Gun-Control’s Latest Contradiction with Charles C.W. Cooke
Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let’s also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent.
There are several Republicans who are apparently eager to come to a compromise on guns with the Democrats, whose ultimate goal is to rule unchallenged over a nation of disarmed, supine Canadian serfs. Some are lawyers, which explains why they are in Congress and not raking in bucks lawyering. If I went to one of my clients and suggested, “Okay, I propose we resolve this matter by giving the other side a lot of money and getting nothing in return,” I would have to find an alternate income stream too.
The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that’s how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning “assault rifles” completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that’s a tangent – the proposed “compromise” seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I’m missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory.
Of course, this effectively buys into the premise that there is something wrong with guns. There is not. Guns, as I point out in my new book “We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America,” are an essential element of any free society. Australia gave up its guns and look at them. Canada, too. Nah, I say we unreservedly reserve our ultimate veto over tyranny.
People who wish us ill wish the opposite. Recently, Chris Hayes, the bespectacled nimrod who holds the briefcase of the slightly more masculine Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, recently simpered that a lot of Americans insist on keeping their guns to fight tyrannical government agents. Well, yeah. Exactly. Nothing gets by him. Weird that he would reach back about 250 years to oppose the Revolutionary War, but whatever. Sissies gotta siss.
The unspoken premise of the people outraged that the citizenry wants to retain the ultimate veto on government power is that they are the ones who will be wielding that government power. And you need to wonder why they want us disarmed.
Actually, you don’t. You lived through COVID and know.
In support of this noxious notion come some establishment people waving their credentials on Twitter around like you should simply defer to them. One is a major general who used to run my alma mater, the Infantry School at Ft. Benning. According to the general, he gets it. He knows that these are weapons of war and that we civilians don’t need them. Well, not so much.
As much as I love generals [INSERT THEATRICAL EYE-ROLL HERE], I must point out some problems with the two-star’s premise. A major general typically commands a division of about 15,000. He is a conductor of organized violence, operating in the macro. Of course, he understands what a 5.56mm/.223 round can do. You know who else knows what a 5.56mm/.223 round can do? Me and every other vet who ever shot one, as well as the 20 million or more Americans who own AR-15s and the tens of millions of others who have used them. So, there’s no special expertise there.
We know those rounds can hurt people. That’s why we want them. To hurt bad people if deterrence fails. That’s why in the LA Riots, the Army gave me a 5.56mm rifle to carry. I just think everyone else should get the same protection I had.
The general goes further than mere technical details and opines that such weapons do not belong in the possession of anyone outside the military, where, presumably, people like him can control their use. But that’s not a technical issue for which he is offering his expertise. That’s a policy issue. Why is a former (but sympathetic) government official under the impression that his past position gives him some sort of special expertise that we should defer to in terms of foundational constitutional policy, i.e., whether or not citizens should have the capacity to resist violent tyranny? The answer is that he doesn’t, and the fact that guys like him are presumably the ones who would be called upon to carry out the dirty work of a tyrannical government (in the remote but potential scenario where that might happen in the future) actually makes him the very worst person to opine on the policy.
But you are supposed to be dazzled by the stars and submit. You can be sure there are GOP dummies just aching to, held back only by Mitch McConnell – the frustrating Murder Turtle who nevertheless is no dummy – whispering in their ears that screwing us over on guns is just about the only thing that can turn an electoral environment of $6 a gallon gas and public school groomers into a Republican rout.
No, this is not the time to go soft. This is not the time to indulge the perennial Republican disease of craven spinelessness in the face of Democrats and their regime media minions screaming lies about them. This is the time to say “No.”
No compromise on our rights. Not now. Not ever.
It really doesn’t take much for SloJoe to be ‘baffled’ does it?
And demoncraps have run with the same ‘product’ for too many decades for them to change now.
BLUF
If dogs won’t eat the dog food you’re selling, a new slogan won’t fix the problem. You need to change your product.
Hey, Team Biden, the problem isn’t your political messaging. It’s reality.
In five months, 13 Democratic senators and 191 Democratic representatives face their angry constituents at the ballot box. Some of them likely wonder why they didn’t join the 32 Dems opting for retirement instead.
The midterms are looking rough for Team Donkey. Very rough. And most of the troubles come straight from the top. While President Biden isn’t up for reelection this year, he’ll likely be responsible for ending a lot of careers this November.
Inflation is soaring, economists are warning of a recession, and moms still can’t find baby formula. Meanwhile, Biden is baffled about why voters are so upset with him.
Texas woman fatally shoots suspected stalker who kicked in front door
A Texas woman shot and killed her suspected stalker after he kicked in her front door, police say.
The shooting unfolded last Monday evening in Harris County at the Gateway at Ellington apartment complex. Houston Police responded to the apartments and found a male with a gunshot wound to the chest.
The unidentified man was pronounced dead at the scene.
Police said the unidentified woman shot the suspected stalker after he kicked in her front door. The woman told police she had recently moved to get away from the man, SBG San Antonio reported.
Police said they found damage to the woman’s door frame. Other people were inside the residence during the incident………
Biden’s Inner Trudeau: On Guns, the President seems to be Operating Under the Wrong Constitution
Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for gun bans after the massacre in Uvalde, Texas. The massacre has already been used as the basis for calls to end the filibuster, pack the court, limits on gun ownership, and outright bans. One member called for all of the above. The rhetoric is again outstripping the reality of constitutional and practical limits for gun control. Last night, President Joe Biden formally called for banning “assault weapons” while repeating the dubious claim that an earlier ban sharply reduced mass shootings.
Here is the column:
In our increasingly hateful and divisive politics, there are times when our nation seems incapable of coming together for a common purpose. Tragedies — moments of shared national grieving and mutual support — once were the exception. Yet one of the most chilling aspects of the aftermath of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas, was how the moment of unity was quickly lost to political posturing.
Politicians have long admitted that a crisis is an opportunity not to be missed — the greater the tragedy, the greater the opportunity. After the mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, New York’s Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called for censorship to “silence the voices of hatred and racism.” After the Uvalde massacre, some Democrats renewed calls for everything from court packing to ending the Senate filibuster.
The most immediate response, however, was a call for gun bans. Vice President Kamala Harris got out front of the White House by demanding a ban on AR-15s, the most popular weapon in America. Then President Joe Biden created a stir by suggesting he might seek to ban 9mm weapons.
Such calls are not limited to the United States. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government is introducing legislation to “implement a national freeze on handgun ownership.” He said Canadians would no longer be able “to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” adding that “there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives.”
The difference between the push in the two countries is the existence of the Second Amendment in the United States — a constitutionally mandated “reason” why Americans are allowed to have guns; they don’t have to prove it to the government.
While the White House subsequently tried to walk back his comments, Biden saying there’s “no rational basis” to own 9mms and AR-15s sounds like he’s channeling his inner Canadian.
There is now a strong majority for gun control reforms. However, politicians are once again ignoring what is constitutionally possible by focusing on what is politically popular with their voting base.
NY Times gets it right: polls showing support for gun control doesn’t mean the votes are there
How many times have you seen a news article talking about how most people support gun control? I know I’ve seen it a ton over the years. The media and politicians latch onto poll numbers as if they’re sacrosanct, telling us this proves the public supports them.
Then the election rolls around and gun control doesn’t seem to make a blip on the radar.
Over at the New York Times, they decided to delve into just why that is.
It’s one of the most puzzling questions for Democrats in American politics: Why is the political system so unresponsive to gun violence? Expanded background checks routinely receive more than 80 percent or 90 percent support in polling. Yet gun control legislation usually gets stymied in Washington and Republicans never seem to pay a political price for their opposition.
There have been countless explanations offered about why political reality seems so at odds with the polling, including the power of the gun lobby; the importance of single-issue voters; and the outsize influence of rural states in the Senate.
But there’s another possibility, one that might be the most sobering of all for gun control supporters: Their problem could also be the voters, not just politicians or special interests.
Oh, blaming the voters, right?
Not really.
You see, the argument being made isn’t that the voters are somehow wrong, but that issue polling is, well, useless.
Tools and puppets don’t have plans, and Biden is both.
There is no plan.
The closer attention you pay to Biden, the less he has to say.
President Joe Biden is “rattled,” according to NBC News, and “looking to regain voters’ confidence that he can provide the sure-handed leadership he promised during the campaign.”
How? By trying to change the media narrative. On May 30, Biden published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that explained “My Plan for Fighting Inflation.” The next day, Biden wrote a “guest essay” for the New York Times on “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.”
Bad poll numbers and a collapsing domestic and international situation have excited the typically drowsy president into action. There’s a problem, though. The closer you read Biden’s op-eds, the less he has to say. This new, annoyed, engaged Biden may be a prolific writer and speaker. But he’s not an incisive one. He won’t admit that there is a connection between his ideology and America’s problems. He can’t decide between giving Ukraine the weapons necessary to defeat Russia or settling for a war of attrition.
Biden’s Journal op-ed is a masterclass in passing the buck. He doesn’t bring up his “plan for fighting inflation” until midway through his thousand-word piece. My inner college professor wanted to send the article back to him with suggestions for revision. Number one: Always move your best material to the top!
The plan itself is gauzy and thin. “The Federal Reserve has a primary responsibility to control inflation.” You wouldn’t know that from listening to Progressives, including some of Biden’s nominees to the Federal Reserve, who argue that the Fed’s interest in price stability distracts it from promoting full employment, green energy, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Now Biden wants the Fed to correct not only its mistakes, but his own. Let’s see if his faith in an independent central bank can stand the test of higher interest rates, higher unemployment, and lower incomes.
Parts two and three of Biden’s inflation plan are the remnants of his Build Back Better agenda: some clean energy and housing subsidies here, a few tax hikes there. He mentions his use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices, but not his appeals to Venezuela and OPEC to boost the oil supply. As for the obvious answers to America’s energy problems—a complete reversal of Biden’s hostility to oil and gas exploration and production, huge investments in nuclear power, and emergency efforts to increase refinery capacity—Biden has no words. His devotion to the environmental lobby and to green energy blinds him. If the Progressive Left rejects nuclear power, the “clean energy future” it desires won’t arrive.
This mismatch between ends and means is visible in Biden’s Ukraine policy. The president tells New York Times readers that the United States sends Ukraine weapons “so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” The desired end state is “a democratic, independent, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.” And Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is in the driver’s seat. “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government—in private or public—to make any territorial concessions.”
All good. Why, then, limit the weapons deliveries to systems with ranges of 40 miles? Why slow-walk and agonize over each tranche of support? Why engage with Russia in farcical and dangerous negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons? Why not take a more active role in peace talks between Ukraine and Russia? The Biden policy is static even as the shape of the war changes in ways that favor the aggressor. The president’s goals are laudable. But his tactics are calibrated for a war that Ukraine is winning.
And Ukraine is not winning. At least not now. The Ukrainians defeated Russia’s attempt at regime change. But they have been less successful in removing Russia from eastern Ukraine and from their port cities in the south and southeast. Absent a change in Biden administration policy—in the ranges of weapons systems America provides Ukraine, in the establishment of a humanitarian corridor to relieve the Russian blockade of Ukrainian Black Sea ports, or in a major diplomatic effort—the war will turn into a frozen conflict with no clear resolution and with mounting humanitarian costs. How that situation would help anyone, including Biden, is unclear.
Then again, little Biden says or does makes sense from the vantage point of either policy or politics. He’s right to be rattled. He’s also clueless.
I don’t advise the use of warning shots. If the situation is bad enough that it’s time to go to guns, don’t waste ammo on something that’s not the problem. Take care of the problem.
Homeowner screamed and fired a warning shot before ultimately killing home intruder
A Mississippi homeowner shot and killed a man breaking into a residence Friday morning, police report.
Dispatchers received a 911 call just before 6 a.m. Friday morning about an unwanted person on Johnson Circle. As officers were on their way, the caller remained on the phone with 911 as the situation escalated, Adams County Sheriff TravisPatten said.
“He began to break windows around the residence and found an unlocked metal security door under the carport. He opened that door and then started trying to kick in the other door behind that. Once that door came open, the homeowner fired a warning shot first and then fired another shot which struck the suspect in the arm. The bullet proceeded on through his chest and he was pronounced dead on arrival.”
Patten added homeowners said they didn’t know Harris.
Adams County Coroner James Lee identified the man as 35-year-old Gari Harris.
“It’s another sad day in Natchez,” Lee said. “As always, my prayers go out to all of the families involved.”
The incident occurred on Johnson Circle, Patten said the man appears to have broken windows and tried to kick in the door of the residence before he was shot.
He was pronounced dead on arrival, he said
“At this time, we do not know why he was at that house,” he said. “He did the same thing at another residence up the street as well.”
He said the homeowners were taken to the sheriff’s office for questioning but it appears that they were acting defensively.
“Mississippi is a castle doctrine state,” he said. “While this subject was beating on the windows and doors, the homeowner screamed several times for him to leave making it clear that he was not wanted there. Even after he fired the warning shot, he continued trying to get into the residence.”
They’ve only cared about the Constitution when its powers were a benefit to what they wanted.
To confiscate guns, Democrats demoncraps are ready to destroy the courts and the Constitution
Most Democrats demoncraps in Congress do not care about institutions or the “commonsense” gun control proposals they profess to support. They want full-scale gun confiscation, and they don’t care how many norms and institutions they need to destroy to accomplish it.
Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) laid out where the Democrap Party stands and why Republicans should not humor any Democratic “deal” on gun control. “If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it,” Jones said. “If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it, and we will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities.”
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) put it more bluntly: “Spare me the bulls*** about constitutional rights.”
Does Jones or Cicilline know anything about these “weapons of war” they want to ban and confiscate? Of course not. Cicilline said that he couldn’t think of a “single incident” where “an assailant using an assault weapon” was stopped by someone with a gun, even though such an example happened just last week in West Virginia. More prominently, there was Stephen Willeford, the man who confronted a shooter at a church in Sutherland Springs. Grabien’s Tom Elliott has a list of self-defense stories, with 315 examples going back to Jan. 1, 2019.
Jones is embarrassingly uneducated as well. When asked, he said that “semiautomatic weapons would qualify as assault weapons.” He then said that handguns “would not qualify” as assault weapons, even though the vast majority of handguns are semiautomatic. “Semiautomatic” simply means the gun fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled and that you don’t need to cock or load the gun after every shot. Jones is either lying about not wanting to ban handguns or, more likely, he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
The same is true for President Joe Biden, who wants to ban 9 mm guns because “a 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” and “there is no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection.” Biden wants you to think that the most popular handgun caliber in the country is like a sci-fi weapon. The White House then walked back the idea that Biden supported a handgun ban. Either the White House is lying now, or Biden, who has been advocating gun control for years, still has not learned a single fact about what guns are or how they work.
Democrats constantly trip over themselves on gun control, repeating blatant falsehoods and calling for gun control policies that contradict their rhetoric. While they claim their policies are commonsense and moderate, their rhetoric indicates that the only way they can get what they want is through gun confiscation, whether they are openly pursuing it or not. As Cicilline and Jones helpfully illustrated, they will destroy the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution to do so.
‘Killing Weapon’? So he wants what; Nerf Guns with marshmallow bullets? Using any gun is using a ‘killing weapon’. That’s why they’re referred to as a class of ‘deadly weapon’
And, again, it’s not about ‘need’. That comes from communism.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
— Karl Marx
“It’s a killing weapon, and we don’t need them.” Sisolak blasts assault weapon ownership at rally
****
Sisolak claimed assault style weapons weren’t designed for self defense calling them “weapons of war” not protected under the second amendment.
“The nonsense that it’s a right, well then why isn’t it a right to have a rocket launcher, or to drive a tank instead of a car,” he said……..
In point of fact, you can have a rocket launcher and a fully armed tank, as well as artillery. All it takes is money, and in the case of explosives, proper storage. And yet these mental midgets get elected to high office.
99.99% of NICS denials are not prosecuted because they are false denials.
I’m concerned the NICS background check for gun purchases produces a disproportionate number of false denials for minorities.
Fortunately Democrats accepted my amendment to require the Attorney General to provide a NICS report based on race, age, and sex. pic.twitter.com/8ozV0eegqF
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 3, 2022
The Second Amendment was inspired by British plans to disarm every American.
A part of you probably already knew this, but didn’t have the details.
I’m about to chill you to the bones And give you every piece of evidence you need moving forward. So buckle up.
It began In 1768, “the freeholders” led by John Hancock and James Otis, met in Boston at Faneuil Hall and passed several resolutions. Including “that the Subjects being Protestants, may have Arms for their Defense.”
The royal governor rejected this proposal.
So this petition was circulated under the pseudonym “A.B.C.” (Who was more than likely Sam Adams)
Shortly after Sam Adams’ petition was circulated, per the Boston Evening Post, (Oct. 3, 1768) British troops took over Faneuil Hall.
And per The New York Journal, (Feb. 2, 1769) they ordered colonists turn in their guns.
The majority of mass shootings occur in ‘Gun Free Zones™’
