BBC Pushes Firearm Falsehoods, Then Quietly Changes Article

A BBC article published on Monday, in the wake of recent mass shootings, included a graphic that contained blatant lies about the fire rates of different types of firearms.

BBC later removed the graphic from the article, but they provided no editor’s note in the article and failed to announce the correction on Twitter.

The graphic, conducted by “BBC research,” claimed that a “modified semi-automatic assault rifle (AR-15)” could fire up to 1,200 rounds per minute. This ludicrous assertion was even more astonishing when they claimed that an M16 had a maximum fire rate of 950 rounds per minute, and that a semi-automatic AK-47 only fired a mere 120 rounds per minute.

 

 

A PolitiFact fact check debunked a similar claim in 2016 after the Orlando shooting when Democrat Alan Grayson said an AR-15 could fire 700 rounds per minute. PolitiFact found that “the 700-round-a-minute figure is only a theoretical benchmark, not something achievable in reality.” This is because the cyclic fire rate of these guns is around 700.

Essentially, they found that, in a perfect world with infinite capacity magazines and without the gun overheating, that a 700-900 rounds a minute fire rate would be possible. This isn’t reality, and the BBC is trying to push that figure into the stratosphere.

The BBC researchers may have missed the mark by a monumental amount on the AR-15, but they gave a much more realistic, but still implausible, figure for a semi-automatic AK-47 with 120 rounds a minute. So, why lie about the AR-15? Who fact checked this research and who were the researchers they even employed in the first place? This is at best lazy and incompetent journalism, and at worst a malicious attempt to misinform the populace about the capability of firearms.

The article has a number of further oddities in it, citing odd figures for the prices of firearms, as well as claiming that the NRA is one of “the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US” despite their lobbying efforts being dwarfed by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

The article may have been rife with falsehoods, obfuscation, a lack of transparency, and head-scratching statistics, but the BBC’s readers need to worry. They were sure to add a handy link to the end of the article on “why you can trust BBC News.”

Minnesota Heads Off ‘Mass Casualty Attack’ Planned for ‘the Next 24 Hours’

How many Americans are aware of how active jihadis have been in this country of late? In New York, Ahmed al Jabali went into a barber shop to get his beard trimmed and ended up stabbing the Jewish barber with his own barber’s scissors, explaining that it was his “right as a Muslim to punish Jews.” In Kentucky, Mirsad Ramic has just been “convicted of providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS; conspiracy to support the organization; and receiving military training.” In Georgia, Aliakbar Mohammed Amin threatened to murder both President Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

And now, it looks as if Mohamed Adan Mohamed, a young resident of the left’s brave, new, multicultural Mankato, Minn., was stopped just in the nick of time. A special agent with the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said that “there were strong indicators that Mohamed was preparing to conduct some sort of attack (Mass Casualty Event) in the next twenty-four hours.” Mohamed Adan Mohamed was stopped, but what is being done to prevent others in the future from plotting jihad massacres of the kind that he wanted to perpetrate? Nothing whatsoever, of course.

Minnesota’s Alpha News reported Wednesday that “the Blue Earth County Attorney’s Office has filed felony charges against Mohamed Adan Mohamed after he allegedly stole $2,150 worth of firearm magazines and made a threatening, anti-American post on social media.” The social media posts were the first indication that this was much more than just a shoplifting case.

Mohamed, who is 24, behaved suspiciously from the beginning. He “entered a Mankato store last week wearing a COVID mask, gloves, a green stocking cap, and a heavy winter coat.” It’s getting warmer these days, even in Mankato, and so Mohamed’s attire gave the impression that he had something to hide or was himself intending to hide items he shoplifted. And indeed, he “reportedly began selecting high-priced items such as body armor, bear spray, and 9mm firearm magazines without checking prices. As such, the business became suspicious.” With good reason.

While he was in the store, Mohamed also spoke to store employees about “an AR-style rifle he claimed to possess.” Then he left with “approximately $2,150 worth of products,” for which he had not paid. Store security officers tried to stop him, but Mohamed Adan Mohamed got into a car and sped away, “nearly [running] over a person” in the process.

Mohamed had been in such a hurry to get out of the store that he “reportedly left behind a list that he referred to as he selected products.” These included a “Survival Gear List,” which included a “sleeping bag, lighters, 8 magazines, knives, pepper spray, a ‘6-mag chest right,’ bows and arrows.” In line with this, Mohamed “had stolen eight magazines” among the other items he purloined from the store.

All this took place against the backdrop of the fact that Mohamed recently put up a series of social media posts “featuring ammunition and guns.” One showed Mohamed himself “pointing an assault rifle at the camera and included the hashtag ‘#deathtoamerikkan&israelliImperialism.’”

No one has faced the implications of the fact that America is now home to large numbers of people who wish death to it, but they’ll have to be faced sooner or later. In the meantime, it appears that Mohamed was stopped from carrying out an imminent jihad attack, and for that, we can all be grateful. He has since been charged with “one count of felony theft and one count of felony threats of violence,” and his bail has been set at a million bucks “with no conditions, or $500,000 with conditions.”

Historian and journalist Daniel Greenfield asks the salient question: “How soon until Dems and the media make Mohamed their new martyr and we get sad updates about how much he’s suffering accompanied by cries of ‘due process’ and ‘freedom of speech’?”

In another age, this might have seemed like an absurd question, for no one could have imagined that the Democrats would go that far. But if they can attempt to make heroes out of the likes of Mahmoud Khalil and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, then why not Mohamed Adan Mohamed? Screaming “Death to America” is the surest path these days to becoming a hero to leftists. Watch for much more of it.

Decision, decisions…………

IWI Drops New Mafteah “Other” Firearm

iwi drops new mafteah other firearm

IWI is getting in on the “other” firearm game with the new Mafteah. This semi-auto 12-gauge, 3-inch gun features a 14-inch smoothbore barrel and pistol grip, making it an “other” firearm under US law instead of a short barrel shotgun or any other weapon, either of which would be subject to NFA regulation. This new gun is named for the “ Key of Solomon” textbook of magic, which I had to look up because I had never heard of it.

The Mafteah features a drilled and tapped receiver for optics mounting and features a pocket for direct-mounting red dot optics. Three MLOK slots sit on each side of the handguard for accessory mounting, and a strap on the bottom of the handguard keeps the support hand from drifting in front of the muzzle during firing. The gun is recoil operated, with a spring that surrounds the magazine tube operating the bolt. That magazine tube holds five 2 ¾” shells or four 3” shells if you want a heftier payload. A vent rib with a bead front sight runs down the top of the barrel.

The MSRP for the Mafteah is $999.

From the manufacturer:

“It is said the Key of Solomon could do almost anything, contain anything or anyone, and open any passageway one might need. This one isn’t quite so magical, but it will do a number on opening doors. The MAFTEAH Shotgun is a semi-automatic auto loading, shotgun, 12Ga 3’’, with 14 inch barrel. It functions based on a recoil operated system that utilizes a recoil spring around the magazine tube. This allows the shotgun to be very compact and reliable.”

In 2025, an attorney for a government school district is able to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court defending exposing children as young as three years old to books about sexuality. Imagine going back in time to any point—even just a few years ago—and explaining that this is considered a serious argument.

What I find most remarkable about the exchange is the attorney’s acknowledgment that their intent is to “influence” children. He begins to explain that the goal is to install “civility,” which is the “natural consequence of being exposed to—” before he is cut off. Was he going to say that “civility” results from exposure to sexual content at a very young age? What could “civility” possibly mean here?

MR. SCHOENFELD: Pride Puppy was the book that was used for the pre-kindergarten curriculum. That’s no longer in the curriculum.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: That’s the one where they’re supposed to look for the leather and things—bondage, things like that, right?

MR. SCHOENFELD: It’s not bondage. It’s a woman in a leather—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Sex worker, right?

MR. SCHOENFELD: No. That’s not correct. No.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I thought—gosh, I read it.

JUSTICE BARRETT: It’s a drag queen in drag.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Drag queen in—drag queen?

MR. SCHOENFELD: So, correct. The leather that they’re pointing to is a woman in a leather jacket, and one of the words is drag queen in this—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And they’re supposed to look for those?

MR. SCHOENFELD: It is an option at the end of the book, correct.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Yeah. Okay. And you’ve included these in the English language curriculum rather than the human sexuality curriculum to influence students, is that fair? That’s what the district court found. Do you agree with that?

MR. SCHOENFELD: I think, to the extent the district court found that it was to influence, it was to influence them towards civility, the natural consequence of being exposed to—

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Whatever, but to influence them.

MR. SCHOENFELD: In the manner that I just mentioned, yes.

U.S. First Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Assault Weapon Ban Constitutional

The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.

I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.

Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.

Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.

To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.

The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.

Katzmann embarrassingly attempted to correlate a longstanding tradition of regulation with the outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.” However, no such longstanding tradition exists, with the mental gymnastics here contributing mostly to a sad perversion of the Bruen decision, for which the Supreme Court is likely to tuck tail and expose its lack of spine.

In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?

Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”

While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.

Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.

Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.

To be honest, I never considered LuPone an acting ‘superstar’, just another standard operational leftist hack that has to act onstage to provide themselves for short time the personality they lack.

Patti LuPone Is Huge Reason Why We Lack ‘Dissenting Views’
Broadway star bemoans loss of healthy debate, ignores her role in problem

Bill Maher is getting a lot of attention these days.

He didn’t rob a bank in broad daylight or make that Snake River jump that Evel Knievel couldn’t in 1974. Maher is willing to break bread with those who don’t align with his worldview. That’s it. That’s enough.

That simple approach today is novel, even revolutionary.

Broadway superstar Patti LuPone is sad about the lack of civil discussion in society. The progressive actress told fellow Broadway star George Clooney just that in their expansive Variety chat.

What I don’t understand about all of this in this country is that we can’t seem to have dissenting views. You’re labeled a communist. You’re labeled a fascist.

In a separate takeaway from their chat, the star bemoaned the lack of “dissenting views.”

“What I don’t understand about all of this in this country is we can’t seem to have a dialogue, a diverse dialogue or a dissenting views dialogue.”

She’s right. We just saw comic legend Larry David call Maher Hitler for daring to disagree with him. Yet LuPone is blind to the problem on two fronts.

One: She’s part of it.

Continue reading “”

While this is a serious thing, “education standards” are not a specifically enumerated right. Several well known pro-RKBA people on line, as well as yours truly, are irritated, to put it mildly, that SCOTUS will take such a case while lingering for months about a couple of 2nd amendment cases

The Most Important Parental Rights Case in Years Is Before SCOTUS Right Now

If there’s one thing that undergirds parental rights, it is this: Parents know what’s best for their own children.

If there’s a second, it’s Pierce v. Society of Sisters, where the Supreme Court ruled that the child “is not the mere creature of the state” and that parents have the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

Enter Mahmoud v. Taylor, which is currently before the Supreme Court. At issue, according to Amy Howe at ScotusBlog, is “Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.” Moreover, it will rule on who knows best: parents or school bureaucrats.

The case involves a school district in Montgomery County, Md., which thought it would be a good idea to force LGBTQ+ materials on children as young as age three—including vulnerable kids with special needs.

Here’s one example:

Howe explained on Tuesday, as oral arguments before the Supreme Court began:

When the county announced in 2023 that it would not allow parents to opt to have their children excused from instruction involving the storybooks, a group of Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents went to federal court.

They contended that the refusal to give them the option to opt their children out violated their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion – specifically, their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their faith and to control when and how these issues are introduced to their children.

The school district claimed that it’s just too hard to allow parents to opt their kids out of the explicit content and, rather than getting rid of the highly controversial books, told parents to suck it up. Several of them sued, citing the aforementioned Wisconsin v. Yoder. 

Continue reading “”

When you disarm your subjects, you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you.
— Niccolo Machiavelli

Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly.

“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”

So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district-court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.

It’s a criticism the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.

One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”

But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.

We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC applecart and harm the court’s legitimacy.

Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.

Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.

And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.

Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.

But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, says Harvard’s Vermeule and others.

The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.

The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.

Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.

“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process before Being Kicked Out,” as The Babylon Bee parody site put it.

This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.

The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:

“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”

The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”

The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.

Continue reading “”

Idaho Panhandle School Board Okays Armed Teachers

The St. Maries, Idaho School District, located in Benewah County at the confluence of the St. Joe and St. Maries rivers southeast of Coeur d’Alene Lake, has okayed teachers to carry guns on campus and in classrooms following a 4-0 vote to finalize the policy.

Under the policy described by the Spokane Spokesman-Review, in order for a staff member to be approved to carry on campus, he/she must have an Idaho enhanced concealed carry license, go through a background check and 40-hour firearms training course which includes de-escalation and threat assessment instruction, and they must be screened and interviewed by local law enforcement.

St. Maries is the largest city in Benewah County.

MyNorthwest noted that School Board Chairman Seth Stoke said none of the volunteer teachers or staff who are armed will be identified.

“They can assume that everybody is armed,” he said. “The whole idea is not knowing who is carrying.”

The plan is in reaction to a rise in school shootings over the past 25 years. MyNorthwest pointed to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said “there were 1,453 school shootings from the 1997–1998 school year to the 2021–2022 school year.

“The most recent five school years have had a substantially higher number of school shootings than the prior 20 years,” the group said.

Firearms carried by staff must be personally owned, and either carried or placed in a district-approved lock box at all times.

The Spokesman-Review noted another development in school security is also in the works. The school board approved a three-year agreement with Panacea NW Region Corporation, a school security consulting firm based in Hayden, which is north of Coeur d’Alene. Panacea NW will conduct emergency response training with school district staff and parents.

The Spokane newspaper said a majority of residents in the community support the armed teacher program, while school staff is “about evenly split.” Some staff reportedly support having an armed school resource officer with the Sheriff’s Department on campus instead. Such an officer was hired last month, the Spokesman-Review reported.