demoncraps is such stupid people, but this moron is right about one should be “…sick of the pipeline from racist rhetoric to racist violence.”
So I wonder when the demoncraps will give up being racist?

Dem Rep. Beatty blames White supremacy for Dallas Korean hair salon shooting, but suspect is Black
Congressional Black Caucus chair blamed ‘White supremacy replacement theorist’ for Dallas Korean hair salon shooting

The chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) blamed White supremacy for last week’s shooting at a Dallas Korean hair salon, but the suspect charged with carrying out the attack is Black.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, made the claim at a Thursday press conference outside the Capitol that saw House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in attendance.

“On Monday, three people in a Korean-owned hair salon in Dallas were gunned by yet another White supremacy replacement theorist,” Beatty said to the assembled crowd.

In addition to botching the date of the shooting, Beatty got a key detail wrong about the “White supremacy replacement theorist” charged with attacking the Dallas salon: the suspect is Black.

Beatty’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Jeremy Smith, 37, was booked into the Dallas County jail and is charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He allegedly walked into the Hair World Salon on May 11 and opened fire on the seven people inside with a .22 caliber rifle, Dallas Police Chief Eddie Garcia told reporters.

Smith got off 13 shots before fleeing into a minivan, he said.

The FBI said it is investigating the shooting as a hate crime. Surveillance video captured Smith’s van with specific details and determined it to be a 2004 Honda Odyssey, authorities said.

An arrest warrant affidavit said Smith drove the minivan with a paper license plate that matched several of the numbers seen by witnesses. He also admitted to being in the area on the day of the shooting, Fox Dallas reported. A vehicle crash that occurred two years ago with an Asian male resulted in him having panic attacks and “delusions” when around people of Asian descent, Garcia said.

Smith was also fired from his previous job at an Ulta Beauty warehouse for attacking his Asian boss, the document states.

Man shot and killed after attempting to enter Lenoir City home

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — One man was found shot and killed Tuesday after a homeowner said he attempted to force his way into the residence, Lenoir City Police said.

Officers responded to West 2nd Avenue around 10:15 p.m. for a report of a disturbance. Upon arrival, officers became aware of another disturbance at a nearby home on the same street where a man reportedly attempted to force his way into the residence.

Lenoir City Police said the owner of the second home shot the man, identified as 20-year-old Michael Owen, multiple times. Owen was pronounced dead at the scene.

The initial disturbance police had responded to was between Owen and people living at the first West 2nd Ave home. Witnesses told police that Owen was acting erratically before the shooting and claimed that he may have been under the influence of an unknown substance.

The body has been sent for an autopsy.

 

Critical Race Theory is marxist/communist/totalitarian BS

Report: CRT Symposium Speaker Calls Diversity of Thought ‘White Supremacist’ Excrement

Does diversity of thought equal white supremacy? It appears so, according to a college professor.

As reported by Campus Reform, academics gathered recently for a Critical Race Theory conference. Organized by Critical Race Studies in Education Association (CRSEA) and hosted by Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, the symposium took place between May 31st and June 2nd.

CRSEA’s website describes its mission thusly:

[W]e are committed to (1) countering and combating systemic and structural racism with scholarship and praxis, (2) recognizing the multiple locations of oppression and the myriad manifestations and effects of their intersections and (3) co-constructing liberating knowledge that facilitates collective agency to transform schools and communities.

Amid the meet-up, instructors waxed on that most pernicious of all contemporary blights, whiteness.

According to a witness, per Campus Reform, a California college teacher whacked away:

“Whiteness has already been constructed against blackness. There is no virtue in whiteness, it is inherently violent,” one conference-goer tweeted, referencing a quote from Michael Dumas, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who spoke at the event.

Continue reading “”

True ‘liberalism’ is respecting the rights, freedom and liberty of others.

We Battle the Left By Standing Up for Free Speech, Standing Up for Liberalism

When the Biden administration announced the creation of a Disinformation Governance Board last month critics immediately started portraying the agency as the “Ministry of Truth” from George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984.

Critics were right to make this comparison. The federal government has no business, constitutionally or morally, in deciding what Americans can say and not say.

But there was more to it than that. It was a line. A marker thrown down by the Left in the ongoing culture war over free speech.

Because it was truly crazy that the Biden administration would even consider going there. That any president in modern times would. This showed not only that mainstream Democrats had become this comfortable with censorship, private or even public, but that they believed their governance of our speech was a reasonable policy that Americans should just accept. It’s as if the people governing the country were completely unfamiliar with the historic rules and norms of the country they were running.

Hey Joe Biden, meet ‘America!’

 

Yet on Wednesday, the Biden administration announced that the Disinformation Governance Board was “paused” for the time being—just three weeks after its creation was announced.

This is also a marker in the war over free speech. And it’s not the only victory in recent times for those of us who oppose censorship. For a change, it has been the Left on defense recently.

Obviously, Team Biden figured out that the creation of this new Department of Homeland Security agency was bad politics for them heading into the midterm elections, along with a dozen other obstacles they will have come November.

But this move was also an acknowledgment that people aren’t going to put up with being dictated to by the woke mob anymore, which has seemed to control much of social media, entertainment, and the Democratic Party for the past few years.

Continue reading “”

They made a movie about this……….in point of fact, more than one

While we might lose a cure for cancer, it’s time to permanently shut down most of this crap-for-brains gene hacking stuff, for if there’s one (1) thing we’ve learned over the last few years, it’s that these morons will discard all ethical considerations if they can make a few bucks.

SCIENTISTS GENE HACK HAMSTERS INTO HYPER-AGGRESSIVE MONSTERS

Hamster Brawl

Scientists say that a little gene hacking turned adorable hamsters into vicious monstrosities.

Researchers at Georgia State University may have published the scientific understatement of the year when saying that their CRISPR experiment with hamsters “found that the biology behind social behavior may be more complex than previously thought.”

Using the revolutionary gene editing tech, the GSU neuroscience team discovered that knocking out a receptor of vasopressin — a hormone associated with aggression, communication, and social bonding in both humans and hamsters — instead seemed to supercharge the cute rodents’ worst instincts.

“We anticipated that if we eliminated vasopressin activity, we would reduce both aggression and social communication,” GSU neuroscience researcher H. Elliott Albers said in a statement. “But the opposite happened.”

Judge Napolitano is too kind. Actually she doesn’t have blinders on. She’s just another wanna-be tyrant who complains about the Constitutional restrictions on goobermint like they all do.

BLUF:
The governor has blinders on. She complains of too much freedom. In New York, there is too little.

Blaming the Constitution

Within hours of the tragic killings of 10 Americans — nine Black and one white — in a Buffalo supermarket by a deranged white racist last week, the governor of New York began calling for infringements upon personal liberty. First, she argued that social media platforms were somehow liable for these killings since they provided a platform from which the killer could reinforce his hatreds and on which he could manifest them.

Then, she argued that hate speech and incendiary speech should be prosecuted. Finally, she attacked the U.S. Supreme Court, which is about to rule on a challenge to New York’s restrictive concealed carry laws. She said twice that “New York is ready for you.” It is unclear just what she meant, but the implication was that she’d find a way around whatever the court rules.

She uttered a bitter constitutional mouthful.

From the writings and mental history of the gunman, we know that he was and is deeply disturbed. Police brought him to a mental hospital after he made threats at school, and his hatreds were posted on dark websites. Nevertheless, New York gun laws — among the strictest in the country — did not stop him from lawfully purchasing a rifle and the ammunition with which to use it.

The gun control crowd, personified by the governor, makes critical errors in its arguments and shows material misunderstandings of fundamental liberties.

Its critical error is a mistaken belief that someone willing to commit mass murder will somehow comply with gun regulations. It doesn’t matter to the killer what the gun laws are; he will find a way to attempt to kill. What matters is a set of laws with which law-abiding folks do comply, the effect of which is to neuter their ability to defend themselves.

This column has steadfastly maintained that the only language mass murderers respect is their own — violence. Only violence against them, or its serious imminent threat, will stop them.

Continue reading “”

There’s a reason why gun control fails after mass shootings

In the wake of any mass shooting, we hear a lot about gun control. Proponents of it argue we simply need to embrace it to make such shootings a thing of the past. It just hasn’t worked out for them.

Over at Axios, they decided to lament this fact by pointing out all the times gun control failed to materialize after a mass shooting.

What they miss is that there’s a reason it didn’t pass in pretty much all of those cases.

Sandy Hook, December 2012
  • After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, in which 26 victims — including 20 children — were killed, Congress proposed a bipartisan bill expanding background checks for gun buyers, a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity gun magazines.

Part of the reason that didn’t pass was that the killer didn’t purchase his gun. He murdered his own mother and took an AR-15 that she lawfully purchased–and underwent and passed a background check for–to use it to carry out that particular atrocity.

Expanding background checks wouldn’t have prevented such an attack.

Charleston church, June 2015

When a white man opened fire at a Black church congregation in Charleston, South Carolina, killing nine people, Democrats proposed legislation to tighten background checks.

Democrats sought to eliminate what became known as the “Charleston loophole,” which allows people with incomplete background checks to purchase guns after three days, Politico reports.

And that remains because going beyond those three days is too much of an infringement on people’s Second Amendment rights.

What people have to remember is that the three-day window was put in place to appease gun rights advocates who worried that people could be long-term denied the ability to purchase a firearm simply because their background checks never came back.

The three-day window remains because no one trusts the government enough to take it away.

San Bernardino, December 2015

A shooting at a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health holiday party killed 14 people and injured 22 others.

One day after the shooting, the Senate rejected two gun control proposals introduced by Democrats on background checks, the Washington Post reports.

California pass universal background checks in 1991. The killers in this case still acquired weapons illegally and without undergoing a background check.

Why pass more of what clearly didn’t work?

Pulse Nightclub, June 2016

The proposed bills would have prevented people on the federal terrorism watch list from buying guns and closed loopholes in background check laws, per the Times.

And that one failed because there’s no due process on the terrorism watchlist. You can be added for any reason and aren’t told you’re on it. Getting yourself removed is a nightmare.

Plus, the terrorism watch list is a list of names. There are no other identifiers. So if a terrorist named Tom Knighton exists somewhere on Earth, I don’t get to purchase a firearm under this rule.

Yeah, it’s an absolute mystery why this didn’t pass.

Look, you’re starting to see how this goes, and Axios does continue.

For example, they bring up Atlanta and how background check bills didn’t pass despite President Biden calling for just that, but the shooter in that one actually passed a background check. They tie this to Boulder, but he also passed a background check.

Time and time again, there’s a mass shooting, then lawmakers make demands for laws that wouldn’t do anything to stop the attack, but would do wonders for infringing on people’s rights.

Look, gun control isn’t the answer to this. Especially since the two high-profile attacks we saw last weekend were both in heavily gun-controlled states.

Gun control doesn’t pass because, in each of these cases, it’s clear that the laws proposed wouldn’t have done a damn thing. Further, each of these is actually something of a black swan event, meaning they’re not the norm, despite people trying to pretend they are.

So I’m actually OK with inaction from Congress on this. Frankly, I prefer inaction in Congress on most things, but especially here.

There are better ways to handle mass shootings than infringing on the rights of the non-shooters, especially when it’s clear that infringement wouldn’t have stopped diddly.

But they said nobody wants to take your guns.
And actually, if there were magically, mystically, no guns, life would return to the world of ‘main force’ where might makes right and the stronger rule over the weaker. The world “BG” – before guns – had a much higher murder rate than after they became reliable. That’s her world with swords

Sick of Massacres? Get Rid of the Guns. [hah]

Gail Collins Gail Collins

[it’s sooo nice they provide pictures for positive identification]

A) Toughen background check laws
B) Limit the sale of semiautomatics to people with hunting licenses
C) Good Lord, just get rid of them
Yeah, C does simplify things, doesn’t it?

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

If the left wrote The Emperor’s New Clothes, the kid who correctly pointed out that the Emperor was naked would be the bad guy.
If they wrote The Grasshopper and the Ants, the ants would be the bad guys.
If they wrote The Three Little Pigs, the pig who worked hard and built the sturdy brick house would be the bad guy.
If they wrote The Little Red Hen, the hen would be the villain.
Added from a Twitter response :
If the left wrote Chicken Little, Chicken Little would be lauded as a scientist.

Manchin gives Democrats a reality check on gun control

Democratic lawmakers are calling for new gun control legislation in the wake of the racially motivated massacre in Buffalo, New York, last weekend, but once again Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is standing in the way of the most fervent progressives.

President Joe Biden went to Buffalo on Tuesday and visited with the families of 10 people who were killed and three others wounded by a white supremacist gunman. In a speech, the president denounced the attack as an act of “domestic terrorism,” condemned white supremacy, and renewed calls for a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“There are certain things we can do. We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We’ve done it before. I did it when I passed the crime bill,” Biden said, referring to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a 10-year assault weapons ban.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), also speaking in Buffalo Tuesday, vowed that Democrats would “work towards finally ridding our streets of weapons of war.”

But Manchin, speaking to reporters shortly before Biden spoke, gave his realistic assessment that in the 50-50 Senate, the only gun control legislation that has a chance of passing is a bipartisan compromise on background checks that previously failed. That bill, named for Manchin and his chief co-sponsor, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), would expand federal background check requirements to all advertised commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and over the internet.

“I support the Manchin-Toomey, I’ve always done that,” Manchin told reporters, according to The Hill. “The Manchin-Toomey is the one. I think if you can’t get that one, then why try to do something just for basically voting for the sake of voting?”

While some Democrats want action on a universal background check bill that passed the House in March last year, the West Virginia moderate has previously said that bill goes too far because it would extend to private transactions, such as those between neighbors, hunting buddies, or even family. The Manchin-Toomey bill exempted those transactions.

“The best piece of legislation that we’ve ever had, that most people agreed on, was the Manchin-Toomey. We didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights privately,” Manchin said.

But if Manchin-Toomey was the bill “that most people agreed on,” that wouldn’t mean much — the bill failed in 2013, coming six votes short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster at a time when a stronger Democratic majority held the Senate. Only two Republicans voted for it, Toomey and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

It is far more unlikely that 10 Republicans would cross the aisle to vote for any sort of gun control bill this year, especially before the midterm elections in November.

Gun control groups issue new (and impotent) demands to D.C. Democrats

A day after the number two Democrat in the U.S. Senate publicly stated that he doesn’t see a reason to hold a vote on any gun control proposals because they’re doomed to failure, a coalition of 38 gun control organizations (who knew there were that many?) is demanding that Congress not only vote on, but approve Joe Biden’s gun ban and more.

The gun control activists laid out three demands for the Democratic-controlled Congress, none of which are likely to happen. First, the gun control lobby wants the House to approve spending $750-million on “evidence led Community Violence Initiatives”, which is on top of the roughly $2-billion that was approved in Biden’s “American Rescue Plan”. Just a few days ago the White House even issued a call for these groups to apply for grants because the money is there for the taking. Nancy Pelosi might be willing to go along with this demand, but I doubt there are 60 votes in the Senate.

The second demand from the gun control groups is House passage of “legislation banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines,” which is also going nowhere in Congress. Nancy Pelosi, who put a universal background check bill on the floor of the House for a vote, hasn’t pushed for a similar vote on Biden’s gun ban plan, and while that could change, any bill that would pass the House is going to die in the Senate.

The gun ban fans are also specifically calling on the Senate to “live up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s pledge to hold a Senate debate and vote on legislation expanding background checks to all gun purchases and addressing the Charleston Loophole,” though oddly they don’t say anything in their demand letter about the Senate voting on Biden’s gun ban and compensated confiscation scheme.

“Following the most recent racist act of domestic terrorism in Buffalo, New York and the increase in gun
violence across the country, we are calling on you to immediately do everything and anything in your power to live up to the promises you make to voters every election year,” the groups wrote in their letter.

The groups also asked the Biden administration to answer the calls of survivors and “establish a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in order to expedite the government’s response and issue further executive actions that will save lives.”

“With voters expressing concern about public safety and rising crime, you have a moral and political
responsibility to fight for the safer future you promise Americans on the campaign trail every election season,” the groups wrote.

The White House has resisted that particular demand for well over a year now, and new press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked again yesterday about the idea, but was decidedly non-committal in her response.

Q    Further on the issue of guns: Gun prevention groups or gun violence protection groups — prevention groups, rather — have been pressing the White House to start an office of gun violence protection.  Is that something that President Biden is considering, particularly in light of this most recent attack?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So I would have to go back to the team and see if that is something that’s actually on the table.  I have not heard of that.  I could understand why that is being requested or asked, especially what we have been seeing these past — this past weekend.  I just don’t have anything more to share or preview or anything to —

If Jean-Pierre hasn’t heard about the idea, then that means no one in the White House is seriously talking about it, because that particular demand has been made for well over a year. My guess is she knows far more than she was willing to disclose in a press gaggle; namely that the White House has no plans to acquiesce to this particular demand from their anti-gun allies.

I’ll confess that I’m a little surprised that Biden hasn’t thrown the gun control lobby this particular bone to appease them, but whatever internal politics are in play seem to have kept that option off the table. Still, with Congress a dead-end for their anti-gun agenda at the moment (and likely for the next two years as well, begging the White House to help make them relevant is the best option the gun control lobby has left.

Biden’s New ‘Ministry of Truth’ Hits a Major Roadblock

I have good news if you value free speech and don’t want the government jamming its nose into the issue. Joe Biden’s new “Ministry of Truth,” officially known as the Disinformation Governance Board, has been put on hold.

That comes after its chosen leader, Nina Jankowicz, was thoroughly exposed as not only a far-left quack but also a disturbing promoter of government censorship. RedState has reported extensively on her past, from Jankowicz’s rants about “gender disinformation” to her desire to be able to edit other people’s social media posts.

Now, per The Washington Post, the Disinformation Governance Board has been paused, and guess who is responsible? You got it, those dastardly Republicans who don’t wish to live in a George Orwell novel.

Now, just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being “paused,” according to multiple employees at DHS, capping a back-and-forth week of decisions that changed during the course of reporting of this story. On Monday, DHS decided to shut down the board, according to multiple people with knowledge of the situation. By Tuesday morning, Jankowicz had drafted a resignation letter in response to the board’s dissolution.

Continue reading “”

Follow the Science, Unless it Leads Where You Don’t Want to Go

Researchers in California have published the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of so-called “gun violence restraining orders” (a.k.a. “extreme risk protection orders” or “red flag” orders). Assembly Bill 1014, was enacted in California in 2014, and since then, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws.

Authors of the study, Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law, include Garen Wintemute, the director of the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and a “key contributor” who helped draft AB 1014.

Very briefly, these laws create a mechanism that allows a family member, police officer, or some other third party (in California, this includes coworkers, school employees, and teachers) to file a petition in court, supported by allegations that the person named in the petition, at some point in the future, poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing or having access to a firearm. If the court is satisfied that there is some potential of future harm, it issues an order authorizing police to take away all firearms the person owns or controls, and prohibiting the person from possessing or acquiring firearms while the order is in effect. The initial court process may be “ex parte” (without any notice to, or an opportunity to respond by, the affected person) or a full hearing on notice. In California, the ex parte order has a minimum duration of 21 days. Once confirmed in a full hearing, the “temporary” order is in effect for up to five years, although orders may be renewed indefinitely.

The researchers examined whether implementation of the California gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law was associated with decreased rates of “firearm assault” or firearm self-harm between 2016 (when AB 1014 took effect) and 2019. They compared the post-GVRO rate of firearm violence in San Diego County (chosen because it had a “high GVRO uptake” or incidence of GVROs) with the estimated outcome in a synthetic control unit (a combination of California control counties weighted to match the firearm violence trend in San Diego, 2005-2015, as closely as possible). The researchers “hypothesized that the GVRO law would be associated with a reduction in firearm violence.”

The results, though, showed that the GVRO law had no impact – “we found no evidence that GVRO implementation was associated with decreased firearm assault or firearm self-harm at the population level in San Diego.” The researchers sought to qualify this result by noting that the findings could be “partially explained by access to firearms through the underground market,” or “could reflect a true absence of association or limitations of our study; further research is needed to determine which of these is the case.”

Continue reading “”

More People Dead as Gun-Control Fails in New York State

Time and again we’ve seen crazy murderers target unarmed citizens in New York City and New York State. A few weeks ago, a black man deliberately attacked white people on the New York City subway. We saw a white teenager deliberately go hunting for blacks and Jews in Buffalo last week. Sadly, the response of New York politicians is the same each time. Despite the extraordinary gun-control laws already in place, New York Democrats think the solution is to disarm more law-abiding citizens. It is hard to look at violence but it is more dangerous to think that more ink-on-paper will keep us safe next time.

Continue reading “”

What he also wants is for the reinstitution of the Obammy era program of listing Veterans and Social Security recipients who get their monthly payments sent to a fiduciary who manages the person’s finances to be entered as a prohibited people in NICS.

In Buffalo, Biden calls for gun control that’s already law and didn’t work

Joe Biden brought his confusing anti-gun rhetoric to Buffalo, Tuesday – a city still grieving the loss of 10 good souls who were cut down Saturday by a hell-bound madman.

Even though most of the victims have yet to be buried, Biden didn’t hesitate to use the solemn occasion as an opportunity to advocate for more gun control, in this case another federal “assault weapon” ban.

“There are certain things we can do,” Biden told the grieving crowd. “We can keep assault weapons off of our streets. We did it before and violence went down.”

Even the FBI has acknowledged that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that Biden referenced, which was a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, did little to deter or prevent crime.

Besides, New York already has a stringent “assault weapon” ban, as well as every other anti-gun law Biden has ever called for. They’re codified into state law, yet none of them worked.

The mass murderer was not stopped by New York’s SAFE Act, which bans AR-15s and similar weapons. The state’s ban on standard-capacity magazines didn’t stop him, nor did the New York’s mandatory background check requirement or its Red Flag gun-confiscation law.

New York State Police were called to the gunman’s high school last June because he threatened to commit a mass shooting during the school’s graduation ceremonies. He was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for an evaluation, and was released after a day and a half. However, this did not trigger New York’s red-flag law, which should have stopped him from purchasing a firearm.

Rather than infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, Biden should focus on why yet another mass murderer was “known to law enforcement,” yet no action was taken before he began killing people.

Why New York’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Didn’t Stop the Buffalo Massacre
The problem is not sneaky entrepreneurs who sell accessories; it’s legislators who ban guns based on functionally unimportant features.

The suspect in the mass shooting that killed 10 people at a Buffalo grocery store on Saturday used a rifle that was widely described as an “assault weapon.” With certain exceptions that don’t apply here, that category of firearms is illegal in New York. Yet The New York Times reports that the shooter legally bought the rifle from a gun dealer in Endicott, New York. How is that possible?

It turns out that the rifle, a Bushmaster XM-15 ES, was not an “assault weapon” at the time of the purchase, but it became an “assault weapon” after the shooter tinkered with it. The details of that transformation illustrate how arbitrary and ineffectual bans like New York’s are.

Continue reading “”

Dad agrees with me that all these ‘slipped through the cracks’ don’t add up to mere ‘incompetence’.

‘It’s Just Incompetence’: There Were Red Flags Everywhere With the Buffalo Shooter

Rebecca covered this over the weekend. Tragedy has struck Buffalo. A mass shooter gunned down and killed 10 people at the Tops Friendly Market. The shooter, Payton Gendron, was taken into custody. There is a 180-page manifesto that the FBI is currently authenticating. Gendron appears to be a racist and targeted this area due to its high concentration of black Americans.

Unlike other mass shootings, like Boulder in 2021 and the most recent New York City subway shooting, this one will remain in the news. Gendron is white. He’s racist. He’s everything the liberal media wants when an incident like this occurs. Boulder’s mass shooting was committed by a Syrian. The New York Subway shooter was black. Both stories vanished into the ether rapidly because they didn’t fit the liberal narrative. Yet, there’s another common element with this story: the shooter exhibited red flags that authorities knew about but did nothing. 

Gendron threatened to shoot up his high school and was brought in for a mental health evaluation (via Associated Press):

The shooter, identified as Payton Gendron, had previously threatened a shooting at his high school, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia confirmed at a press conference that the then-17-year-old was brought in for a mental health evaluation afterward.

Federal law bars people from owning a gun if a judge has determined they have a “mental defect” or they have been forced into a mental institution — but an evaluation alone would not trigger the prohibition….

Gendron had appeared on the radar of police last year after he threatened to carry out a shooting at Susquehanna Valley High School around the time of graduation, the law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity said. The official was not authorized to speak publicly on the investigation.

New York State Police said troopers were called to the Conklin school last June for a report that a 17-year-old student had made threatening statements. He spent a day and a half at the hospital before being released, authorities said, and then had no further contact with law enforcement.

So, what gives? Why was there no follow-up? I’m sure we’ll know in due time, but the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in 2018, which sparked another wave of anti-gun activism, was also preventable. In fact, that might be an understatement. Students interviewed after the shooting were not shocked that Nikolas Cruz committed his heinous crime. Also, all three levels of government, state, federal, and local, knew about Cruz’s mental health issues and never did anything. 

Continue reading “”