areas of the country are headed to North Carolina soon, starting with a major gun control group dropping a large amount of cash to push for more restrictions on guns in the state.

Everytown for Gun Safety PAC poured around $2.5 million in Virginia during 2019 to influence gun control legislation, and the group plans to spend at least $250,000 in North Carolina this year.

Everytown was founded and is largely financed by Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Members of Everytown include Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, Students Demand Action, and Mayors against Illegal Guns, which is an organization also co-founded by Bloomberg.

The group’s first expenditure will be a video ad on Facebook titled “North Carolina: On Notice.” The ad claims 1,300 people die by gun violence each year in the state but that number is problematic due to the conflation of overall gun deaths with criminal activities involving firearms.

The Everytown Facebook ad uses numbers mainly from the Center for Disease Control’s 2017 data showing North Carolina had 1,430 deaths in attributable to firearms, however, that total includes suicides and accidental shootings.

According to the FBI, the number of homicides that took place in North Carolina involving a firearm in 2017 was 292, or just 20% of the number Everytown uses.

Counties with large urban centers like Guilford, Mecklenburg, New Hanover and Wake have yet to take up such measures.

Dara Demi, communications director for Wake County government, told NSJ, “The Wake County Board of Commissioners has not discussed this issue to date during its formal meetings, and it is not currently on the agenda for any future meetings.”

According to General Assembly Senate Republicans, in North Carolina counties adopting Second Amendment resolutions, 76% of Democrats on county boards voted to support sanctuary policy.

“You won’t find a clearer example of the internal fractures facing the Democratic Party. Even elected officials are bucking the extreme urban-focused agenda the Democratic Party elites are pushing,” Senators Tom McInnis (R-Richmond) and Brent Jackson (R-Sampson) said in a press release.

What about Bernie Sanders’ heart attack? At 78, he says you know enough.

An easy conclusion to make is that the heart attack was worse than he’s letting on.

Quietly, amid all the attempted primary vote-counting, the nationally-televised debating and the political charges flying back and forth, Sanders just made a confession unintentionally. Under polite but firm questioning from NBC’s Chuck Todd, Sanders admitted he’s broken a promise to release his full medical records. But he claims on the basis of no authority whatsoever that’s OK.

Last fall, you may recall, Sanders was stricken with a heart attack that knocked him out of campaigning. Taking the oath of office at 79, if successful, Sanders would be older than any other U.S. president, entering or leaving the White House. Today, he’s already 13 years past the average lifespan of a man born before Pearl Harbor in 1941.

“The American people,” Sanders said in September, “have the right to know whether the person they’re going to be voting for for president is healthy. And we will certainly release our medical records before the primaries. It will certainly be before the first votes are cast.”…..

Washington State Magazine Ban Fails Crossover Deadline

February 19th at 5:00PM was the deadline for bills to advance from their chamber of origin. Bills to ban standard capacity magazines and increase the red tape to obtain a CPL did not receive a floor vote and are likely defeated for the session. A bill to reform Washington’s onerous background check system passed the House. Unfortunately, several anti-gun bills did clear this deadline and will also continue in the legislative process.

House Bill 2240 and Senate Bill 6077 ban the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen and ten rounds of ammunition respectively.

2nd Amendment Protection Gains Momentum In Michigan

Grassroots efforts across Michigan to enact local ordinances or resolutions protecting 2nd Amendment rights are growing. The Jackson County Board of Commissioners is the latest local governmental unit in Michigan to approve a resolution supporting 2nd Amendment rights.

The commissioners were first presented with the proposal early last month. The resolution supports the county Sheriff and Prosecutor in efforts to refuse to enforce unconstitutional firearms restrictions against any citizen. The original resolution presented to the full Jackson County Board of Commissioners originally declared the county a 2nd Amendment “sanctuary” County. But some board members thought that would make people connect it to so-called sanctuary cities nationwide that use that term to indicate protection for illegal aliens. So the board opted to go with the characterization of  “2nd Amendment refuge county” instead.

13 Michigan counties have approved similar resolutions. Some county boards have rejected the approach, saying it is only symbolic and carries no weight. Supporters say there’s nothing wrong with being symbolic and making a statement in support of 2nd Amendment rights.

Read More: 2nd Amendment Protection gains Momentum In Michigan | https://wbckfm.com/2nd-amendment-protection-gains-momentum-in-michigan/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral