The mass shooter in England used a shotgun.
We have been assured that if semiautomaticassaultweapons™ are banned/ registered/licensed that will end mass shootings
Clearly someone is lying.
Category: RKBA
Susan Rice is the secret puppet-master behind Biden’s war on guns
Joe Biden got lost in the bushes outside the White House Wednesday, after returning from a long weekend at his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden walked right past a Secret Service agent who was pointing the right way and stumbled into the bushes until he saw a side door, which he had to open himself. The President of the United States does not open his own doors at the White House.
Biden’s declining cognitive skills have become blatantly obvious – fodder for tweets and late-night comics. He cannot complete a simple sentence unless he’s reading from a teleprompter. His handlers have tried to offer the excuse that Biden suffers from a stutter, but what’s wrong with Joe is far more serious than a speech impediment. Biden drifts off mid-sentence and appears to lose touch with reality. It’s happening far too often for comfort.
The President of the United States has become a puppet, who has to be led – sometimes by the hand – to waiting news cameras, where he stumbles through speeches that someone else has obviously written. So, who is pulling Biden’s strings?
In my humble opinion, in the Biden-Harris Administration’s war against our guns, former Obama national security advisor and UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, who now serves as Biden’s domestic policy advisor, is clearly calling the shots. Rice has a staunch anti-gun pedigree, coupled with direct access to Biden – and Obama – and the means, ability and desire to orchestrate the war against our God-given, constitutional rights.
The evidence is everywhere.
The anti-gun forces love this woman. They were overjoyed when Biden appointed her as one of his closest advisors.
“Ambassador Susan Rice recognizes that gun violence is one of the most urgent threats facing our country, and through this appointment, President-elect Biden is continuing to build the strongest gun safety administration in history,” John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement heralding her appointment. “As Ambassador Rice said in our Demanding Women conversation this summer, ‘the American people want common-sense gun laws’ — and we’re excited to work with her to make that happen.”
“Ambassador Rice is committed to ending our gun violence epidemic, and she understands that COVID-19 has dramatically exacerbated our gun violence crisis,” Shannon Watts, leader of Moms Demand Action, said in the same statement. “Her appointment is proof positive that this administration is wasting no time in addressing the gun violence that takes 100 lives every day and wounds hundreds more. I know Ambassador Rice will be instrumental in helping tackle these dual public health crises.”
Susan Rice
Extremist views
Rice’s anti-gun history is well documented.
In 2018, according to Everytown, then-Ambassador Rice signed a letter calling “gun violence” a national security threat. The letter called on officials to “ban assault weapons, mandate background checks and waiting periods, and raise the minimum age to purchase guns.”
They schools have been educating indoctrinating snowflake students for many years.
College Op-Ed Claims “Right To Safety” Trumps Second Amendment
I’ve heard a lot of bad arguments regarding a lot of things in my life. One is this idea that there’s a right to safety. In other words, the government exists in part to provide safety for each individual and anything that someone thinks makes them unsafe is something the government should outlaw.
Yeah, it sounds ridiculous.
However, it gets worse when people use that to try and justify anti-Second Amendment positions, like an op-ed in The Daily Cougar, the student newspaper at the University of Houston, does.
Gov. Greg Abbott’s new permitless carry law should not happen due to the recent increase in mass shootings.…
This law will put so many of us in danger, considering it is already extremely easy to get a gun in this state.
We take the mentality that guns bring us freedom and that they are part of our identity to the extreme. With a society that prioritizes guns so much already, making unlicensed carry legal is unnecessary and poses a big safety risk.…
Humanity needs to become a bigger priority in this state. This means that stricter gun control is necessary. Our government should listen to its people and make them feel safe, rather than allowing a law as dangerous as permitless carry.
This is in an op-ed entitled, “Permitless carry infringes on the right to safety.”
The thing is, no such right exists. You can get hurt doing anything. You could walk down the street, step wrong, and sprain your ankle. Is that a violation of your civil rights? I had a nasty ankle sprain while hunting at a state wildlife management area. Did the state of Georgia violate my civil right to safety because they didn’t level out the woods?
Of course not.
The thing is, this “right to safety,” whether it’s espoused as such or not, is really just about one group of people getting to feel safer, as noted in the last quoted paragraph.
The problem, however, is these people are putting their own feelings of safety above those of others. They want to feel safe. They don’t care if you feel safe or not.
CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY BILL INTRODUCED IN SENATE
A group of Republican lawmakers in the Buckeye State recently filed a permitless carry bill in the Ohio state Senate.
The proposal SB 215 was filed by Dr. Terry Johnson, state senator for Ohio’s 14th Senate District, and has eight co-sponsors. The measure joins HB 227, filed earlier this year in the Ohio House, which has 22 co-sponsors.
The move is a priority for state Second Amendment advocates.
“Ohioans have proven themselves to be overwhelmingly law-abiding over the past 17 years since concealed carry became law,” said Dean Rieck, the Buckeye Firearms Association’s executive director. “And Ohio is ready to join the 21 other states that now permit concealed carry without a license.”
The legislation proposed would not change Ohio’s lethal force laws or the locations where guns can already be legally carried in the state. Likewise, it would not do away with the state’s popular shall-issue concealed carry licensing program. Roughly 700,000 Ohioans held active licenses in 2020, according to a report from the Ohio attorney general. What the measure would do is codify that such licenses are not needed to carry a legal firearm in the state.
Republicans hold a commanding control of the Ohio General Assembly, counting 25 of the 33 seats in the Senate and 64 of 99 in the House. Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, has already this year signed a stand your ground bill into law, and DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney previously told the Ohio Capital-Journal that the governor has not yet taken a position on the proposed constitutional carry legislation.
The move, if successful, would make Ohio the 22nd state to recognize such permitless carry laws. So far this year, five states – Iowa, Tennessee, Montana, Utah, and Texas – have adopted similar protections.
State Opportunities to Repeal Bans on Gun Mufflers
The same person who invented the muffler for the automobile invented them for guns. Hiram Maxim, the inventor, called them “Silencers”. An obvious reason they were not invented earlier is the inside of a gun muffler is more complex than a gun barrel. Early silencer designs were made of mild steel, making them subject to corrosion. A silencer for a gun using black powder would require a significant effort to clean after each use.
Smokeless/non-corrosive gunpowder did not become common until about 1900. At that point, gun mufflers became more practical. Increasing prosperity in society, brought about by technical innovation and the use of fossil fuels, made target shooting more economical for more people.
Hiram Maxim invented the gun muffler in 1902. It was moderately popular. President Theodore Roosevelt owned several and found them useful for target shooting and pest control.
The Progressive regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to make the interstate transportation and marketing of silencers prohibitively expensive in 1934. There was no clear reason to do so in the legislative record. Placing prohibitive taxes on machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was the booby prize in 1934. The main aim of the proponents of the law had been to require registration and licensing of all pistols.
Basic Practical Riflery For The New Shooter.
A few years ago, I decided I wanted to become a rifleman. A practical rifleman. Through disciplined self practice, and help from the online community, I have been able to ever expand my skills from a 100 yard skill-set to a 600 yard comfort zone. If I can do it, anyone can, but a lot of people don’t think they can make that jump.
I have run into many AR owners who think that if they can’t shoot 1 to 2-inch groups like they see online, they aren’t shooting well. They perceive their rifle equipped with a red dot as being too imprecise to carry them past close-range shooting. They doubt their skills, but they haven’t tried to apply the skills they have.
Because they don’t think they can do it, they don’t shoot at longer ranges. But I’m here to tell you that you can.
Let’s knock that mental wall down and develop a simple shooting program for all the new AR-15 shooters out there. Let’s identify an easy-to-master system that can carry their rifle out to distances they once dismissed.
Today we’re going to create a basic program to get you (or someone you know who needs this) a tool set to reliably drop rounds on a target out to 400 yards. Let’s get started.
Bill Aims To Add ALL Semi-Automatic Rifles With Detachable Magazines To NFA
Back when candidate Joe Biden was running for president, he had laid out several different things he wanted to do in the way of curbing so-called “gun violence”. Multiple times on episodes of Cam and Company, Cam stated we should be taking Biden at his word on what he wishes to do. From his wish list:
Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
Let’s first note the laziness and candor in Biden’s plan by linking to a fact sheet on Giffords Law Center’s webpage. Biden is clearly in bed with this group, why else would his website link to them? I don’t think it would have been too hard for the team to come up with a similar document to link to or come up with their own ideas on the subject, but I digress.
Then there is the progressive golden boy, former ATF agent, David Chipman, who’s falling from grace, but still an entity to deal with, and his views. As reported on The Hill:
David Chipman, a retired Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent, on Monday said AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns.
“What I support is treating them just like machine guns,” Chipman, who is now a senior policy adviser at Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, told Hill.TV’s Buck Sexton and Krystal Ball on “Rising.”
“To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file,” he continued.
Anyone paying attention? Just to connect the dots, we all know about Chipman’s involvement with Giffords. Biden linking to Giffords? Chipman working for Giffords? Swampy.
Indiana Handgun Permit Applications Skyrocket.
Figures coming out of Indiana, which eliminated the fee for handgun permits on July 1, indicate price is a serious hurdle for many residents eager to exercise their Second Amendment rights to ensure their safety and that of their loved ones. According to an Indy Star report on July 8, during the first 7 days of the month there was a 10-fold increase in applications compared to 2019 figures. Eight thousand came in the first day alone.
The July 1 change removed the previous $30 price for the five-year concealed carry version of the handgun permit. The state’s total volume figures aren’t exclusively self-defense associated, however. Hunters who want to go afield with a handgun must also procure one, although a state spokesman told the newspaper they accounted for only a third of those received during that week. Applicants, as before, are still required to undergo a background check and pay a $13 processing fee for the mandatory fingerprinting.
Applications can only be submitted through the state website, and Indiana State Police First SGT Ron Galaviz told the newspaper that volume on that web page is causing intermittent delays in its response. “With the fee change, we’re seeing a huge uptick in the number of people trying to access our system,” he said. “It might take a little bit of time, but people are able to get in. We ask for a little bit a patience.” The URL came up quickly when American Rifleman checked multiple times this week.
Applicants can schedule appointments for fingerprinting and background check completion on the website. Lifetime carry permits remain available in Indiana at a cost of $125.
Prior to the fee change, sportsmen who only hunt or target shoot with their handgun paid $15 for their version of the state’s handgun permit.
Gun Control Activists Blame Biden As Chipman Nomination Nears Collapse
On Wednesday, advocates for David Chipman told POLITICO that they were pushing for a full vote to confirm the gun control activist as ATF director before the Senate starts its August recess. By Thursday afternoon, however, Chipman’s biggest supporters appeared resigned to the idea that senators will most likely skip town without holding a vote and had started pointing their fingers at the White House and Joe Biden himself over the crumbling prospects of installing one of their own as the head of the agency overseeing the nation’s gun laws, regulations, and the firearms industry.
Frustrations became evident during a Zoom call on Thursday afternoon with Cedric Richmond, senior adviser to the president and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement — the latest in months of meetings in which advocates have brought up Chipman’s nomination.
According to two people familiar with the call, a small group of survivors and those pushing firearms restrictions urged the White House to be more aggressive on the nomination. They also encouraged the administration to support ending the filibuster to allow firearms legislation to more easily pass the evenly-divided Senate, the people said.
If Biden can’t move senators like Joe Manchin to publicly support Chipman’s nomination, how exactly is Sleepy Joe supposed to convince red state Democrats to nuke the filibuster? The White House isn’t the hang up here, it’s a number of Senate Democrats themselves who are the biggest roadblock in that regard. But with Chipman’s nomination in serious trouble, gun control activists have to place blame somewhere, and they’re certainly not going to blame themselves for pushing Chipman as a candidate in the first place.
Revisiting the Right to Bear Arms after Summer 2020 Rioting
The final version of my article, The Right to Armed Self-Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication, published in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, is now available for download.
The basic theme of the article is that the inability or unwillingness (often under standdown orders from politicians) of law enforcement to protect life and property during the summer 2020 riots and looting in cities across the country undermines the claim of opponents of the right to keep and bear arms that individual firearms ownership is obsolete given the existence of modern police forces.
One contribution the article makes is to document the scope of the lawlessness last summer, which was largely ignored by the media. The article did not attempt to be comprehensive, but it may still be the most thorough discussion of the extent of the unrest, the lack of police response, and of efforts by citizens to protect themselves with firearms.
Meanwhile, I just came across a strange response to my article, and articles with similar themes, by Duke Law professor Joseph Blocher and Yale Law professor Reva Siegel. They write,
Advocates for guns have seized on the events of the past year — especially racial justice protests — as occasion to argue for an expanded right to keep and bear arms.20
Some scholars argue that the state has no monopoly on tools of violence, “especially in times of emergency and civil unrest;”21 they contend that armed self-defense is critical “in a time of lawless violence”22 and that “in the absence of a viable, effective police presence, [it is] in practice the primary mechanism citizens have to protect themselves, their businesses, their employees, and their property from violence”23 or from “tyrannous factions.”24
Such arguments effectively read the racial justice protests through Heller’s law and order lens, coding them as crime rather than speech or assembly. Doing so obscures the harms to public life that public carry can inflict, and it privileges the claims of citizens who rely on guns — rather than gun laws — to respond to fears of violence.
Citing my article for this point is academic malpractice. I don’t think my article could be any clearer that I was writing in response to looting, rioting, shootings, arson, and other mayhem and violence, not to “racial justice protests.” I even pointed out, explicitly, that “it appears that the vast majority of BLM protestors were peaceful, and many of the looters and rioters were doing so opportunistically, not because they believed it furthered ‘the cause.'”
For reasons that escape me, progressives have been unwilling to distinguish between peaceful racial justice protesters and those who engaged in wanton violence that claimed a dozen or so lives, caused billions of dollars of property damage, and left residents of American cities, often members of minority groups, begging for police intervention that was not forthcoming. From the article:
In Minneapolis—a city hit especially hard by recent rioting—the summer of 2020 saw groups of armed residents protecting property and life from law breakers. In the city’s Lake Street neighborhood—which was at the heart of recent riots—restauranteur Cesia Baires formed Security Latinos De La Lake, a group of gun-toting locals dedicated to protecting the area’s Latino community.
Baires’ group was one of many armed neighborhood watches that sprung up in the Twin Cities.224 “It’s not something that I would want,” Baires told MPR, “but . . . we were left alone. . . . There were no cops that would come around. So what are we to do? Just stand there and do nothing?”225
The local NAACP chapter also organized groups of armed residents to guard local businesses during this summer’s wave of rioting.226 In the city’s predominantly-Black Folwell neighborhood, “it became . . . apparent . . . that the police weren’t available to help. . . . [w]hen protests and ransacking of businesses erupted” in May.227 As a result, residents “banded together to protect themselves[,] . . . . sitting outside businesses with guns to make sure outside groups didn’t attack.”228
After several Black-owned businesses were destroyed during demonstrations, City Councilman Jeremiah Ellison (son of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison) organized his own group of mostly-Black armed citizens.229 The group was formed to protect businesses in a neighborhood “considered [to be] the heart of the city’s black community.”230
In one incidence of armed self-defense during the rioting in Minneapolis, video footage shows armed volunteers standing outside a tobacco shop to help the storeowners defend the premises against rioters and looters.231 One gun-toting volunteer explained that while “we definitely don’t agree with the looting, but we do agree with the cause for protests.”232
The ‘epidemic’ is not that there are committees of vigilance roaming the streets – a blatant canard since, if true, would likely reduce crime – but that there are criminal street gangs roaming the streets of major metropolitan cities, shooting up each other’s members (as well as a lot of unintended targets) with the membership demographic causing the majority of this; black men, ages 14 to 35.
The ACLU Claims the Second Amendment Is Racist, But Gun Control Has the Real Record on Systemic Oppression
To date, black Americans are more likely than any other group to suffer the adverse impacts of gun control laws.
The ACLU fired shots on Twitter last month, claiming that the Second Amendment is “racist” alongside an article and podcast episode that posed the question “Do Black People Have the Right to Bear Arms?”
The article, written by Ines Santos, claimed that gun violence in America — which she labeled an “epidemic” caused by widespread “vigilante” firearm ownership — negatively impacts black people because of racially discriminatory policing. “What is absent in the intense debates on gun rights in America is the intrinsic anti-blackness of the unequal enforcement of gun laws,” she wrote.
Santos went on to say that racism determined the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights.
These are hefty charges worth examining. Let’s break down the claims made here and review the history.
Numbers Don’t Lie. Public Safety Concerns Driving Gun Sales.
Americans are sending a message of their own, despite President Joe Biden’s continued push to restrict their Second Amendment rights. They are choosing to protect themselves.
Two key markers demonstrate Americans in 2021 are voting with their wallets and politicians would be wise to take note. Gun sales continue at elevated levels and if elected officials don’t take heed, they could find themselves out of elected office and looking for work.
Well, the people that voted for the proggie politicians who came up with this law are the expatriates from states that were turned into cesspools by the proggie politicians they voted for there.
It Just Got Harder for Law-Abiding Citizens to Buy a Gun in Colorado
“There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and had been well armed. … Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.” — Theodore Haas, Dachau survivor.
When tragedy strikes, it’s human nature to look for ways to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. For example, the March 2021 shooting at a King Soopers in Boulder, prompted lawmakers to introduce and pass three new gun laws in Colorado.
Indeed, one of those laws, HB21-1298 “Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements,” went into effect on June 29, and is specifically designed to “address the epidemic of gun violence we have seen in Colorado,” said bill sponsor Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver.
For me, there’s 2 reasons.
1, Reciprocity, as mentioned, for states that don’t have unpermitted carry.
2, Our state lets cities ban open carry , which includes ‘flashing’ (unintended displays) unless a person has a CC permit, then they can open carry, which is weird, but it’s the way the law was written.
3 Reasons You Should Still Have a Carry Permit in a Constitutional Carry State
Governor Greg Abbott recently signed HB 1927, also known as Texas constitutional carry, into law during a ceremony on the grounds of the Alamo, making Texas the 21st state to allow some form of permitless handgun carry. Similar legislation is being advanced in multiple states across the country, and it’s safe to say that the idea of constitutional carry has gained significant traction.
When you consider that as of 2003, Vermont was the only state where you didn’t need some form of permit or license to carry a concealed handgun on your person, it’s clear that the political landscape, at least on the state level, has changed significantly. But even if you live in a state with constitutional carry (or one that is about to), having a permit is still in your best interest.
55% of Republicans ‘Back Potential Use of Force to Preserve American Way of Life’
A stunning George Washington University poll conducted in June revealed that “Over half of Republicans (55%) supported the possible use of force to preserve the ‘traditional American way of life,’” while also finding that 47 percent of Republicans think there may be a time when “patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.”
Another finding listed in the survey is that Republicans are far less likely (21%) than Democrats (83%) to say that “changing the nation’s gun laws is very or somewhat important.”
As reported by The Hill, “support for principles like free and fair elections, free speech and peaceful protest were nearly unanimous among Democratic and Republican voters.”
However, The Hill also noted, “Republicans were significantly less likely to have a strong amount of faith in local and state elections. Eighty-five percent of Democrats expressed trust in local election officials, with 76 percent saying the same of state officials, compared to 63 percent and 44 percent, respectively, for GOP voters.”
What this survey actually accomplished was to show the continuing, and perhaps widening divide between Democrats and Republicans on gun rights, and how political partisans disagree in their understanding of what the Second Amendment is really about. As grassroots gun rights activists repeatedly remind one another on social media, it’s “not about duck hunting.”
In case anyone still hadn’t realized just how disingenuous, dishonest and/or mentally defective the gun-grabbers are, Mr Noir presents……….
When even the proggie editors at the LA Times print this……..
As violent crimes surge, Californians’ faith in gun control slips in new poll
SACRAMENTO — Amid a surge in shootings this year, a majority of California voters say that they believe gun control laws are effective in reducing violent crime, but confidence in them has slipped, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.The poll released Thursday found that 56% of the state’s voters surveyed believe stronger laws restricting the sale and possession of guns help make their communities safer, but the number is down from 60% who felt that way three years ago.
The poll also found that 57% of California voters say it is more important to place greater controls on gun ownership than it is to protect Americans’ rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment, but that number is down from 64% who felt that way in 2018.
The decline in confidence in gun laws is a response to what people are seeing in their communities, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll.
BLUF:
Anti-gun researches will continue to use flawed methodology and bad data as long as a fawning media and gun control establishment continue to fuel any “research” with the “right” conclusion
The objective world mistrusts most gun policy research because it’s clear the objective is to produce an anti-gun outcome rather than honest analysis. Politicians and professional activists claim the mantle of evidence but will ignore any findings that threaten their anti-gun agenda.
Anti-gun politicians continue to advocate for policies that the very researchers they champion have contradicted, if not found to be ineffective. Researchers and activists cherry-pick data, but they also cherry-pick which findings to use – even from a single study. Can you imagine if the same low threshold for credibility was applied to pro-gun findings?
Let’s try an exercise. Vermont – one of the safest states in the nation, one that had Permitless Carry for centuries – enacted a magazine capacity restriction in 2018. Let’s look at the violent crime rate in Vermont and the U.S using data from the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. The national violent crime rate decreased from 2018 to 2019 but the rate in Vermont increased – and even increased more than it had from 2017 to 2018.
