Obama Calls for Internet Speech Regulation

In a speech delivered at Stanford University, President Barack Obama called for more censorship of social media speech. He argued that without regulation, social media will have “frightening implications.”

“People are dying because of misinformation,” Obama said.

Obama continued to say that the “profound change that’s taken place and how we communicate and consume information,” is one of the greatest threats to democracy.

“Social media platforms aren’t just our window into the internet. They serve as our primary source of news and information. No one tells us that the window is blurred, subject to unseen distortions and subtle manipulations,” the former president noted.

Obama said that social media companies need to be regulated, including being held responsible for content posted by users.

“If we do nothing, I am convinced that the trends we are seeing will get worse,” he said.

“Without some standards, the implications of this technology for our elections, for our legal system, for our democracy, for rules of evidence, for our entire social order, are frightening and profound.

“Tech platforms need to accept that they play a unique role in how we as a people and people around the world are consuming information, and that their decisions have an impact on every aspect of society. With that power comes accountability and in democracies, like ours, at least, the need for some democratic oversight.”

Obama singled out former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and Russia’s President Vladamir Putin as people who have leveraged misinformation.

“Autocrats like Putin have used these platforms as a strategic weapon against democratic countries that they consider a threat,” he said. “People like Putin and Steve Bannon, for that matter, understand it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. Is that to raise enough questions spread enough dirt? Plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe?”

Obama said he was not surprised to learn that Putin was accused of trying to influence the 2016 presidential election through social media.

“What does still nag me though was my failure to fully appreciate at the time just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy theories – despite having spent years being a target of disinformation myself,” he said.

“Putin didn’t do that. He didn’t have to. We did it to ourselves.”

Wellllll. It seems that Polk County Florida Sheriff Grady Judd isn’t alone in his thoughts about how to handle bunglers

Florida sheriff promotes gun safety course for residents to shoot home invaders: ‘We prefer that you do’

Florida sheriff says homeowners are ‘more than welcome’ to shoot intruders

A sheriff in Florida is encouraging residents to take gun safety courses after a homeowner fired multiple shots at an intruder on Wednesday, stopping the individual who allegedly broke into several homes.

Police arrested Brandon J. Harris, 32, who was arrested after allegedly breaking into several homes in Pace, Florida, and was stopped by a homeowner who fired multiple gunshots at him, according to the Pensacola Daily News.

Calls of the break-ins began to come into the sheriff’s office at around 4:30 p.m., according to police. Harris is being charged with attempted burglary with assault, resisting arrest, criminal mischief, attempted larceny, and several other charges.

Brandon J. Harris

Brandon J. Harris (Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office )

Santa Rosa County Sheriff Bob Johnson said in a press conference on Thursday that one of the homeowners fired gunshots at Harris, and said that he was arrested after being cornered in a house that he allegedly broke into.

“Probably 20 deputies get there, the dogs are out, and he’s jumping fences and breaking into houses as he goes,” Johnson said. “One of the homeowners, he was breaking into their house, and they shot at him. So he continues to run, we finally corner him in a house that he broke into on Tom Sawyer and we cornered him in a bedroom.”

Johnson also encouraged other residents to follow in the homeowner’s footsteps and take gun safety classes, adding that they are “more than welcome” to shoot anyone who is breaking in to their house.

“I guess they think they did something wrong, which they did not. If someone’s breaking into your house, you’re more than welcome to shoot them in Santa Rosa County. We prefer that you do, actually. So, whoever that was, you’re not in trouble, come see us. We have a gun safety class we put on every other Saturday,” Johnson said.

The sheriff added that residents who take the course will shoot a gun “a lot better,” and maybe save taxpayers some money.

“If you take that, you’ll shoot a lot better, and hopefully you’ll save the taxpayers money,” Johnson said.

Johnson also described Harris as a “frequent flyer,” noting that he has been arrested 17 times before.

“You hear me talk about frequent flyers all the time. Our first interaction with this individual came when he was 13 years old. Since then, he’s had like 17 arrests,” Johnson said. “We sent him to prison for six and a half years for home invasion, and he just can’t seem to get the picture of crime does not pay.”

There’s an old joke:
Want a 5.56 NATO chamber? Fire 1000 rounds through your .223.
Nowadays, it’s less expensive to just have the throat reamed.

.223 Remington vs. 5.56 NATO: What You Don’t Know Could Hurt You

Is firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in your .223 Remington chambered AR15 dangerous? Or do Internet forum-ninjas and ammunition companies selling you commercial ammo instead of surplus overstate the dangers?  Believe it or not, a real danger exists, and some gun owners who think they are doing the right thing may not be safe.

The Cartridges

The .223 Remington and 5.56×45 NATO cartridges are very similar, and externally appear the same.  But there are some differences that lie beneath the surface.

The 5.56 case has thicker walls to handle higher pressures, meaning the interior volume of the case is smaller than that of a .223.   This will alter the loading data used when reloading 5.56 brass to .223 specs.

Some 5.56 loads have a slightly longer overall length than commercial .223 loads.

The Chambers

The significant difference between the .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO lies in the rifles, rather than the cartridges themselves.  Both the .223 and 5.56 rounds will chamber in rifles designed for either cartridge, but the critical component, leade, will be different in each rifle.

The leade is the area of the barrel in front of the chamber prior to where the rifling begins.  This is where the loaded bullet is located when a cartridge is chambered.  The leade is frequently called the “throat.”

On a .223 Remington spec rifle, the leade will be 0.085”.  This is the standard described by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc. (SAAMI).  The leade in a 5.56 NATO spec rifle is 0.162”, or almost double the leade of the .223 rifle.

A shorter leade in a SAAMI spec rifle creates a situation where the bullet in a 5.56 NATO round, when chambered, can contact the rifling prior to being fired.  By having contact with the rifling prematurely (at the moment of firing), chamber pressure can be dramatically increased, creating the danger of a ruptured case or other cartridge/gun failure.

The reverse situation, a .223 Rem round in a 5.56 NATO gun, isn’t dangerous.  The leade is longer, so a slight loss in velocity and accuracy may be experienced, but there is not a danger of increased pressures and subsequent catastrophic failure.

How serious is the danger of firing 5.56 ammo in .223 guns?  Dangerous enough that the SAAMI lists 5.56 military ammo as being not for use in .223 firearms in the technical data sheet titled “Unsafe Firearm-Ammunition Combinations.”

ATK, the parent company of ammunition manufacturers Federal Cartridge Company and Speer, published a bulletin entitled “The Difference Between 223 Rem and 5.56 Military Cartridges.”  In this bulletin, ATK stated using 5.56 ammo in a .223 rifle could result in “…primer pocket gas leaks, blown cartridge case heads, and gun functioning issues.”

However, the danger may be lower than SAAMI or ATK suggest.  In Technical Note #74 from ArmaLite, the company states “millions of rounds of NATO ammunition have been fired safely in Eagle Arms and ArmaLite’s® SAAMI chambers over the past 22 years,” and they have not had any catastrophic failures.

According to ArmaLite:

“Occasionally a non-standard round (of generally imported) ammunition will fit too tightly in the leade, and resistance to early bullet movement can cause elevated chamber pressures.  These pressures are revealed by overly flattened primers or by powder stains around the primer that reveal leaking gasses.”

What Do You Have?

So, if you own a rifle chambered for the .223 for 5.56, do you know for which caliber it is really chambered?

Many match rifles are chambered in .223 Remington (SAAMI specs) for tighter tolerances, and theoretically better accuracy.

Many of the AR-15’s currently sold on the market are made for the 5.56 NATO cartridge.  If you own one of these, you should be fine with any .223 or 5.56 ammunition.

However, ATK dropped this bomb in the bulletin on the .223/5.56:

“It is our understanding that commercially available AR15’s and M16’s – although some are stamped 5.56 Rem on the receiver – are manufactured with .223 chambers.”

So, even if your AR is stamped 5.56, is it really?  Check your owner’s manual or call the company directly and make sure you get an answer you feel comfortable with.

As if the confusion regarding the .223 vs 5.56 chambers wasn’t enough, there is a third possibility in the mix, that is being used by at least one major manufacturer.  The .223 Wylde chamber is a modified SAAMI-spec .223 chamber that allows for the safe use of 5.56 NATO rounds, but maintains tighter tolerances for better accuracy.

Yeah, yeah… What’s the bottom line?

Here’s the bottom line.  If you want to follow the safest possible course, always shoot .223 Remington ammunition.  The .223 Rem cartridge will safely shoot in any rifle chambered for the .223 or 5.56.

If you want to shoot 5.56 NATO rounds, make sure you have a rifle designed for the 5.56 military cartridge.  Shooting 5.56 in a normal .223 Rem rifle can result in bad things.

Suspected burglar shot by Geneva Co. homeowner

FADETTE, Ala. (WDHN) — Early Friday morning, a Wiregrass homeowner shot an intruder twice with a handgun — after telling him to leave and then a struggle between the two.

Authorities say the suspect was in the process of burglarizing the rural residence when the homeowner awakened to a sound from the back door.

Emergency responders arrived at a trailer off Audy Lane in eastern Geneva County’s Fadette community, just after 3 a.m. this morning.

Geneva County Sheriff Tony Helms says he and Geneva/Dale District Attorney Kirke Adams will gather all the evidence before charging the suspect.

“We worked the scene at the time, we’ve spoke to several witnesses there and several other locations and we’ve referred to the District attorney,” Sheriff Helms. “And determine what the charges will be. But at this time we don’t see any charges against the homeowner.

Sheriff Helms says once the suspect is released from the hospital he will be arrested and charged with the “Home invasion”

How the government covers for anti-gun media

I tend to be pretty critical of media bias. After all, I used to actually believe that media bias wasn’t really a huge thing, that those who saw it were really just upset that the news wasn’t biased in their direction.

Then I grew up. I saw all the examples of bias as supposed journalists went out of their way to push slanted reporting as hard fact.

Yet over at Ammoland, they’re looking at someone else’s bias, a bias that helps the media get away with stuff you or I never would.

A broadcast journalist using a hidden camera enters a gun show, purchases two “80-percent” gun kits, then goes to the state attorney general’s office where two agents help complete and assemble the guns before firing them on a range—allegedly violating state and federal gun laws in the process—while the camera records it all.

During a Sunday morning interview with a network news anchor, a nationally-known gun rights leader is challenged to discuss a 30-round magazine held by the anchor, on a show broadcast from the nation’s capital, where such magazines are known to be illegal.

A nationally-known broadcast journalist produces a special about gun control during which the video is edited to make it appear several gun rights activists are speechless when asked how felons or terrorists might be prevented from purchasing guns without background checks.…

A look back over the years suggests a pattern of “gotcha” journalism that seems to invariably get a pass, and gun rights activists are calling foul, as there is the perception that news agencies are using the First Amendment to undermine the Second Amendment. Grassroots activists contend that if private citizens did the same things depicted on screen, they would almost certainly face prosecution.

In other words, it seems government officials are heavily biased as well and are benefiting the media when they conduct actions that would destroy anyone else.

Time and time again, some in the media have outright broken laws, broadcast it, and gotten away with it because they’re advancing the narrative that certain parties in the government actually agree with.

For example, Katie Couric got away with deceptively editing a “documentary” so it appeared gun rights activists had no answer for a question because the judge argued it “demonstrated the sophistry” of the plaintiffs. Yet to call the actual response–the one Couric removed and pretended didn’t exist–sophistry is to take a position on the validity of those arguments.

That’s an act of bias that has no place in a courtroom.

Yet time and time again, government officials–either law enforcement or in the courts–have taken a side.

That means it’s imperative that such officials be targeted for removal from office. Lawsuits, campaigns, petitions, whatever it takes, we need to hold these people accountable for their blatantly biased actions in favor of a blatantly anti-gun media.

Duh.. Violent crime increasing the most in high crime neighborhoods

Mapping gun violence: A closer look at the intersection between place and gun homicides in four cities

The rise in gun homicides in the United States is having reverberating political ramifications at the federal, state, and local levels, with many elected officials falling back into “tough on crime” policies to curb the violence. This punitive turn can be seen in President Joe Biden’s proposed federal budget, in which he calls for “more police officers on the beat” and allocates an additional $30 billion for state and local governments to support law enforcement. Many local leaders are mirroring this approach, centering their gun violence prevention strategies on increasing funding for police and rolling back criminal justice reforms.  

What these enforcement-based approaches fail to recognize is that the recent rise in homicides is more nuanced than it appears. Rather than a widespread dispersal of gun violence within cities, the increases in gun homicides are largely concentrated in disinvested and structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods that had high rates of gun violence to begin with. This geographic concentration is a persistent challenge, not a new one—and it requires targeted solutions to improve outcomes in disinvested places rather than reverting to the old “tough on crime” playbook. 

This piece takes a deeper look at patterns of gun violence in four cities—Chicago, Nashville, Kansas City, Mo. and Baltimore—and finds that each city’s gun homicide increases were driven predominantly by increases in neighborhoods where gun violence has long been a persistent fixture of daily life, alongside systemic disinvestment, segregation, and economic inequality. These patterns point to the longer-term need to address the place-based factors that influence violence and invest in the critical community infrastructure that has not only been proven to make communities safer, but can also help them thrive.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The concept that an openly armed person is a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.

Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violent, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech………..

Defining open carry of weapons as a legal provocation is Orwellian word manipulation.

Is Carrying a Gun Provocation to be Attacked

In the law of self-defense of almost all states, If a person is attacked, and reasonably fears for their life, they may legally defend themselves with deadly force. A small minority of states require a person to retreat from the situation if they can do so in complete safety.

In all states of which I am aware, a person may not use deadly force in self-defense, if they provoked the attack with the intent of using deadly force.

It is not legal to start a fight so the person who started the fight can kill someone who they provoked.

Mere possession of an openly carried weapon is not a legal provocation to attack.

The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.

This creates a bizarre world where mere open possession of a weapon is sufficient to justify a deadly attack on the possessor. Apply this to the police. They almost always carry a deadly weapon, openly.

This concept is contrary to common sense and the experience of thousands of years.

Continue reading “”

Biden’s Earth Day Remarks Show Just How Much He Is Deteriorating.

I wrote about how Joe Biden’s confusion and delusion went into overdrive when he was in Portland on Thursday.

But if it’s possible, I think it might even have been worse Friday in Seattle, during his Earth Day remarks.

First, we’ll note that it took Biden’s visit to do something about the homeless problem near the Westin Hotel where Biden was staying. Local media reported they removed two homeless camps nearby. According to the mayor’s office, the camps were cleared “to ensure safety” for Joe Biden.

Oh. How nice. It would be nice if they would care about the safety of the residents of Seattle, as the problem has burgeoned out of control. This is just a face-saving temporary measure, unfortunately, as the camps will likely be back. But that was the good part. Then came Biden’s remarks.

He went into word salad on our “natural wonders.” But his word salad is different from that of Kamala Harris, because his brain seems to break mid-sentence, while she just goes on and on, saying essentially the same thing.

He went into that creepy, weird whispering thing, when talking about offshore windmills.

“I don’t want to hear about it anymore, you don’t like looking at them…They’re pretty,” he intoned.

Continue reading “”

On this day in 1960, President Eisenhower signed the law into effect making Wilson’s Creek a national battlefield monument

The Battle for Wilson’s Creek’s recognition

 In southern Greene County, there is peace.

You can’t hear traffic. The wind howls through the trees, birds chirp, and a creek churns through the hills.

But as soon as you hear the name of this creek, your opinion of this place will change. This is Wilson’s Creek and in 1861 peace was far from here.

“The Battle of Wilson’s Creek is the second major battle of the Civil War,” superintendent of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield Sarah Cunningham said. “It’s also the first major battle west of the Mississippi.”

Missouri was a key state to hold thanks to the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. A large Confederate army was camping near Wilson’s Creek with plans of claiming the state for the South. But on August 10, 1861, General Nathaniel Lyon led his Union soldiers from Springfield to surprise the southern encampment on what became known as Bloody Hill.

“It was a five or six-hour bloody battle that took place,” Cunningham said.

A few hours into the fight, General Lyon was killed while positioning his troops. He becomes the first Union general killed in action in the Civil War.

“For years, veterans of this battle would come back to remember,” Cunningham said, “and commemorate the battle that occurred here.”

Those veterans would lay rocks at the spot where their leader, General Lyon died. In 1928, the rocks were replaced with a stone marker made by the University Club of Springfield. But to see it, visitors would have to trespass on the private land.

“Schoolchildren would go to school and they would bring pennies, nickels, anything that they could save,” Cunningham said, “and contribute to the preservation of the Battle of Wilson’s Creek.”

In 1951, the Foundation purchased the 37-acres of land known as Bloody Hill. Over the next few years, the property would grow in size but not in status.

With 16 Civil War sites as National Parks, the government didn’t need another. The Pea Ridge National Military Park in Arkansas was added in 1956. One account mentioned the National Parks thought Pea Ridge was enough to tell the story of the war west of the Mississippi.

After several failed attempts, the Foundation’s persistence paid off.

“On April 22, 1960, President Eisenhower signs into law the establishment of Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield,” Cunningham said.

Over the decades, a tour road was built around the site as well as a horse riding trail and walking trails. Signs were placed telling stories about this battle and taking you to the points of interest.

In 2021, a $3.5 million renovation was made to the Visitor’s Center and Museum.

The Arts in the Park Music Series is back on Saturday nights in May at Wilson’s Creek. It’s also planning a large event over Memorial Day weekend. And, the National Parks just launched a Wellness Challenge you can do while at Wilson’s Creek. Just visit the Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield website for more information.

This was ruled on by the Supreme Court way back in 1968 in Haynes v U.S.

Excluding Criminals from Gun Checks is Bad
Biden/Harris Gun Plan Omits Criminals. New Plan Only Affects Innocent People

Mass media has overlooked, or failed to recognize, that the core of the Biden administration’s announced plan for so-called “gun control” would overlook criminals and the arsenals they have already. Strict laws to stop this have been passed, but enforcement tools, budget and most crucial a crime-stop attitude is missing. The Administration has adopted a take-guns-from-the-innocent mindset. For crime control, we must move past defund-the-police, police-are-oppressors and guns-are-evil mindset now in the curriculum. Biden and his team must recognize that if courts and cops don’t enforce the laws, disarming the public will only make things worse.

The recent focus on newly vilified so-called “ghost guns” is a perfect case in point. Murders, primarily in disadvantaged neighborhoods, are in the tens of thousands. Where’s the media? At a rose garden presser attacking a new gun concept. The murderers walk free. Meanwhile newshounds take the bait and assault homemade firearms—constitutionally protected property. This is sleight of hand by leadership, ignoring crime control and scapegoating arms—that criminals basically don’t use! “Gun control” doesn’t stop criminal behavior, it lets it thrive.

Proposed gun registries for specialty firearms cannot even address the “guns-on-the-streets” narrative. There are no guns “on the streets,” ghost-like or otherwise. Guns are in criminal hands, from lack of attention. Armed street criminals cannot legally possess guns in the first place, you cannot expect them to register.

Mandating it would require them to self-incriminate, a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment—criminals cannot be forced to use any proposed ghost registry. The new plan is mainly a way to compel more government databases—small requirements, with illegal compulsion, inching up to massive bans. Mass media should make this clear if they’re doing their job but they aren’t. Mass media wants you registered, and it shows. Even logic dictates this glaring flaw in the proposal—if you could require people banned from guns to register, you could just round them up and their illegally held firearms.

 

“If you caucus with gun grabbers, you are a gun grabber.”

Can “Pro-Gun” Democrats Be Trusted?

(No. And you can barely trust “Pro-Gun” Republicans)

From time to time, the topic comes up in which we are tasked with deciding if a Democrat deserves our vote based primarily on their support of the 2nd Amendment. I was in a discussion about this topic and realized that there’s a major problem with this. Often, we hear Democrats announce that they are “gun-owners” and/or “hunters” prior to some sort of anti-gun statement.

I have my doubts as to whether their “gun ownership” amounts to much more than a dusty old war rifle that grandpa left in the attic and their implication to be “one of us” is often a tactic used to gain some sort of “authority” in a gun-control debate, but let’s look at this from a practical perspective. If I were to support a Democrat who claims to be “pro-gun,” (whether that be a Senator, Representative or even the President,) what other policies am I inadvertently supporting, and how high on the hierarchical scale of values are gun rights for this person?

Show me a Democrat who claims they don’t support universal background checks, red flag laws, magazine capacity restrictions, waiting periods, 21-year-old age requirements, semi-automatic rifle bans, bump-stock bans, suppressor bans, forced reset trigger bans & suing manufacturers out of business, and I will show you a liar.

What makes them a Democrat? Isn’t the very reason they vote on the left, to support the policies of those on the left? How many more left-wing policies do you want your children and grandchildren to be burdened with? Is it likely that they will actually go against their party on gun rights when you need them to? Have you ever seen that happen, and in the rare case it might, where else are they compromising your values? Some strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment are willing to support a Democrat who claims to support gun rights. Is this because they believe we are converting them? Good luck with that. The real question is, what else are we getting in that dysfunctional social package?

In an announcement on April, 11, 2022, on “ghost guns,” Joe Biden revealed this exact hypocrisy when he called firearms dealers “merchants of death,” yelled and screamed about “weapons of war” and then went on to say, “and by the way. It’s gonna sound bizarre. I support the 2nd Amendment.”

When we support a so-called “pro 2nd Amendment Democrat,” are we also supporting their position on open borders, abortion, CRT, bisexual bathrooms, “sex-ed” for Kindergarteners, the termination of oil drilling in America, the green new deal, ESG, the early release of prisoners, bail reform, never-ending medical mandates, the defunding of our police departments, welfare dependency and the overall forfeiture of our basic ability to make our own decisions? Because if so, I’m out.

So why are any of us being asked to put at risk, and most likely compromise, traditional American values and Conservative beliefs, just to get a “2A-friendly” vote in Congress by some politician who claims to support our gun rights? (Which by the way, probably wouldn’t happen when it comes down to actual voting behavior due to massive Congressional pressure from their peers.) Could it be Democrats recognize how strong the 2nd Amendment is and how protective of it, most Americans are? Could presenting a so-called “pro-gun Democrat,” be a way of coercing Republicans into unwittingly compromising at the voting booth with the hopes of saving our 2nd Amendment?

Sorry. The 2nd Amendment is not up for debate or compromise.

When I hear people suggesting that I should support a Democrat because they are “pro-gun,” I smell a rat. I have a problem trusting most Republicans with the 2nd Amendment. Now you’re asking me to vote for a Democrat? I don’t think so.

As Crime Grows, Biden’s Radical War On Self-Defense Is Alienating Voters

President Joe Biden’s unpopular gun control moves are doing little to appease his gun control donor class. Worse, those same moves are distancing him from voters that clearly see crime as a central issue and gun ownership as a right to be protected.

Among the unpopular policy positions dragging down his presidency is his myopic focus on gun control instead of crime control. The Biden White House has pursued the most far-reaching and radical gun control agenda of any president, previously naming a gun control lobbyist to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) whose nomination was defeated when not even all Senate Democrats could support the nominee.

Biden has since nominated Steve Dettelbach, who once campaigned for public office on a gun control platform. President Biden is also circumventing Congress’s authority to write laws by issuing an administrative rule to redefine frames and receivers and ban arm braces on AR-style pistols and instituting a top-down policy of “zero tolerance” inspections that would revoke licenses of firearm retailers instead of working with small business owners to correct minor clerical errors.

On top of that, President Biden is facing two additional factors not working in his favor on gun control and lawful gun ownership. Gun control groups are livid that President Biden hasn’t delivered their goal of disarming the American population. He was rated just a “D+” by gun control groups exasperated that he hasn’t ruled like a dictator to unilaterally ban entire classes of firearms and delivered a laundry list of gun control “must-haves,” including a Cabinet-adjacent position that’s outside of Senate confirmation to push even more gun control policies.

Voters Are Worried About Criminals, Not Legal Gun Owners

Continue reading “”

These 10 Incidents Highlight Importance of Second Amendment for Women

Since 1987, the United States has recognized March as Women’s History Month to celebrate the vital role of women in American history. Unfortunately, far too often we find that the armed women of history are overlooked or completely forgotten, and the vital role of the Second Amendment in the lives of American women is ignored.

Women long have availed themselves of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of life, liberty, and property—from Harriet Tubman, the famed “conductor” of the underground railroad who was known to carry loaded pistols, to Mary “Stagecoach Mary” Fields, the first black woman to be a mail carrier, who notoriously kept a .38 revolver in her apron to fend off bandits and wild animals alike.

Tubman and Fields haven’t been alone.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accounts here from 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

To honor Women’s History Month, we decided to highlight 10 incidents from last month in which the Second Amendment made all the difference for women, either because they were armed or because another armed person came to their defense.

The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in March. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database. (The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.)

Continue reading “”

80-year-old homeowner shoots, kills intruder during break-in

FLINT TWP., MI – An 80-year-old man shot and killed a person who broke into his West Bristol Road home on Thursday night, according to Flint Township police.

Police were dispatched shortly after 8:45 p.m. Thursday, April 21, to the 1000 block of West Bristol Road for the report of a shooting.

A 31-year-old man had broke into the home and was confronted by the 80-year-old homeowner, police said. The homeowner shot and killed the intruder.

Police said the homeowner was released after the incident pending further investigation.

DeSantis’ Office Releases Examples Of Rejected CRT-Inspired Math Textbooks

Florida’s Department of Education released examples of critical race theory in mathematics textbooks, including one book that claimed conservatives are more racially prejudiced than liberals, according to a press release.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office announced Monday that the state’s education department rejected 41% of the math textbooks for reportedly including “indoctrinating concepts” and Common Core standards, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation. Florida’s education department released examples of CRT material Thursday after they received multiple requests from the public to view the alleged controversial books, according to a press release. VVVVVVVV

https://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/instructional-materials

^^^^^^^^^^^

“These examples do not represent an exhaustive list of input received by the Department,” the presser reads.

One textbook showed students a bar graph that measures racial prejudice by political identification. The graph shows that conservatives are reportedly more racist than liberals, citing data from the debunked Race Implicit Association Test.

A separate page highlighted the concept of “social-emotional learning,” which is steeped in the tenets of critical race theory.

Continue reading “”

Biological Sex Isn’t Up For Debate

Regardless of what the mainstream media and Democrats might want you to think, no one can change their biological sex, regardless of the hormones or surgical procedures that they might undertake to attempt to do so. We are at a moment in time where up is down and down is up, and it’s a dangerous precedent if we allow it to foment itself as a cultural norm and standard. If I were to die today and someone dug up my bones hundreds of years from now, they would know through well-defined science that my remains are those of a male. The same applies for women, and yet now we’re seeing a movement from a very small but vocal community attempting to convince the entire nation otherwise. Unfortunately, we’re slowly falling for it.

If a grown person who has gone through the hormonal ups and downs of puberty and is of sane mind wants to permanently alter themselves, that’s their business, and, frankly, I couldn’t care less, as long as their personal choices don’t infringe on my civil liberties. However, this fringe group of people is trying to force everyone to change their gender norms — norms that have been defined by years of science and civilization — to make some feel better about themselves. We must all object to such coercion.

Today, we’re literally being told that men can menstruate and have periods. We’re told that birthing people have babies, not women. We’re told that people are men, instead of men just being men. All of this is because of a pervasive movement in this country to undermine gender norms and to glorify the transgender community. Women have worked for over 100 years to get better pay and to accomplish groundbreaking achievements, only to have those things diminished by transgender women. Young girls and female athletes are now losing competitions against biological men who are competing against biological women because they have chosen to identify as a woman or girl. It no longer matters if a young girl or woman worked hard for her accomplishments in her given sport because it won’t be good enough to defeat a biological male who is naturally stronger and faster. Yet, we now live in a dystopian society where we’re supposed to believe that these new norms are OK. Well, they are not, and we must stand against them.

To be clear, opposing the idea of biological males who become trans women competing against biological women isn’t synonymous with being against people who are different or who are trans; again, that’s their choice or personal journey. However, what it does mean is standing against forcing the overwhelming majority of society to accept something that science tells us simply isn’t the case. We now live in a society where parents have to worry about their children learning about sexuality at young ages, something Florida just recently prohibited in recent legislation that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” I am hopeful that people are waking up and pushing back against this nonsense.

Cultural norms and standards are a definitive guide to our role in society and for a society’s continued success. Men and women are different, and that is OK! Nature has designed us that way for very specific reasons, and we shouldn’t ignore nor tamper with it. Yes, there is a fraction of the population that struggles with or is going through a gender identity crisis. That’s their personal journey, and I feel for their struggle. However, they lose my support the moment they begin to tramp on women’s rights or infiltrate our schools with gender discussions at inappropriate ages or attempt to redefine what it means to be a woman or man. These personal struggles are now infringing on the lives of everyone else, and we have a right to say something about it.

Why do these things matter, some might ask? Well, norms and structure matter because they define and regulate our society and help keep it civilized. They help us process and define things. They assign value and identity to things. Can they change over time? Yes, of course they can. But some things in particular that science has clearly defined, such as gender, are not up for debate.

No matter how much some may say that men have periods, a man can never have a menstrual cycle because this requires ovaries and a uterus, which biological males do NOT have. It doesn’t matter if some say birthing people because only women can have babies. These may be hard truths for some, but they are the reality, nevertheless. And there’s nothing that a single person can do to change science and reality.

Comment O’ The Day
I used to feel sorry for him, but not anymore. He has no idea what country he is in much less to lead the people. We are the laughing stock of the entire planet
–Steve H

Biden Was Just Asked About Ending Title 42 For Illegal Immigrants And Instead He Rambled About Masks On Planes.

Observation O’ The Day
So you can see where his demented mind went; Title 42 is a COVID policy. It was instituted by Trump to prevent illegals from bringing COVID in across the border. He put that COVID policy together with the most likely thing he’d been briefed to handle – the mask mandate suspension  – and voila!, you have this incoherent mingling of parts of both. 

.44 Magnum Concealed Carry
Once known as “The most powerful handgun in the world,” with a little work, a .44 Magnum revolver can be a very effective concealed carry pistol.

.44 Magnum for self defense

One rule of thumb in the shooting world is that bigger guns are easier to shoot but harder to conceal, whereas small guns are easy to conceal but more difficult to shoot. I’ve spent most of my shooting career in the big gun arena due to a penchant for handgun hunting, but as more and more states have acknowledged the validity of the second amendment and the need for personal self-defense, my attention has been captured by the importance of concealed carry. I’ve always been comforted by the presence of large calibers when afield, especially the .44 Magnum, but when one leaves America’s vast hunting areas and ventures back into civilization, how does one maintain some level of comfort with the idea of a .44 Magnum for concealed carry?

Continue reading “”

To recap:
CDC APPROVES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S APPEAL TO BRING BACK AIRLINE MASK MANDATE.

Psaki Admits Appealing the CDC Mandate Ruling Is All About Preserving Power

In Wednesday’s White House press briefing, Jen Psaki was asked about the Biden administration’s rather disjointed reaction to a federal judge in Florida striking down the CDC’s mask mandate for travelers and its delayed response to the ruling — as Townhall reported earlier this week.

But when given the opportunity to explain and justify the Biden administration’s decision to appeal the federal judge’s invalidation of the CDC’s federal mask mandate, Psaki admitted that the White House would fight the ruling in order to “preserve that authority for the CDC to have in the future.” That is, it’s not about The Science(TM), it’s about protecting power.

Continue reading “”

Irony Alert, as Biden Preaches: ‘You Shouldn’t Make Money While You’re in Office’

“Joe Biden being Joe Biden.” It’s a thing. And that thing is not only getting more pathetic, such as clueless Joe’s Easter Bunny minder at Monday’s White House Easter Roll, but also more mind-blowingly ironic and devoid of self-awareness. The latter brings us to the latest example.

During his Tuesday remarks on the so-called “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” Biden did what he always does: embellished, took credit for things he didn’t do, outright lied, and in one ironic as hell admonishment, declared: “You shouldn’t make money while you’re in office.” (Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority of the members of Congress were last seen rushing for the exits.)

Despite the long history of Washington politicians of course making money while in office — and a hell of a lot of it — the 500-pound elephant in the room is Joe Biden himself, and his “The Big Guy” cuts of his grifter son Hunter’s shady business dealings in Ukraine and China.

Here’s Joe, as transcribed by Becker News:

When I was running for office, you heard it a thousand times from me, that we’re going build an economy me around you.  “I’m so tired of trickle-down economics. And I never found that that trickled down on top of my head very much.

I was listed… I had the great pleasure of being listed as the poorest man in Congress for 36 years. I still was making a hell of a lot more money than anybody else because I was getting a senator’s salary, no kidding.

Yeah, well, “no kidding,” or whatever. Regardless of Biden’s “poorest man in Congress” schtick, Joe and “Dr.” Jill have been able to amass an estimated net worth of $9 million since he left the vice presidency. Whether or not Joe owns “off-the-books” assets in excess of his net worth is another story. At issue, of course, is how much money Biden has made from the aforementioned shady business deals with the aforementioned grifter son.

But again, Biden’s ironic statement of ironic statements from yesterday’s remarks: “I didn’t think you should make money while you’re in office,” he claimed. Wait— let’s replay the tape one more time:

Continue reading “”