BREAKING: We have recovered the Ukraine call report that @JakeTapper and CNN just deleted
Please DO NOT RT this as they do not want anyone to see it! pic.twitter.com/vV67Jc1p7i
— Jack Posobiec đșđž (@JackPosobiec) January 28, 2022
Category: Media
Okay. I’ll repost this Thursday.
Can We Make Thursday âEverybody Blog About Mass Formation Psychosis Day?â
Recall that people are trying to de-platform Joe Rogan for hosting Dr. Robert Malone, who has popularized the âMass Formation Psychosisâ theory to explain public reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Well, hereâs some news for you:Â They canât de-platform everybody.
If all of us with access to digital platforms â bloggers, columnists, people on Twitter and Facebook, etc. â will unite behind this idea, we can defeat these censors and make it impossible for them to suppress the idea.
Therefore, I propose that this Thursday, Jan. 27, be declared âEverybody Blog About Mass Formation Psychosis Day.â The objectives:
Twitter Locked Out Congressional Candidate Joe Kent Over Tweet Supporting Gun Rights
Twitter suspended the account of Joe Kent, a Republican congressional candidate from Washington state for tweeting in support of gun rights. He had to delete the tweet to recover his account.
âWe will never give up our gun laws,â Kent tweeted. âGun laws are infringements of our god given rights.WA state is back at it, a week ago we caught the board of health discussing forced quarantine, now the legislature going after our 2A. No 2A + forced quarantine = Australia.â
Kent, a retired Green Beret, is running for Congress in Washington state.
âToday I was suspended for defending 2A & calling out WA stateâs COVID policies including the potential of forced quarantine,â Kent tweeted after he recovered his account.
He vowed to fight Big Tech if he is elected.
âI will NEVER stop defending our 2A & fighting COVID mandates. When I get elected to Congress I will help Break Up Big Tech,â Kent wrote.
Speaking to Breitbart, he said Twitter is targeting those challenging Bidenâs foreign policy.
âTwitterâs suspension of me is without cause,â Kent said in a comment according to Breitbart. âIn the past 24 hours I have tweeted my concerns about Biden recklessly escalating tensions with Russia over Ukraine. It is clear that Twitter is trying to silence credible voices that are questioning Bidenâs disastrous foreign policy.â
He added: âThis is big tech limiting my voice as an American and as a political candidate. Itâs very telling that they focused on me over my take on an issue that has bipartisan establishment & mainstream media support; another war. The establishment is craving war and wonât tolerate dissent.â
NPR Story About Neil Gorsuch Refusing to Wear Mask Debunked as Fake News
UPDATE: The NPR story claiming Justice Sotomayor asked everyone to wear a mask and Justice Gorsuch refused has been debunked.
NPR is fake newsâŠ
NEW: A statement from Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch:
"Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."
— Adam Liptak (@adamliptak) January 19, 2022
Original story belowâŠÂ
Far-left NPR, a taxpayer-funded propaganda outlet that regularly spreads lies, is again being credibly accused of spreading fake news with its sensationalistic report about left-wing Justice Sonia Sotomayor being forced to work from home because conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask.
The NPR headline reads: âGorsuch didnât mask despite Sotomayorâs COVID worries, leading her to telework.â
BLUF:
To Biden and Democrats, violent crime is a gun crime problem, but they ignore that 92% of violent crime has nothing to do with guns. And they ignore that defensive guns uses are four to five times more common than gun crimes.
The bottom line is that the media could do a much better job of asking politicians such as Biden tough questions on crime. If we want to save lives and protect people from violence, we need those questions asked.
What Reporters Should Ask Biden About Guns at His Promised Press Conference on Wednesday
President Bidenâs remarks after the hostage situation at the synagogue in Texas leave more questions than answers.
What were the motivations for the attack occur? A full day after a Pakistani Muslim attacked a synagogue on the Jewish sabbath to gain the release of Aafia Siddiqui described as the âLady of al Qaeda,â Biden doesnât know. The synagogue was near where Siddiqui is held. But when asked why the attacker targeted that synagogue, Biden again responded that he didnât know but promised more at a press conference on Wednesday.
Those answers are surely much better than the answers given by the FBI on Saturday, where they were not sure of the motive but ruled out the attack being âspecifically related to the Jewish community.â The investigation should go forward, but it is troubling that the FBIâs immediately concluded no connection between a radical Pakistani Muslim trying to free a prominent al Qaeda member and an attack on a synagogue. The âmassive backlashâ forced the FBI to walk back its claim.
But there are other important problems with Bidenâs comments. While he concedes that âyou canât stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street,â what he does know is that this type of attack occurs because âthereâs so many guns that have been sold of late; itâs just ridiculous.â
His first suggested solution? Background checks. Presumably, he means background checks on the private transfer of guns â so-called âuniversal background checks.â The problem is that even if such a law had been in effect and perfectly enforced, it wouldnât have stopped one mass public shooting this century.
The media suddenly notices the CDC is clueless
CNN has declared the agency âa punchline,â but that has more to do with politics than health
For over a year, the national news media has held up the CDC and itâs director, Rochelle Walensky, as paragons of public health. Itâs no coincidence theyâve now suddenly had a moment of clarity as it pertains to the CDC adjusting its pandemic protocols.
This epiphany is happening primarily at CNN, with ratio king Chris Cillizza coming around to reality on Twitter and declaring that blue staters, journalists, and Democratic politicians catching Covid isnât a moral failing and shouldnât be shamed (the Washington Post made a similar statement).
This past Sunday, CNN hall monitors Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy actually went after the CDC, saying it appears the agency has become âa punchline.â That segment also featured Dr. Lucy McBride, who warned that some medical professionals are fanning the flames of panic, with accompanying chyrons like âIs the media out of touch with the country about Covid?â and âCovid and the doomsday-doctor problem.â
No doubt itâs a good thing that CNNâs worst actors have suddenly come around to what CDC skeptics have been saying for over a year, and are facing consequences for waiting so long. The last guy to figure things out has finally figured the thing out.
Yet to save Stelter, Darcy and their network any more embarrassment, let me put it bluntly: the CDC lost the faith of the American people last year when business owners were forced to stay home and parents were forced to pull their kids out of school, yet social justice protesters and leftist activists were permitted to flood the streets in protest. You werenât allowed to open your business, but they were allowed to burn it down.
Since then, amid this overnight changing of âthe scienceâ with little to explain it other than Joe Bidenâs poll numbers, members of mainstream media have suddenly changed their tune on the never-ending pandemic measures. Simply put: the writing is on the wall for the upcoming midterm elections and they are making their adjustments accordingly at the behest of an administration flailing over its broken promise to âshut down the virus.â
The mediaâs sudden about-face is not because they now hastily agree with those on the opposite side of the political aisle. Stelter and others are simply trying to moderate their message now that âthe good onesâ are starting to catch Covid. This is about hierarchy. Journalists and Democrats are experiencing the same draconian-lite measures that the rest of the country has had to go through for the past year, and they are finding them very inconvenient, both to their own lives and to Joe Bidenâs approval ratings.
This appears to be a warning shot across the bow to the CDC and Walenksy, who are primed to take the fall as the Biden administration dramatically shifts its messaging on Covid in the coming weeks. The problem for CNN and Brian Stelter is that this attempt looks politicized, forced, and completely cynical. Probably because it is.
BLUF:
……as violent crime soared in the 1990s, states expanded gun rights in the form of concealed carry, driving violent crime down.
Iâm sorry, but unless you have an answer for that, I donât really care what you have to say
And when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, the only takeaway is that when youâre faced with a violent mob, you need all the firepower you can manage.
There are no gun control lessons out of Rittenhouse trial
Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder by a jury. Even before that, though, we know he was innocent of all charges because we watched the whole thing unfold on video. We knew he was innocent.
Now, though, Rittenhouse is a free man, but some are using his situation to try and advance gun control.
No, it doesnât make a lot of sense. Yet this isnât the first op-ed Iâve seen that tried to make that case.
As the country awaits a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New York state case that may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home, what lessons can the nation draw from the recent acquittal in Wisconsin of Kyle Rittenhouse and the convictions in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia?
The obvious first lesson is that no one would be dead, maimed or going to prison if the men in these cases had not possessed firearms or had just left their weapons at home. The man Rittenhouse maimed learned that his self-proclaimed constant gun carrying not only did not protect him or others, but simply added him to the victim count when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.
No, we didnât learn any such lesson.
SAF LAUNCHES HUGE TV EFFORT WARNING OF âUNPRECEDENTED ASSAULTâ ON 2A RIGHTS
BELLEVUE, WA â The Second Amendment Foundation today announced a huge new TV effort launching the week of Jan. 3 to warn America of a coming attack on Second Amendment rights.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the foundationâs message will be broadcast 220 times during the first week on more than 20 cable television networks.
âThe well-financed gun prohibition movement is poised to strike in an effort to make up for lost time due to Joe Bidenâs failure to get the gun prohibition agenda through during his first year in office,â Gottlieb said. âWeâre expecting an unprecedented assault on Second Amendment rights heading into the new year. Anti-gunners will grasp at straws to grab every headline they can, and make no mistake, they are determined to help Biden go after your rights in 2022.
âThatâs why weâre kicking off the New Year with a record number of pro-gun rights TV spots in a single week,â he added. âThe threat to our Second Amendment rights cannot be over-stated. The billionaire-backed gun ban lobby is fearful of a gun rights ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, and a power flip at the mid-term elections, so they will be pushing Biden and their allies on Capitol Hill and in several states to get things done now, before they lose the political muscle to push their agenda.â
SAF will broadcast its 60-second message on several networks including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, Newsmax TV, One America News Network, Destination America, Bloomberg, BBC America, Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, SYFY (Science Fiction), TLC (The Learning Channel), TruTV, DirecTV, The Weather Channel, HLN, Dish TV, and CNBC.
âThere is no time to waste,â Gottlieb cautioned. âWeâre going to hit the ground running in order to grab the high ground and block the momentum of an anti-rights movement determined to smash the right to keep and bear arms. Weâll be asking viewers to call a special toll-free telephone number â (888) 762-0221 â to help in this battle, because once you lose your rights, you will never get them back.â
Inconvenient studies get buried by the media
A couple of months backâor last year, if you care to look at it that wayâCam wrote about an interesting study that took a look at the impact of Massachusetts gun laws. Or, more precisely, the lack of any real impact. Itâs one of the more interesting studies weâve seen lately.
And then we donât see it much of anywhere else.
Oh, it pops up here or there. I came across it at a site that basically just reports on studies.
While Congress has yet to pass nationwide gun control legislation measures, some state legislatures have enacted stricter gun control laws aimed at reducing violence in their communities. However, a recent study finds gun laws in at least one state arenât doing that job. A team at American University analyzed the impact of one such measure in Massachusetts and found stricter background checks and licensing policies made little to no difference in curbing violent crimes.
In light of these results, study authors ponder if officials are doing enough to enforce these new policies.
âGun violence remains at the forefront of the public policy debate when it comes to enacting new or strengthening existing gun legislation in the United States,â explains study author Janice Iwama, assistant professor of justice, law, and criminology at AU, in a media release. âYet the political polarization and relatively limited scholarly research on guns and gun violence make it difficult for policymakers and practitioners to enact and implement legislation that addresses the public health and safety issues associated with gun violence.â
âŠ
Using this approach, the research team was able to estimate, based on percentage of firearms licenses, that one to five percent of adult Massachusetts residents had a gun license. However, results also show the new gun control measures did not have a âconsistent effectâ on reducing four types of violent crimes â murder or manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape.
Notably, a one-percent increase in denied firearm licenses and denied firearm licenses following statutory disqualifications increased robberies by 7.3 and 8.9 percent, respectively.
Now, this is an interesting study, and itâs something we should have had significant debate over. We should have run a dozen or so posts discussing it and responding to others who addressed this.
Instead, what we got was the digital version of crickets chirping.
It wasnât absolute silence, but it was damn close. The Boston Herald reported it, but thatâs probably the largest publication to do so. This wasnât reported on CNN or MSNBC so far as I can tell. There wasnât a New York Times or Chicago Sun story about it, either. I canât say it just vanished because itâs still popping up in niche sites, but it just wasnât really news.
Why?
Of course, we all know why. It runs counter to the mediaâs preferred narrative that gun control is a net benefit for society and we should enact more of it. In fact, it directly proves thatâs not necessarily the case.
So, they simply pretend it didnât happen.
Had the study found the opposite, I have little doubt it would have been heralded from the hills. Weâd have been inundated with reports about what the study proved.
Instead, we get silence.
Meanwhile, this same media is absolutely baffled that trust in them is so low.
See, this is part of how media bias works. Itâs not just how the stories are written/reported, but also what stories are reported. This one is, to steal from Al Gore, an inconvenient truth, so theyâre hoping youâll just forget about it.
Inconvenient studies get buried by the media
A couple of months backâor last year, if you care to look at it that wayâCam wrote about an interesting study that took a look at the impact of Massachusetts gun laws. Or, more precisely, the lack of any real impact. Itâs one of the more interesting studies weâve seen lately.
And then we donât see it much of anywhere else.
Oh, it pops up here or there. I came across it at a site that basically just reports on studies.
While Congress has yet to pass nationwide gun control legislation measures, some state legislatures have enacted stricter gun control laws aimed at reducing violence in their communities. However, a recent study finds gun laws in at least one state arenât doing that job. A team at American University analyzed the impact of one such measure in Massachusetts and found stricter background checks and licensing policies made little to no difference in curbing violent crimes.
In light of these results, study authors ponder if officials are doing enough to enforce these new policies.
âGun violence remains at the forefront of the public policy debate when it comes to enacting new or strengthening existing gun legislation in the United States,â explains study author Janice Iwama, assistant professor of justice, law, and criminology at AU, in a media release. âYet the political polarization and relatively limited scholarly research on guns and gun violence make it difficult for policymakers and practitioners to enact and implement legislation that addresses the public health and safety issues associated with gun violence.â
âŠ
Using this approach, the research team was able to estimate, based on percentage of firearms licenses, that one to five percent of adult Massachusetts residents had a gun license. However, results also show the new gun control measures did not have a âconsistent effectâ on reducing four types of violent crimes â murder or manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape.
Notably, a one-percent increase in denied firearm licenses and denied firearm licenses following statutory disqualifications increased robberies by 7.3 and 8.9 percent, respectively.
Now, this is an interesting study, and itâs something we should have had significant debate over. We should have run a dozen or so posts discussing it and responding to others who addressed this.
Instead, what we got was the digital version of crickets chirping.
It wasnât absolute silence, but it was damn close. The Boston Herald reported it, but thatâs probably the largest publication to do so. This wasnât reported on CNN or MSNBC so far as I can tell. There wasnât a New York Times or Chicago Sun story about it, either. I canât say it just vanished because itâs still popping up in niche sites, but it just wasnât really news.
Why?
Of course, we all know why. It runs counter to the mediaâs preferred narrative that gun control is a net benefit for society and we should enact more of it. In fact, it directly proves thatâs not necessarily the case.
So, they simply pretend it didnât happen.
Had the study found the opposite, I have little doubt it would have been heralded from the hills. Weâd have been inundated with reports about what the study proved.
Instead, we get silence.
Meanwhile, this same media is absolutely baffled that trust in them is so low.
See, this is part of how media bias works. Itâs not just how the stories are written/reported, but also what stories are reported. This one is, to steal from Al Gore, an inconvenient truth, so theyâre hoping youâll just forget about it.
CNN Now Openly Questioning President Bidenâs Mental Health
It is widely understood that CNN trends to the left.  They donât seem to be denying it any more, so why should anyone else?  The mainstream media in America is now widely understood to be partisan entertainment, and thatâs just fine.  In many ways, it helps us gauge the truthiness of what weâre hearing, understanding that it comes through a filter of political spin.
So when the liberal-leaning network actually suggests that President Joe Bidenâs mental capacity is slipping, itâs important to stand up and take notice.
A CNN correspondent said Wednesday that Joe Biden âseemed confusedâ in his ABC News interview earlier this week, when the president appeared to mix up COVID-19 at-home tests and antiviral pills.
Biden, 79, spoke to ABCâs David Muir for 20 minutes in an interview that aired on Wednesday and defended his administration against criticism of its handling of the pandemic and readiness for the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, but also admitting that there were certain mistakes made.
When asked about complaints that the lines to get tested for COVID-19 were excessive, with waits of over five hours in New York City as one example, Biden said that 500 million at-home tests had been ordered.
But several times he referred to the tests as âpillsâ â potentially thinking of the Pfizer antiviral pills, which were federally approved on the same day.
CNN didnât mince their words.
âRepeatedly throughout this interview â President Biden seems confused and was confusing the half a billion tests that theyâve ordered with a half a billion pills,â said Jeff Zeleny, CNNâs chief national affairs correspondent.
While the move is certainly surprising, at least in terms of CNNâs willingness to espouse such an idea, some of the confusion that weâve seen from the President is undeniable.
Certainly more to his brand of proggie politics. Good riddance
FYI CNN+ is supposed to come online early next year as an internet ‘streaming’ channel
Chris Wallace Leaves Fox News for CNN+
On Sunday, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace announced that is departing the network âeffective immediately,â and will be joining CNN+ to host a weekday show. Wallace announced his abrupt departure at the end of Fox News Sunday, the show which he had hosted since 2003, according to CNN….
Lefties Freak out on Conservatives for Doing Exactly What They Told Them to Do
Libs: "Go build your own social media and publishing platforms!"
Conservatives: "Alright"
Libs: https://t.co/3m0oQBGgmn pic.twitter.com/lIk2VkD5rT
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) December 6, 2021
and someone asked for an example of the leftist echo chamber?
Question O’ The Day
So… what’s the point of this article? They’re arguing that self-defense cases involving guns demands a higher level of scrutiny than self-defense cases that don’t involve guns, then seem to imply that there is a systemic issue of allowing judges to determine foregone conclusions (like they can in many contexts) when deciding the facts of a case. Then they proceed to use two high-profile cases as an example, then admit that neither case involved a foregone conclusion.
Seriously, what point are they trying to make, exactly?
Both the display of a firearm and the pointing of a firearm at another person are threatening acts that ordinarily would create a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury in another person, and thus should be viewed as prima facie evidence of aggression.
This is their point:
They want the mere existence of a visible gun on your person to remove your right to defend yourself.
When it comes to guns and claims of self-defense, juries need guidance
As a general matter, a criminal defendant loses the right to claim he acted justifiably in self-defense if he was the initial aggressor or provocateur
Jurors in two recent high-profile homicide cases involving guns and claims of self-defense have spoken. In one case, the jury found the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse, not guilty on all homicide charges. In the other case, the jury found Greg and Travis McMichael and William âRoddieâ Bryan guilty of murder in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.
Important factual differences contributed to the different verdicts in these cases. The skill sets of the attorneys and dispositions of the judges involved played a role as well.
One thing both cases had in common, however, was that each judge gave the jury an initial-aggressor or provocation instruction. The fact that the juries in the two cases were given such an instruction yet reached opposite conclusions indicates that the mere giving of such an instruction in self-defense cases will not predetermine the outcome.
Until these two cases, few people were aware of the initial-aggressor limitation on the defense of self-defense. Now, that limitation has become part of the national conversation.
How to Lie About Guns, New York Times Style
One of the easiest ways to lie and not get sued for libel is to simply do so through exclusion. The New York Times is famous for this and if you donât know enough about guns they can make things sound pretty bad, just by leaving out a little bit of information. In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict we ought to brush up on the tactics of far-left media. To do so, we simply just need to look to the past. Back in March of 2021, I found an article so egregious that I decided to go ahead and fill in the blanks. I believe the resulting work should be saved and used to inform anybody who is arguing for more gun control without all of the facts. For reference the original article can be found here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/us/ruger-ar-556-boulder-shooting.html
Youâll see that the author is attempting to paint Rugerâs AR-15 pistol and the 5.56 round in a darker light than it deserves.
The article opens with the basic facts and uses that tired old phrases like âmilitary-style semiautomatic rifle and pistol.â Of course, the author leaves out that they are âmilitary-styleâ in appearance only. Camouflaging a Kia doesnât make it an M1 Abrams tank. As the piece starts to âdevelop,â the author also goes on to write, âStatements from the police and the charging documents did not make it clear which of the weapons was used in the attack, but it appeared at least one is a semiautomatic derivative of the assault rifles that have long been used by the American military.â
For starters, holy long sentence Batman. I had to read it a few times to keep up with it all, leaving just the catchphrases like âassault riflesâ and âAmerican militaryâ to stand out. However, if you read it a few times you pick up what is being said. The guns being referenced are derivatives as opposed to copies because they are semi-automatic, like a common pistol. This is unlike the militaryâs fully automatic M4 carbines. Only folks who know guns are going to know that and only a few are going to be that dedicated to pull all of that from this poorly structured sentence.
Later on, I found what is arguably the poorest display of journalism in the entire article. The author goes on to state, âAccording to a police affidavit, the suspect charged with 10 counts of murder, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, bought a Ruger AR-556 semiautomatic weapon, essentially a shortened version of an AR-15 style rifle marketed as a pistol, six days before the killings took place. It is also unclear if that weapon was used in the shooting on Monday.â
WaitâŠif itâs âunclearâ that this gun was used at all, why does this article include this statement? Actually, why is there even an article entitled âWhat we know about the gun used in the Boulder shootingâ in existence? The Times didnât need 284 words to put this piece together, thanks to this statement I can do it with just one, âNothing.â
About halfway through is where I found the most manipulative piece of information and this is where the author states âBoth the AR-15 style rifle and the Ruger version fire the same small-caliber, high-velocity ammunition, which was first developed for battlefield use.â Sure, the 5.56 was built for the military⊠To replace the current, larger cartridge that was regarded as uncontrollable and too powerful for common battlefield use! Iâve had enough with media like this trying to make the 5.56 round out to be some sort of baby-killing monster. Itâs one of the least-potent centerfire rifle rounds on the market, considered by most to be too small even for deer hunting. Is it more powerful than a pistol round? Sure, but almost any given rifle has more power than any given handgun.
As things begin to wrap up the author proceeds to attempt to make large-format pistols look like the âidealâ tool for mass shootings where she says âBased on their size, âAR pistolsâ are much easier to conceal than a typical AR-15 carbine or rifle. According to the manufacturerâs website, the Ruger AR-556 pistol comes with either a 9.5-inch or 10.5 inch-long barrel, while a typical AR-15 has at least a 16-inch barrel.â Pretty convenient that she left out the fact that common pistols have barrels from 2 to 6 inches and are capable of the same rate of fire and in most cases, capacity. So although an AR Pistol is easier to conceal than a rifle or shotgun, itâs far less concealable than many other semi-automatic firearms.
As a New Yorker, I have been conditioned to read between the lines and sadly thatâs where you are going to find the facts in dribble like this. Itâs a shame that our publication doesnât reach the same people who read the Times, because it would be nice to give the Timesâs readership a complete and balanced idea of what that this firearm isâand more importantly what it isnât. This, my friends, is why we must remain vigilant and never shy away from the conversation. We can only change an informed mind and that duty lies squarely at our feet.
Your Default Assumption Should Be That Everything Corporate Media Says Is A Lie
The mediaâs deluge of lies about the Rittenhouse case is a disturbing reminder that the corporate press lies about everything all the time.
As far as corporate media are concerned, the massacre in Waukesha, Wis., on Sunday was a âChristmas parade crash.â
Thatâs how the attack that killed six people and injured more than 60 others is being described by ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Newsweek and others. Not an intentional attack, not a massacre allegedly committed by a violent career criminal already facing multiple felony charges, but merely a crash. The New York Times is calling it a âtragedy.â
Not to be outdone by major news outlets, The Daily Beast rushed to remind its readers that âthere are no indications of any additional motive for the Waukesha killings, or any reasons to label it domestic terrorism. That didnât stop these right-wing trolls.âOh no we wouldnât want to assign ideological motives to a case too soon. But these damn right-wing trolls sure will! No mention from the Beast, of course, of the worst possible example of that in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, which every major news organization gladly went along with.
Hereâs the thing. The next time you read an article in the New York Times or the Atlantic, watch a bit of breaking news on MSNBC or a panel on CNN, or hear a report on NPR, your default assumption should be that what you are reading, watching, or hearing is not true. Either it is an outright falsehood, a distortion of the facts, or not the whole story. That should be your posture toward literally every piece of news you consume from corporate media from now on.
There is ample justification for such a posture. Itâs justified by every single major news story in recent years â the Russia collusion hoax, the origins of the pandemic, the Black Lives Matter riots, Hunter Bidenâs laptop, the debate over Covid vaccines, the January 6 riot, and especially the Rittenhouse trial, to name just a few. Every one of these stories, and many more besides, were dishonestly reported by a corrupt media establishment that you should never trust again.
The Second Amendment Ain’t That Complicated
When looking at the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear that the Second Amendment is pretty important. After all, itâs second in the list of amendments. Additionally, the First Amendment preserves a number of specific rights, whereas the Second is focused on a single right. That suggests some importance for that particular right.
For many of us, weâve referred to as the insurance policy on the Bill of Rights. After all, your right to protest or worship as you see fit can be snatched away by any government willing to ignore words on a piece of paper. Having the right to keep and bear arms means a potentially tyrannical government will have to account for a populace that is both armed and outnumbers them.
But some have managed to take this relatively simple concept and make it complicated.
Thatâs at play in a recent editorial that appeared in several newspapers, but appears to have originated from the L.A. Times:
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a mess, a muddle, a grammatically challenged pair of clauses that allows two or more readers to insist that it says two starkly different things, both of which are of life-or-death importance and each of which can be only partially defended.
To some, it is foremost the militia amendment, plainly referring to âthe peopleâ as a collective entity and embodying a young, rebellious nationâs mistrust of professional standing armies in favor of armed citizens banding together at times of crisis.
Yet to others, it is primarily the gun-rights clause, safeguarding an individualâs right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the clear references to âthe security of a free stateâ and the lack of any mention of individual rights.
The drafters of the Bill of Rights were learned men who knew how to write, so there must have been some reason for them to submit these oddly assembled 27 words that give us such trouble today. They most likely disagreed over the place of firearms in American society. Was their primary and most contentious purpose to defend the nation (against foreign invaders, but perhaps also against the abuses of their own government)? Or was it for shooting squirrels for the dinner table (and defending against slave revolts and Indian uprisings)?
Iâm going to give the writer credit. For once, they at least acknowledge that we have an argument at least as equally valid as the gun control crowdâs.
Usually, they simply pretend weâre making stuff up.
However, I have to point out that the Second Amendment really isnât that difficult to understand.
Letâs start by addressing the militia clause for a moment. âA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,â is an introductory clause, but it doesnât actually carry much weight grammatically. You can purge it from the sentence and it still makes sense. Trust me, I use way too many introductory clauses in my own writing. Iâm well versed in what they are.
But even if itâs not, the claim that âthe peopleâ refers to a collective group should be problematic for each and every person in this country, even if you donât like guns.
After all, âthe peopleâ are referred to multiple times in the Bill of Rights. At no other point does it seem to refer to a collective right except with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. Now, why would the Founding Fathers write it that way?
Oh, and itâs highly unlikely that our Founding Fathers disagreed over the place of firearms in American society. These arenât the vanguard of an ancient civilization lost to time. Their writings still exist, preserved by a society that recognized the importance of their words. We have many comments about preserving the right to gun ownership. We also have stories of these same men carrying firearms with them as they passed through the city.
What we donât have, though, are any references to them believing that the right to gun ownership should be limited.
I mean, the Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque, empowering privateers to hunt the shipping of our nationâs enemies. That at least suggests that the private ownership of artillery was on the table. If they were unwilling to restrict cannons, then why should we believe they were accepting of any other restriction.
The fact is that thereâs no evidence to suggest our Founding Fathers struggled with the role of guns in our society. Quite the contrary, actually, they not only accepted them but felt that they were a necessity for maintaining a free society.
The editorial goes on later to argue:
In some parts of the country, people still do use guns to put food on the table, for sport or simply as an attribute of their lifestyle. Gun-toting behavior that would be natural and acceptable in, say, rural Pennsylvania, would be menacing and is wisely prohibited in downtown Los Angeles. For now.
In issuing a ruling in the case currently before it, the Supreme Court may well strike down not merely New Yorkâs permit requirements but also Californiaâs, and those of the six other states that reserve the right to grant or deny permits based on the applicantâs reason for wanting one.
States have long made their own decisions about how to balance residentsâ safety with their gun rights, based on the values expressed by voters at the polls and their representatives in the legislature.
This, of course, is in reference to the case before the Supreme Court, as is most of the editorial. The editorial board responsible for this one argues that these restrictions are good and necessary.
However, as Iâve already illustrated and as the courts have found, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That means restricting people from exercising that right based on a subjective interpretation of need is an infringement of that right. You canât argue otherwise without simply pretending the right doesnât exist.
The truth is, the Second Amendment isnât that complicated.
*gasp* Horrors! *faint*
CNN: âAmericans Are Buying More Guns Than Ever Beforeâ
CNN used a Tuesday column on the decline in gun control support to affirm âAmericans are buying more guns than ever before.â
CNN pointed out that Democrat House members have passed gun control that the Senate is not even expected to consider, as âsupport for gun control just hit its lowest point in almost decade.â
They pointed to a Gallup survey showing only 52 percent of Americans support stricter gun control. That is the lowest level of gun control support since 2014.
CNN also acknowledged a new Quinnipiac Poll, which found 48 percent of registered voters oppose stricter gun control.
CNN observed: âAmericans are buying more guns than ever before. In 2020, nearly 23 million guns were bought â a record. That surge has continued through 2021.â
On September 9, 2021, the National Shootings Sports Foundation looked at numbers from the first six months of 2021 and estimated there were 3.2 million first-time gun purchasers during that time-frame.
That didnât take long. Canât say it white supremacy so itâs not important đ€Ź https://t.co/hQArtlsb5b
— sandihansen (@shansen6022) November 23, 2021