“If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 – establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime.”
– Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii.”

MSNBC Panel: Democrats Really FUBAR’d the Moment, Huh?

Ya think?

Give credit to Symone Sanders and Michael Steele for being honest about Democrats’ abject strategic and tactical failures last night. But also consider the fact that they had little choice in the matter, after watching Democrats as a body soil the sheets on national TV.

“Republicans were not coming to play,” Steele noted, as though anything about Donald Trump’s triumphant return after four years of Democrat lawfare suggested anything different. Not to mention that the Democrats had spent the better part of two days leaking plans to organize disruptions to Trump’s speech to Congress, which at one point included noisemakers as well as “bingo signs,” which were every bit as stupid as Sanders and Steele describe. (Wait until the meme-makers get done with them. Those won’t be back.)

But none of the panel truly gets what went wrong for Democrats last night:

 

Put aside the complaint that Al Green was somehow treated unfairly or differently than Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene. (Take that complaint to Nancy Pelosi, who sat through last night’s speech looking utterly defeated.) Republicans knew better than to stage an organized food fight at a State of the Union or quasi-SOTU event. Why? Because presidents have the tactical and strategic advantage, especially when his party controls Congress.

James Carville used the analogy of Pickett’s Charge recently. For those who haven’t studied Gettysburg, Pickett’s Charge lost Robert E. Lee the battle and the war by ordering an infantry charge on the center of a fortified Union line across nearly a mile of open ground, on the military basis of We’re right and they’re not. Pickett’s forces — some of them — actually made it to the line, but his command was destroyed, and Lee was forced to retreat from then until Appomattox.

That’s exactly what happened last night, and it’s even more inexplicable than Lee’s decision at Gettysburg. The American people rejected Democrats and chose Trump despite four or even nine straight years of exactly this kind of attack on him. Trump triumphed over the ankle-biting as well as the lawfare, and despite the character assassinations Democrats have staged on Trump and his supporters. The last place to use those same strategies and tactics is in a place where Trump easily commands the high ground — cameras, the microphone, and the attention — especially since it has been blindingly clear that he loves doing battle.

Steele suggested that Democrats shouldn’t have shown up at all. That would have been a bad choice too; it would have made them look like absconders rather than responsible legislators, only willing to participate in civic duties when they’re in charge. It still would have been a better choice than what unfolded last night. To answer McCaskill’s question more fully, they should have sat quietly, gotten it over with, and afterward started listening more than talking. Instead, they sounded like unruly radicals, and acted like fools.

If they would stop emoting and start listening, they might understand why a new CBS poll shows that three out of every four viewers approved of Trump’s speech, even though only 51% of the viewers identified as Republicans. It’s because Trump used the speech to position himself on the 80% side of the 80/20 issues Americans care most about:

– 77% support his plan to cut government waste and spending

– 77% back his immigration and border policies

– 76% approve of Trump’s speech

– 76% approve of removing congressmen who interrupted his speech

– 74% say his speech was presidential

– 73% support his stance on Russia and Ukraine

– 68% say it made them feel hopeful and proud

– 68% say he has a clear plan to tackle inflation

– 68% say he accurately described America’s crime crisis

– 63% say he focused on issues they care about

In other words, Trump set a trap for Democrats who couldn’t have telegraphed their foolish strategy and tactics more loudly than if they’d exhumed Samuel Morse himself to do it. And Democrat leadership — not the Boeberts and the MTGs, but party leadership — led them on a Pickett’s Charge right into it, with crazy Al Green waving his walking stick to lead the charge.

Now Democrats look like a party that can’t even break free of their toxic Trump derangement long enough to stand for a child suffering from brain cancer, or a young man whose dream of serving his country through West Point has come true. Democrats are utterly lost because they stand for nothing except raw power to benefit themselves, and only themselves. And without any other real purpose, the only strategy that they can see is to stupidly charge at all times under the military doctrine of We’re right and they’re not.

Maybe they should learn from history rather than trying to edit it.

Trump Skips Guns in First Congressional Speech of Second Term

President Donald Trump did not mention gun policy once in what turned out to be the longest address to a joint session of Congress in history.

On Tuesday, Trump gave an hour-and-45-minute speech to the House and Senate. While he covered a myriad of topics during the marathon session, he did not make even a passing mention of gun policy.

That continues a trend of Trump downplaying guns in favor of other issues during his campaign and the early months of his second term.

The lack of attention to firearms during his congressional address, despite its length, mirrors Trump’s hour-and-a-half-long RNC keynote speech, where he also ducked the issue. It also follows him skipping out on gun executive orders during his day-one push to jumpstart his agenda. The White House then left gun rights off its literal priority list.

Trump had promised to enact a series of pro-gun reforms during his first week in office but failed to deliver on that timeline.

“Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated my very first week back in office,” Trump said during a speech to NRA members last February.

However, Trump does have a concrete move he could have highlighted in the speech. He followed up those early moves by ordering a review of the executive branch’s approach to gun policy, especially federal rules established during the Biden Administration. So, he may still fulfill his promise to NRA members in the long run.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty,” the executive order said. “It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”

While the order only tells Attorney General Pam Bondi to review policies, it lays out most priority areas the gun-rights movement has focused on for years. It has the potential to uproot most of the restrictions the Biden Administration imposed through executive actions and transform the federal government’s legal position in gun cases.

Bondi, who has faced criticism from gun-rights advocates over her history of backing some gun restrictions, will have some say over which policies to change. How big the administration decides to go on reforming those policies could determine whether gun-rights advocates remain on board with Trump’s presidency.

Trump’s speech was a killer….literally

Newly Elected Congressman Dead Hours After Attending President Trump’s Speech

A U.S. Congressman has died just hours after sitting in attendance during President Trump’s address before Congress last night.

U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner had just won the 2024 election to take the seat left vacant by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who passed away last year.

Rep. Turner had attended President Trump’s address before being taken to the hospital last night.

He was 70 years old at the time of his passing.

 

A spokesperson for the Congressman said that he was taken to the hospital sometime after President Trump’s address.

He later died this morning at his home, according to the Associated Press:

Democratic U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner of Texas has died two months after taking office and hours after attending President Donald Trump’s address before Congress in Washington, D.C., officials said on Wednesday. He was 70.

Linda Brown, a spokesperson for Turner, said he was taken to a hospital and died at his home on Wednesday morning after being released.

His cause of death was not immediately known.

“The House Democratic Caucus family is shocked and saddened by the sudden passing of Congressman Sylvester Turner. Though he was newly elected to the Congress, Rep. Turner had a long and distinguished career in public service and spent decades fighting for the people of Houston,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement.

Turner was elected in November, filling the seat that had been held by longtime U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who died last July after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Continue reading “”

Okay. This is him entering the race for POTUS in ’28.

FL Gov. DeSantis Comes Out Swinging for 2A in ‘State of State’ Address

The governor’s full address

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis came out swinging in defense of the Second Amendment during his annual State of the State address Tuesday before the Legislature, declaring, “We need to be a strong Second Amendment state.”

Florida leads the way in licensed concealed carry, but in recent years, in the aftermath of the tragic 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the state adopted some laws which DeSantis would like to see rolled back.

He also proposed offering a “Second Amendment Summer” sales tax “holiday” on the purchase of “firearms, ammo and accoutrements.”

“I know a lot of people in the state will appreciate that,” said DeSantis, a Republican who likely still has an eye on running one day for the presidency.

In remarks certain to make gun prohibitionists bristle, DeSantis told Sunshine State lawmakers in Tallahassee, “The free state of Florida has not exactly led the way on protecting Second Amendment rights. We have some of the more weak laws on the country compared to our other states who consider themselves conservative.

“I would ask you to protect people’s Second Amendment rights,” the governor said. “Look back in instances where legislation may have been passed in recent years, such as shifting the burden on red flag laws, such as taking away the right of young adults to purchase firearms, such as limiting somebody’s ability to both keep and to bear arms as our Constitution does.”

Continue reading “”

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about goobermint gone tyrant:

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

and last, but not in anyway least:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Rep. Jamie Rankin Beclowned Himself in Opening Remarks at Gun Hearing

Rep. Jamie Rankin isn’t going to be on the Christmas card list of any gun rights group you care to name. He’s a vehement anti-gunner and that’s where his bread is buttered. That’s not going to change.

Which is fine, I suppose. He’s in the minority right now, so all he can do is bloviate and then sit there and be impotent in his gun rights animosity.

But bloviate he shall, and he did.

In opening remarks in a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, Rankin decided to display his burning stupid for the entire world to see, then sent out a press release with his remarks.

Awfully swell of him, really.

The problem is that my Republican colleagues have completely deformed the Second Amendment. They say it gives you the right to overthrow the government. Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz often claimed that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the government’s arsenal. As our colleague, Representative Chip Roy, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.” And my friend Representative Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment has “nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Despite all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the actual Constitution, in a half-dozen different places, treats “insurrection” and “rebellion” not as protected rights but as serious and dangerous offenses against our government and our people.

And yet, our Founding Fathers also made it very clear that when the government became tyrannical, it was the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and fight back, not just with words but with weapons.

I mean, they’d just engaged in their own rebellion, their own insurrection, and thrown off those precise chains. They knew that no government could be created that couldn’t, in time, come to oppress the people. They wanted to prevent that, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

So it’s now obvious, SCOTUS woman judges, even supposedly ‘conservative ones’ are problematic when it comes to goobermint power.
Roberts is just his squishy self.

Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Bid to Stop $2 Billion in USAID Funding.

On Wednesday morning, in a 5-4 emergency decision, the Supreme Court upheld a decision from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali that essentially says that Donald Trump can’t withhold $2 billion in USAID money from existing contractors. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberal members of the court. From the ruling:

On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order.

On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.

Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied.

Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of Trump, with Justice Alito writing the lengthy dissent that begins with:

Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

So, what exactly does this mean? Judge Ali, who was appointed by the Biden administration, ruled that the Trump administration must maintain USAID agreements that were in place before Trump officially took office on January 20. According to The Hill, Ali “found the Trump administration wasn’t complying with his order to resume the unpaid USAID contracts and grants. Last week, Ali demanded the funds be released by the end of the following day.”

Red State’s Susie Moore writes, “SCOTUS temporarily paused that order, but now, since the deadline is past (and moot), rather than vacate it altogether, they’re lifting the pause and sending things back to the district court to sort out further.”

According to NBC, “Specific projects affected by the payment freeze include the installation of new irrigation and water pumping stations in Ukraine; waterworks upgrades in Lagos, Nigeria; the supply of medical equipment in Vietnam and Nepal; and measures to combat malaria in Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Ethiopia.”

While it’s not great news for Trump, as Moore says, “This isn’t the end of the story on this case — not by a long shot.”

Deon Joseph

Deon Joseph

So I get into it with a friend on another platform who keeps spewing the same propaganda as if anyone who voted for Trump lost their minds and rely on him like God to make our lives better. He also accused me of being willing to sidestep democracy to get the things I want.

I may have lost a friend, because my correction was as follows:

“You folks and your propaganda are nauseating. You think it’s about making my life better? It’s all about me?

You know what I wanted out of Trump?

The same damn thing I wanted out of Obama, Biden, Bush, Big Bush and and Clinton.

Those those things are the following

– Transparency
– A secure border
– Honesty
– Common sense leadership
– Doing exactly what you campaigned on
– A strong military
– An end to political indoctrination in our schools
– Respect for personal freedom
– And someone who would think about America first before giving everything to the world while his own people suffer.

Not one of them came through. Each one of them failed. Most didn’t even try. They just faked it well enough that you are still pining for their pipe dream. But guess who did come through? As flawed as he is as a person, it was freaking Trump. A man I was never a fan of personally but respect because he does the hell what he says he’s going to do or tries.

That’s what I voted for. Not some polished fake politician who pretends to be an angel but is doing the devils work as we are distracted by their platitudes and symbolic gestures that get us absolutely no where.

No one is side stepping democracy, genius. By the way, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.

But let’s go with your twisted idea of democracy.

Was it democracy when Biden coerced Big Tech into silencing millions of Americans for their opinions and thoughts?

Was it democracy when that old man lied to you and told you he didn’t know about his sons dealings and that the laptop didn’t exist? Because for many that may have changed their vote in the 2020 election if they knew then candidate Biden was compromised.

Was it democracy when he got 51 intelligence agents who we are supposed to trust, to go along with the lie and call it Russian disinformation?

Was it democracy to force people to choose between feeding their damn family and a damn shot in the arm that is causing damage to a lot of people?

Was it democracy when Biden flew in hundreds of thousands of migrants in the middle of the night without telling us and also opened the borders? Did we the American people have a say in that? No the heck we didn’t.

Was it democracy when if we question elections or vaccines that we get silenced and are forced to self sensor just to survive?

It that’s your democracy? You can keep that crap bro, respectfully.

Trump is no God or saint but it’s a damn shame it took a flawed man to do right by the American people. He’s showing you how corrupt your government truly is and I’m here for it. No regrets whatsoever.”

 

Leave guns to the professionals

In December of 2024, in Secret Service Secret Marksmanship, I took to task the unnamed Secret Service Agent who fired at least six shots at the second Trump wannabe assassin from a distance of only a few feet and missed every shot. One would think Secret Service agents on a presidential detail would be better shots. One would apparently think wrongly. One would also think they’d be better shots than the average local patrolman. In that case at least, one would also think wrongly.

One of the articles of faith and narratives of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists is the police are highly trained marksmen. We must leave guns to them because Normal Americans aren’t so highly trained and will just shoot themselves, their families and worse, they might shoot criminals. The truth is quite different.

Putting on the blue suit and a badge does not bestow upon police officers magical shooting abilities beyond the abilities of citizens. Only a small portion of any police force are gun guys and girls. Most police officers have only a single gun: their agency-issued handgun. The only training they get comes from their basic academy—private or public—and whatever refresher training their agency provides. Periodic qualification doesn’t count. Unless a given officer spends the time and money in regular practice and in advanced, private training, that’s all they’ll ever have.

For most agencies, qualification is a once-a-year burden. Ammo is expensive, and so is taking officers off the street. They have to be replaced by other cops at overtime rates. Qualifications normally fire no more than 50 rounds at never-changing stationary targets at known ranges, usually no greater than 25 yards, and commonly no greater than 15 yards. Often, strings of fire aren’t timed, and only 70% proficiency is the usual standard. Officers pass if they miss only 30% of their shots.

Even better, officers are allowed to reshoot the course of fire as many times as necessary to pass. Were that not true, were officers required to be 70% proficient on demand, far too many would fail, which means they’d be desked until they could meet that standard, or fired, which is much too expensive.

Don’t ask how often officers clean their handguns, whether they’ve been trained to do it or have the proper equipment.

Keep in mind large blue city police agencies tend to have even lower standards. Their executives are politicians who have to reflect their boss’s beliefs if they want to keep their jobs. That means they don’t like guns, don’t like cops and trust neither. They’re not going to do what’s necessary to ensure officers have a high degree of shooting ability. Two examples illustrate reality: 

The New York City Police Department issues guns with 12-pound trigger pulls. Standard Glocks have 5.5 pound triggers. The heavier the trigger, the harder it is to shoot accurately. NYPD brass are worried about negligent discharges, so they issue hard to shoot guns. The results are predictable:

In 1990, NYPD officer hit potential was only 19%. That means 81% of the rounds they fired at criminals missed. At less than three yards, they hit only 38% of the time. From 3-7 yards, 11.5% and from 7-15 yards, only 9.4%

Some of those less than 3-yard shots were at muzzle-touching range. There are many cases on record of police officers emptying their guns at crooks at inside-a-phone-booth range and missing every shot. Those 1990 results haven’t improved with time. Heavy triggers combined with poor training have inevitable consequences. We now move to Los Angeles, setting for innumerable police dramas where sharp shooting cops never miss.

In 2013 LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner, a large black man, was fired for cause and began hunting superiors he thought responsible. He was reportedly driving a pickup truck. Eight LAPD officers, including a supervisor, were covering the home of a LAPD Captain, a potential Dorner target, when a blue pickup entered the neighborhood. Those eight officers unleashed 103 rounds at the truck, which did not contain Dorner but two Hispanic women delivering newspapers.

This was a classic example of “me too!” police shooting. One officer shoots at something and every nearby officer, having no idea why they’re shooting, joins the fun.

Fortunately, their marksmanship was reliably poor. They hit the truck, seven nearby homes and nine other vehicles. The women were only wounded. They were awarded $4.3 million, and none of the officers were disciplined.

I’m not denigrating the police. I used to be one. They do a difficult job that requires they always be right amazingly well. But shooting is a perishable skill. Unless one learns the right techniques and regularly practices and improves, they’ll fail under stress. Many citizens spend that necessary time and money. Most cops don’t.

As with politicians we get the police, and police marksmanship, we deserve.

No, Mr. Secretary, generals do not have civil service protection or tenure. They serve at the pleasure of the president.
And if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

Five of the ten living former Secretaries of Defense ratcheted up the warfare against President Trump when they signed what they called an “Appeal to Congress.” The gist of their complaint is that they want to veto the President’s choice of his principal military advisor and other senior officers who serve at the pleasure of the President. They like their guys, and they don’t like the President’s choices. The conclusion that the five signers seek to foist on the American public is in their third paragraph: “We, like many Americans — including many troops — are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons.”

Their “Appeal” is nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. It combines historical ignorance with their own partisan attempt to attack President Trump in a way that would weaken civilian control. If their “Appeal” were granted, it also would further the politicization of the military by plunging Congress into disputes relating to military matters that the Constitution entrusts to the President.

Five Resistors’ “Appeal to Congress”

“The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.”

I shall begin at the end — with the rebellious former secretaries’ conclusion: They sum up by charging the members of Congress to “do their jobs” by “urging them to take George Washington’s warning to heart.”

I wonder how many of the signers knew the historical background and significance of George Washington’s advice which they quote to close their Appeal: “The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.” When he wrote that in February 1783, Washington was warning Hamilton against trying to use the military to further political ends and undercut civilian control of the military. It was one of Washington’s many affirmations of the necessity for civilian control of the military.

And if the President — any president — does not have the sole power to relieve senior military officials, and if he is required to report to both the House and the Senate to “justify each firing” as the Appeal advocates, then the president no longer has full control of his senior military officers or of the Army.

Washington’s warning fully supports civilian control over the military, including — especially — over those whom the signers refer to as “senior U.S. military leaders.” And our Constitution reposes that civilian control in only one man — the President. By trying to usurp this presidential control of the military, these former secretaries are attempting to weaken the bedrock principal that the military must be controlled by its civilian masters.

Thus, General Washington’s warning most certainly does not support these rebellious signers’ efforts to hamper civilian control over the military. Just the opposite; Washington refutes them.

Aside from this example of historical ignorance, there are many other reasons to repudiate the rebellious signers’ “Appeal.” Let us consider some of them.

Continue reading “”

After ATF Abuse, a New Bill in Congress Would Finally Give the Tiahrt Amendment Teeth.

The Tiahrt amendment — AKA the Tiahrt “rider” — became law in 2003. Among other things, it prohibits ATF from releasing law firearm data to anyone outside of law enforcement. There’s only one problem with the Tiahrt amendment …it has no teeth. In other words, there’s no penalty for ATF violating the law, which they did as part of Biden’s war on guns.

When not proclaiming the gun industry an enemy of the people, semi-sentient Joe campaigned on repealing Tiahrt. Fortunately, he failed in that effort, but it didn’t stop his weaponized ATF from blithely ignoring the law and releasing trace data last year as part of a media and gun control industry effort to name and shame gun dealers that had lawfully sold guns used in crimes, smearing them as enabling “gun violence.”

Now, however, there’s an effort afoot in Congress to give anti-gun un-elected bureaucrats pause before violating the Tiahrt amendment. Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana has introduced a bill that would fine violators, enable gun dealers to sue them as well, and remove sovereign immunity from the firearm regulatory agency if they decide to ignore the law again in the future.

The NSSF is cheering on the move . . .

Continue reading “”