Category: Deceit O’ The Day

Rutgers Cherry Picks States To Produce Justification For Gun Control

Since When Is Iowa, A Shall Issue Concealed Carry State, An Example Of Strict Gun Laws?

This Rutgers “study” is pure propaganda.  They chose New York as one example of a “strict gun laws” state, because it had a much lower crime rate during NYC’s “stop and frisk” policy – which just happened to coincide with the years of their study.  Unbelievably, they chose Iowa as a “strict gun laws” state!  Iowa is anything but such a state.  It does not license gun owners, nor register guns, nor have storage requirements.  Furthermore, Iowa is a “shall issue” concealed carry state that honors permits from many other states.  The worst thing one can say about the state is that it requires a permit to purchase a handgun.  Why did they bypass Illinois and pick Iowa?  Because Illinois has strict gun laws and an astronomical crime rate.

For the “lax gun laws” states, they chose Louisiana and Arkansas.  Having spent a great deal of time in the FBI’s online data site, I immediately recognized that these two states are outliers among 2nd Amendment friendly states, with high crime rates.  In fact, Louisiana has the highest crime state of the 40 plus 2A friendly states.

So, to sum up, Rutgers picked one of the best states with strict gun laws, that had stop and frisk and a state with fairly permissive gun laws as representing “strict gun laws” states.  They then picked the very worst state among the pro-2A states, along with one of the worst of these states to represent “lax gun laws” states.

It seems clear that Rutgers had the result in mind before they started…..

Las Vegas Sun Finally Releases Biden’s Anti-Gun Interview

Those who stay involved in the efforts to defend the Second Amendment have always known President Joe Biden is, to put it lightly, no friend to gun owners. During his campaign for the White House last year, the legacy media did everything they could to conceal that fact. The Las Vegas Sun recently revealed that it went so far as to bury an interview with candidate Biden that showed not just his disdain for our right to keep and bear arms, but his utter lack of comprehension of reality.

The interview took place on January 11, 2020, and was published last week—more than one year later—with the paper noting they “felt the interview was worth publishing to give readers a better idea of where Biden will lead the country.” Perhaps it would have been more helpful to their readers to have published the information BEFORE the 2020 election, rather than after, so they actually knew the views of Biden when they cast their ballot for President.

Again, people reading this already knew how anti-gun Biden is, but many others did not. We always thought that one of the purposes of the media was to get information that may not be widely known out to the public, especially when that information may better inform voters about candidates they may be considering supporting.

When seeking the Democrat nomination, Biden and his fellow candidates did everything possible to try to position themselves as the most anti-gun candidate. But after securing the nomination, Biden stopped talking about his anti-gun agenda, and most in the media stopped mentioning it. The Biden-Trump debates didn’t bring up guns, and neither did the vice-presidential debate.

The failure to discuss such an important topic seems odd, considering the Sun’s contention that “public sentiment for (gun control) is growing and support for the NRA is weakening.” If that were true, wouldn’t it be important to note the stark difference between Biden—an avowed anti-gun politician with a decades-long record of opposing the Second Amendment—and Donald Trump—a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms?

The truth is, most Americans do not believe in Joe Biden’s agenda of targeting lawful gun owners, and the media knows it. That’s most likely the reason this Sun interview didn’t see the light of day until now.

It may also explain why anti-gun lobbying groups spent millions on electing candidates while rarely actually mentioning gun control until they got called out on it.

Continue reading “”

Even Politico, one of the more leftist of leftist publications, is no longer covering up for Biden

On the eve of his inauguration, Politico published an article that contains a line about SloJoe’s lack of mental acuity.

For higher-profile remarks, [Biden would] obsessively rehearse portions until he committed them to memory. And at times through the various iterations of outlining remarks, Biden could grow downright ornery.

“I would never say this,” Biden once snapped at an aide, aghast over the prepared remarks he was reviewing, according to a person in the room during a speech prep session last year. “Where did you get this from?’”

The aide explained that Biden had just said it in a public speech a couple of weeks earlier.

Biden forgetting part of a stump speech is bad enough, but this is an incident that took place last year, but has only come out now. Biden’s handlers kept it under wraps until now. How many other examples of Biden’s mental state have been concealed?

The election is over. Trump is out of office. Biden’s senility is no longer taboo. His sole purpose was to play the role of an “electable” candidate who could appeal to independents and anti-Trump Republicans under that guise just to get Trump out of office.

I know of people taking bets on when he’ll be shuffled off the scene so Kamala’s handlers can take over.

This is somehow a shocking revelation?

BLUF:
Republicans shouldn’t feel guilty about vocally opposing Biden’s COVID-19 relief efforts. Conservative opposition isn’t an obstruction of a commonsense emergency response but a rejection of an imposition of a liberal economic agenda on the United States through a back door.

Biden COVID-19 relief plan is a Trojan horse for a sweeping liberal agenda

President-elect Joe Biden just unveiled his proposal for a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package. Democrats insist it is targeted to respond to the crisis and only full of “commonsense” measures and much-needed emergency spending.

Yet, even a cursory glance at the specifics of the package reveals that it’s a Trojan horse for a sweeping liberal agenda that Biden could never otherwise get passed.

Yes, the proposal does include billions for vaccine distribution, testing, school reopenings, and the like. But it also includes blatant partisan priorities, such as a federal $15 minimum wage.

Biden knows that this far-left, job-killing policy would never make it out of Congress in a straight up-down vote. The Democrat’s hope here is obviously that he can sneak a doubling of the federal minimum wage into an “emergency” package that lawmakers feel obligated to support. We should all hope this duplicity is unsuccessful.

Continue reading “”

A few days ago, I told the Shootists’ Vice-Chairman to mark my words that on 21 January, we’d start to see a miraculous national recovery begin from the bug, just to make SloJoe look good.

Will COVID Numbers Now Shift for Biden’s Benefit?

How much of the past year was about the actual coronavirus rather than a political weapon to damage President Trump and remove him from office? The answer is obvious. We have had viral pandemics before, including a seasonal influenza, without mask mandates, social distancing, business closures, travel restrictions, and hysterical media coverage.

Much of the hair-on-fire reporting is over cases and deaths. As I have previously written, a positive test is not the same as a case, and a death with COVID is different than death from COVID.

What if these definitions suddenly change in the upcoming weeks, once Joe Biden is in the White House, creating the impression that getting rid of the Orange Man caused the case and fatality numbers to suddenly plummet, not because of anything Biden did, but simply because he isn’t Trump?

Rewriting history is a popular pastime for the left. Just ask George Orwell or observe current events including the social media purge and cancel culture. How might this play out with COVID?

Start with testing — the PCR test which is overly sensitive. From that bastion of right-wing conspiracy, the New York Times,

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

In addition, a positive PCR test is not necessarily a case of COVID. There is a “case definition,” something the corporate media is willfully ignoring. According to the CDC, a case requires, “presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.”  Notice the AND, meaning not simply a positive test.

The result is that case counts are wildly inflated and are being used to drive lockdowns, business and school closures, mask mandates, and other measures that may not be necessary or even helpful.

What if the definitions conveniently change in the upcoming weeks?

As reported by Zero Hedge last week, “The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr. [Anthony] Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR test used to define whether an individual is a COVID case or not.”

Did Dr. Fauci just realize this? After decades working in public health and infectious diseases, test sensitivity is something he understands only too well. If he knew, did he say or do anything?

Continue reading “”

Missouri Media Blaming Gun Laws For Violence

Everywhere you go, you tend to find violence exploding in this country, The violence surge isn’t isolated to one or two places; just about every major city has seen an increase. Almost no one is reporting a reduction in violence over the year, and that’s despite months of people being locked down in their homes. That suggests that when they got out, they made up for lost time.

In Missouri, they’re having the same problem as most everywhere else. That’s not surprising. St. Louis, for example, is a city that’s been plagued by violence in recent years.

Yet, it seems that once again, the media has to trip over themselves to lay at least some of the blame on gun rights.

To understand the full scope of gun violence across the state, The Kansas City Star interviewed experts, gathered information about dozens of shooting victims from families and obituaries, and analyzed data from police and the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks gun incidents across the country. Because no complete official record exists, the numbers are preliminary, sourced from thousands of media outlets and public agencies.

The effort was undertaken as part of the Missouri Gun Violence Project, a two-year, statewide solutions journalism collaboration supported by the nonprofits Report for America and the Missouri Foundation for Health. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has also been a part of the collaboration.

In an extraordinary year, the people across the state grappling with violence — criminologists, health care professionals, violence interrupters, law enforcement officials — say the coronavirus pandemic’s disruptions aggravated gun violence, putting individuals more at risk and hampering prevention efforts.

But even before the pandemic, Missouri was primed to see worse violence after more than a decade of rolling back gun restrictions and a longstanding lack of trust between police and the most at-risk communities in the state’s largest cities.

Yet the publication acknowledges that the violence in Missouri is primarily driven by St. Louis and Kansas City, their two largest municipalities.

The problem I have is that if gun laws were the problem, then why wasn’t the problem more spread out? Why wasn’t it a problem for much smaller communities? These towns were under the authority of the exact same gun laws, after all. If the gun laws were responsible, then you’d think you’d see an uptick in violence across the board.

Before 2020, you didn’t.

In 2020, most people did acknowledge that the pandemic played some kind of role in the increased violence. It would be impossible not to acknowledge that fact simply because it’s right in front of our eyes.

But elsewhere, we didn’t see the problems being associated with gun laws anywhere else until the pandemic. If lax gun laws are the culprit, then we should see an increase across the board, and we simply don’t.

What that tells me is that it’s not the gun laws that are the problem. Again, if they were, the problems would be everywhere and they’re simply not. No, the problems reside somewhere in the cities themselves.

Yet the media prefers to scapegoat gun rights and gun ownership because it’s convenient and their readers lap it up. Heaven forbid they ever try to look a little deeper at the issue.

Epidemiologist Says Influenza Cases Are Being Counted as COVID-19

Top epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski says that the massive drop in influenza cases can be attributed to the fact that many are being falsely counted as COVID-19 cases.

Wittkowski, former Head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at Rockefeller University, cautioned that, “Influenza has been renamed COVID-19 in large part.”

According to CDC figures, the cumulative positive influenza test rate from late September into the week of December 19th was just 0.2%, compared to 8.7% from a year before.

According to Wittkowski, this is because many flu infections are being incorrectly labeled as coronavirus cases.

Continue reading “”

The preceding gets this:

This is the same kind of historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme in the vein of the Aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what Bogus suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery present there.

All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.

The individual right, unconnected to militia service, preexists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.

In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.

“The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service…The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.” – CATO Brief on DC v Heller

Prior to the debates on the US Constitution, or its ratification, multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” – chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont – July 8, 1777.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” – A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania – September 28, 1776.

Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

“And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.” – Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.

The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.

“In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

In Madison’s own words:

“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.

Madison’s first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.

“Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.” – House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789

Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.

This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.

Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service.

This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.

“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; …” – Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824

Cornell is being purposefully mendacious.

 

Biden Urges Dems To Conceal Their Defund the Police Agenda Until After Georgia Runoffs

In a recording leaked to The Intercept, former Vice President Biden appeared to blame the “defund the police” movement for the Democrats’ shellacking down-ballot in the 2020 elections, and urged liberal civil rights leaders not to put public pressure on his incoming administration regarding police reform until after the Georgia Senate runoff elections in January.

“I also don’t think we should get too far ahead ourselves on dealing with police reform in that, because they’ve already labeled us as being ‘defund the police’ anything we put forward in terms of the organizational structure to change policing — which I promise you, will occur. Promise you.” Biden can be heard telling left-wing civil rights leaders in the recording. “Just think to yourself and give me advice whether we should do that before January 5, because that’s how they beat the living hell out of us across the country… I just raise it with you to think about. How much do we push between now and January 5, we need those two seats, about police reform? But I guarantee you there will be a full-blown commission. I guarantee you it’s a major, major, major element…we can go very far.” Continue reading “”

Slow Joe is seen here talking to the press between events.
But, where’s the boot?
For an elderly man who – supposedly – broke a bone, the man seems to have a very little problem walking around. Biden – supposedly – broke his foot 8 days ago, not nearly enough time for the injury to heal. So was it simply another lie to provide cover for him being kept away from people until he could be doped up again, or what?

 

‘Safety’ Tips from Gun Prohibitionists Have Hidden Agenda

“Gun sales are way up, in Pennsylvania and across the country. And many are first-time owners,” The Philadelphia Inquirer notes in a “Philly Tips” column. “Here’s what you need to know about gun safety.”

Gun owners can be forgiven if that assertion causes their antennae to go up. The mainstream press, what I call the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media), has not exactly been supportive of the right to keep and bear arms. Plus, we have seen too often how the term “commonsense gun safety laws” is contorted by gun-grabbers (with little actual knowledge of firearms and shooting) to mean more infringements that won’t do a thing to stop evil people from doing evil things and stupid/lazy people from doing stupid/lazy things.

So, the initial questions ought to be: Who are the experts? What are their qualifications? Do they have an observable agenda?

Scott Charles is the first “authority” we meet, presented as “a gun violence educator and trauma outreach coordinator for Temple University Hospital.”

He says he’s a gun owner, but if he has any specialized training/credentialing that give him notable credibility as a gun safety expert, whoever wrote up his Temple Safety Net profile failed to list them. Instead, we find he has been “an at-risk youth specialist for the State Department of Education [and] assisted in the development of a statewide rite of passage program for young African American males.” He went on to get some degrees that have nothing to do with firearms and has been featured on network television, PBS, and a “documentary” about urban criminals using guns. He’s received some community awards, one of them being from CeaseFire PA, a group that used to admit it was about “gun control.”

So what are Charles’ “gun safety” qualifications? If you didn’t give him time to look it up on the internet, would he know who Jeff Cooper was and be able to explain his rules? Would he be able to tell you what to do about safety issues shooters may encounter at the range like misfires or hangfires? Could he even tell you what those are? Maybe he could. Maybe we just need to see a relevant CV. Maybe.

“As a gun owner and someone who sees the consequences of gun injury, this is something we should take seriously,”  Charles pontificates. “We have a lot of novice, first-time gun owners taking that gun home where there are children, and the data we have says that firearm is most likely to be used to harm somebody in the home.”

So we see him adopting the gun-grabber talking point that guns in the home are more dangerous than not having them in the home. But he nonetheless says he has them in his home. Agenda much? Then you go to his Twitter page and his political predispositions make it all clear. Continue reading “”

Apple Looks to Soften Bill That Fights Forced Labor in China.

The Washington Post is reporting that Apple, Inc. has engaged lobbyists to try to soften language in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act., which passed the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly in September.

It’s not known exactly what Apple wants to be altered in the bill. But given Apple’s past support for the Chinese Communist regime, one wonders exactly what they’re objecting to.

China has been brutally oppressing the Uyghurs in recent years, putting more than a million of them in concentration camps while trying to snuff out their culture and religion. But it’s also been reported that China was using the Uyghurs as slave laborers in some factories, leading Congress to act. The bill would prevent companies from relying on Chinese factories that use forced labor. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
If you believe that Biden, after his presumptive victory, and the Democratic Party actually want unity, you’re a fool. The only kind of unity they want is where we bend the knee. They don’t want unity, they want submission.

If they think they can spend four years calling me a sexist, a bigot, a Nazi, and get away with it, they’ve got a surprise coming. Don’t forget what they did to you, because the moment their power is threatened, they’ll do it again.

Democrats Labeled Me and Now They Want Unity? No Way.

After spending twenty years claiming that Al Gore won in 2000, four years claiming that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and two years claiming that Stacey Abrams is the actual Governor of Georgia, the mainstream media continued to demonstrate a rejection of basic reality when they unanimously declared that Joe Biden – on his third attempt – is now president-elect of the United States. The fact that the Trump campaign is actively challenging some results, or that recounts are also scheduled to occur, or that the media are not endowed with the ultimate authority to erase electoral procedure with their enthusiastic projections are irrelevant details.

On the back of this media-endorsed “victory,” Joe Biden took to the stage and delivered what the Left are describing as a “call for unity.” Continue reading “”

WHAT’S WRONG WITH ANONYMOUS SOURCING? all you need to know:
The New York Times’ “Anonymous”? The the “senior administration official” was actually just a staff guy out in the bureaucracy.

New York Times’ Miles Taylor Op-Ed Shows Everything Wrong With Anonymous Sources
If The New York Times was willing to lie about its anonymous source for their high-profile information operation, imagine the lies they’re willing to tell about all the other anonymous sources they use.

Two years after the New York Times published an op-ed from what they described as an anonymous, principled conservative “senior administration official,” it turned out to have been written by a low-level bureaucrat who later worked for tech giant Google and gave money to far-left Democrats.

Miles Taylor revealed he was the author of the highly hyped op-ed headlined “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” He claimed to secretly work to thwart Trump’s policy goals as the elected president of the United States.

While constitutional scholars worried about implications of such unaccountable thwarting of the will of the people, most media focused instead on identifying who “Anonymous” was. The New York Times assured readers that when it said “senior administration official,” it meant someone “in the upper echelon of an administration.”

Not A Senior Administration Official
People took seriously the New York Times’ claim that the anonymous writer was in the upper echelon of an administration. In “13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed,” CNN followed the New York Times’ lead by offering the names of actual senior administration officials, such as Don McGahn, Dan Coats, Kellyanne Conway, Kirstjen Nielsen, John Kelly, Jeff Sessions, James Mattis, Nikki Haley, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump. Chris Cillizza also suggested it might be Fiona Hill or Melania Trump.

He also wrote of the Times, “They aren’t publishing an anonymous op-ed from just anyone in the Trump administration. They especially aren’t publishing one that alleges a near-coup … If some midlevel bureaucrat in the Trump administration comes to the Times — or has an intermediary reach out to the Times — asking to write a piece like this one without their name attached to it, the answer would be an immediate ‘no.’” He added:

Given all of that, it’s telling that the Times was willing to extend the cloak of anonymity to this author — especially, again, because of the stakes and the target. This is not a decision made lightly. That the decision was made to publish it should tell you that this isn’t some disgruntled mid-to-upper manager buried in the bureaucracy. This is a genuine high-ranking official. A name most people who follow politics — and maybe some who don’t — would recognize. The Times simply wouldn’t do what it did for anything short of a major figure in Trump world.

In fact, they were willing to do it for a very low-level political appointee. Taylor has been billed as “chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security,” but he didn’t have even that position that nobody knew existed when he wrote the op-ed and was described as a senior administration official.

Continue reading “”

Top Gun-Control Group Ducks Guns in Election Ad
Brady PAC focuses on health care, not gun control, to boost Dems

A top gun-control group has blanketed Virginia airwaves with a new ad, but its missive is missing one key word: guns.

Brady PAC, which advocates for increased gun control, released an ad attacking Virginia Republican congressional candidate Nick Freitas on health care policy. The ad, for which Brady and the House Majority PAC paid, does not mention gun issues at all.

Brady’s turn away from gun-control messaging comes after Everytown, the largest gun-control group in the country, also abandoned the issue in election ads.

The change provides further evidence that Democrats and liberal interest groups do not view gun control as a winning issue in 2020—a year that has seen record gun sales and an influx of new gun owners.

George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm told the Washington Free Beacon that gun-control groups have lost faith in their core message and believe focusing on other issues is the best way to get their allies elected.

“The gun-control issue is a loser at this point,” she said. “So, the gun-control groups are pushing the health care issue in hopes of helping the election of Joe Biden.”

Biden’s pledge to take away “assault weapons” and support for a variety of strict new gun-control proposals are key reasons the groups support him, Malcolm said.

“If Biden wins, the gun-control folks expect to be in the driver’s seat,” Malcolm said. Continue reading “”

How The Left Tries To Trick Gun Owners Into Supporting Gun Control
Fake pro-gun groups like ‘Gun Owners for Safety’ are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, Brady, and others like them.

The Giffords Gun Control Group launched a new entity titled “Gun Owners for Safety” to spearhead the organization’s latest efforts to attack the Second Amendment. This group markets itself to American gun owners, who they claim are looking for “an alternative to the NRA … but [who] also want to reduce gun violence.” The past two decades, however, show that fake gun-rights groups like “Gun Owners for Safety” are always smokescreens for the same, tired gun control agenda of Giffords, the Brady Campaign, and others like them.

That agenda, which includes banning modern sporting rifles, is unpopular with gun owners and was conceived with zero input from the firearms industry. That industry has in fact proposed and implemented truly effective firearm safety proposals for decades.

Giffords Is No Friend of Gun Owners

Giffords’s latest iteration of a gun control group made up of gun owners is an obfuscation of facts. The group’s website landing page is a front. It hosts an image of a hunter plus a word salad that includes talk of gun ownership, common-sense gun laws, and reducing violence. It lists its principles as respect, devotion, and compassion, as if these traits are exclusive to those who favor the group’s gun control ideals.

Past this mirage is the truth. The so-called common-sense gun control ideas are really the radical proposals embraced by ideologues such as failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Giffords’ gun control measures would criminalize private firearm transfers, enact a national licensing scheme for Americans to exercise Second Amendment rights, enact mandatory home storage requirements the Supreme Court already struck down as unconstitutional, and ban, ban, ban.

Giffords seeks to outlaw the sale of precursor firearm parts for home-built hobbyists, which has always been legal, and to ban the most popular-selling centerfire rifle on the market, the modern sporting rifle. More than 18 million are in circulation. The group also wants to ban the standard-capacity magazines used in those rifles, which account for more than half of all the magazines in existence. If Giffords had its way, open and licensed concealed carry would also be gone, and the group would repeal laws that protect homeowners who are forced to defend their lives in their own homes.

Gun Control Groups Have Tried This Before Continue reading “”

Facebook Demonetizes Satire Site Babylon Bee, Claims Monty Python Spoof ‘Incites Violence’

Facebook Demonetizes Satire Site Babylon Bee, Claims Monty Python Spoof ‘Incites Violence’

Facebook is demonetizing the Christian, political satire page “The Babylon Bee” after they published an article satirizing Sen. Mazie Hirono’s comments during the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in a fictional depiction.

The Bee’s CEO Seth Dillon announced the demonetization on Tuesday in a tweet, claiming that the big tech company pulled down the article based on a “regurgitated joke from a Monty Python movie.”

“So after a manual review, Facebook says they stand by their decision to pull down this article and demonetize our page. I’m not kidding,” he wrote. “They say this article ‘incites violence.’ It’s literally a regurgitated joke from a Monty Python movie!”

 

Dillon pointed out the absurdity of Facebook’s critique.

“In what universe does a fictional quote as part of an obvious joke constitute a genuine incitement to violence?” he asked. “How does context not come into play here? They’re asking us to edit the article and not speak publicly about internal content reviews. Oops, did I just tweet this?”

Continue reading “”