Category: Goobermint

Washington “ghost gun” arrest kills narrative

he state of Washington has passed a “ghost gun” law that will go into effect later this year. We’re told it will stop criminals from building their own firearms and keep guns out of the hands of bad people.

However, the arrest of a Vancouver man raises some serious questions on that front.

A man living in Vancouver, Washington was charged with illegal firearm possession on Monday. Authorities say they seized at least five ‘ghost guns.’

According to the FBI Seattle Division, 46-year-old Joao Ricardo DeBorba, a Brazilian National with multiple convictions for domestic violence assault, was arrested Friday on eight counts of illegal possession of firearms. He is being held at the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac pending further court proceedings.

Authorities say last week, law enforcement served a search warrant at DeBorba’s residence and seized five firearms that did not have serial numbers or manufacturers’ marks. Three of the so-called “ghost guns” were AR-15 style rifles and the other two were handguns, all believed to have been purchased online. In addition to the guns, authorities found a large amount of ammunition, a workbench with firearms parts and tools, firearm silencers, magazines and gun cases.

Now, that last sentence is important.

You see, we’re told we need laws against so-called ghost guns so people like DeBorba can’t get firearms. It’s why Washington state passed its law against homemade firearms.

But this guy had suppressors.

Suppressors, aka “silencers,” are heavily restricted under federal law. You can’t just walk into a gun store and purchase them lawfully. You have to jump through all the hoops you’d have to in order to buy a machine gun.

And yet, he had suppressors just laying around, apparently. Suppressors. Plural.

That means he skirted federal law not just once but multiple times.

Now, if he’s willing and able to do that for something like a suppressor, do you really think that keeping him from lawfully buying ghost guns is really going to stop him from trying to get firearms? Do you think it’ll stop anyone?

Of course it won’t. It never has and it never will.

Criminals, by their very nature, do what is illegal. They might be, at most, inconvenienced by the law, but they’re almost never stopped by it. The only people stopped are the law-abiding folks who don’t represent a problem in the first place.

Washington state is banning “ghost guns,” but they couldn’t even stop suppressors from being obtained. Those aren’t legal off the shelf anywhere in the US, but they can stop kits and 3D printed parts from being obtained across state lines?

Seriously?

This just reinforces the idea that gun control is really just a willful self-delusion that allows people to believe they can stop criminals with just one more law. This despite the fact that it has literally never happened in the whole of human history.

At best, you drive it underground. Then, criminals get to profit from it. You get more violent crime from it. You create new criminals from it.

But you never, ever actually stop it. It’s time some lawmakers learn that lesson.

A deeper look at Boulder’s gun control measures.

Boulder, as part of a coordinated regional effort, is looking at a half-dozen new laws aimed at curbing gun violence. A final vote is scheduled for June 7; three hours have been set aside for a public hearing.

City council earlier this year first discussed the idea of bringing back a 2018 ban on assault weapons, struck down by a court in March 2021, just days before the King Soopers shooting. A change in state law now allows local measures to surpass Colorado restrictions “in certain cases.”

“The primary change enacted to comport with state law is the removal of language providing that lack of knowledge of the illegal characteristics of a firearm is not a defense,” staff explained in notes to council. Colorado law now states that local ordinances on the sale, purchase or possession of guns “may only impose a criminal penalty for a violation upon a person who knew or reasonably should have known that the person’s conduct was prohibited.”

Boulder’s proposed ordinances were released Thursday evening. Very little changed from council’s February discussion. The assault weapons ban is there, along with a 10-day waiting period to purchase firearms, a ban on open carry in public places and restrictions on concealed carry in “sensitive places” such as city facilities, protests, churches, preschools, etc. (Find a full explanation of proposed laws below)

Continue reading “”

First prosecution of San Diego’s “ghost gun” ban shows how worthless the law really is

San Diego, California is one of several cities in the state that have banned the possession of “ghost guns” in recent months. Anyone caught with an unserialized firearm in the city is now subject to criminal charges, but the first case to actually get to the sentencing phase is a perfect demonstration of just how useless the new ordinance really is.

The ordinance, authored by San Diego Councilmember Marni von Wilpert (a name that sounds like it would also be good for a Disney villain), in essence mirrors existing California law, which already prohibits the possession of an unserialized firearm. The San Diego ordinance specifically creates a misdemeanor offense to possess or sell any firearm that does not have a serial number on it, which is supposed to make criminals think twice about carrying a home-built gun around. As of March of this year, the law wasn’t having any impact on violent crime, with homicides up 80% compared to the same time period in 2021 and 77 unserialized firearms seized by police. There were also 295 serialized firearms seized by police, which is another sign that going after “ghost guns” isn’t going to stop the individuals committing the shootings in the city.

But none of that matters to the virtue-signaling politicians in San Diego, including von Wilpert, who are instead now eagerly singing the praises of the “ghost gun” ordinance now that someone’s been sentenced for violating the law.

“The city’s novel ghost gun ordinance is an effective tool for removing untraceable firearms from the hands of criminals,” City Attorney Mara W. Elliott said. “We thank Councilmember Marni von Wilpert for bringing forward this ordinance, which keeps San Diego at the forefront of our nation’s battle against gun violence.”

… “It’s clear from this conviction that San Diego’s landmark ghost gun law is starting to work to stop the proliferation of dangerous, untraceable firearms in our community,” said von Wilpert.

Is it though? I realize I haven’t actually said what the sentence the defendant received here, so let’s delve a little deeper into the events that led to 23-year old Rene Orozco having the dubious distinction of being the subject of a press release by the city attorney.

Orozco’s arrest apparently didn’t make the news at the time, but according to the Elliott’s account he was arrested after fleeing from police and leading them on a car chase through San Diego’s City Heights neighborhood, allegedly tossing the unserialized gun as he then continued to try to elude officers on foot.

Would Orozco would have avoided arrest and prosecution if the gun he’d been caught with had a serial number? Of course not. So what exactly is the point of a misdemeanor charge for possessing a “ghost gun” when he could already be charged with illegal possession of a weapon for simply having a gun in the first place. Then there are the charges of eluding police, tampering with evidence, and any number of traffic misdemeanors that were committed during the police pursuit. But the City Attorney needs to show that this new ordinance is working, and so Orozco was charged with having a ghost gun, and now gets to experience firsthand the draconian punishment that will surely cause him to rethink the decisions he made.

He was sentenced last week to 45 days in custody and one year of probation. As a result, his driver’s license will be suspended from six months and he is prohibited from owning firearms for a year.

45 days in custody with good credit time means that Orozco will likely spend about three weeks in the county lockup, which doesn’t sound like much time considering how scary “ghost guns” are supposed to be. And again, he could have gotten that same sentence just by charging him with misdemeanor crimes in California state statute that have nothing to do with unserialized firearms. What’s the point?

San Diego’s “ghost gun” ordinance is pure political theater; designed to have an impact on the electorate, not armed criminals. As long as politicians like von Wilpert can convince constituents that she’s “doing something” to address their fears about violent crime, she doesn’t have to bother coming up with doing something that actually works. And in California, “doing something” means putting another gun control law on the books that at best is worthless, and far too often ends up harming the law-abiding instead of curtailing violent criminals.

We Can’t Let Ourselves Be Oppressed by Weirdos, Losers, and Mutations

Have you noticed the absolute freakshow quality of the people who want to keep us in chains? Perhaps it’s one thing to be repressed by people who are at least nominally badass, like Romans or Mongols. But these geebos who make up the Democrat Party’s loudmouth wing? The sexually hopeless toads outraged because other people who might someday know the loving touch of another human can’t whack their babies? No. Not only does their tyranny fail the freedom test, it fails the aesthetic test.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be serfs toiling in the fields of a bunch of people who, in any just and sane society, would spend their lives living in fear of getting wedgies for being so bizarre.

Look, I’m not saying that our society should bring back bullying nerds. I am simply observing that when nerds were busy trying to avoid swirlies in the boys’ room, they did not have the time to devote to getting their groomer allies access to Kindergarteners. If Melvins and Pointdexters living in fear is the price of little kids not getting chatted up by pedo-adjacent strange-os, I say that’s a bargain.

All leftists are insufferable, but this current crop is insufferable in many diverse ways. It’s not just the ones who defile or mutilate themselves to get their parents’ attention. It also includes ones that don’t tatt up, who appear normal until they open up their kale holes. Think Nina Jankowicz. On the surface, she looks like any other childless, middle-aged Chardonnay-guzzler who is pushing 40 but has failed thus far to earn the love of a man. But when she starts talking, yikes. And just look at the antics of that fascist disinformation girl. She sings show tunes. She’s into Harry Potter – non-threatening sensitive and magical boys are sooooo dreamy. She’s also eager to shove you into a train car headed to a gulag, and as it pulls away from the station she’ll be shouting at you ruffians to use your inside voices.

That’s right – the mediocre girl who played the lead in your high school’s production of “Hello, Dolly!” – which you skipped to go pound Buds with your pals like normal people – is the harbinger of tyranny.

Ugh, that’s so sad. Tyranny is intolerable even if you are facing a worthy foe. But tyranny by this kind of over-credentialed, shame-free dork? No way. Never.

And that’s true of the rest of the salty commie crew. Pierced beings with blue hair. Fat-positive behemoths in spandex. Daddy-issue goofs of all genders who can’t do a push up. If we are going to lose our country and our freedom, it can’t be to this gallery of goblins. At least with proper enemies – like, say, the Hessians – you could get some satisfaction shoving a bayonet into their guts. With these weebles, you fail to call them by their bespoke pronouns and they collapse into a sobbing heap. Where’s the challenge?

We simply cannot lose to these people. It’s undignified.

And it’s unnecessary. The only way they win is if we let them win. They can’t take a punch, and the whole caste of them – which probably numbers a couple million across the country – collectively probably has access to about as many guns as the average Trump voter. The only threat they pose is to fetuses, and pretty soon only in Moloch-friendly states like Cali and New York. They talk big about revolutions and insurrections, but they have neither the cold steel or the upper body strength to pull it off.

What are they going to do – pester us into submission? Yes, that’s actually their plan. They really think that if they call us “racist” enough, if they moan enough about patriarchy, if they bleat enough about how us saying what we think is “unsafe” we will simply give up. And they have a point – a lot of those from the Miracle Whip faction of the GOP have prioritized politeness over freedom and tried to treat this coterie of creeps with respect.

But here’s the thing. These weirdos have not earned our respect. Instead, they leveraged our courtesy and tolerance, often amplified for the fact that we feel sorry for these failed humans, against us to neutralize our resistance. “Oh no, don’t point out how that show tunes girl is a ridiculous adolescent fetishizing children’s books and singing kiddie songs in her affected drama geek voice.” No, we’re supposed to pretend that she’s not a joke, and that we should take seriously her insights into how it’s dangerous to allow us the free speech rights God invested us with upon our creation.

But we’re done pretending. We’re done being nice. We tried being cool, live and letting live, and then we noticed the lack of reciprocity. It’s live and let submit, and that’s a bad deal. Hard pass.

You weirdos, losers, and mutations could have been cool. You could have done your own thing and ignored us like we ignored you. But no. No, you wanted more. You wanted to be the Big Non-binaries on Campus. Except you don’t get to, because you suck and we’re not going to be ruled over by theater dorks, infanticide fetishists, and bitter fringies.

We’re going to rule ourselves, and my advice is to keep the hell out of our faces lest you figuratively end up hanging by your Fruit-of-the-Looms from the flagpole.

Befuddled Biden: Russians, Hungarians, Ukrainians Are All the Same to Joe

Joe Biden gave some remarks on Tuesday at Lockheed Martin in Alabama about his desire to send more aid to Ukraine.

Biden has asked Congress for $33 billion additional in aid. This was after already getting $13.6 billion last month. Biden claimed that they already had spent that money. Not only that, but he wants to make it a continual thing — to preserve “democracy.” No end in sight as to how much money that might involve. Great concern for Ukraine’s borders, but very little for our own.

But in the process of giving mostly his standard memorized shtick, Biden managed to fumble the delivery in a couple of significant ways.

At one point, Biden claimed that he was arming the Russians before Russia attacked. Yes, he said that.

 

But, that wasn’t the only glaring mistake Biden made when talking about Ukraine. He also confused Ukrainians with Hungarians. During his State of the Union address, Biden confused Ukrainians with Iranians. No, Joe, they’re not the same.

I’d also like to point out another interesting confusion he seemed to have in his remarks made on Tuesday.

In his official written statement, Biden said that the draft opinion meant they needed to get out and vote for pro-choice (Democrats).

Third, if the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.

But then, in his off-the-cuff remarks that he made hours after that statement, he was asked, “What does this mean for the midterms? What does this mean for the Democrats’ argument in the midterms?” His reply? “I haven’t thought that through yet.” So he had some thoughts about it earlier in his official statement but hadn’t thought it through when he was asked about it later. In other words, they’re issuing statements about what “he thinks,” when he can’t even say what he thinks later in person.

It was bad enough when he said that there hadn’t been any senators from Delaware on Monday. That prompted more 25th Amendment talk. But it’s continuing to get worse.

“Rachel” Levine is a sick, twisted man who wants people to believe that there is a medical consensus for transitioning kids so that more people will do it. This is what a predator looks like.

The Brewing Myth of Medical ‘Consensus’ on Transitioning Children

We’ve all heard the oft-repeated myth that 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade climate change is real. This claim has been the go-to response by climate alarmists and activists for years.

If you’re a regular reader of this site, you know that this claim is pure garbage and has been debunked for a long time. Yet the myth prevails. Barack Obama once tried to up the number to 99.5%, but that didn’t catch on. I guess 97% just sounds cooler?

Truthfully, the number itself isn’t important—and not just because it’s phony—because the critical takeaway is that the fake statistic has been used by climate alarmists as proof that, save for a few on the fringe, there is “consensus” that climate change is real, that it is caused by humanity, and that we need to spend billions and billions of dollars on so-called green energy alternatives; otherwise, we’re all going to die yesterday.

Never mind that literally no apocalyptic climate prediction of the past century has ever panned out. New York City isn’t underwater (though sometimes the idea doesn’t bother me), and the only reason food is less available is because of supply chain problems—not massive droughts.

But the myth of consensus is a vital tool of the left to bring more people into their cause and justify all these billions of dollars being spent on green energy technology companies run by their donors. We know how compelling this argument has been; we’ve seen world leaders cite it repeatedly as fact.

So I am more than just a bit concerned that the radical left is now pushing the myth of “consensus” to justify transgender treatments for children.

During a recent interview with NPR, Rachel Levine, the Assistant Secretary of Health, claimed that “there is no argument” about “gender-affirming care” among pediatricians and doctors who specialize in adolescents.

Really? There’s “no argument” at all? None? Zero? Zilch? Nada? There’s 100% agreement? Not a mere 97%?

That’s what he said.

Continue reading “”

And I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

Relax: Mayorkas Says His New Thought Police Won’t Monitor U.S. Citizens

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the rounds of the talking head shows on Sunday to do some damage control and address concerns that the Biden administration’s new Disinformation Governance Board within the Department of Homeland Security signifies an all-out war against the freedom of speech. Those concerns were only exacerbated by the revelation that the chief of Old Joe’s Thought Police, Nina Jankowicz, is an enthusiastic fascist who is so excited about censorship that she sings musical comedy numbers about it in an affected English accent. Mayorkas, however, is telling us now that there is really nothing, nothing whatsoever, to worry about. But his soothing claims show some signs of being yet more of that disinformation he claims he wants to fight.

We’ve already gotten disinformation about the Disinformation Governance Board. Jen Psaki claimed Friday that it wasn’t the sainted President Dementia at all, but the hated Trump, who set up the Board. There doesn’t appear to be a shred of truth to this, as even Mayorkas had announced the Board as “new,” and on Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Mayorkas, “Would you be okay if Donald Trump were president, if he created this Disinformation Governance Board or if it is in place in 2024, that he’s in charge of such a thing?” Mayorkas didn’t echo Psaki and answer that Trump had actually created the Board. Instead, he insisted “that we’re safeguarding the right of free speech, that we’re safeguarding civil liberties.” Sure they are.

Continue reading “”

Biden Administration Tops Orwell with ‘Disinformation Governance Board.’

Communism comes in various stripes.

The Soviets had their version, the Chinese have theirs—these days quaintly called “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The North Koreans have “Juche!” The Cambodian Khmer Rouge had theirs (thankfully short-lived) and the Cubans a pretty traditional Marxist-Leninist state with the creepy addition—they have long embedded secret police in the neighborhoods to keep an eye on everybody.

But they all have in common what they most loathe: freedom of speech.

Joining them in this abhorrence of the cornerstone of democracies is now the current U.S. administration that is about to install, through its Department of Homeland Security, a “Disinformation Governance Board.”

How Orwellian can you get!

But to call that Orwellian is both an understatement and an insult to the great George Orwell whose “Ministry of Truth” was a far more clever construction that contained the ironic overtone intended by the author.

There’s nothing ironic about the bureaucratic Biden era locution that seems thought up by the totalitarian dullards of our Deep State as a warning lest we peons get out of line and think for ourselves. It owes more to Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels than to the author of “Animal Farm” and “1984.”

We could also call it—using Chinese rhetoric, since it is their form of communism ours most now resembles—“Socialism with American Characteristics.”

As in China, this allows for an oligarchic class to continue to enrich itself without untoward intrusions from the lowly serfs.

That this comes from Homeland Security and its chief Alejandro Mayorkas is more than slightly ominous. Adding to the threatening intent of the initiative is his choice to lead this assault on the First Amendment, Nina Jankowicz.

Jankowicz was such an “expert” in the field of “disinformation” that she was one of those most loudly calling the Hunter Biden laptop story Russian disinformation, which makes her either an idiot or a liar. I’ll go with the latter.

She was also involved in “strategic communications” (“Deep Statish” for propaganda) in Ukraine during the days all the hanky-panky was going on with Burisma.

But it’s worse still. Via Breitbart, we learn that the “talented” Ms. Jankowicz recorded a song on YouTube with the lyrics “Who do I have to [world’s most well-known expletive deleted] to be rich, famous and powerful?”

Well, we now know the answer: the American people. Second answer: the Bill of Rights.

How much longer? As long as they can keep pumping him full of whatever anti-dementia drug cocktail that will keep the meat puppet at least able to function at a minimal level. That’s how long

And no, he’s not being too harsh on SloJoe™ who should be a patient in an Alzheimer’s unit.

HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THIS GO ON?
Today’s Biden struggle with the Teleprompter delivered this 15-second gem:

Back in 2010, P.J. O’Rourke said the Republican mid-term landslide was a restraining order against Obama. Maybe this year’s likely mid-term GOP blowout will be understood as a national intervention, in which the people will tell Democrats that it is time for Biden to be put out to pasture and the Democratic Party sent to rehab.

Chaser: Maybe I am being too harsh on Biden. It’s understandable that Democrats would have trouble pronouncing “kleptocracy.” It could just as easily happen to Elizabeth Warren.

 

WH Response on ‘Disinformation Board’ Shows Just How Desperate for Control They Are

It was not a coincidence that you had Elon Musk buying Twitter and then all of sudden, the Biden team found the need to form a Ministry of Truth run by the DHS — otherwise known as a creepy-sounding “Disinformation Governance Board.”

Now, the first reaction to such an effort by the Biden Administration that most people would have to this is how incredibly Orwellian it is. The second might be that it’s exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect against. The third might be to take notice this says “governance,” and is being run by the Department of Homeland Security, which usually is pursuing threats and crimes.

So, can fully-declared speech crimes be far away, when you start to have things like this? And finally, this was formed specifically “ahead of the midterms” to deal with “misinformation” peddled to minority communities — which sounds like they’re going to do all they can to try to shut down speech that they think might hurt their chances, just as they did in 2020. And how typical of the Biden Administration to treat minorities as though they can’t make a judgment about the information they receive themselves — this is treating minorities like children to whom the government needs to explain things.

The very people who were upset about President Donald Trump calling media false stories “fake news” are just cool with the government now weighing in and determining what is “true” or not true. These are also the same folks who promoted the Russia collusion hoax for years, as well.

But when asked, White House Press Secretary (soon to be MSDNC propagandist) Jen Psaki acted as though no one could have an issue with their agenda.

“It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities,” Psaki said. “I’m not sure who opposes that effort.”

How about any sane person who believes in the Constitution? Every American should oppose this — it violates everything for which we are supposed to stand.

Continue reading “”

White House defends DHS ‘disinformation’ board: ‘Not sure who opposes that effort’
Mayorkas announced the creation of the ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ on Wednesday

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday defended a recently-announced Department of Homeland Security effort to combat “disinformation” on issues related to COVID-19 and elections.

Asked by Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich for more information what DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board would be doing specifically, Psaki said, “I really haven’t dug into this exactly, I mean, we of course support this effort but let me see if I can get more specifics.”

The White House announced its support for an effort from the DHS to crack down on what it considers to be online disinformation.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified Wednesday that a Disinformation Governance Board had recently been created to combat online disinformation and Politico reported that Nina Jankowicz, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, will head the board as executive director.

“We know there has been a range of [disinformation] out there about a range of topics, I mean, including COVID for example, and also elections and eligibility,” Psaki said, adding that she would check for additional information on what the board plans to do.

Continue reading “”

Another Government Agency Is Being Weaponized to Go After Conservatives

I don’t mean to be the wet blanket here. We should celebrate liberals freaking out over Elon Musk’s $44 billion Twitter purchase. We should be celebrating the end of censorship and a new era of free speech on the platform. It’s a huge win for conservatives, but the war is far from being over. As with these victories, we face another, larger battle on the horizon. The enemy is not new; it’s the government again. Yet, this time they’re taking the Twitter ethos regarding “disinformation” national.

Rebecca touched upon this last night, but the warning flares must be fired again. Load the magazines, clean the guns, and sharpen the bayonets because Goliath is coming. The Department of Homeland Security is creating a “Disinformation Governance Board.” I’m sure this will be a smooth operation, right? Let’s be frank about this because you all know what’s going on here. This Thought Police department is being created to help Democrats ahead of the 2022 midterms. It’s a Democratic attack machine within the DHS funded by our tax dollars. Like the IRS, FBI, and DOJ before them, another government institution has been weaponized by the Left to attack people they don’t like (via Fox News):

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security is creating a “Disinformation Governance Board” to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterms.

Mayorkas appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the fiscal 2023 budget for the Department of Homeland Security.[…]

Mayorkas said a “Disinformation Governance Board” had recently been created and will be led by Undersecretary for Policy Rob Silvers co-chair with principal deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskill.[…]

Hours later, Politico reported that Nina Jankowicz, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, will head the board as executive director.

Jankowicz was part of a band called the Moaning Myrtles. She also said armed Trump supporters would show up at the polls to intimidate voters. And she’s a Russian collusion peddler. That alone is the disqualifying factor.

Continue reading “”

It’s always been about control, whether it’s free speech, a free press, or the right to keep and bear arms. We may see more people waking up to this.

BLUF:
In the end, the battle over Elon Musk controlling Twitter has nothing to do with oligarchs or online safety, just as the Cambridge Analytica controversy had nothing to do with a technical distinction between contractors and employees. Instead, it is merely the latest chapter in the battle over who controls the digital public square – and which political party determines its rules.

Reaction To Musk Offer Suggests Content Moderation More About Control Than Safety

The reaction among the press and tech communities to Elon Musk’s efforts to purchase Twitter has been nothing short of apocalyptic. A common theme has been that democracy itself would be under threat if unelected billionaire oligarchs controlled what was allowed online. Yet this is precisely how social media works today. The Musk controversy, like the Cambridge Analytica story before it, highlights the real issue: the fight over content moderation is less about online safety and more about who controls the digital public square.

Only a year ago, the media cheered the unilateral decisions by a handful of billionaires to effectively banish then-President Donald Trump from the digital public square. Lawmakers and media outlets alike proclaimed the societal benefits of private companies controlling the digital public square beyond the reach of government. In contrast, the possibility of a libertarian-leaning billionaire like Musk wielding that same power has been presented as nothing short of an attack on democracy itself.

In January, the Washington Post argued that oligarchs banning Trump wasn’t censorship; now it warns of the “risks of social media ownership.” Former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos argued, “If you want people to be able to interact, you need to have basic rules” for speech. Former FCC chair Tom Wheeler went further, proposing a “First Amendment-respecting process in which the government doesn’t dictate content but does cause there to be an acceptable behavioral code.” In short, tech billionaires enforcing speech rules that align with Democratic Party priorities is a benefit to society; Republicans or libertarians wielding that same power is a threat.

This double standard has been in place for some time. Consider how it played out a few years ago, in the Cambridge Analytica “scandal” involving the Trump campaign.

Continue reading “”

Colorado town scales back gun control proposals

I’m a fan of preemption. In fact, I wish we had federal preemption when it comes to gun control laws, though there’s no chance of that happening anytime soon.

In Colorado, they don’t have it. They used to but don’t anymore, which is causing a bit of a problem, to say the least.

But public outcry forced one city to at least scale back its attempts at gun control.

The Edgewater City Council has significantly scaled back — at least for now — most of what it planned to consider in way of new gun rights restrictions being encouraged by an anti-gun advocacy group, after dozens of residents and others emailed and showed up at an April 19 work session to express their displeasure on possible ordinances targeting gun owners.

Edgewater is a metro-area home rule city of just over 5,000 people bordered by Denver to the east, Lakewood to the south and west, and Wheat Ridge to the north.

The potential ordinances that the council decided to continue discussion on were:

  • Prohibiting open carry of guns city-wide.
  • Prohibiting licensed concealed carry in city-owned buildings and parks.
  • Prohibiting licensed conceal carry in daycare centers and preschools.
  • Banning so-called “ghost guns,” a name given by anti-gun activists to guns made by individuals, but that do not have serial numbers.
  • Setting a waiting period for buying a firearm of 3-10 days.
  • Dealer regulations with an effective date grandfathering in Edgewater’s one gun dealer.
  • Mandatory reporting requirement for lost or stolen guns, which is already covered under state law.

The initial proposal included a local assault weapon ban and a ban on 50-caliber ammunition as well as “armor-piercing” ammo.

Local officials claim reporting of the earlier proposals was “misinformation” despite the information coming from the city’s website.

I guess the city is promoting the fake news and everyone else is wrong for taking them at their word.

Anyway, they got pushback. That’s a very good thing, especially since not everyone who spoke up is on the right politically.

Numerous Edgewater residents spoke out at the April 16 meeting against the proposed measures, with some saying they don’t expect the council to listen, nor do they believe the items taken off the list will remain off the list.

“I’ve watched our city council make laws restricting the freedom of the law abiding in line with progressive political philosophy for a long time,” said resident Larry Welshon. “In this case they are gutting the Second Amendment through incremental disassembly. I’d be delighted to be wrong, but past history proves this council is progressive.”

Welshon reminded the council that in a survey conducted by the city in 2021, only 47 percent of residents believe the council acts in their best interests.

But not all who spoke out against the ordinances could be considered conservative in their viewpoint.

“I am about as liberal as the day is long,” said resident Randy Novack, who said he was a neighbor to one of the council members whom he agrees with most times. “However, I’ve been shooting since I was a kid.”

So it’s not just that the council is progressive, but they’re anti-gun despite some self-described liberals in the city not being anti-Second Amendment.

That’s quite fascinating.

It’s also why preemption is such an issue. Edgewater, Colorado is a city of fewer than 6,000 people. It’s not difficult to imagine someone passing through such a city and running afoul of at least one of these anti-Second Amendment proposals, especially if this is just the beginning as some believe.

Suddenly, someone who intends to abide by the law may well find themselves facing criminal charges. Preemption helps to mitigate much of this.

Of course, since Colorado decided to drink the gun control Kool-Aid, this is the kind of thing we’re going to keep seeing from them.

And people in places like Edgewater, which borders Denver, are ultimately going to pay the price for this particular flavor of stupidity.

The one saving grace, though, is that the people of these cities still get a say and they’re not afraid to tell their community leaders to back off.

Now they just need to shut down the rest of these proposals that will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Biden’s Earth Day Remarks Show Just How Much He Is Deteriorating.

I wrote about how Joe Biden’s confusion and delusion went into overdrive when he was in Portland on Thursday.

But if it’s possible, I think it might even have been worse Friday in Seattle, during his Earth Day remarks.

First, we’ll note that it took Biden’s visit to do something about the homeless problem near the Westin Hotel where Biden was staying. Local media reported they removed two homeless camps nearby. According to the mayor’s office, the camps were cleared “to ensure safety” for Joe Biden.

Oh. How nice. It would be nice if they would care about the safety of the residents of Seattle, as the problem has burgeoned out of control. This is just a face-saving temporary measure, unfortunately, as the camps will likely be back. But that was the good part. Then came Biden’s remarks.

He went into word salad on our “natural wonders.” But his word salad is different from that of Kamala Harris, because his brain seems to break mid-sentence, while she just goes on and on, saying essentially the same thing.

He went into that creepy, weird whispering thing, when talking about offshore windmills.

“I don’t want to hear about it anymore, you don’t like looking at them…They’re pretty,” he intoned.

Continue reading “”

This was ruled on by the Supreme Court way back in 1968 in Haynes v U.S.

Excluding Criminals from Gun Checks is Bad
Biden/Harris Gun Plan Omits Criminals. New Plan Only Affects Innocent People

Mass media has overlooked, or failed to recognize, that the core of the Biden administration’s announced plan for so-called “gun control” would overlook criminals and the arsenals they have already. Strict laws to stop this have been passed, but enforcement tools, budget and most crucial a crime-stop attitude is missing. The Administration has adopted a take-guns-from-the-innocent mindset. For crime control, we must move past defund-the-police, police-are-oppressors and guns-are-evil mindset now in the curriculum. Biden and his team must recognize that if courts and cops don’t enforce the laws, disarming the public will only make things worse.

The recent focus on newly vilified so-called “ghost guns” is a perfect case in point. Murders, primarily in disadvantaged neighborhoods, are in the tens of thousands. Where’s the media? At a rose garden presser attacking a new gun concept. The murderers walk free. Meanwhile newshounds take the bait and assault homemade firearms—constitutionally protected property. This is sleight of hand by leadership, ignoring crime control and scapegoating arms—that criminals basically don’t use! “Gun control” doesn’t stop criminal behavior, it lets it thrive.

Proposed gun registries for specialty firearms cannot even address the “guns-on-the-streets” narrative. There are no guns “on the streets,” ghost-like or otherwise. Guns are in criminal hands, from lack of attention. Armed street criminals cannot legally possess guns in the first place, you cannot expect them to register.

Mandating it would require them to self-incriminate, a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment—criminals cannot be forced to use any proposed ghost registry. The new plan is mainly a way to compel more government databases—small requirements, with illegal compulsion, inching up to massive bans. Mass media should make this clear if they’re doing their job but they aren’t. Mass media wants you registered, and it shows. Even logic dictates this glaring flaw in the proposal—if you could require people banned from guns to register, you could just round them up and their illegally held firearms.

 

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 “”