Labeling gun violence a public health crisis is meant to funnel money to gun control groups

Could labeling gun violence a public health crisis curb the problem in Hampton Roads?

PORTSMOUTH, Va (WAVY) – Could a scientific approach to preventing gun violence – declaring it a public health crisis – be effective in curbing the deadly problem which only seems to be getting worse?

Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney wants to find out. Last May, Stoney declared gun violence a public health crisis, joining cities like Washington D.C. and Columbus, Ohio, in doing the same……….

Declaring gun violence as a public health crisis allows for cities to apply for more grant money to put towards the problem, as well as create more opportunities for different government departments to work together.

An Opportunity Second Amendment Supporters Must Not Waste

It’s time for Second Amendment supporters to channel Rahm Emanuel for a moment. In fact, there is a chance to hoist the one-time Obama Chief of Staff, who urged people to “never let a crisis go to waste,” on his own petard.

Right now, if you believe polling by the Wall Street Journal, Second Amendment supporters could deliver a metaphorical death blow to the hopes of anti-Second Amendment extremists over the next few years. However, it will take a lot of hard work to make that happen, and time may not be entirely on our side.

About 20 years ago, the political home of anti-Second Amendment extremism made a bet. They thought that there was a demographic doomsday coming for their opposition. However, that bet has not quite worked out for them over the long haul. Yes, Obama did win in a landslide in 2008, and won re-election solidly in 2012 (with an assist from the IRS targeting the Tea Party), but in the decade since 2012… how have things worked out?

We’ve discussed some of the signs that their bet on demographics isn’t working out the way they hoped. The lessons from last year’s Virginia gubernatorial election should give Second Amendment supporters and pro-Second Amendment organizations a blueprint for how to carry out the outreach.

This outreach is important. As things stand right now, for many of those who voted Youngkin in 2021 (and those of a similar mind across the country), support for the Second Amendment became a “non-dealbreaker” in the face of the current situation. While that might be sufficient for the short-term, would it not be better to make support for the Second Amendment a positive among those voters who currently consider it a “non-dealbreaker” in the face of a crisis?

Blowing the opportunity that Gun Culture 2.0 is presenting would be to repeat the very mistake that those in charge of the political home of anti-Second Amendment extremism made. We know that anti-Second Amendment extremist organizations like the Brady Campaign have had regrettable levels of success in dividing gun owners, often by hijacking the concept of “responsible” gun ownership. Reclaiming that term from anti-Second Amendment extremists is crucial to defeating their “divide and conquer” strategy.

Most important, though is to be willing to reach out to the new gun owners. Like any beginner in a new sport, they will need instruction and help from those who have more experience. The process of welcoming them should start from the moment they are at their first visit to an FFL and it should have no endpoint.

There are big tasks up ahead. Second Amendment supporters have to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box this November and in 2024. The process starts today by not wasting the opportunity that Biden’s blunders are giving us.

Quote O’ The Day

If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated — Nancy Pelosi

Never let them get by with the lie:  ‘No one wants to take your guns.’

Took him long enough. He likely had his finger in the air and it took him this long to figure it out which way the wind was blowing.

Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) summarized the new law in layman’s terms:

  • Obtaining a concealed handgun license will become optional, so if you are able to legally carry a concealed handgun with a license, you will also be able to carry without a license. The same rights and responsibilities apply in either case.
  • You will no longer have the duty to “promptly” notify every law enforcement officer during an official stop. Instead, you must disclose that you are carrying a concealed handgun only when an officer asks, unless you have already notified another officer.
  • If you choose to obtain a concealed handgun license, you will no longer be required to carry the license on your person.

DeWine signs bill allowing ‘constitutional carry’ in Ohio.

Ohioans will be able to carry concealed handguns without a permit, known as “constitutional carry.”

Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed into law Senate Bill 215, which passed the General Assembly on March 2 and was hailed by supporters as a historic Second Amendment victory.

The bill allows anyone at least 21 who is legally allowed to have a gun be able to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. It also removes the requirement for eight hours of gun safety training and potentially without a pre-purchase background check.

Also, if a driver is stopped by police, that person would not longer be required to inform officers of the concealed weapon unless specifically asked.

Continue reading “”

Argentina Halts Soy Exports As Food Protectionism Soars

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the global food supply chain as the prospect for dwindling stockpiles catapulted food prices to record highs. Governments worldwide are beginning to enforce protectionist measures to safeguard domestic food supplies.

According to a memo signed by Javier Preciado Patino, the secretary for agriculture markets, Argentina made moves this weekend to increase control over local farm goods by suspending soybean meal and oil for export.

The temporary halt by the world’s top exporter of processed soy products comes after Russia invaded Ukraine that disrupted global food markets. Following the news from Argentina, soy meal futures prices jumped more than 2.2%.

Since late February, Argentina has intervened in food markets with a subsidy for the domestic wheat industry similar to earlier policies for vegetable oils to mitigate soaring costs for consumers. UN expects global food prices could increase another 8%-20% from here.

“The government typically puts a block on the export register, known as DJVE, before increasing taxes on shipments in order to stop farmers from preempting the hike with a flood of selling,” Bloomberg said, adding there’s speculation on commodity desks that Argentina will increase taxes on soy meal and oil to 33% from 31%.

Soy traders tell Reuters, “the sudden halt in Argentine supplies will steer importers toward the United States and Brazil for replacement supplies.”

“Buyers have no choice but to reduce consumption or go to alternative sources for supplies.

“We expect higher demand for U.S. meal. In Southeast Asia, buyers such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand were heavily reliant on the Argentine meal,” said one Singapore-based trader.

This all comes down to that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked protectionist measures not just by Argentina but also in other countries who are nervous about local supplies and soaring prices.

Steve Mathews, head of strategy at Gro Intelligence, told Bloomberg that protectionist measures could cause international prices to rise even higher due to tightening global supplies. “It adds greatly to the inflationary concerns,” he said.

Add Argentina to the growing list of countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Hungary, and Serbia, banning exports of farm goods.

Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management, warned the current disruption of the global food supply chain could spark a global “great famine.”

Which predator do whitetail deer fear the most?

I suspect this reaction depends a lot on the area and the past hunting pressure. Yes, man is the most lethal predator on the planet, but different experiences can mean different reactions in prey species.
When Dad & I were living in Kentucky, we had a literal herd – often up to 21 deer – that moved back and forth across the properties, inside the city limits, and often stayed and grazed right outside the back door. Dad could sit on the back porch and the newer fawns would often play around within feet of him, only being warned by their does if they got to close for their liking, and Dad quite often talked to them, giving them ‘lectures’ about the coyotes we had pass by from time to time. Sometimes they actually seemed to pay attention to him.

You have his word as a Biden.

Biden pledges: We won’t fight a war against Russia in Ukraine.

A leftover from Friday. Hawks are complaining about this statement on grounds that it implicitly invites Putin to grab any non-NATO country he likes and to pummel Ukraine into submission using whatever conventional means he can muster.

 

SECURITY GUARANTEES, REAL AND IMAGINED

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a number of European countries–probably all of them–to reconsider their military defense postures. If Russia attacks them, will they be able to resist? And whom can they count on to come to their aid?

Responses vary. Germany is talking about abandoning its post-WWII de-militarization. France, in Gaullist tradition, wants the EU to take the lead on security. Others rely on a presumed airtight NATO guarantee of military assistance.

Sweden is an interesting case. Sweden is not a member of NATO, although it has collaborated closely with NATO’s central command. Instead, Sweden has allied itself with the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, the U.K. This interview with Björn Fägersten, head of the Europe program at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, sheds considerable light.

The threshold question posed is, since Sweden is not a member of NATO, will the European Union come to its aid if Russia attacks?

Does the EU’s mutual defence clause have a similar effect to Nato’s Article 5?

Björn Fägersten: In a purely legal sense they are equivalent – in some ways the EU is a bit sharper. But on the other hand, the EU’s clause has a sub-clause that makes clear that it doesn’t affect member states’ individual choices on security policy, for instance for those countries that are neutral.

A key difference between the EU and Nato is that the EU has no real apparatus. Nato has a joint military headquarters, SHAPE, but the EU doesn’t have an equivalent.

Within the EU there are also expectations that Nato will be at the centre of European planning – most EU countries are members. In the EU’s Global Strategy from 2016 it is made clear that Nato is the cornerstone of the EU’s defence.

So the EU has a mutual defense pledge, but no coordinated defense apparatus. But that could change. What follows is especially interesting in view of the weak state of Russia’s military that seems to have been revealed over the last couple of weeks:

Looking to the future, many in the EU, not least Macron, have long spoken about the need for strategic autonomy, where Europe will take a more independent line in defence from the US. Last week Germany announced a huge increase in defence spending. How will that change the equation for Sweden?

BF: If in the long term Europe starts taking greater responsibility while the US takes the main responsibility for handling China, that would change Sweden’s calculation. Sweden would like there to be an American interest in its security, but if, for example, a new president was elected in the US in 2024 who had a more doubtful approach to European security, Sweden would be forced to rapidly reevaluate its defence strategy.

It is highly unlikely that we will elect a president more feckless than Joe Biden, but it it useful to see how that possibility weighs on the minds of European decision makers. But the key point here is that the Europeans might be able to defend themselves while the U.S. focuses on the Pacific.

Continue reading “”

Below The Radar: Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act

Second Amendment supporters often have to make difficult decisions. Not in the sense of Glock vs. Colt vs. Springfield Armory, but more along the lines of how to address a given piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Take for instance the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act, known as S 3776 and HR 6997. The legislation purports to prohibit the importation, sale, or manufacture of firearms “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

On the face of it, this seems unobjectionable. Nobody wants to be sold a firearm on the basis of misrepresentation or a false promise, right? But there are red flags when Second Amendment supporters think things through some more.

For starters, the Senate bill is sponsored by Dianne Feinstein, a long-standing enemy of our Second Amendment rights. So that is a red flag right there. Her co-sponsors include Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal, also committed opponents of the Second Amendment.

Aside from who sponsors it, there is one other question: Who decides what constitutes “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?”

This is a big deal on multiple fronts. Remember how the CDC is getting back into the gun-control business? They worry that it will be used to justify censorship by Silicon Valley is big, but this legislation could add another threat.

Suppose some anti-Second Amendment extremist decides that those who advertise firearms for self-defense are making ““false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises?” That now becomes a new way to hit someone with a five-year jail term and a felony conviction.

This also is a way to “legalize” suits like the one brought against Remington over Sandy Hook. Never mind that the rifle used was stolen (after the shooter killed the rightful owner), the claim from the suit was centered around the advertising. In other words, prove there was “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” in the advertising, and all of the sudden, it becomes easier to sue gun manufacturers.

This is a dangerous end run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Again, we need to remember what Feinstein said so long ago on 60 Minutes. She wants an Australia-style ban, but if she can’t have it, she’ll figure out what she can get legislatively (see the Age 21 Act). Or she’ll enable other attacks outside the legislative process.

What makes it doubly hard is that this bill seems very reasonable, so Second Amendment supporters have to be very careful about the optics while opposing it. After all, nobody wants to support those who sell anything (including firearms) with “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.”

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Representative and Senators and politely urge them to oppose the Stopping the Fraudulent Sales of Firearms Act. Then. They need to work to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box this November.

How do you know the numbers of Hispanic voters are increasingly seen as going Republican?
The lieberal media hauls out the broadest smear brush they can find.

The rise of white nationalist Hispanics.

Nick Fuentes, identified as a “white supremacist” in Justice Department filings, made headlines last week for hosting a white nationalist conference in Florida. His father is also half Mexican American.

Driving the news: Cuban American Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys, a group the Anti-Defamation League calls an extremist group with a violent agenda, was arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiracy in connection to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

What they’re saying: Experts tell Axios far-right extremism within the Latino community stems from three sources: Hispanic Americans who identify as white; the spread of online misinformation; and lingering anti-Black, antisemitic views among U.S. Latinos that are rarely openly discussed.

Blah, blah, blah, blah…………

Yes, they know. They’ve always known. They just approve.

Project Veritas Torches the New York Times and Explodes the January 6 Narrative
Serious journalists know that our oligarchs used Jan. 6 as a Reichstag fire, to target political dissidents.

A Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporter has been caught in a video by the conservative group Project Veritas admitting his colleagues vastly exaggerated the danger of the election integrity protest on Jan. 6.

The reporter, Matthew Rosenberg, also called his colleagues names that questioned their courage and manliness.

January 6 Was in Fact “No Big Deal”

Rosenberg, the national security correspondent for the New York Times, said the media’s coverage of the Capitol riot was “overblown” and that the events of Jan. 6, 2021 were “no big deal,” according to undercover video released Tuesday by Project Veritas.

In print, Rosenberg and his colleagues have described the claim that there were FBI plants instigating the protestors outside of the U.S. Capitol a year earlier as a “reimagining” of the “attack.” But in the Project Veritas video, which appears to have been recorded without his knowledge, Rosenberg paints a different picture. Here he admits that “there were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

warning, some foul language

Trump Offers a Proposal to Destroy the Deep State

Virtually all Americans believed, until the inauguration of Donald Trump as president on January 20, 2017, that when someone became president, he could begin to implement his agenda. Certainly Old Joe Biden’s handlers have done so with a vengeance since they took over; but when Trump became president, he immediately began to encounter resistance from entrenched members of the government bureaucracy who refused to do as he ordered. Some worked actively against Trump, while the establishment media assured us that these self-appointed “deep state” saboteurs were the courageous guardians of “our democracy.” At his South Carolina rally Saturday night, Trump continued to tease a 2024 run and made a new promise about how he would break the power of the unelected “deep state.”

“We will pass critical reforms,” Trump said, “making every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel.”

It’s a commonsensical solution, as Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance pointed out. “Everyone is losing their mind about this, but I’ve been calling for it at every town hall I do. Either the president controls the executive branch or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, we don’t live in a Republic, we live in a civil service driven oligarchy.”

Continue reading “”

This is how ridiculous weapon laws are in Merry Olde Englande

Pennsylvania man returns home to find armed burglar, shootout erupts

COATESVILLE, Pa. – Authorities say a Pennsylvania man had a brief shootout with a burglar who stole two guns and a video game console from the victim’s apartment Friday morning.

Officers from the City of Coatesville Police Department were called to a property on East Lincoln Highway for reports of a shooting.

According to investigators, the victim returned home to find a man armed with an AR-15 standing in his doorway.

After a brief struggle, police say the suspect fired at least 7 shots and the victim returned fire with his legally-owned firearm.

No one was struck during the brief shootout, according to police.

The AR-15 used in the shooting was stolen from the victim’s home along with another gun and a Playstation 5, police said.

Authorities did not provide a description of the suspect.

Quote O’ The Day

I’m actually curious if you’d rather live in a country where that wasn’t the case, where there weren’t more guns than people?

That’s a good question. I think guns are an equalizer, personally. Obviously, there are terrible things that people can do with guns. They’re a tool. What happens with a gun depends on who’s using the gun. But guns are the great equalizer. If you don’t want a world where just the physically dominant can lord over people weaker than them, then I think guns, on the whole, are a net positive. And I think that’s true even when you consider all of the negative things that come from the existence of firearms.-
-Stephen Gutowski