The demoncrap majority in the Colorado legislature rescinded state ‘preemption’ of gun laws. Now the cities run by democraps can pass ordinances that will return the state to the hodgepodge of multifarious, various and sundry law that will make the state a minefield for the law abiding citizen to travel through. Which is exactly what the demoncraps want so they can have another way to bash their political enemies.
LITTLETON —Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Shrader has sent a letter to the Foothills Parks and Recreation District (FPRD) clarifying any role his office would play in a possible future regulation to ban the concealed carry of a firearm by lawfully-permitted citizens on district-managed property.
“I have substantial concern in taking action against an individual who is otherwise acting in a legal and proper manner,” Shrader said in part in the letter.
Shrader’s office sent Complete Colorado, which broke the story outlining the district’s plan, a copy of the letter.
At issue is Senate Bill 21-256, which allows local governments to enact gun control laws within their jurisdiction that are “not less restrictive than state laws governing the sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of the firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory.”
In other words, local governments may enact gun regulations only if they are stricter than those at the state level. A local government could not, for instance, expand gun rights or loosen existing restrictions under the new law, as one might expect under the traditional understanding of local control.
It was one of the many controversial measures aimed at restricting the rights of gun owners pushed through by majority Democrats in the 2021 session. What it also does, however, is allow local governments and special taxing districts to enact laws banning concealed carry.
Just three days after the governor signed the new law, FPRD staff asked its board to consider a ban on concealed carry of firearms on its facilities, which include three recreation centers, one 2-sheet ice arena, four indoor and four outdoor swimming pools and two indoor sports facilities, 68 park sites totaling more than 2,400 acres and including: four regional parks, 43 community and neighborhood parks, 21 greenbelts and two golf courses (totaling 54 holes).
Additionally, Foothills manages six regional trail corridors totaling 14.9 miles for public use, and nearly 18 miles park trails.
“Americans have never really understood ideological warfare.”
Wokeness is sabotaging the military academies.
Professor Lynne Chandler Garcia recently published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which she defended indoctrinating her students on the concepts of critical race theory, or CRT.
Normally, this wouldn’t raise any eyebrows. A member of the intelligentsia teaching her students a boutique academic theory? Hardly shocking. What did get people’s attention was Garcia’s place of employment. None other than the U.S. Air Force Academy.
CRT presents a nebulous set of beliefs that encourage people to look at every issue through the prism of race. Its next step is to sort individuals into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed.” It’s a poisonous ideology that accuses white people of being oppressors and asserts that minorities cannot succeed in America without perpetuating white supremacy.
At its core, CRT is a race-based way of looking at the world. Which is somewhat ironic for a philosophy ostensibly about “anti-racism!” It essentially advocates burning down those basic American structures, norms, and institutions that CRT theorists deem unacceptable. The goal? Undermining and ultimately replacing these norms and institutions.
One of those institutions on which CRT theorists have set their sights is the United States military.
As my Heritage colleagues Mike Gonzalez and Dakota Wood have previously explained, the creeping influence of CRT on the military jeopardizes the health and strength of the armed forces. Introducing CRT’s racial division and resentment will erode camaraderie. CRT will undermine the instrumental unity that is essential for the U.S. military to successfully protect our national interests. But CRT theorists are not content to just push these radical concepts on the force at large. They are working to indoctrinate the next generation of officers, as Garcia makes plain.
To be clear, informing cadets about controversial concepts is not the issue. Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton echoed this sentiment at a recent Heritage event, saying that he would be surprised if a Western philosophy class did not cover Karl Marx and communism, given the impact of Marx’s ideology on world history.
The same is true of CRT. Making cadets aware of the concept is not the problem. Indoctrination and extensive academic focus is the problem. Just as professors at the service academies should not be endorsing communism in the classroom, they shouldn’t be endorsing CRT. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what is happening.
Name of biblical judge found inscribed on 3,100-year-old jug found in Israel
Archaeologists have uncovered a small jug with a rare five-letter inscription, linking the 3,100-year-old ceramic artifact to a biblical judge mentioned in the Book of Judges.
The jug and ancient inscription — the first to feature the name ‘Jerubbaal’ — were found at a dig site in the Shahariya Forest, among Israel’s Judean Foothills, archeologists reported the discovery Monday in the Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology.
“The name of the Judge Gideon ben Yoash was Jerubbaal, but we cannot tell whether he owned the vessel on which the inscription is written in ink,” archaeologists said in a press release.
The inscribed jug, bearing the name Jerubbaal, was recovered from a subsurface storage pit lined with stones. Researchers suspect the small jug likely held a precious liquid, such as oil, perfume or medicine.
Though the jug features only five inscribed letters, close analysis suggests the original inscription was longer.
In the Book of Judges, Jerubbaal is first mentioned as a leading opponent of idolatry.
He’s also credited with leading a successful battle against the Midianites.
“According to the Bible, Gideon organized a small army of 300 soldiers and attacked the Midianites by night near Ma’ayan Harod,” said Yossef Garfinkel and Sa’ar Ganor, lead archaeologists on the project and professors at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
“In view of the geographical distance between the Shephelah and the Jezreel Valley, this inscription may refer to another Jerubbaal and not the Gideon of biblical tradition, although the possibility cannot be ruled out that the jug belonged to the judge Gideon,” Garfinkel and Ganor said.
“In any event, the name Jerubbaal was evidently in common usage at the time of the biblical Judges,” they said.
Because the jug and its inscription date to roughly 1,100 B.C., the time of biblical judges, archaeologists suggest the discovery offers proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
“As we know, there is considerable debate as to whether biblical tradition reflects reality and whether it is faithful to historical memories from the days of the Judges and the days of David,” according to Garfinkel and Ganor.
“The name Jerubbaal only appears in the Bible in the period of the Judges, yet now it has also been discovered in an archaeological context, in a stratum dating from this period,” Garfinkel and Ganor said.
“In a similar manner, the name Ishbaal, which is only mentioned in the Bible during the monarchy of King David, has been found in strata dated to that period at the site of Khirbat Qeiyafa,” the archaeologists said.
Identical names being mentioned in the Bible, which have been found in other previously recovered inscriptions, they said, ” shows that memories were preserved and passed down through the generations.”
BLUF:
Gun control proponents may never admit the numerous failures under their policies. But sometimes actions speak louder than words
Cuomo’s Emergency Order on Gun Violence Reveals the Failure of Gun Control
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed an executive order declaring a state of emergency over gun violence in the state.
The nation has seen a spike in crime in many places during the pandemic, but New York’s increase in violence has garnered heightened attention from viral videos of sudden sidewalk attacks, brutal subway abuse, and random gunfire in Times Square. New York’s increase in gun crimes does indeed outpace many other states. New York City experienced a 73 percent increase in shooting incidents between May of 2020 and May of 2021. In comparison, Washington DC, which also experienced a spike in gun crimes, reported a 23 percent increase during the first five months of 2021.
And yet, New York has long employed some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In the city, where most of the violence is concentrated, it is virtually impossible for anyone outside of law enforcement to obtain a gun permit—they often can’t even have them in their homes, much less on their person.
Commenting on his executive order, Cuomo said there are currently more people dying in New York by gun violence and crime than of COVID-19. “We went from one epidemic to another epidemic,” he said. “We went from Covid to the epidemic of gun violence and the fear and the death that goes along with it.”
The governor also picked up a familiar talking point that other leaders in strict gun control areas have relied on when facing rampant gun violence. He blamed neighboring states. According to Cuomo, many of the illegal guns in the state are purchased from outside of New York. “I have a vision of a border war because we wasted so much time and money in this nation fighting illegal immigration,” he said. “Illegal immigration is not killing Americans! Illegal guns are killing Americans.”
If at First You Don’t Succeed
While not all of the policies under Cuomo’s new plan to combat violence focus on gun control, his executive order indicates these policies will get more than their fair share of resources.
Democrats Trying To Sneak Illegal Alien Amnesty Into ‘Infrastructure’ Bill.
The “infrastructure” bill was already a dog’s breakfast of hard-left graft wish lists. But Democrats also want to use it as a Trojan horse for illegal alien amnesty as well:
What better time to push through amnesty for potentially millions of illegal immigrants than during the Biden border crisis? As tone-deaf as the plan is, that is exactly what Senate Democrats are planning to do in the $3.5T infrastructure bill. A decision has not been made on the numbers yet but Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Democratic Whip, confirmed this week that it will happen. Democrats will try to push through immigration reform in the budget process.
With the news being reported today that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to bring a trial vote on infrastructure to the floor of the Senate by Wednesday of next week, this is an interesting turn of events. Add that to the ruling by the federal judge who determined that DACA is “an illegally implemented program”, and immigration reform has come to the forefront of political discourse once again. In the past, it has been an issue that a bipartisan group gets together and comes up with a plan to move immigration reform through Congress but at the last minute it always falls apart and the issue gets kicked down the road. This plan will likely include those people designated as Dreamers, farmworkers, and possibly essential workers like those who worked as health care workers during the pandemic.
Politico reports that this plan is being hatched by leaders of the Progressive Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Black Caucus. The biggest cheerleaders for this move are Senators Durbin, Bob Menendez, and Bernie Sanders. Rep. Raul Ruiz of California is chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and he says, “This is currently our best effort.” Democrats privately admit that this is likely their only chance to ram through immigration reform.
And all this despite a crisis at the border and polls that show illegal alien amnesty is extremely unpopular.
Learning to Deal With the Fact That Almost Half the Country Will Soon Have Constitutional Carry.
“I live in New York,” said James Digiuseppi who was visiting downtown Nashville. “In New York, people get searched when they go into a club.”
Some visiting downtown Saturday said they were glad to see permitless carry become law in Tennessee.
“I’ll be honest with you, I feel safer when I go into a restaurant or public place and I see open handguns and I know that people in there are carrying,” Springfield resident JK Graves said. “It’s how we grew up and that’s what makes Tennessee so great.”
But security consultants like JC Shegog say the new law comes with added responsibility for businesses, especially ones with alcohol.
“They’re going to believe that it’s their right to have it wherever they go and they’re going to try to enter into these facilities,” Shegog said. “Some of these facilities have security and it just depends on the level of security that they have that will make the patrons safe or not.”
— Nikki McGee in Some say new permitless carry law means greater responsibility for bars and restaurants
D.C.’s Problem Isn’t “Too Many Guns”
WUSA-TV’s Tony Perkins, like many in our nation’s capitol, says that the reason for the increase is simple; there are just too many guns out there.
It’s a complicated problem, but the obvious, overwhelming fact is there are too many guns on our streets. We are a trigger-happy culture.
No other country goes through this, and it’s not justifiable. Some say guns are needed to protect ourselves, but that is clearly not working.
There must be a wholesale change in our mindset when it comes to guns. If there isn’t, weekends like this last one will be the norm, and that’s not good.
When it comes to worldwide rates of violent crime, the United States is basically in the middle of the pack, and there are plenty of countries with much more restrictive gun control laws that have far higher violent crime rates. Beyond that, however, the disparity in violent crime is also seen here in the United States. Washington, D.C.’s violent crime and homicide rates, for instance, are much higher than those in neighboring northern Virginia, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that Washington, D.C. has much more restrictive gun laws.
There are no gun stores in D.C. where folks can legally purchase a firearm. There are no ranges where gun owners can train or take classes. The percentage of residents who are legal gun owners is estimated to be just a small fraction of the city’s population, but making guns taboo hasn’t done a thing to make D.C. any safer, and it’s insane to pretend otherwise.
Still, it’s also important to note that the District’s crime rate is far lower than what it was 20 years ago, when the D.C. handgun ban was in place and the gun laws were even more draconian and unconstitutional than the current licensing regime. If Perkins was right, and the availability of firearms is what’s driving the violence in D.C., then why did the District’s homicide rate peak back in the 1990s? After all, there were far fewer guns in the United States twenty years ago, and our nation’s capitol had far more restrictive laws in place back then as well.
D.C.’s problem isn’t that it has “too many guns.” It has too many criminals, and too many people who feel emboldened to break the law because they don’t fear any consequences.
Curtis Sliwa Blasts Biden Anti-Gun Gathering
The New York mayor’s race is heating up. Former police officer Eric Adams is already projected to win, and in New York City, that’s not overly surprising. However, his Republican opponent, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa isn’t exactly rolling over and handing him the keys to the mayor’s office.
Instead, he’s fighting back. In doing so, he’s not afraid to aim at the White House and a recent gathering that included Adams.
As crime in New York City regresses toward the crisis level seen in the 1970s, Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa argues his decades of experience leading the unarmed patrol group the Guardian Angels has prepared him far better than Democratic opponent Eric Adams to tackle worsening violence across the Big Apple a year after the onset of the “defund police” movement.
President Biden included Adams, a retired NYPD captain and current Brooklyn borough president, in a roundtable discussion on gun violence at the White House this week – even though Adams barely won his Democratic primary and there is still a general election in November, Sliwa told Fox News.
“To me, his invitation was purely political,” Sliwa said. “It’s almost as if they decided we don’t want to hear from the Republican, even though in this arena Curtis Sliwa has more credentials than anyone who attended that White House conference, especially Eric Adams.”
Sliwa, unlike other attendees at the roundtable, has a unique perspective as he is personally a victim of gun violence. He was shot five times in June 1992 on the orders of John Gotti Sr. to John Gotti Jr. and the Gambino crime family, and therefore went through four federal trials.
“I understand the problems of gun violence having experienced it,” Sliwa, who was once shot with a .38 Special handgun, said. “You say ‘gun control, gun control’ because that’s always what comes out of these sessions. That would have done nothing to have stopped the gunman.”
Sliwa has always taken a more proactive role in combating violent crime in New York City than most so-called gun violence activists. Rather than blaming the weapon, he’s always recognized the problem isn’t the tool, it’s the tool using it.
While many decried the Guardian Angels’ existence, let’s be honest, at least they were doing something tangible rather than holding rallies and hoping that would somehow stop the violence. They weren’t armed and weren’t trying to be polite, but they weren’t playing around, either.
Whether it worked or not is a topic for another time.
Is he that stupid, or believes we are that stupid?
Of course, acknowledging the mighty power of “And” helps.
Biden Argues Massive Government Spending Will Help Fend Off Inflation, Not Exacerbate It
President Biden argued that a massive influx of [a] government spending bill will help fend off inflation, in a speech on the state of the economy at the White House on Monday.
The White House has dubbed the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to bring to the floor this week — and the $3.5 trillion budget resolution that Democrats plan to pass in the coming days without Republican support — the “Build Back Better” package. Biden said Monday that the two bills will help prevent, rather than exacerbate, runaway inflation.
“Whatever different views people have about the current price increases, we should be united in one thing: passage of the bipartisan infrastructure framework, which we shook hands on,” Biden said. “And my Build Back Better Plan will be a force for achieving lower prices for Americans looking ahead.”
Biden contended that investments in infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and broadband would eliminate economic “chokepoints” that currently raise prices on goods.
“If your primary concern is about inflation, you should be even more enthusiastic about this plan,” Biden said. “We can’t afford not to make these investments.”
During a question and answer session with reporters, Biden dismissed predictions of high inflation.
“There’s nobody suggesting unchecked [inflation] is on its way,” Biden said. “No serious economist.”
Former treasury secretary Larry Summers warned that Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill was “the least responsible fiscal macroeconomic policy we’ve have had for the last 40 years,” in a March interview with Bloomberg TV. That relief bill included funding for state and local governments, medical aid, and a round of checks to all Americans.
However, Summers has backed some investments in infrastructure.
“The investments on which Biden is focused are essential to the future of the country,” Summers told Politico last week. “Inflation fears should shape economic policies but it would be tragic if they stopped us from making urgently needed public investments.”
The right of the American people to make their own arms, from scratch or from kits, was never questioned and even affirmed by ATF bureaucraps until it became apparent that such guns could be made in vast quantity and excellent quality, then the goobermint realized their powers to control things was slipping.
POLYMER 80 SUES NEVADA OVER NEW DIY GUN BAN
Nevada-based Polymer 80, maker of both “80 percent” products and complete serialized pistols have taken emergency legal action against the state’s new law targeting so-called “ghost guns.”
Nevada’s Gov. Stephen Sisolak, a Democrat, signed state Assembly Bill 286 last month after it passed the legislature on largely party-line votes. The pending law established a confiscatory ban on all unserialized, self-manufactured firearms in the state as well as all “unfinished frames or receivers.” With that, P80 filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of this law, pending further legal action.
“Polymer80 was forced to take this extraordinary action because, among many other reasons, AB 286, which was hastily and improvidently written and enacted, purports to curtail and criminalize products that are legal to own under federal law, and it does so through vague and unintelligible proscriptions,” notes the company. “At its core, AB 286 strips lawful citizens of Nevada of their basic, constitutionally protected rights, and targets corporations, such as Polymer80, for lawful activities that greatly contribute to the Nevada economy and support the rights of Nevadans.”
A hearing on the temporary restraining order is set for July 14 before Lyon County District Judge John P. Schlegelmilch.
The case by P80 is not the only litigation taking aim at AB 286. The Firearms Policy Coalition, along with two individuals, has also filed for a preliminary injunction against state officials in the U.S. District Court for Nevada, pending a trial challenging the new law.
“Nevada’s broad ban on the possession and construction of constitutionally protected firearms and precursor materials violates Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights and unlawfully deprives them of their property, in violation of the Constitution,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s senior director of legal operations. “In order for a law-abiding individual to exercise their Second Amendment rights, they must have the ability to possess firearms, including those they build themselves. As our complaint explains, the right to self-build one’s own arms has been enjoyed, and at times absolutely necessary, since the founding of our country. We will aggressively litigate this action and seek an injunction to prevent this law from depriving individuals of their rights and property.”
In 2018, Bloomberg-backed Everytown announced it would spend $3.5 million in support of then-gubernatorial candidate Steve Sisolak and attorney general candidate Aaron Ford in Nevada, citing that the two were “gun-sense champions.” Sisolak was also strongly endorsed for his current job by Giffords and the Brady Campaign.
Latino Rifle Association Founder: San Jose Gun Control Hurts Minorities
San Jose’s new gun controls will hurt minorities, Latino Rifle Association founder P.B. Gomez warned.
The San Jose City Council responded to the May 26, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) mass shooting by passing numerous gun controls, Breitbart News reported. The VTA attacker used handguns which were “legally” acquired and “registered” in compliance with California law.
The city council passed new rules against straw purchases and a requirement that licensed gun dealers video all gun sales, the San Jose Spotlight noted.
The city council’s gun control response also included a liability insurance requirement for gun owners and a fee which will be imposed on gun ownership, NBC Bay Area reported.
San Jose police made clear “they won’t be knocking on people’s doors and asking to see registration for firearms. Instead, if police come across a firearm in a search, they will ask to see insurance papers,” KQED pointed out.
Latino Rifle Associations’ Gomez is worried the San Jose police’s approach to the insurance enforcement will impact the poor and people of color the most, suggesting they are prone to police contact.
He lamented that the new gun control comes at a time when gun ownership among minorities is rising. “You were seeing, across the country, rising rates of gun ownership. Most interestingly, rising rates of gun ownership for demographics who didn’t traditionally embrace gun ownership: Black people, Latino people,” Gomez said.
Gomez also noted the new controls are part of anti-gunners’ effort to dissuade Americans from gun ownership altogether. “They’re trying to shrink, by any means, the [number] of gun owners and to make gun ownership more of an inconvenience.”
Other commentary about the Duke University’s CFL
Duke Center for Firearms Law: Parsing the 2A to Invalidate Individual Gun Rights
The Duke Center for Firearms Law is publishing a series of papers on corpus linguistics and the Second Amendment. Corpus linguistics is the search for and study of words and phrases in their context to discover their original public meaning.
Much of what I’ve read so far will receive a hostile reception from TTAG readers. Nevertheless, it’s useful reading so as to understand what we should expect to be up against in the courts in the future.
As one example, I call attention to the snippet below from Neal Goldfarb’s abstruse Regarding the Strength of the Corpus Evidence (and Noting Issues that the Evidence Doesn’t Resolve). The gist here is the substantial body of corpus evidence that the phrase “bear arms” was used predominantly in a military sense, not in any civilian context such as for self-defense. Very well, I’m prepared to stipulate to this evidence.
Nevertheless, I have a different view of the militia prefatory clause and the corpus evidence that “keep and bear arms” being used predominantly in a military context. I hold that the liberty to own arms kept on one’s property and to carry them off that property existed in some hierarchy of concerns. Each individual might have held his own construction. A subsistence hunter would hold the purpose of hunting higher than pest control, a grain farmer the reverse.
In any case, the Constitution’s drafters had their respective hierarchies, where I presume hunting and pest control would be relatively low on the list and the relationship of arms to the crown would have been paramount.
Moreover, the role of the federal Constitution was to fix the relationship of the new Constitution vis a vis the states and the people. The enumerated powers doctrine and the “police power” vested in the states make it clear that no one drafting, editing, and reading the Second Amendment was particularly concerned with hunting or pest control. These were state domain issues.
If you subscribe to my hierarchy of concerns, then I invite you to consider that the highest of these concerns would have subsumed all the subordinate concerns. That is, if we are to read the Second Amendment to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state, it also served to guarantee that right for all lesser purposes such as hunting, pest control, etc.
The troublesome snippet reads as follows:
…the state provisions are inconclusive because in each such provision, bear arms was modified by a prepositional phrase that has no analogue in the Second Amendment:
bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state
bear arms, in defense of himself and the state
bear arms in defense of themselves and the State
It seems to me that it’s inappropriate to assume that the use of bear arms without any modification would have been understood in the same way as the use of the phrase as modified in the state provisions.
So — allegedly — my ancestral Pennsylvanian ratifiers first read Article XXI of their Commonwealth constitution:
“The right of the citizens to bear arms, in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned”
And then they went on to read the proposed Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution:
“. . . the right of the People to keep and bear arms [no prepositional phrase appears here] shall not be infringed.”
These Pennsylvanian yeomen immediately wrote to their delegates to the ratifying convention as follows:
“In contemplating the proposed 2A you should not understand that the use of ‘bear arms’ without any modification as guaranteeing a federal right to self defense.”
Does this contrived, purely hypothetical, original public understanding square with common sense?
The typical yeoman’s daily life included pest control, hunting, marksmanship development and demonstration, along with regular occasion to contemplate confrontation. Nevertheless, his exclusive concern, reading the proposed Second Amendment, was to secure his rare exercise of a public militia duty. His right was — exclusively — to serve in the militia.
He construed no right to any private use of weapons whatsoever. It would never have occurred to him to implicitly “read into” the unqualified “right to keep and bear arms” at least ‘for self defense’ or at most ‘for self defense, hunting and all other peaceable and lawful purposes’?
Much of the debate over ratifying the Constitution surrounded the sufficiency of the doctrine of “enumerated powers” counterimposed with that of “innumerable rights.” The Anti-Federalists insisted that these doctrines — which the Federalists accepted without question — must be guarded with a Bill of Rights which would enshrine in parchment and ink at least some enumerated rights.
The right to keep and bear arms made the cut. It was among those Madison construed as clouded by not the slightest controversy.
Yet author Neal Goldfarb’s linguistic analysis concludes that . . .
In fact, much if not all existing Second Amendment scholarship is due for reexamination in light of the corpus evidence. To be more specific, what I think needs to be reexamined is any scholarship that interpreted bear arms as meaning ‘carry weapons’ (whether or not such carrying was thought to be associated with militia service). And that, in turn, probably encompasses a large percentage of Second Amendment scholarship—on both sides of the issue.
Of course, the necessary adjustments will pose a bigger problem for gun-rights advocates than for their opponents.
Of course.
Looking back nearly 270 years, are we to believe that the common public understanding of the yeomen ratifier was that his personal right to weapons was secured only to the extent sufficient to enable him to perform his public duty of militia service? That he had no intention of guaranteeing to himself any individual right to weapons useful to him in his private life?
We must be on-guard against those in the corpus linguistics “profession” who are want to use this technique to perform these sleights of hand, especially those as transparent as this one.
DHS/FBI: Owning guns and being familiar with them is a sign of “extremism”
Wow. And they want family/friends to report people. Surely this won’t be abused for political retaliation against people and harassment against pro-rights folks. No, never…..
https://twitter.com/FBI/status/1414192827026878465?s=20
Note that the linked file in their tweet is from 2019, but the current administration is positioning itself to use it on American citizens that don’t agree with their politics and ideologies
It’s pretty sad that we are at this point in our country’s history. Owning firearms and weapons for legal personal use (including defense and sport) is in our blood. Doesn’t matter what your politics are, it is not “extremism“ to spend your own money on what you want and buy legal products such as firearms/knives/etc. Perhaps the anti-rights extremists need to look in the mirror and realize that they are the minority and not the majority, which makes them the “extremists”.
Hey, wait a second……I know someone who fits THIS description:
President Joe Biden’s nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has purged thousands of tweets from his Twitter profile, while still permitting communications on Facebook, raising flags over his prior hearing response that he made his account private due to “violent threats” that were forwarded to the Department of Justice.
In writing to Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, David Chipman said he “decided to set my Twitter account to private because of violent threats I had received in the past and anticipated receiving once my nomination was made public. I notified officials at the Department of Justice that I intended to make my account private.”
In addition, it appears Chipman has deleted the vast majority of his tweets. Whereas there were 1,815 tweets in October 2016, there are now a mere 115 as of Wednesday. It is unclear why his Facebook posts remain public and why he can be freely messaged if Chipman is legitimately worried about being threatened through social media. Surely, those threatening the ATF nominee would be smart enough to use other platforms. The contradiction was flagged by American Accountability Foundation.
Yeah, sure David, you did it because of “threats”…..
Now, for a minute, imagine this guy leading a federal agency and using it to target people based on owning guns and ”wrong think”, both of which can be potentially classified as “extremist” depending on opinion. Can you see where this is going?
“BLM” is a marxist/communist based, anti-american, action group using race as a front. Any contractor having ‘concerns’ about people researching “the truth about Black Lives Matter” needs to have their contract cancelled.
The Pentagon is reportedly working with an extremism analysis company that considers the web search “the truth about Black Lives Matter” and others to be signs of interest in or engagement with White supremacism.
According to Defense One, the contractor Moonshot CVE, which has ties to the Obama Foundation, is working on data that would identify which military bases and branches have the most troops searching for domestic extremist content. While that particular project’s contours are unclear, the company previously released a June report, in conjunction with the left-leaning Anti-Defamation League, on purported “White supremacy trends in the United States.”
In it, the U.K.-based company said it “monitored a list of almost 1,600 indicators of interest in or engagement with White supremacism, focused specifically on anti-Black and anti-Semitic narratives being used by extremist groups.”
As examples, it listed the search phrases “George Floyd deserved to die,” “Jews will not replace us” and “the truth about black lives matter.”
For “the truth about black lives matter,” the group said: “This search suggests that the BLM movement has nefarious motives, and is a disinformation narrative perpetuated by White supremacist groups to weaponize anti-BLM sentiment.”
It adds: “While the search phrase appears innocuous, several books include it in their title and allege that the BLM movement is ‘joined with Antifa burning and looting.’ These sources echo White supremacist disinformation narratives alleging that BLM protesters are trying to ‘overthrow the republic’ and ‘harm American citizens in a Marxist coup,’ as a means of delegitimizing it. Multiple videos on YouTube also promote these narratives – in particular the criminalization of BLM – using the identical phrase.”
Moonshot did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment. Neither did the Defense Department.
It’s unclear why the Pentagon chose a U.K.-based company for monitoring purported U.S. extremism. The Center for Security Policy raised concerns about the company in an article last month in which it highlighted how Moonshot CEO Vidhya Ramalingam served as a leader in the Obama Foundation’s Europe program.
She also participated in a panel hosted by the highly controversial Southern Poverty Law Center and has ties to other left-leaning organizations. As the Center for Security Policy notes, she authored a paper that acknowledged financial support from Open Society Foundation, the group founded by liberal billionaire George Soros.
Twofer today
So, demoncraps confirm – again – that they’re lying hypocrites?
Cue the meme
It’s ok when it’s in their favor 📨
— Candace Storch (@CandaceStorch) July 19, 2021
“…right in Der Grëtchënführër’s face!”
Michigan Senate Repeals Emergency Powers Law, Whitmer Unable to Veto.
Michigan’s Senate on Thursday approved a petition that repeals Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s emergency powers, with another approval expected by the state’s lower chamber.
Whitmer, a Democrat, cannot veto the petition.
The Michigan Senate’s 20-15 vote came two days after the Board of State Canvassers certified the petition, which was started by a group called Unlock Michigan that gathered over 340,000 signatures.
The board deadlocked 2-2 in April but voted 3-0 this time around.
An update on the Tisas .45 ACP ‘Commander’.
We – finally – have a reliable pistol!
AK & I journeyed to the farm of a friend north of town who has enough acreage to have made up a sizeable range, and using .gov issue flat follower, Metalform™ round follower and Wilson-Rogers™ magazines, it cycled all factory FMJ and JHP ammo offered.
Yippee!
Accuracy at 50 feet, standing on my own two feet firing offhand, wasn’t spectacular (although to be honest, I’ve seen worse groups out of many of the standard issue M1911A1s I used when I was in the Army ) but all rounds were hitting in the middle of the target with some vertical stringing. I’m still trying out different manufacturer’s products to see if I can find one it likes to shoot into nice round, reasonably small groups and will report further findings as they become available.
Let’s talk to our Chinese friend, Ho Lee Cow.
Something to consider when you’re shooting at an indoor range!