Armed staff may well be the best way to protect students in our schools. Yes, it’s a shame that we should even need to have this discussion–our schools should be safe from such monsters–and in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to. Yet we don’t live in a perfect world, though. We live in this one.
As a result, bad things happen in schools, as we’ve seen all too recently. What’s more, armed staff actually can protect our kids.
Faith Academy is planning on implementing a program that will allow teachers and staff to carry weapons at school.
The private Victoria Christian school is joining several area school districts in taking advantage of a Texas law that gives school officials the authority to let private individuals have guns on school premises, which is otherwise illegal.
This provision is often called the “guardian plan” or “guardian program,” though that name is not official.
Unlike most of the public school districts that have implemented such a plan, Faith’s teachers and staff will have the guns on their person during the school day, according to Principal Larry Long.
These staff members will be trained and certified, but I’m mostly shocked at the idea that some of the armed staff in the public schools don’t carry the firearm on their persons.
What are they supposed to do, ask the mass shooter for a time-out so they could get their guns? “Excuse me, Mr. Killer? Can we press pause for a moment so I can get my gun, then we can do this all fair-and-square?”
Yeah, let me know how that goes.
Victoria Academy is clearly thinking straight on this. If the teachers have their guns on their person, they can respond in an instant, as opposed to potentially having to run to wherever they’re stored and gaining access under stress.
Look, schools are a favorite target of mass shooters. Part of the reason for that is because they know they’re unlikely to face much in the way of armed resistance. The idea that the supposedly armed staff don’t actually have ready access to their weapons isn’t likely to be much of a deterrent.
Yet this case? Yeah, I can see things going very differently if someone were to pick this school.
However, I also think that it isn’t going to happen. For one thing, mass shootings at a school are very rare, but also because now people know the teachers at Victoria Academy are armed and will have their weapons on them.
The two things combined provide a blanket of protection over this school like few others.
Anti-gun voices can scream about armed staff at schools if they want, but we’ve seen too many instances where a good guy with a gun made the difference. The last thing I want to ever write about again is innocent kids being killed in their classrooms.
Teachers and staff with guns can make sure I never do.
BLUF
The enemy always gets a vote – and Biden just announced that his enemy is tens of millions of us patriotic citizens. So, in the great AR-15 vs. F-15 hypothetical – and pray it stays hypothetical despite the stupidity of our ruling caste – the smart money is on the numbers. But the truly smart course of action is to not to even go down this road, to re-embrace our Constitution and to stop trying to be butch in order to get some Twitter love from the pinkos. Maybe this ridiculous stooge masquerading as our president should stop running his fool mouth threatening to slaughter other Americans.
Father of the Year and alleged President Joe Biden is busy trying to rile up his base of weirdos, adjunct professors, gender studies grads, government timeservers, sexually unsatisfied wine women and their sexually unsatisfying life partners. That’s why Dork Brandon pulled one of my favorites out of his Big Duffel Bag O’ Hack Cliches, the old “Your puny guns are no match against the awesome power of the US military which I will use to kill you for dissenting!” narrative.
Okay, fine. Let’s go over this again for the knuckleheads who think that they prevail if they step outside the “use your words” paradigm they grew up with in their sissy private schools. You lose if you idiots provoke a real civil conflict – not the kind of low-intensity urban conflict of the Seventies where you cheered on the Weathermen and Cinque’s SLA, and not the kind where a bunch of mutants riot under the protection of leftist municipal governments in leftist municipalities, but a real one. One where the people you want to crush under your Birkenstocks fight back. With AR-15s.
I discuss this in great detail in my new non-fiction book We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America, and not from the perspective of half-wit daughter-showering goofs but from the real down and dirty of how this terrible course of events would actually unspool. And it would go poorly for a largely unarmed, untrained, urban-centered population of smug geebos whose primary weapon system is a snarky tweet.
Grandpa Badfinger’s premise is that all you tens of millions of semi-fascists out there with your AR-15s would have no shot stopping the woke military, which would eagerly crush you with their potent force package of F-15s and esoteric pronouns. It is a flawed premise on more grounds than one column can cover (hence my book), but we need to focus and that means we will need to overlook some important questions. These important questions include:
– Why do you imagine your sorry band of socialist creeps who treat the Constitution like Jerry Nadler treats his boxers constitutes “the country?”
– The useless senior officer corps aside, why do you believe the normals who make up the vast majority of America’s combat forces will gleefully butcher their friends and family for the amusement of a bunch of Chardonnay-swilling blue checks?
– Have you ever heard of Afghanistan?
Let’s focus on his key sound bite. Gun vs. Jets…who ya got?
I’m putting my money on the guns. You dumb progressives can go for the jets and the points.
Breitbart News contacted New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s (D) office Thursday to see if she would disarm the good guys who protect her with guns in the same way that she is forcing average Americans with guns to disarm around New York.
Her office could not say whether Hochul will be giving up her good guys with guns.
The person with whom we spoke indicated here has been no policy statement on it yet.
On September 1 Breitbart News reported that Hochul tweeted information on the state’s new gun controls and contended that good guys with guns do not stop armed bad guys.
FOX News quoted Hochul saying, “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”
On August 31 Hochul tweeted the many locations in which law-abiding citizens will be prohibited from being armed for self-defense:
But Hochul’s office could not say whether or not the Governor will retain the good guys with guns who keep her safe day in and day out.
Breitbart News suggested Hochul’s retaining armed protection for herself, after barring law-abiding, average Americans from being armed for self-defense, could give the impression that the lives of average Americans are not held in the same high esteem as the lives of the ruling class. We were transferred to Hochul’s press office after making that point, and our call was answered by voicemail.
Comment O’ The Day
When a sitting President calls for a prime-time television address to speak to the nation as a whole, and then spends the entire address calling me an enemy of the state — I listen and I believe him.
When he later tries to “walk back” or “ameliorate” or “explain” that he meant something else, I do not believe him.-alien
Biden “on a war footing” to dehumanize “roughly half the population who voted against him” My interview on Newsmax: “What we’re seeing come out is the real Joe Biden. Anybody who has followed his career knows that the 2020 portrayal of him by the media as kind grandfatherly Joe Biden is a fabrication. He was deemed the father of ‘Borking,’ the vicious attacks on judicial nominees dating back many decades ago. His entire career has been one of viciously attacking people.”
Then Biden walked it back a bit, and said he wasn’t referring to “all” MAGA voters.
Now Biden has modified the message, perhaps in the realization that calling for a civil war was not the best strategy, so now Biden’s social media team is putting out tweets that what Biden is really criticizing is MAGA policies. Using the official presidential account (@Potus) instead of his personal account, Biden tweeted:
“MAGA proposals are a threat to the very soul of this country.”
Ah yes, like energy independence and securing the southern border, such a threat to the soul of Joe Biden’s America.
It would be easy to blame Biden’s Team Obama handlers for this, but I think Jesse Kelly had it right:
A lot has been made about Biden and how he’s a feeble old man and how it’s all his handlers. And a lot of that is true. Do keep this in mind though: Biden is a prick. A nasty, vindictive prick. This is well known in DC. And that speech, that was HIS idea. Little birdie told me.
That the campaign of demonization was Joe’s idea and obsession was confirmed in a Politico report. That’s not surprising, he’s a nasty piece of work and has been his entire career, as I previously pointed out:
“Biden has been a corrupt sleaze his entire career, he’s a malicious flame thrower who hides behind the facade of being ‘regular Joe’ and now kind elderly Joes. He’s the worst of our political system.”
I had a chance to pick up on this theme when I appeared on Wake Up America on Newsmax this morning to talk about the Biden strategy, with discussion of the Mar-a-Lago raid towards the end:
Well, I think they have developed a campaign strategy, which is to turn the country upside down. They don’t want to talk about inflation. They don’t want to talk about all the economic problems. They don’t want to talk about the border. What they want to talk about is Donald Trump and bad Republicans. So this is a deliberate campaign strategy. This is not by chance. And so that’s really what you’re seeing play out is the Democrats have decided the way they limit their losses in 2022, or maybe even hold the house or maybe even hold the Senate is to make the campaign about evil Republicans as opposed to the problems of the Biden administration….
What we’re seeing come out is the real Joe Biden. Anybody who has followed his career knows that the 2020 portrayal of him by the media as kind grandfatherly Joe Biden is a fabrication. He was deemed the father of Borking, the vicious attacks on judicial nominees dating back many decades ago. His entire career has been one of viciously attacking people.
We now know from the Hunter Biden laptop that he sold his office to enrich his family, and his campaign worked with the media to suppress that story. So what we’re seeing is the real Joe Biden, who you saw on that stage the other night is the real Joe Biden.
It is not an anomaly. And that’s very dangerous when you have a leader who has a career of attacking people, who embraced segregationists when it was convenient for him politically, who now is attacking people who love the country and support the country as if they are somehow the problem. It’s a really nasty vicious sort of thing he’s doing. And he needs to be called out on it….
I think he’s basically on a war footing and you’ve heard other Democrats say that, you’ve heard other TV commenters say that, that he’s on a war footing against roughly half the population who voted against him….
Did you know that Keisha Lance Bottoms, once an abject failure of a mayor in Atlanta, is now working for the Biden administration? I didn’t either, but apparently, she’s serving as a top advisor because as I’ve said many times, failing up is a staple of Democrat politics.
On Sunday, Bottoms appeared on ABC News, no doubt friendly territory, to try to explain away Joe Biden’s grotesque national address where he essentially labeled half of the country a threat to the republic. When pressed on whether the president has “given up” on those tens of millions of Americans, she had no real answer.
"Has the president essentially given up on those MAGA Republicans — some 70 million people?"
But while Bottoms refused to answer the question directly, the rest of her commentary left little to the imagination. Here’s the transcript for those who can’t watch the video.
RADDATZ: All of us? He wasn’t calling out to the MAGA supporters certainly. He mentioned them more than a dozen times and — as a threat to democracy.
Has the president essentially given up on those MAGA Republicans, some 70 million people?
BOTTOMS: Well, what the president has done is said that he will continue to work with mainstream Republicans, that he will work with Democrats, that he will work with Independents, to get things done in our country.
But this MAGA Republican agenda, this hate-fueled agenda, this MAGA Republican agenda that we saw incite violence on our nation’s Capitol has no place in a democracy. And if we are not intentional about calling it out, which is what the president did, then our country — everything that our country is built upon is in danger.
Let me dissect this a bit. Notice Bottoms’ language about Biden working with “mainstream” Republicans. What that translates to is any Republican who is willing to do what the president wants. If you aren’t amicable to his demands, then you aren’t “mainstream.” Biden has made himself the arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable in the opposition party, and the media just goes along with that standard as if it’s not ridiculous and hypocritical.
So if you are Mitt Romney and vote for Biden’s infrastructure boondoggle, then you are a “mainstream” Republican who can be spared. But if you oppose his destructive agenda and dare to have counter opinions to that of the far-left, then you are a “threat” to democracy and must be destroyed. Isn’t that nice? That’s only the kind of viewpoint that tin-pot dictators throughout history have held and abided by.
Past that, I’d love to ask Bottoms and the rest of the Biden administration one question. If “MAGA” Republicans are so horrible and dangerous, what exactly should be done about them? I’m hearing a lot of heated rhetoric and absurd proclamations, but what would Joseph R. Biden like to do with all these evil Republicans hanging about? Throw them in camps? Take away their rights? Not allow them to vote?
No reporter with access will ever be brave enough to ask that question, but it’s the big one at hand, isn’t it? If Democrats are going to go all in with not just opposing but “othering” their political opponents, where does that train end? They ought to be made to provide an answer to that, otherwise, they should stop their ridiculous ranting.
Remember the RAND study that found only 123 of 27,900 gun control studies actually used the scientific method to come to their conclusions? Well, gun control advocates have trotted out two fresh, steaming new “studies” and the flies are already swarming. The University of Wisconsin has promoted a new finding that whites own guns and oppose gun control because of racism and a fear of blacks.
And within days of squeezing out that specimen of woke clownishness, the American Psychological Association published their own “study” that — you guessed it — whites who support gun rights are racist.
Interestingly the same study showed that when whites support gun control they’re racist too! So you’re racist. I’m racist. We’re all racists! To the uber-woke racists at the APA, if you’re white, you must be a racist.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, gun owners and gun rights supporters — whatever their color — are some of the most open-minded, tolerant and welcoming people in our communities. Contrary to what the racial hucksters, the Grievance Industry and critical race theory practitioners are selling, most Americans aren’t racist. And frankly, most Americans oppose racist gun control laws, too.
Most normal people rightfully reject claims of inherent racism in whites (or anyone else), or any of the other woke, social justice nonsense peddled by the gun-hating left in America.
In fact, plenty of black gun owners would dismiss this Wisconsin Badger junk science (or the APA’s trash “science”) as nothing but poppycock.
White people own guns — and oppose gun-control legislation — because they are racist and fear black people. Two new studies advance this dangerous narrative building among our academic elites. While such rhetoric is perhaps unsurprising among political pundits or celebrities, otherwise serious academics are now ascribing racist motives to gun ownership and opposition to gun control. These studies are not only based on a slew of bigoted assumptions, but also bad science.
The University of Wisconsin recently promoted a new study contending that in U.S. counties where black people were enslaved in 1860, gun ownership is higher today. In fact, gun ownership, they say, is correlated to the number of slaves formerly in each county. To support this more-slaves-means-more-guns theory, the authors construct a historical narrative that whites feared newly freed slaves, bought guns for self-defense, and then this fear somehow trickled down over 160 years.
But interestingly enough, just last month, National Public Radio ran a story on how black people are the fastest growing group of gun owners. If gun ownership is a product of white people being racist, then this is quite curious.
The University of Wisconsin study suffers from a series of flaws, even apart from its poisonous premise that white people believe or feel certain things because they are white. You’d never say the same about other races, and we shouldn’t give a pass to academics who traffic in the same type of racism…
A few days after the release of the slavery-predicts-gun-ownership study, the American Psychological Association (APA) released another study contending that whites support gun rights because they are racist, and when whites oppose gun rights, that’s also racist.
Rest assured, gun control advocates will try to use these junk studies — like thousands that came before them — to paint patriotic, gun-loving Americans of all colors and persuasions as racists no matter their race, sex or religion.
And why not? Using pseudo-scientific hokum to support claims that gun control laws prevent criminal misuse of guns is actually less scientifically accurate than claiming drinking milk causes car accidents. But they have no fear of anyone in the media debunking the junk science on which they base their calls for civilian disarmament.
Plus most politicians and low-information types will probably believe it…so they keep pushing the politicized garbage to further their disarmament narrative. And so it goes.
A homeowner in his 60s shot a man who broke into his Adams Run residence after midnight on Sept. 3.
The suspect, Lawrence Butler Jr., of Adams Run, was immediately taken to a hospital for treatment. Charleston County Sheriff’s deputies booked the 37-year-old man into the county jail later that morning on charges of first-degree burglary and cocaine possession, according to spokesman Andrew Knapp.
Knapp said deputies responded before 3:30 a.m. to Mauss Hill Road to a report of a home invasion and shooting.
Two residents — a man and woman in their 60s — were inside the home when a man broke a glass window in the front door, Knapp said.
As the suspect crawled through the hole inside the home, the homeowner fired a gun in self-defense, hitting the intruder’s left arm, according to an initial investigation by the Sheriff’s Office. Knapp said deputies found Butler lying inside the home near the door suffering a gunshot wound that was not life threatening.
Butler told detectives he was fleeing a nearby party and had consumed drugs and alcohol, Knapp said.
The victims were not hurt, Knapp said. No charges for the homeowner are expected.
BLUF
Back in the United States, American Farm Bureau Federation Chief Economist Dr. Roger Cryan estimates that a Sri Lankan-style move would cut domestic grain crop production by about 50 percent within two to four years of implementation, leading to massive price hikes and acute shortages of basic commodities……
Should California – or the nation – take the path of most destruction and implement restrictions or even fertilizer bans, the social and economic impacts would be catastrophic and could hearken back to the conditions during the Great Depression of the 1930s – except this time there wouldn’t be any bread lines because there wouldn’t be any bread.
In 2020: a beautiful, agriculturally self-sufficient island nation full of tea and tourists and holder of the highest “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) investor rating in the world.
And then, as part of the larger “green” effort spurred on by international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), woke capital, and, seemingly, a desire to sit at the big table at the various and sundry global initiative conferences, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa banned the use of manufactured fertilizer in order to create a more climate-friendly sustainable farming sector. In April, 2021, the country went all-organic overnight.
What could possibly go wrong?
By the end of last year, Sri Lanka became unable to feed itself, prices for food (especially rice) and fuel and other daily basics skyrocketed, the tea crop – and the hundreds of millions it earns in international trade – was decimated. The nation defaulted on its foreign debt, had rolling power blackouts, the tourists are staying away in droves, and Sri Lanka, already wracked by corruption and COVID, spiraled out of control.
The public’s response? Even though the fertilizer ban had already been partially rolled back, just last month Rajapaksa’s presidential palace was stormed by thousands of everyday Sri Lankans and he had to flee the country – last word was that he was holed up in Singapore.
(Side note to Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney – this is what an actual insurrection looks like:)
It seems Kermit was right – it ain’t easy being green.
But, considering the state’s claim to be the global leader in fighting climate change, can California – with its extremely powerful “climate lobby” that was able to ban the future sales of new gas-powered vehicles, a concept that would have been unthinkable a very few years ago – be far behind?
Additionally, a quick tour of state department websites finds numerous examples of “green,” “sustainability,” and “climate” pages and plans; even the state’s prisons get into the act with its climate change plan: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/green/cdcr-green/climate-change-adaptation/ .
It should be stressed that California is not above shooting itself in the foot when it comes to climate issues. Thursday, the legislature passed a bill mandating 3,200-foot “buffer zones” around all – new and existing – oil and gas wells, a move which would practically eliminate the industry – and its 13,000 jobs – in the state.
I can’t tell whether she simply misspoke or is that stupid.
KJP: "We have created nearly ten thousand million jobs since President Biden took office, which is the fastest job growth in history." pic.twitter.com/DTtY2O7Zto
Last night[Thursday], the same president who almost exactly a year ago disgracefully abandoned 14,000 Americans and tens of thousands of our allies to the Taliban decided to lecture the US on “the continued battle for the soul of the nation.”
Let that sink in for a moment or two.
In that speech, Joe Biden tried to take the high ground for democracy against authoritarianism — just a week or so after eviscerating the constitutional check on the presidency by claiming the executive branch has the authority to print and appropriate between $600 billion and one trillion dollars to transfer debt from Biden’s base voters to the rest of the taxpayers.
Let that one sink in for another moment or two. Especially after Biden described “the work of my presidency” as returning the US to the founding documents of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Joe Biden isn’t the solution for what ails the American soul. He’s not even really the main disease of what ails the American soul. Joe Biden is a demagogue who floated to the top of a morass that has been building for decades, and who only sees the problem to the extent that it benefits or harms Biden’s interests.
To wit — here’s how Biden framed the problem in this prime-time speech from Independence Hall [corrected]:
And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.
They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.
Ahem. One can certainly believe this to be true of “MAGA Republicans.” What about the Democrats and progressives that rioted in the streets of Washington on January 20, 2017, in an attempt to disrupt the inauguration of Trump? How about the way that Democrats — even mainstream Democrats — labeled themselves “The Resistance” almost immediately after the 2016 election, which preceded that Inauguration Day riot and helped fuel it? And for that matter, what about the pointless two years of “Russian collusion” allegations that turned out to be based on Hillary Clinton’s oppo research?
While New York’s new carry restrictions are now in effect, it looks like enforcement of the laws is going to vary wildly across the state. Gov. Kathy Hochul, for example, has proclaimed that anyone not issued a permit by September 1st is going to have to apply under the new laws, while at least one county clerk (and I suspect there are many more) say they’ll continue to process all permits received before the 1st under the old rules (minus the “good cause” requirement struck down by the Supreme Court a couple of months ago).
The same confusion reigns when it comes to the state’s nearly endless number of new “gun-free zones” mandated by recently enacted gun control measures. Under the statute signed by Hochul it’s a felony offense to carry in a “sensitive place”, and even accidentally setting foot inside a prohibited place while carrying could result in a four-year prison sentence.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has already promised that the new laws will be strictly enforced, but the prosecutor and police chief in Syracuse say they have no plans on putting concealed carry holders behind bars, at least if their only “crime” is carrying where it’s not allowed.
Violators will have their weapons confiscated while prosecutors investigate any other criminal activity, District Attorney William Fitzpatrick said. Their cases will be referred to the judge who granted them concealed-carry licenses in the first place, possibly leading to the revocation of their carry privileges.
… The DA noted there’s bound to be widespread confusion over which places are off-limits. Technically, walking on the sidewalk in front of a school with a gun is considered a felony. So is walking through downtown Syracuse’s Clinton Square or Columbus Circle, both public parks where guns are always banned.
In addition, a Syracuse-based federal judge on Wednesday wrote an opinion suggesting that the state’s new law — including the long list of prohibited locations — was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. That ruling, however, was not binding and so the law is in effect as written.
Still, Fitzpatrick suggested, that ruling had an impact on how law enforcement will handle the new restrictions.
Law enforcement won’t be proactively enforcing the new law by trying to catch legal gun-owners in prohibited locations, Syracuse Police Chief Joseph Cecile said.
“It will be complaint-driven,” the chief said.
The idea here seems to be that if the concealed carry holder in question has a history of wandering into “gun-free zones” while carrying, or there are other criminal offenses that took place at the same time, charges might be warranted. An inadvertent incident or innocent mistake, on the other hand, wouldn’t be punished by prison time, though it could still lead to someone losing their ability to lawfully carry altogether. It’s unclear from the news story just how quickly someone will have their firearm returned to them once that investigation into other criminal activity has concluded, however, and that’s a big concern. I’m glad that Fitzpatrick says he won’t be charging accidental violations of the law, but if there are no charges then there should be no gun confiscation either.
The U.S. District Court judge in Syracuse who ended up allowing the new laws to take effect because he determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue acknowledged in his ruling that, if the plaintiffs did have standing, he would have ruled in their favor on many of the challenges they brought forward… including the “sensitive places” language.
Given that the judge maintains that the Supreme Court has “effectively barred” any location beyond schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, and courthouses from being labeled a “sensitive place” off-limits to legal carry; it would have been nice if Fitzpatrick and Cecile had announced that those would be only locations where they would enforce the “sensitive places” statute, but we may see other District Attorneys around the state come to that conclusion on their own. New York’s latest gun control laws have not only created chaos and confusion, but I suspect some civic (and civil) disobedience as well.
NY's goal has always been to keep the average citizen from exercising his or her rights. Now that they can't unilaterally and arbitrarily do that through discretionary permitting, they're of course going to make sure they price out as many of you peasants as possible. https://t.co/7awht3p5wb
NEW YORK CITY, NY – Leaked documents from the New York Police Department (NYPD) indicate that anyone carrying a firearm is now presumed guilty until proven innocent.
New York's new concealed carry law, which will allow gun-free zones all around New York City and throughout the state, will be challenged in state and federal courts, former City Commissioner Brian Andersson said. https://t.co/eN87zTsziA
The new guidance highlighted in the leaked memo proves that almost anywhere in New York City — public or private — is a gun-free zone.
It basically states that unless someone is a police officer or a former cop, no one can bring their legal firearm out of their house for protection, like on public transportation.
The memo, titled New York State Restrictions on Carrying Concealed Firearms, states very clearly in its “key points”:
“Anyone carrying a firearm is presumed to be carrying unlawfully until proven otherwise.”
The other “key points” are listed below:
Possessing a firearm in New York City requires a special license issued by the New York City Police Department;
Carrying a firearm in New York City requires a concealed carry license issued by the New York City Police Department;
License holders are required to carry their license when carrying a firearm and must provide their license to law enforcement upon request; and
Recent changes in law do not impact the way officers conduct investigative encounters. Officers may stop an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a firearm (Level 3) and may frisk that individual since the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.
The memo also describes what are to be considered “sensitive” and “restricted” locations throughout the city. According to the memo:
“Even though a person may be licensed to carry a firearm, they may not bring a firearm to a ‘sensitive’ location … All private property (residential and commercial) that is not on the sensitive location list is considered ‘restricted.’ People who are licensed to possess firearms may not bring firearms to a restricted location unless they get permission from the property owner.”
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- With the news that Twitter is bringing back its “Civic Integrity Policy,” Second Amendment supporters need to be ready for censorship to ramp up. This is something that has been building up for a long time.
Of course, this is just one possible avenue of attack. There have been other revelations about censorship – at least on Twitter’s part – that Second Amendment supporters should take note of. If anything, these revelations, at a bare minimum, will need some serious oversight by Congress, and some serious corrective actions will be needed.
Those actions will require substantial Congressional majorities and, alongside efforts to halt financial de-platforming, are probably the most important battles for Second Amendment supporters to win – more important than constitutional carry or other legislative fights. Don’t take my word for it – look at what Google did with regard to crisis pregnancy centers after a push from Letitia James.
Yes, the same Letitia James who sought the NRA’s dissolution. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, this is a bad sign.
Silicon Valley’s actions will force many Second Amendment activists to confront a very hard question:
How do we reconcile using the power of government when we ourselves have expressed suspicion – if not opposition – to increasing the size and scope of government? Because at this point, it looks increasingly likely that we will need to use government power to protect our First Amendment rights on at least a short-term basis, and it probably may be for the long haul.
Some of it will be using Congress to check the executive branch – in essence, invoking Constitutional powers – to rein in efforts by various agencies to get social media companies to censor based on such pretexts as “medical misinformation” or even just “misinformation” in general. That is not going to be the big issue.
The big issue will be addressing the fact that these companies also act independently, and their censorship decisions didn’t just come from the government. How much was government influence? That is currently unknown, but perhaps the litigation by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana will change that.
As private entities, they have the same freedom to associate – or not associate – as we do, to a large extent. How much of the censorship is their own doing? We don’t really know. Could the Elon Musk saga change things on Twitter? That is an unknown, as well.
That will require answers. Some will come from the litigation, some from the Congressional hearings. Some, we may not know for sure. How much will the litigation reduce the censorship (we shouldn’t presume it will end all of it)? Again, we don’t – in fact, we can’t – know.
One thing is certain: Second Amendment supporters will have a lot of work to do to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists via the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels this coming November and the November two years from now. Get out the vote!
