Seems someone may have read Solzhenitsyn and decided to apply this passage:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? “
The article doesn’t mention it; merely the number of protestors killed, but that’s never affected the mullahs before. So, the title of the article is accurate and it’s highly likely that the ‘morality police’ have taken a significant number of casualties as well?

Iran’s morality police disappear from streets after dozens killed in protests

The white-and-green Guidance Patrol vans, used by Iran’s morality police to monitor and arrest women who defy the Islamic dress code, have in recent days disappeared from the streets of Tehran. For the past decade a symbol of the Islamic republic’s crackdown on women, the vans are not even visible outside the morality police centre in central Tehran.

Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman of Kurdish ethnicity, was this month bundled into one of these vehicles. She later died in custody, triggering the biggest street protests across the country since the 2019 unrest over fuel prices. At least 41 protesters have died, according to state television. Hundreds of people have been arrested, local agencies report, including political activists and journalists.

Such is the outrage over her death that people from across the Iranian political spectrum have called for an end to the official policing of women’s clothing. “Guidance Patrol will most probably be withdrawn from the streets,” said Saeed Laylaz, a reformist analyst. “The Islamic republic will have a major setback over the hijab in practice and will have no other choice but to give more social freedom to the urban middle-class youth.”

For more than a week, young protesters, many the same age as Amini, have poured on to the streets in towns and cities across the country chanting anti-regime slogans such as “We don’t want the Islamic republic” and “Death to the dictator”.

University students have demonstrated on campuses and female protesters have burnt their scarves. Others faced riot police without wearing their hijab, showing little fear. While the protests have now subsided, Iranians on social media still share pictures of women killed during the protests.

For young people struggling with massive economic problems such as poverty and inequality, these patrols had become a lightning conductor for their rage, Emad Afrough, a sociologist told the state news agency IRNA. “We have launched something which has no human, moral, logical and even legal justification,” he said. “The way a [police]man throws a woman into the car is inhuman and un-Islamic.” The wearing of the hijab is one of the defining images of the theocratic regime.

In the wake of the Islamic revolution in 1979, revolutionaries forced women to wear scarves in public. In 1983, the hijab officially became obligatory for women. The violation of this rule was punishable with up to 74 lashes. Later, jail sentences and fines replaced flogging. Hardliners under former president Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad made the police responsible for “promoting social security” in 2006 when they launched the Guidance Patrol — a label later changed to Moral Security Police, though people continue to refer to them as the Guidance Patrol.

Many police officers were loath to assume this responsibility because they said it was not their job to deal with women’s hair and clothes. The enforcement of the rules on the hijab have intensified in the past year since, with the election of Ebrahim Raisi as president, hardliners took over all arms of the state. They hoped that the stronger enforcement of the rules over the hijab could slow the modernisation of Iran, an increasingly secular society. But, noted Jalal Rashidi Kouchi, a member of parliament, “the police have been damaged because of the Guidance Patrol” with “no results but losses for the country”.

The women they arrest have to give written commitments not to violate the law again and to attend hour-long classes on morality. Car owners also receive text messages to go to the morality police centre if there are women in their cars without scarves. Their cars are then impounded for up to two months.

It is unclear how many police officers work in Guidance Patrol but their presence, in busy squares, parks and outside metro stations, makes women feel insecure. Amini was arrested in a park shortly after she got out of a nearby metro station in central Tehran. Her family allege she was beaten up in the van. The authorities deny this and say she had a pre-existing condition.

It is unclear what comes next, though the Islamic republic is not expected to revoke the law on the hijab. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not commented on the latest protests but two months ago he defended the obligation to wear the hijab. The fact that Iranian women occupy half of university seats, he said, makes clear that the Islamic hijab is not an obstacle to women’s progress.

Conservative organisations have however called for an end to the police’s role in enforcing the rules. “How can a force in charge of order and security be in charge of holding hijab classes?” asked the Headquarters to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice. “Religious beliefs are not created by batons, arrests and Guidance Patrol. We cannot force people into paradise,” Gholamreza Nouri Ghezeljeh, a reformist member of parliament, told Shargh daily newspaper. But he was dismissive about the introduction of fines. “As if one can decide about paradise and hell with money,” he said.

GOA IMMEDIATELY SUES PHILADELPHIA OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 28, 2022

Philadelphia, PA – Yesterday, lame-duck Mayor Jim Kenney signed an executive order prohibiting individuals from lawful carry at all City of Philadelphia recreational facilities. The mayor’s actions are in clear violation of Pennsylvania law prohibiting these types of local gun restrictions. Within hours of Mayor Kenney’s signing ceremony, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of this illegal gun regulation.

“Mayor Kenney knows this executive order is pointless: law abiding gun owners aren’t the people committing the violent crime and murder in Philadelphia,”  said Dr. Val Finnell, Pennsylvania Director for GOA. “Instead, Mayor Kenney is trying to deflect attention from his failing policies and failing City by enacting more ‘feel good’ regulations that scapegoat guns for the crisis of crime in Philadelphia. Rather than take responsibility for city policies that created two years of record homicides, Kenney is attempting to capitalize on the tragic deaths of Philadelphia residents to disarm more people and create more victim-only, ‘gun-free’ zones. All this executive order does is put a bullseye on the back of every person at Philadelphia recreational facilities, because they know that Mayor Kenney won’t let you defend yourself there.”

“The lack of respect for taxpayer money is appalling,” said Andrew Austin, attorney for GOA and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. “Pennsylvania law is clear here: Philly is not allowed to make gun regulations. Every appellate court in Pennsylvania has made this clear multiple times. Yet, they continue to waste taxpayer money by attempting to enact these illegal laws.”

Gun Owners of America will be seeking to enjoin enforcement of Mayor Kenney’s Executive Order in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In addition, GOA has previously filed several other lawsuits in Philadelphia in the last two years in pursuit of Second Amendment rights, and will continue to fight as long as necessary to ensure every citizen has the ability to defend themselves, particularly in lawless cities such as Mayor Kenney’s Philadelphia.

Dr. Val Finnell, or another GOA spokesperson is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

Judge Issues Time Limits for Briefs in California Magazine Ban Case

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Judge Benitez found California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional on its face. On March 29, 2017, Judge Benitez issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ban. In the week that followed, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of magazines were sold to California residents who had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights.

The week of March 29, 2017, to April 5, 2017, has become known as Freedom week.

The name of the case changed as the name of the California AG changed.

Subsequent court actions reversed the injunction, upheld Judge Benitez’s opinion, reversed the three-judge panel with an en banc hearing, and appealed the en banc hearing to the Supreme Court. On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Bruen case. On June 29, the Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Ninth Circuit en banc on Duncan v. Bonta and sent it back to the Ninth Circuit to be re-decided.

The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Rodger T. Benitez. Judge Benitez is now following proper procedure. He is not allowing delays. On September 26, 2022, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order as to the timing for briefs on the now Duncan v. Bonta case.

From the District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger T. Benitez:

On June 29, 2017, this Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) & (d) requiring persons to dispossess themselves of magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds lawfully acquired and possessed. The preliminary injunction was affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 17-56081 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). On March 29, 2019, on summary judgment, this Court concluded that California Penal Code § 32310 is unconstitutional. On April 4, 2019, this Court made the preliminary injunction on subsections (c) and (d) permanent but stayed, pending appeal, the injunction of § 32310 (a) & (b).

This Court was again affirmed on appeal. Duncan v. Becerra, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2020). The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated its opinion, and entered an opinion reversing the judgment of this Court.Duncan v. Bonta, Appeal No. 19-55376 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the opinion of the Ninth Circuit and remanded for further consideration. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 21-1194, 142 S. Ct. 2895 (June 30, 2022). The Ninth Circuit now remands the case to this Court for further proceedings in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and the mandate has issued.

This Court hereby spreads the mandate upon the minutes of this Court. 

The Defendant shall file any additional briefing that is necessary to decide this case in light of Bruen within 45 days of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file any responsive briefing within 21 days thereafter. This Court will then decide the case on the briefs and the prior record or schedule additional hearings.

The previously entered preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) for magazines able to hold more than ten rounds shall remain in effect for all those who previously acquired and possessed magazines legally (including those persons and business entities who acquired magazines between March 29, 2019 and April 5, 2019), pending further Order of this Court. Dated: September 26, 2022 

The 45 days to file briefs ends on November 10th, by my calculations; the time given for response briefs ends on November 30th.

The Miller v. Bonta case briefs will have been in and responded to about a month earlier, at the end of October.

Miller v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta are closely related cases about restoring Second Amendment rights.

FPC Files for Injunction Against New York “Sensitive Location” Handgun Carry Bans

BUFFALO, NY (September 28, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Boron v. Bruen, its lawsuit challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry bans in public parks, public transportation, and all private property without express consent. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Under S51001, ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens,’ like and including Plaintiffs, are again prevented from carrying handguns in public for self-defense in almost all corners of the State, except in what Governor Hochul said were, ‘probably some streets,’” argues the motion. “S51001 makes a mockery of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen, which reaffirmed that personal security extends to more than just ‘those . . . who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force,’ but also emphatically extends to include ordinary, law-abiding Americans ‘outside the home.’”

“The New York Legislature appears to think that when the Supreme Court closed the door on New York’s may issue permit regime it opened a window for equally onerous location restrictions,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Today’s motion for preliminary injunction is the opportunity for the Court to remind New York lawmakers that those windows are nailed shut by the Constitution.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutionally protected rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

New study contradicts “More Guns = More Crime” theory

Do increased gun sales lead to increased crime rates? According to gun control activists, the answer is “yes,” but a new study published in the Journal of Surgical Research finds no connection between firearm purchases and the number of crimes. I’m very pleased that Dr. Mark Hamill, a trauma surgeon and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center who was a primary author and researcher for the new study, could join me on today’s Cam & Co to discuss his findings and the current state of “gun violence” research in the medical community.

For this particular study, Hamill and his associates used both national and state-level data on crime rates between 1999 and 2015 as well as NICS reporting data over the same time period as a reasonable proxy for gun sales. Hamill hypothesized beforehand that there would be no correlation between gun sales and crime rates, and as it turns out, that’s exactly what researchers found.

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period.

Using a naïve national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

This study follows on previous research released by Hamill and others back in 2019 that examined concealed carry laws and crime rates; looking to see if changes to a state’s concealed carry laws resulted in more crime overall. Just as in this most recent study, the data found no significant association between “shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators.”

As Hamill says, the results make sense. Most people who legally purchase and lawfully carry firearms are never going to commit a violent crime, so increasing the number of those who are legally exercising their Second Amendment rights shouldn’t result in more violent crime. As for gun sales and crime rates, while the number of firearms sold might vary from year to year, the number of privately-owned firearms in the United States continues to increase. If more guns equated to more crime, then we’d expect to see a steady rise in criminal offenses year after year. Instead, a graph of violent crime rates going back to 1900 shows that crime tends to ebb and flow in waves that can last for decades.

Note, by the way, what happened to the homicide rate in the years after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. While homicide rates had been fairly flat throughout most of the 1960s, there was a sharp increase starting around the time the GCA became law, and a steady decline didn’t begin until more than two decades later in the early 1990s.

That crime decline generally continued until 2020, when shootings and homicides soared in the midst of the COVID-19 shutdowns, disruptions to the criminal justice system, riots, and a pullback from proactive policing strategies. Gun sales also exploded in 2020, but despite the assertions of some gun control activists that the increase in gun purchases must have played a role in the increased violence, there isn’t much evidence that was the case, as even some anti-gun researchers have acknowledged.

Dr. Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis investigated a possible relationship between 2020’s gun sales and the increase in crime and found none.

“Instead, [researchers] concluded that unemployment, economic disparity and physical distancing exacerbated by the pandemic were far more potent predictors of increased violence,” the FiveThirtyEight article notes.

Hamill’s study comes at a time of heightened interest in the gun control debate within the medical community, including a special issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association dedicated to examining “gun violence” and advocating for a host of new gun control laws. Hamill says that unfortunately there does seem to be a bias towards gun control among many researchers, and described how this most recent study was actually rejected by another journal; not because of any issues with the researcher’s methodology, but because the journal’s editor didn’t like the results.

Thankfully this new paper found a home at the Journal of Surgical Research, and I would encourage you to not only read the paper but share its findings far and wide. More guns does not equal more crime, and we’ve got the data to prove it.

The Perils of America’s Woke Military
The high – and destructive – cost of Marxism’s infusion into our Armed Forces.

Last week we shared the disturbing news that the Sergeant Major of the Army recommended our soldiers apply for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, to keep up with the growing inflation. I find it unconscionable that we are sending billions of dollars to foreign nations, but our troops are being told to sign up for assistance to afford food.

But this is just a small example of what is happening for our military. The perilous infusion of cultural Marxism into our Armed Forces is far more dangerous.

Recently, the Department of Defense Chief of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Kelisa Wing, who self describes herself as a “woke administrator,” made some very disconcerting comments towards white Americans…or folx as she asserts. I have to ask, how much is this racist person being paid while our soldiers are being told to apply for food stamps? But even more troubling is that such a radical individual is allowed access to our military? How can we have an effective, cohesive fighting force when you have a radical Marxist disparaging one demographic of our military force? Cultural Marxism has no place in our Armed Forces and the last thing we need is an office of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our Department of Defense, a cover for enabling these radicals.

It was not too long ago that our military was being focused on combat readiness, capability, and capacity to fulfill its mission. Now, we have a Secretary of Defense, with whom I served at Ft. Bragg NC, who is issuing memorandums telling members of our military to get used to troops suffering from gender dysphoria entering shower and latrine facilities with them. Basically, female troops are being told that biological men will be naked, showering with them. Now, if you are an adult and want to play make believe, fine, go ahead, but this should not be happening in our military. As well, the American taxpayer should not be responsible for subsidizing hormonal therapies or surgical procedures for individuals affected by this mental condition…the previous diagnosis of the American Psychiatric Association.

Just this past week, the United States Air Force Academy announced new rules about promoting gender neutral language. Can you imagine that the USAFA now advises against saying such simple things as Mom and Dad? They are advising cadets to inquire about a person’s desired pronouns before making any declarations. A few months ago, the U.S. Navy issued a video about correct pronoun usage. Hmm, I can remember some very interesting names that Drill Sergeants would use, and they did not inquire about pronouns. Matter of fact, knucklehead is gender neutral, along with stuck on stupid. There seems to be a lot of that in our military and its senior leadership at this time.

But what has to be most worrisome for our military has been the illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional COVID shot mandate forced upon our servicemen and women. Earlier this month, seven cadets at the US Coast Guard Academy were expelled for refusing to take the jab; the same has occurred at the United States Military Academy, West Point. And we are all aware of the countless stories of men and women in uniform who are being persecuted for not taking this shot. There are troops who are being segregated into deplorable living conditions, treated like lepers. They are having their constitutional rights denied, such as religious exemptions. They share their stories with us at the American Constitutional Rights Union’s Committee to Support and Defend, America’s constitutional conservative Veterans organization.

What should cause us concern is that our troops are being treated in such a disgusting manner even as we now know that Dr. Deborah Birx admitted they knew the shot would not prevent being infected with the virus. SecDef Austin, Commander in Chief Biden, and Dr Fauci all contracted the virus after having the shot and boosters. Last week, Joe Biden stated that the pandemic is over, so why are we still punishing our troops and mandating this shot on some of the most physically fit in our country? When you study the objective facts and statistics you will see that the infamous shot has caused more harm than what is being reported. There are countless cases of cardiac issues such as myocarditis. One has to ask, will our troops be able to file lawsuits against those who forced this untested shot upon them? Yes, it was only under emergency use authorization, not full FDA approval.

Will there be legislation passed in the U.S. Congress that will allow our troops to seek legal recompense? Will military members who were discharged from the military be reinstated? Heck, if the GOP is successful in the midterm elections, will the Department of Defense office of diversity, equity, and inclusion be defunded? Will our military find senior leaders who will honor their oath to the Constitution, not to political ideology, certainly not to cultural Marxism?

America’s constitutional conservative veterans’ organization, the Committee to Support and Defend, is taking the lead on these issues. Our U.S. military is being led down the perilous road of “wokeness.” The last thing America needs is a politicized military and kommissars advocating an ideology that is anathema to our rule of law, our Constitution…of which our military members take an oath to support and defend.

Steadfast and Loyal.

 

BLUF
At this point, after multiple ignored corrections, it’s a stretch to pretend that the president’s misstatements are accidental; he obviously doesn’t care about their truth. What’s important to him and his supporters is achieving their policy goals, even if they have to lie to do so.

President Biden Lies About Guns. Again.
Amidst official hysteria over “misinformation,” the president continues to willfully misrepresent the facts on firearms.

Government lies aren’t new; political fibs have such deep roots in history that you could open a museum of official mendacity and have enough rotating exhibits to keep things fresh. But now, amidst much hysteria over “misinformation,” we see a resident of the White House misrepresent facts in pursuit of restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and ignore corrections. President Biden’s claim that bullets fired from AR-15’s are impossibly speedy is only the latest example of his continuing lies about guns.

“There’s no justification for a weapon of war. None. The speed of that bullet is five times that that comes out of the muzzle of most weapons. It can penetrate your vests,” President Biden huffed last week. “What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for?” he added.

This wasn’t the first time the president insisted on the supposed superpowers of so-called “assault weapons” and especially of AR-15s, which are popular among gun owners.

“Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun, five times—is lighter—and can pierce Kevlar?” he insisted on August 30 while touting his administration’s “Safer America Plan,” which includes tighter firearms restrictions.

Really? Well, no.

“President Biden’s statement that a bullet shot from an AR-15 travels 5x faster than a bullet shot out of ‘any other gun’ is false,” Greg Wallace, a Campbell University law professor who focuses on Second Amendment issues, told The Washington Post early in September. As for bullets fired from AR-15s piercing Kevlar, “that is true of almost all centerfire rifle bullets. Body armor protection against rifle bullets require steel, ceramic, or composite plates.”

“Biden was clearly wrong in his statement this week,” the Post‘s Glenn Kessler concluded.

In fact, the 5.56x45mm round most commonly fired by an AR-15 (which can be chambered in multiple calibers) is faster than many rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity of roughly 3,100 feet per second, but slower than others (a few exceed 4,000 fps). And speed only partially measures the lethality and utility of a cartridge. Military types, hunters, and enthusiasts are forever debating the issue. So is Biden.

“A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” the president improbably claimed in May about the popular handgun cartridge, again while touting gun restrictions. Knowledgeable people had fun pointing out that Biden seemed to have confused the round with a cannon. But Biden lies about cannons, too.

“When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody can own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” Biden insisted with regard to the Second Amendment in February. “You couldn’t buy a cannon in—when the—this—this amendment was passed.”

“As other fact-checkers noted when Biden made versions of this claim at least twice before, nothing in the Second Amendment said that citizens could not own cannons, and there is no evidence that any federal or state laws barred possession of the weapons at the time,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org pointed out.

Biden had been called out on precisely that point the previous year, by The Washington Post, and in 2020 when PolitiFact rated his claims as “false.” So, the fibs appear deliberate, not just slips of the tongue. So are his misstatements about legal protections for the firearms industry.

Continue reading “”

If the left wants to try stuff on this side of the pond, we’ve got a remedy we’ve retained since we were still colonies.

HOMICIDAL URGES ON THE LEFT
If you have the feeling that liberals would like to kill you, you aren’t paranoid. You are catching on.

Around the world, we are seeing increasingly violent talk from the Left. All too often, that talk has led to violent action. When Congressman and Senate candidate Tim Ryan says “we’ve got to kill and confront” the movement of “extremist Republicans,” you are right if you think he means you.

This liberal outrage comes from the U.K.: a video game in which you try to kill Margaret Thatcher. The game is endorsed by a former leader of the Labour Party:

Jeremy Corbyn has been pictured playing a video game modified to let players kill Margaret Thatcher.

The former Labour leader was pictured playing the Thatcher’s Techbase game on a console at Left-wing political festival The World Transformed (TWT).
***
On Thursday night, Mr Purvis tweeted a photograph of Mr Corbyn, the independent MP for Islington North, using the console and posing alongside it, with the caption: “He liked the game.”

I’ll bet he did. Can you imagine the fallout if someone produced a video game where the object was to murder, say, Barack Obama? No, I don’t think you can. But killing conservatives is all the rage.

A description of Thatcher’s Techbase written by Mr Purvis on its release read: “On Sept 24, Margaret Thatcher will rise from her grave. Only you can send her back to hell.

“Faced with the return of one of humanity’s greatest threats, you have no choice but to head to the 10th circle of hell: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Margaret Thatcher is back from hell, and the lady’s not for returning.”

The cover art for the game pictures Baroness Thatcher, who died in 2013, with devil horns, demon eyes, fangs and a gun for an arm.

Here is Corbyn playing the kill-Thatcher game:

I am afraid that political violence is going to get a great deal worse before it gets better.

Report: China Readying Push Against ‘Global Gun Proliferation’

A report by Global Times, an official Chinese Communist Party propaganda outlet, claims China is readying a focused push against “global gun proliferation.”

The Global Times notes that China’s international gun control push is part of the Firearms Protocol, which was originally introduced at the U.N. General Assembly in 2001. It is a push China is preparing to undertake in earnest now.

“China is fulfilling its domestic legal procedures to ramp up ratifying the Firearms Protocol, a key step in implementing the global security initiative and maintaining international peace and stability amid the global threat of gun proliferation, said Chinese Foreign Ministry on Monday,” according to the Global Times,

China is using its internal gun policies as a model in the global push against firearms. The Global Times quoted Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi saying, “China has become one of the safest countries in the world with the least gun-related violent crimes after years of efforts. And China’s strict management of military exports and earnest fulfilling the international obligations have been widely praised by the international community.”

The Firearms Protocol is part of China’s larger Global Security Initiative.On April 21, 2022, Breitbart News pointed out that Chinese dictator Xi Jinping used a speech at the Boao Forum for Asia to urge the world to join the Global Security Initiative to “oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security.”

China’s Xinhua News Agency noted Xi used the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine as an example of the kind of conflict that emerges from the continued existence of an incorrect “Cold War mentality.”  Xi did not personally condemn Russian strongman Vladimir Putin for having such a mentality but he did make clear that the objective of the “Global Security Initiative” would be in part to prevent such conflicts.

Xi said, “In today’s world, unilateralism and excessive pursuit of self-interest are doomed to fail; so are the practices of decoupling, supply disruption and maximum pressure, so are the attempts to forge ‘small circles’ or to stoke conflict and confrontation along ideological lines.”

On September 24 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China noted:

State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced when addressing the General Debate of the 77th Session of the United Nations General Assembly that China has decided to launch its domestic procedure to ratify the UN’s Firearms Protocol. This is an important step taken by China to actively implement the Global Security Initiative and uphold international and regional peace and stability. It embodies China’s determination to support multilateralism and build a community with a shared future for mankind. China is fulfilling the domestic legal procedure in accordance with relevant provisions and will endeavor to ratify the Protocol at an early date.

The University of Sydney’s GunPolicy.org categorizes China’s internal gun policies as “restrictive,” noting, “In China, no civilian (private ownership prohibited, Govt.-issued firearms are allocated to those in genuine need) may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.”

SAF ASKS COURT TO DECLARE HANDGUN BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in West Virginia, challenging the federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults ages 18-20, and is asking for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and two private citizens, Benjamin Weekley and Steven Brown. Defendants are the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach and Attorney General Merrick Garland, in their official capacities. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The case is known as Brown v. ATF.

Weekley and Brown, both being in the affected age group, were unable to purchase handguns from a West Virginia sporting goods store earlier this year. According to the lawsuit, “The Handgun Ban impermissibly infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms of all law-abiding, peaceable individuals aged eighteen to twenty,” and further asserts the ban “is flatly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment” and Supreme Court opinions in the 2008 Heller case and 2022 Bruen decision.

“There is no historical evidence supporting an arbitrary prohibition on purchase and ownership of handguns for young adults over the age of 18,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Indeed, history goes the other direction, with young adults considered mature enough for militia service, duty in the armed forces and in today’s world being able to vote, run for public office, start businesses, get married, enter into contracts and enjoy the full protections set down in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.

“Yet these same young adults are hampered by a politically selected age limit that prohibits them from purchasing handguns from licensed firearms dealers,” he added. “This makes absolutely no sense. This handgun ban for young adults is an unconstitutional infringement of their rights s protected by the Second Amendment.”

EU Chief Calls Nord Stream Attack “Sabotage”, Warns of “Strongest Possible Response”

Update (1910ET):

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the Nord Stream pipeline system leaks were caused by “sabotage,” and warned of the “strongest possible response” should active European energy infrastructure be attacked.

CDC Walks Back COVID Guidance Again, Finds Lasting Post-Vaccine Heart Problems in Young Adults

The CDC continues to erase distinctions by COVID-19 vaccination status in public health guidance as ongoing global research — including its own — documents the mediocre performance of COVID vaccines and their unexpectedly high rates of lasting harm in some groups.

Vaccination status is no longer used “to inform source control, screening testing, or post-exposure recommendations” for healthcare personnel, the Friday update to their CDC guidance says.

The agency “[c]larified” that healthcare facilities, including nursing homes, have discretion on whether to screen-test asymptomatic personnel. It also now says asymptomatic patients “in general” do not require “empiric use of Transmission-Based Precautions” after exposure to an infected person.

A CDC study of 12-29 year-olds with heart inflammation following mRNA vaccination, published last week in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, found that 1 in 6 still had not “fully recovered” at least 90 days after myocarditis onset, including 1 in 100 who hadn’t improved at all.

Myocarditis has increased so markedly among youth since vaccines were authorized for them that an Ivy League-affiliated hospital started running TV ads this month for its treatment in children. New York-Presbyterian marked the ad’s Sept. 6 YouTube video private less than two weeks later, following criticism that it was trying to “normalize” a vaccine-induced condition.

Continue reading “”