Category: Mendacity O’ The Day

Side bar news flash, all firearms can be used to inflict mortal wounds.

Sugarmann Still Twisting the Narrative as Anti-Gun Groups Attack Ruger

As Second Amendment supporters, we may not have heard it all, but we sure have heard a lot. And by what I’m speaking about is the bovine excrement served as rhetoric from the anti-civil liberties camp. Josh Sugarmann is about as deceptive as they come concerning verbiage used to damage the Second Amendment. Sugarmann is the force behind so-called “assault weapons,” noting an ignorant public won’t be able to discern the difference between semi-automatic firearms and fully-automatic firearms. Recently Sugarmann went on a deceptive tear against Ruger, and the other anti-civil liberty vultures followed suit – or perhaps coordinated.

Two weeks ago in Lewiston, Maine, we saw once again the horrific price our nation pays as the gun industry relentlessly innovates for lethality—and mass shooters repeatedly use military-bred semiautomatic assault weapons for the exact purpose for which they were designed.

Soon after this most recent attack, the VPC released a 13-page backgrounder on the Ruger assault rifle reportedly used in the shooting, which one gun magazine describes as “easy to carry, fast to the shoulder, and packing the punch of an old school .30-caliber battle rifle.”

The report’s release is just one way in which the VPC continues to focus attention on America’s unregulated gun industry and works to hold it accountable for the deaths and injuries that result from its products.

At the same time, nearly 134 Americans die each day in gun suicides, homicides, and unintentional deaths.

As illustrated above, Sugarmann continues to use the term he coined, “assault weapons” pairing the descriptor with the modifier “military-bred” – whatever that is. The 13 page “backgrounder” referenced is worth a gander if you have the stomach for garbage. The report lists alleged mass shootings that were conducted with Ruger manufactured firearms.

Continue reading “”

If past history is any indicator, a reprogramming of car computer software for this will just be added on the list of services hackers have.

Massie: Vehicle Kill Switch Amendment Foreshadows Greater Danger to Guns

“The federal government has mandated that all vehicles sold after 2026 must have a kill switch that can disable your vehicle based on your driving performance,” Rep. Thomas Massie “tweeted” Wednesday. “My amendment to defund that unconstitutional mandate failed tonight.”

“Here is the roll call,” Massie added, linking to the House Clerk’s “Final Vote Results” for his Part B Amendment No. 60 to H R 4820, the “Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.” 19 Republicans joined 210 Democrats to defeat Massie’s amendment:

Gus Bilirakis (FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Mike Carey (OH), Chuck Fleischmann (TN), Andrew Garbarino (NY), Mike Garcia (CA), Garret Graves (LA), John Joyce (PA), Thomas Kean, Jr. (NJ), Kevin Kiley (CA), Young Kim (CA), David Kustoff (TN), Mike Lawler (NY), Nancy Mace (SC), Michael McCaul (TX), Zach Nunn (IA), María Elvira Salazar (FL), Chris Smith (NJ), and Glenn Thompson (PA).

Still, this must be a tempest in a teapot, right? After all, didn’t a January USA Today Fact Check conclude, “No, there’s no vehicle ‘kill switch’ in Biden’s 2021 infrastructure bill”? And it then followed up that headline with denial after denial until buried near the end of the piece came a curious admission:

“Whether or not the technology will become a part of the infrastructure bill’s final rule remains to be seen…”

Massie followed up his tweet by addressing the USA Today denials with a copy of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with an entry in the “Definitions” section circled:

The term “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology means a system that … can … passively monitor the performance of the driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and… prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected…”

Besides, the technology to remotely disable cars has been in development for years. From a 2010 report:

“If you’re crawling through traffic in 2025 and approach a traffic light, IBM hopes it will be able to take control of your car. And according to the patent, you won’t be able to go again until it lets you. …With a laptop and customized software called CarShark, the researchers disabled the brakes of a regular family car and switched its engine off – while it was moving.”

And to show the incremental moves in development:

“In 2008, it became mandatory for all American cars to be fitted with CAN (Controller Area Network), a standard protocol for enabling all the car’s electronics to talk to each other, so there’s one part of the puzzle in place.”

OK, fine, but what does any of this have to do with guns?

But perhaps the most immediate and insidious threat we face from technology comes under the guise of “safety— for the children,” so-called “smart guns” under development and soon to be required in a state near you. Because…they’re also lobbying for another technology they developed to be required on cars— a “shutoff switch” that police can activate by remote control, making the rest of us pay for the infinitesimal fraction of drivers who lead them on car chases.

As writer Vin Suprynowicz warns (and I and some others independently predicted), this technology could be used by the police as “an `electronic master key’ to `disable’ any `smart guns’ in the house,” and be used as a pretext to “ban the manufacture of any gun that ISN’T a `smart gun’.”

So police can turn guns fitted with one “off” and incapable of firing—and that could be mandated. Anybody doubt it will be if remote shutoff technology becomes widespread?

But the legal landscape has changed, some may argue. Such a move would surely fail under the Heller and Bruen tests. No?

First, look at the “rules” that ATF and edicts Democrat strongholds have passed that are obviously nothing more than in-your-face challenges to the Supreme Court on devices, semi-autos, magazines, “sensitive areas,” prior restraints and denials of due process—look at how they have virtually unlimited war chests of tax plunder to drag complaints on for years. Then pray the Republicans don’t blow it in ’24 and enable a Democrat president and majority to alter the composition of the court and achieve whatever reversals and outcomes they desire.

Back to the list of Republicans who voted against Massie’s amendment, and there are enough that they could have turned it: We see some familiar names, like Brian Fitzpatrick, Giffords’ poster Vichycon who never saw a gun he didn’t want to grab. We see others, like Gus Bilirakis, assigned an A-rating by NRA-PVF along with the assurance that he’s “a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and has earned your vote by protecting your fundamental right to self-defense from those who attempt to eradicate it!” Then there are the “moderates” from states like New York and California whose endless “compromises in the spirit of bipartisanship” exemplify the reason why so many refer to the GOP as “the Stupid Party.”

If you see your representative siding with the Democrats (or is one of the five Republicans who did not vote), what would it hurt to take the amount of time it takes to post a comment here and contact them to ask, “What the hell?”

Anti-Gunners Offer Surface-Level Takes On Shootings

Right now, a lot of attention is focused on Lewiston, Maine, and for a pretty good reason. When 18 people are killed and another 13 injured, folks are going to notice and talk about it.

I don’t have an issue with that, even if I also know a lot of people are just going to regurgitate anti-gun talking points.

But there were a number of other shootings that didn’t quite rise to the level of “mass shooting” as most of us think of it.

Yet the anti-gunners are still going to offer surface-level takes.

On the heels of Maine officials confirming that the shooter who killed 18 people in Lewiston earlier this week was found dead, shootings in Florida, Illinois, and Indianapolis early Sunday fueled further calls for action by U.S. lawmakers to reduce gun violence.…

Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said in a statement: “This morning, we are waking up to news of another deadly shooting. Our communities are exhausted… My heart breaks for the victims’ families whose children did not make it home, for the people who were injured in the gunfire, and hundreds of others who ran for their lives in Ybor City last night.”

“Guns turned this night out into a nightmare,” she added. “How many more times do we have to wipe the blood off our streets before action is taken? Once again, we urge Congress to do their jobs and pass responsible gun laws to protect all Americans from gun violence.”

Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts called the incident “the logical outcome of Florida’s permitless carry law, which went into effect in July” and means that “civilians no longer have to have background checks or training to carry hidden, loaded handguns in public.”

Kris Brown, president of the gun violence prevention group Brady, declared in response to the violence in Tampa that “this isn’t normal and we don’t have to live this way,” highlighting that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 26 times that of peer nations.

It’s amusing, in a dark way, because they’re completely ignoring the fact that one of these shootings happened in gun-controlled Chicago.

Moreover, there’s absolutely no evidence that permitless carry had anything at all to do with what happened in Florida or in Indiana.

Continue reading “”

Mother Jones Gets A Lot Wrong In Its Hit Piece Blaming Makers’ Advertising For ‘Gun Violence.’

Now comes another in the long line of attacks on the gun industry and how it markets its products to customers. The latest is from Mark Follman at Mother Jones. Apparently attempting to blow the lid off of gun makers’ promotional strategies, Follman hangs his hat on a report titled UnTargeting Kids compiled by the Sandy Hook Promise gun control operation.

“Our nation has experienced a tremendous spike in firearm deaths just as gun marketing made a transition from selling firearms for hunting and sporting to marketing highly lethal, military-style weapons to civilians, including children,” the report says. “That marketing is supposedly aimed at adults, but the platforms those influencers appear on, including TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, are largely populated by kids.”

There’s only one problem with that. The Sandy Hook Promise report blames “military-style weapons” for the spike in firearm deaths, even though, according to FBI data, year after year, rifles (of any kind) are used in far fewer homicides than knives.

Follman gets his timing wrong, too. The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex has been trying to blame gonzo gun ads for increased “gun violence” for more than a decade now. But the surge in gun-related homicides didn’t happen until 2020, thanks to the pandemic, the George Floyd Summer of Love, and the deterioration of so many cities thanks to lax law enforcement and permissive “progressive” criminal justice systems.

The majority of crimes involving guns are committed by people involved in gangs or drugs, mostly using cheap pistols…the same as it has been for decades now. So-called “assault weapons” have been used in a handful of horrific, high profile mass shootings, but they’re not used in a statistically significant number of gun-related homicides.

Follman, however, doesn’t let facts get in the way. Instead, he turns to the Gun Control Industry’s favorite former insider for his insights . . .

““That this type of marketing has contributed to creating today’s radical violent extremists is inescapable,” former gun company executive Ryan Busse argued in The Atlantic, referring to the 18-year-old avowed white supremacist who used a Bushmaster rifle in May 2022 to murder 10 Black people and injure three others at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.”

Except that you don’t see gun ads anywhere unless you actively seek them out. There aren’t gun TV commercials, there are no gun ads in magazines or newspapers, or on most websites. You only see them if you’re already on gun-related websites, read gun-related magazines, or choose to follow gun companies on social media (and even there, most platforms throttle their content).

Then there’s the inconvenient fact that no one has ever proven that any mass shooter so much as saw one of these allegedly edgy ads, let alone the more extraordinary claim that a gun ad somehow influenced one of them to commit mass murder.

By the way, Mr. Follman, you should reach out to Mr. Busse and get a comment from him to update your article. Now that he’s running for Governor of Montana, he suddenly claims he doesn’t support an assault weapon ban. How does that square with those prior claims of his?

Follman’s article includes the usual hand-wringing about the popularity of video games that include guns. But what limited relationship firearm manufacturers had in that area ended over a decade ago. Now developers use popular guns in their games without permission or payment either to or from gun companies. So Sandy Hook Promise got what it says it wanted a long time ago. Any inclusion today of popular guns in video games today isn’t the fault of gun makers.

So Follman’s piece is riddled with incorrect “facts,” a faulty chronology, and tries to blame gun makers for something they have no control over. That doesn’t make for a particularly effective hit piece. Better luck next time.

You simply can not make up such a lie as this bureaucrap’s affidavit.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN GUN OWNERS, V. THE TOWN OF SUPERIOR Yurgealitis Report

I kid you not:

1) “Assault weapons” are too complicated to use in self-defense because you may have to use a charging handle, turn off the safety, and load a magazine
2) AR-15s are too heavy and require two hands, which is why he recommends people use a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun with buckshot instead
3) You should store your shotgun with the internal magazine loaded
4) You should use a revolver with hollow-point bullets instead of a semi-auto pistol for self-defense because “there are no complicated safety mechanisms” and speed loaders are easy to use
5) AR-15s are just as lethal as full-auto M-16s

Loading...

 

Amid Damning Wire Transfer Revelations, Let’s Review What the Bidens Said About Chinese Money

By now you’re likely aware that Hunter Biden listed his father’s Delaware home as the ‘beneficiary address’ in the process of receiving two wire transfers, totally more than $250,000, from Beijing in 2019.   Fox News Digital published the scoop on Wednesday, writing that “the first wire sent to Hunter Biden, dated July 26, 2019, was for $10,000 from an individual named Ms. Wang Xin. There is a Ms. Wang Xin listed on the website for BHR Partners. It is unclear if the wire came from that Wang Xin. The second wire transfer sent to Hunter Biden, dated August 2, 2019, was for $250,000 from Li Xiang Sheng—also known as Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR Partners—and Ms. Tan Ling. The committee is trying to identify Ling’s role.”  We’ll return to the role of Mr. Li below.  There’s also this significant detail: “The beneficiary for the wires is listed as Robert Hunter Biden, with the address “1209 Barley Mill Rd.” In Wilmington, Delaware. That address is the main residence for Joe Biden.”

Would this be even more ‘no evidence‘ of Joe Biden being intertwined with his son’s various overseas business dealings?  The White House, having abandoned previous talking points Biden had dishonestly advanced about his knowledge and involvement in this family enrichment scheme, recently shifted to claiming that the elder and younger Bidens were not “in business” together.  I’ve argued that quite a lot of evidence suggests otherwise.  Much has been made about Joe Biden’s false, categorical denials on this front (eg “I have never discussed with my son, or brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their business, period”) which have blown up in his face.  But there was also this lie, told to the American people from a 2020 presidential debate stage (Biden also used the 2020 debates to broadcast his false ‘Russian disinformation’ spin about his son’s authentic and damning laptop):

Biden flatly denied that Hunter had made money from China, saying that the ‘only’ person who had done so was Donald Trump. In fact, bank records show that Hunter and Jim (Joe’s brother) Biden had made money from China.  Millions of dollars worth, some of which was allegedly ‘held for the Big Guy,’ according to Biden family emails.  Hunter had even drummed up business in China after flying to that country with his father aboard Air Force Two, when Joe Biden was Vice President.  The Washington Post fact-checker eventually slapped a Four Pinocchios rating on Biden’s debate assertion, albeit nearly three years after he made it.

Continue reading “”

It’s easy to fact-check Al. All he does is lie.

Fact Check: Al Sharpton Says No Mass Killings Without ‘Mass Instruments’

CLAIM: During a Friday appearance on MSNBC, Al Sharpton bemoaned the inability to secure more gun control and claimed there would be no mass killings without “mass instruments.”

VERDICT: False.

Breitbart News reported Sharpton suggested gun control can be pursued under the banner of “civil rights.”

He went on to say that whether gun control is pursued as a civil right or “just on guns, people cannot do mass killings unless they have mass instruments.”

Sharpton focused on AR-15s and suggested he is shocked by people who say, “No, we’re not giving up our AR-15s.”

He did not mention the work done via a partnership between Northeastern University, the Associated Press, and USA Today, which traces “mass killings” back to 2006 and shows “semiautomatic handguns are far more common in mass killings than guns that are typically characterized as assault weapons, such as the AR-15.”

Graphs used by Northeastern/AP/USA Today show handguns are used in “mass killings” almost twice as much as “long guns,” the latter being a category which includes shotguns, rifles of every kind, etc.

During the MSNBC segment, Sharpton pointed to the August 26, 2023, Jacksonville, Florida, shooting in which a man with an AR-15 killed three people at a Dollar General store. He did not mention the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shooting, in which an attacker with two handguns killed 32 people.

Sharpton also omitted the November 21, 2021, incident in which Darrell Brooks Jr. drove over people during a Milwaukee parade, killing six.

He left out the July 14, 2016, attack in Nice, France, in which a terrorist used a truck to kill 86 people and failed to mention the September 11, 2001, attacks, in which airplanes were weaponized to kill nearly 3,000 people.

Sharpton’s claim is false.

Well, he’s bizarre, so……

Biden’s comments on gun violence truly bizarre

After nearly three years in office, there are a lot of things I’ve come to expect out of the Biden administration. Coherent comments by the president aren’t among them.

Yet in announcing his new Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Biden had to open up and discuss so-called gun violence more broadly. He couldn’t just announce the office and leave it there, he had to explain to the press–the same guys who wanted this for years, mind you–why it was supposedly needed.

In discussing “gun violence,” however, Biden was his typical self, saying things that raised more than a few eyebrows.

On Friday, while touting his strict gun control laws, Biden continued his trend of lying when he claimed he has been to “every mass shooting.”

Biden furthered his support for restricting the Second Amendment, saying, “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.”

Yeah, buddy. That happened.

First, no, Biden hasn’t been to every mass shooting. Especially if you consider the definition of mass shooting that his party tends to prefer, which is the Gun Violence Archive definition that is just based on the number of people shot, not killed.

This definition inflates the number of mass shootings into a huge number, one that would make it impossible for Biden to visit every mass shooting.

Further, Biden offered no real qualifiers on those mass shootings, so even if we use the more traditional definitions that are based on the number of people killed, it’s unlikely he visited every mass shooting that ever happened in the US, much less the planet as a whole.

Because while people like Biden tend to pretend that mass shootings are uniquely American, they happen everywhere.

Then we get to the whole “if you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t have a gun.”

First, there aren’t any 80-round magazines out there, though I suspect a company like Palmetto State Armory might be cooking up one right about now.

Yet even if there were, so what?

There is nothing in our Second Amendment that seems to support such a supposition. If we need X number of rounds, we shouldn’t have a firearm? Why is that? Under what criteria would we be allowed to have a gun? Is the limit 79 rounds? Five rounds? What exactly?

Now, generally speaking, people haven’t needed that many rounds for any lawful situation they might find themselves in. Many defensive gun uses take place with zero rounds being fired.

But many others take a lot more than some might think.

The truth is that no one who has survived a gunfight has ever said, “Gee, I wish I’d had less ammo.”

See, the problem with Biden’s myopic comment–and this is me trying to be charitable here–is that it doesn’t account for individual circumstances. There’s a difference between some guy pulling a gun on a mugger and someone who has angered an organized mob that wants their head.

Further, let’s remember that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or even muggers, specifically. Yes, the Tyranny of the Thug is a thing, but the amendment was essentially penned as an insurance policy on the rest of our rights. It was meant as a bulwark against tyranny as a whole.

Our Founding Fathers had just fought a war that started when the tyrannical government marched on a town to seize arms from them. It’s really unlikely that they intended to make it easier for a tyrannical leader to do the same again.

So no, there are no exceptions to the Second Amendment, no matter how many rounds you need in a magazine.

But since Biden clearly has never read the Second Amendment and definitely dismissed the Bruen decision, we’ve clearly got a long fight on our hands.

Support
About
Terms
Privacy

That means you can have near metaphysical certitude, it’ll happen.

KJP: No Pardon for Hunter – No Way, No How

Let me be clear. When White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says, “No,” she means, “No.” Well, for now, anyway.

On Friday, Jean-Pierre was asked again about whether President Joe Biden would pardon his son, Hunter, or commute his sentence, were he to be convicted of the federal gun charges filed against him in the indictment filed by Special Counsel David Weiss on Thursday. Jean-Pierre gave a categorical, unequivocal no. (Which is how you know there’s more to the story.)

Asked during the daily briefing if the president would pardon or commute his son’s sentence if he gets convicted on the gun charges against him, Jean-Pierre told reporters he would not. It’s the first time the White House has explicitly said a potential pardon is not on the table following Hunter Biden’s indictment this week.

In her response, Jean-Pierre noted that she answered a similar question after the president’s son was first hit with a felony gun charge.

“I’ve answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear, and I said no,” she said, referring to previous comments from the podium.

If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu, it’s because — believe it or not — Jean-Pierre is right. She has answered this question before — though it was more than a couple of weeks ago. The initial exchange occurred on July 27, the day after Hunter’s original sweetheart plea deal got scuttled.

Our Bob Hoge reported on it at the time:

As we reported, a sweetheart plea deal Hunter’s lawyers had negotiated with the Department of Justice exploded spectacularly Wednesday when the judge raised questions about the blanket immunity Hunter would receive.

Fox News reporter Mark Meredith asked if the president would consider intervening:

MEREDITH: I know you said not a lot has changed since yesterday and that it’s a personal matter, but from a presidential perspective, is there any possibility that the President would end up pardoning his son?

KJP: No.

MEDEDITH: [Tries to pose a follow-up question, she cuts him off.]

KJP: I just said no—I just answered. [Points to another reporter.] Go ahead, go ahead.

So, how do we know there’s more to the story? Because I can’t think of another answer Jean-Pierre has given from the podium that was that clear and direct. Not one.

Granted, I’ve not watched every single daily briefing. But I’ve certainly edited (and read) enough of them to get a flavor of how she normally responds when questioned:

KJP Goes Full Metal Biden, Butchers Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Name and Lies About GOP Debt Ceiling Plan

WH Can’t Keep Their Stories Straight, Get Busted on Lies as They Announce Troops to Border

Karine Jean-Pierre Has a Snit Fit When Asked About Durham Report, Abruptly Leaves Podium

Karine Jean-Pierre Showered With Receipts After Blatant Lie on Biden and the Debt Ceiling

Karine Jean-Pierre Flounders While Addressing the Topless Trans Incident at the White House

(I could go on, but I think you get the point.)

So, why would Jean-Pierre, who’s seemingly never met a question she can’t dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge in spectacular fashion, so succinctly and directly answer a question on such a thorny topic? Could it be because Joe Biden has drawn a line in the sand and vowed finally to employ some tough love and hang the son attached to his hip out to dry?

No — I don’t think that’s it at all. I think the reason that Jean-Pierre can answer that particular question so definitively is because there’s literally no downside to having it prove untrue down the road. If we’re at the point where Hunter has been convicted and Joe is faced with the prospect of pardoning him, I predict Joe will pardon him without batting an eye…on his way out the door.

MEDIA WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO BLAME FIREARM INDUSTRY

By Larry Keane

There’s peril when media sets out to confirm a narrative instead of reporting facts. Whether it’s criminal violence in America perpetrated by a deranged lunatic, or by violent drug cartels in countries beyond our borders, some media outlets will find the flawed logic to argue it is American companies that should be punished.

This results in a disservice to readers and erodes public trust not just in their subjects but also in the Fourth Estate.

Continue reading “”

They’re coming for your guns

Leftist politicians rarely tell the truth. Their policies and ideals are so bad that they can’t, and they know it, thus the nonstop hyperbole, grandstanding, and projection. It’s infuriating that so many Americans either are unable to see this, thanks in part to a complicit MSM, or so blinded by their ideology that they choose to ignore the fact that they get endlessly played by those they keep electing.

As with any good totalitarian leftist regime, gun confiscation is at the top of the leftist wish list. It’s much easier to institute control and compliance over an unarmed citizenry than it is an armed one. They may deny it, but deep down, this is what they want. All you have to do is watch and listen to them.

You hear them use code words like “military-grade weapons” and “red flag laws.” Even our leftist administrative state is getting in on the action, as the ATF is now targeting gun dealers by denying more and more of their business licenses. It probably won’t be long until this administration starts mandating that banks curtail any financial dealings with gun manufacturers and dealers, just as it has with the fossil fuel industry. House bills are already written to pin blame on gun manufacturers for gun-related crimes. Once instituted, there is no way those business can survive the legal onslaught that would come their way. Leftists may not be able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, yet, but they can sure regulate their way around it.

This leftist playbook was recently revealed by progressive St. Louis mayor Tishaura Jones. Under her leadership, the city recently passed Bill 29, which repealed the city’s open carry law, but that wasn’t enough for her. Now she’s proposing more “commonsense gun legislation,” including but not limited to red flag laws, background checks, banning “military-grade” weapons, and prohibiting insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes from owning guns.

While I find red flag laws deeply concerning, as they blatantly infringe upon an individual’s right to bear arms simply via another’s accusation, the last two in the list really set the alarm bells off. Of course, Mayor Jones didn’t specifically say what constitutes a “military-grade weapon,” and I’m not going to put words into her mouth, but any time the government looks to limit something, it’s only getting started. Military-grade weapons, or “weapons of war,” is an extremely vague term that can mean whatever the government wants it to mean, which is exactly how the government wants it. All these people need to do is to open that door and stick their foot in it, and then, over time they’ll be able to step right through.

This brings me to Jones’s most disturbing statement: “prohibiting insurrectionists and those convicted of hate crimes” from owning guns. We’ve already seen how loose our federal government is when it comes to labeling citizens as “insurrectionists.” Would local leftist leaders be at all different? Of course not.

In fact, let’s take this a step farther. With our federal Justice Department labeling concerned parents voicing opinions at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists,” what would stop local authorities from targeting them as well? Or the fact that certain crimes against certain “oppressed” or “victim” groups, as determined by the administrative state, constitutes forgoing your 2nd Amendment rights, too? This is nothing but blatant political weaponization against “enemies” in the guise of “commonsense” gun laws, with the government picking and choosing the winners and losers. In the 17th century, they were called “witch hunts.”

The fact that Mayor Jones used the word “insurrectionists” was no accident. On the surface, who would argue with disarming insurrectionists, right? But to the left, “insurrectionists” refers to anybody leftists disagree with, as well as other code words like “fascists,” “MAGA,” and “terrorists.” This is the semantic word game that leftists love to play. They’ll pass laws that, on their surface, may appear sensible and provide a good sound bite, just for them to then use these laws to cudgel their opposition, while giving free passes to those who support them.

We all have to vehemently resist leftists’ assault on the 2nd Amendment, for there is absolutely no question as to what their end game is: the disarmament of the populace and the persecution of their adversaries.

This American doesn’t care.
I’m not safer driving to work vs taking the train but I’m still not taking the train. This notion of “safety” as a general state of being is an illusion that neurotic people obsess over. Being safe is a series of actions taken to mitigate unnecessary risk in an inherently dangerous environment or undertaking.

You can exercise gun safety by actions you take when handling a gun, you can take safety precautions when driving a car by being alert, using a seatbelt, etc but nobody on earth lives in a perpetual state of inherent safety. We never have and we never will.

This is a lie sold to people by the media and the powerful in order to accumulate more power at the expense of our rights and liberties and it needs to be called out.

Many Americans Still Wrongly Think Guns Make Us Safer

Large portions of the American public still believe false claims of all kinds about guns, the COVID-19 pandemic and reproductive health, a new survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows.

Though the poll found that percentages of Americans who believe that false claims are “definitely” true is small, the portion who think they are “probably” true is substantial. Overall, between half and three-quarters of the country belong to what KFF CEO Drew Altman called the “muddled middle,” saying that the false claims were “probably” either true or false.

Perhaps most striking of the poll’s findings is the incorrect belief, held by many Americans, that guns make them safer. Sixty percent of Americans believe it’s true that armed school police guards have been proved to prevent school shootings. Eighteen percent of respondents thought the claim was “definitely” true and 42% believed it “probably” true.

Continue reading “”

Questioning election results is un-American!

*Cough*
The last time the Democrats admitted that a Republican had legitimately been elected president was in 1988.
*Cough*

HOW DARE TRUMP QUESTION THE ELECTION RESULT?

Now that Donald Trump has been indicted for questioning the result of the 2020 presidential election, we should never forget that the last time the Democrats admitted that a Republican had legitimately been elected president was in 1988, when George H.W. Bush carried 40 states. Democrats have denounced every Republican president since then as illegitimate (including George W. Bush twice). Roll the tape:

How a “poison pill” in NYSRPA v. Bruen is being exploited by a lower court

The last year has seen some significant successes in the restoration of our Second Amendment rights. From coast to coast, unreasonable gun laws written for the express purpose of harassing law-abiding citizens and infringing on the rights of the body politic are being struck down. Before the Bruen text/history/tradition test, just about every infringement was rubber-stamped by biased anti-Rights judges who always put a thumb on the scale in favor of restrictions.

Unfortunately, there is a sort of “poison pill” in the Court’s Bruen decision that provides a small loophole that anti-Rights judges can drive a truck through. This is the “unprecedented Societal Concern or dramatic technological changes” caveat in the Supreme Court’s opinion:

While the historical analogies here and in Heller are relatively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach.

The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution—and a Second Amendment—“intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819) (emphasis deleted).

Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404–405 (2012) (holding that installation of a tracking device was “a physical intrusion [that] would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted”).

To be fair, the Court’s opinion talks about the importance of the right to keep and bear arms and how it has a fixed meaning and leaves it up to judges to apply those basic principles to circumstances beyond what the Founders specifically anticipated. The context, however, is not the infringement of rights but consistent support for rights over time. To drive home the point, the Court provides an example from United States v. Jones, and talks about how the installation of a GPS tracker was a physical intrusion that would have been considered a search. The Founders lived during an era when there was no electricity, but the Fourth Amendment is still applicable to small GPS devices that use signals from orbiting satellites to determine someone’s location.

But judges with inherent bias will take advantage of even the smallest opening, and we saw that yesterday at the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, which deals with Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban. The plaintiffs in this case sought to get a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban. The Court denied the injunction, saying that the plaintiffs have failed to show their likelihood of success on the merits.

Continue reading “”