Comment O’ The Day
It cracks me up when they tell him to act mad so everyone thinks he really means it.


Biden Loses It Over Americans Correctly Knowing the Cause of Inflation

Speaking to House Democrats at their winter retreat in Philadelphia Friday afternoon, President Joe Biden started yelling at Americans who pin inflation on excessive government spending.

“I’m sick of this stuff!” Biden screamed, throwing his arms in the air. “The American people think the reason for inflation is government spending more money. Simply not true.”

But it is true. Take a look at the rise in inflation after Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was passed and signed.

This week’s Consumer Price Index report not only showed inflation at the highest level since 1982, but broke historic records for price increases on essential goods.

During an interview with CNBC Thursday afternoon, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned inflation is here to stay.

It wasn’t for the benefit of the children, but the state


Why Government Schooling Came to America.

In the first two essays in this series on the relationship between government and the education of children (“How the Redneck Intellectual Discovered Educational Freedom—and How You Can, Too” and “The New Abolitionism: A Manifesto for a Movement”), I established, first, how and why the principle of “Separation of School and State” is both a logical and moral necessity grounded in the rights of nature, and then I demonstrated how and why America’s government schools should be abolished as logical and moral necessities.

In this essay, I’d like to drill down more deeply into the nature and purposes of government schooling in order to further demonstrate how and why a system of government-run education is anathema to the tradition of American freedom and therefore immoral. Let me be clear (if I haven’t been so already): I regard the government school system to be the single worst and most destructive institution in America. It cannot be “reformed,” and it cannot be tolerated. Period. It must, therefore, be abolished.

To that end, it is important to understand how and why government schooling came to the United States in the first place. Most Americans today assume that the “public” school system is as American as apple pie, that it has been around since the first foundings of Britain’s North American colonies in the seventeenth century or at least since the founding of the United States of American in 1788. But this is not true.

In the longue durée of American history from the early seventeenth century to the present, the government school system is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. A system of nation-wide government schools was not fully implemented in this country until about 100 years ago.

Let’s begin with a brief journey through the early history of American education to see when, why, and how the American people gave up their unalienable right to educate their children and turned it over to government officials.

Early America’s System of Education

For almost 250 years, the education of children, first in England’s North American colonies and then in the United States of America up until the Civil War, was almost an entirely private affair. Parents had the freedom to choose the education, ideas, and values that they wanted for their children. The government was not involved in educating children. This is the great forgotten story of American history.

During this quarter millennium, children were typically educated in one of four ways. They were either homeschooled or they attended one of three different kinds of schools: 1) tuition-charging private schools; 2) charitable or “free” private schools established by philanthropists and religious societies; or 3) semi-public “district” schools (later known in the nineteenth century as “common schools”).

The so-called “district” schools of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are held up today by proponents of government schooling to suggest that government-run education has existed in America since the seventeenth century. But this is not true.

Existing mostly in New England, these “district” schools were what we might call “neighborhood” schools that were built and monitored by the parents of the children who attended them, and they were financed by a combination of tuition charges, local taxes, and mutual-aid societies. These neighborhood schools were controlled entirely by parents, who chose and supplied the textbooks and who hired and fired teachers. Though partially funded by local taxes, these neighborhood schools were not government schools in any meaningful way. The government did not determine who was hired, nor did it determine what was taught.

In all instances, schooling in America until the twentieth century was highly decentralized. Many if not most of the tuition-charging or “free” schools, particularly those in more populous areas, were run by individual men or women who simply hung out a shingle, advertised for students, and ran a school out of their home. Some of these schools taught only the Three R’s, while others offered classical curricula where students were taught classical Greek and Latin. It was in one of these “home” schools that John Adams first learned the ancient languages.

This decentralized, parent-driven form of schooling was how the generation of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison was educated. Not a single one of America’s founding fathers attended a government school. The very idea is and was anathema to a free society.

It is therefore imperative that we understand why government schools were ever established in the United States.

One thing is certain: America’s system of government schooling was not established because the extant system of private schooling was failing to educate America’s children. Quite the opposite.

American schooling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was highly democratic, in the sense that virtually all children received some kind or degree of education. They did so because that’s what their parents wanted for them, thereby dispelling the calumny that parents won’t do whatever it takes to make sure their children are educated in a free-market system of education or schooling. In economic terms, the supply met the demand.

Not surprisingly, Americans educated their children to a very high degree—indeed, to such a high degree that America had the highest literacy rates of any country in the world!  European visitors to the United States were astonished by the levels of education achieved in the United States. In his National Education in the United States (1812) published forty years before the introduction of government schooling, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours expressed his astonishment at the extraordinary literacy rate he saw amongst ordinary Americans.

Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the Americans were “the most enlightened people on earth.” Even on the frontier where schools and libraries were in short supply, Tocqueville noted that one-room cabins hidden deep in the woods typically contained a copy of the Bible and multiple newspapers.

All of this was achieved without government schools.

And then, everything changed.

Government Schooling Comes to America

America’s experiment with universal compulsory education (i.e., government schooling), which began in earnest in the years immediately before the Civil War and picked up steam in the postbellum period, was created with different purposes in mind than just teaching children the Three R’s and a body of historical, moral, and literary knowledge to help them live productive, self-governing lives.

The early proponents of government schooling in nineteenth-century America imagined new and different goals for educating children. The advocates for forced schooling took the highly authoritarian, nineteenth-century Prussian model as their beau idéal.

The leading proponent of government schooling in Prussia and the man from whom the Americans learned the most was the philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814), who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1807), called for “a total change of the existing system of education” in order to preserve “the existence of the German nation.” The goal of this new education system was to “mould the Germans into a corporate body, which shall be stimulated and animated in all its individual members by the same interest.” This new national system of education, Fichte argued, must apply “to every German without exception” and every child must be taken from parents and “separated altogether from the community.” Fichte recommended that the German schools “must fashion [the student], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will,” so that the pupil might go “forth at the proper time as a fixed and unchangeable machine.” Children should therefore be taught “a love of order” and the “system of government must be arranged in such a way that the individual must . . . work and act, for the sake of the community.”

The highest purpose of Prussian education was summed up by one of its later proponents, Franz de Hovre:

The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based on a national principle. Kulture is the great capital of the German nation. . . . A fundamental feature of German education; Education to the State, Education for the State, Education by the State. The Volkschule is a direct result of a national principle aimed at the national unity. The State is the supreme end in view.

This kind of education was virtually unknown to Americans until the nineteenth century, and it was anathema to everything that the founders’ liberalism stood for.

We know America’s earliest proponents of government schooling were enamored with the Prussian model because they were explicit in saying so. Some of them went to Germany to see exactly what the Germans were doing, and they became advocates of Prussian schooling when they returned to America.

Continue reading “”

What Did She Say? Here’s the Braindead Remarks DC Offered About the Latest Fatal Carjacking in the City

What did DC Mayor Muriel Bowser just say? I had to do a double-take. The recent carjacking in Washington DC that left a man dead was…not intentional. The killing wasn’t on purpose. That’s the line here? It doesn’t matter, Bowser. It really doesn’t. You can still be charged and sent to jail for accidentally killing people. What reality are Democrats living in here? Soft on crime has rotten the Left’s brains where they think if a crime was committed by accident, then it’s not a crime. Nope. It’s a crime. In the real world with real people and real laws, committing a crime is bad and people get sent to jail for it. At times, probation and penalties are involved. In severe cases, the state puts the perpetrator to death. This is not deep stuff, mayor.

Here’s the backstory that prompted this heinous remark from the mayor (via Fox5DC): MedStar doctor is dead after police say he was struck and killed by his own vehicle that had just been stolen from him in Northwest D.C. That MedStar Doctor has been identified as 33-year-old Rakesh Patel, of Silver Spring. His parents drove from Ohio to identify his body.

The incident began a little after 8 p.m. Tuesday in the 1800 block of Vernon Street NW. Officers say Patel’s vehicle was left running in that area. A close friend of the victim’s girlfriend, Kristine Froeba, told FOX 5 Patel went to drop off something to his girlfriend that night. The two were hugging goodbye when Froeba said the couple saw Patel’s vehicle start to move.

Police say an unknown suspect entered the Mercedes and drove off east on Vernon St. Patel apparently pursued his stolen car.

He “probably didn’t intend to kill anybody,” Bowser said regarding the incident.

How have we come to this? Mayor, this may be hard for a liberal Democrat like yourself to understand, but criminals are bad people. This car thief is a murderer. He should be sent away for a long time if caught. How is this hard? He didn’t mean to kill anyone. That is beyond irrelevant in this case. He stole a car and killed someone. This person is criminal trash. End of story.

There’s this addiction among liberals that seeks to refrain from calling criminals out for who they are in society.

Gun Banners Struggling To Find Relevance In A World Prepping For War

When all is said and done, the conflict in Ukraine, will have been responsible for putting more guns into civilian hands than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined.

For the American gun-ban industry, these world events hit at a particularly difficult period of time. Make no mistake, they still get up every morning, have a cup of coffee, and then decide how best to strip you of your constitutional rights.

But nowadays, it’s not as easy for them to find someone who is willing to listen to their inane pleas. They’re desperate for an audience – any audience – so they have changed-up the way they message their anti-gun campaigns. They’ve resorted to quick-hits – single messages of short duration – so when one fizzles, they can quickly pivot to another, all to keep their donors mollified and their money flowing in.

Things were not always this way. Before the plague, Gabby Giffords or Shannon Watts had only to snap their fingers and they’d get the lead story for an entire news cycle. Michael Bloomberg actually wrote his own headlines. The Trace – the propaganda arm of his anti-gun empire – successfully embedded its paid anti-gun activists into newsrooms across the country. It was a major coup for the diminutive demagogue. His stooges in the mainstream media still haven’t realized how badly they were hoodwinked and used. But COVID, the lockdowns, and a series of violent riots across the country put an end to all of this.

When Americans saw their neighborhoods going up in flames, more than 5 million bought firearms and apparently a lot of ammunition.

Continue reading “”

[Michigan] State House Passes LaFave’s Firearms Transport Bill

The state House today passed Rep. Beau LaFave’s plan to expand the rights of gun owners to transport their firearm unmolested while on private property.

The bill would allow uncased firearms in any vehicle, including an ATV or UTV, on private land as long as they are accompanied by or have permission from the landowner or lessee.

“This is a huge win for Michiganders all over the state,” said LaFave, of Iron Mountain. “This will help keep individuals from being unnecessarily prosecuted. Right now, you can carry a loaded pistol in or upon a vehicle with a CPL, but getting caught with a .22 long rifle subjects you to three months in jail.”

“This common-sense reform does not impact public safety,” LaFave said. “The bill simply decriminalizes a statute that makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”

Similar legislation passed the House with the support of LaFave in 2018. That law, now Public Act 272 of 2018, allowed a bow or crossbow to be transported without a case.

LaFave said: “Michiganders are entitled to their right to bear arms, more so on their own property than anywhere else. I remain committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. But let’s not forget, this is also a private property issue. Nobody should face three months of jail time for transporting firearms on their own property. This is a DNR regulation that does not help public safety, and the government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land with firearms, so long as you aren’t endangering the public.”

House Bill 4078 now heads to the Senate for further consideration.

Democrat Spending Bill Contains ‘Serious Expansion of Federal Gun Control’: Gun Rights Group

Democrats’ $1.5 trillion omnibus spending package, unveiled early Wednesday, includes provisions that constitute “a serious expansion of federal gun control” according to the National Association for Gun Rights.

Specifically, the omnibus bill includes the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Though there is bipartisan consensus that violence against women is bad—more limited forms of the bill have passed through bipartisan votes since the first draft was introduced in 1994—more recent forms of the legislation have been controversial with Republicans for provisions relating to gun ownership.

Due to continued efforts by Democrats to include gun control measures in the legislation, the bill was last passed into law in 2013, and has faced steep opposition from pro-Second Amendment Republicans since then.

Currently, almost all firearm sales require a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Purchasers who are tagged as having a criminal background barring them from possessing a firearm are tagged in the system and are not allowed to carry out the purchase.

However, VAWA takes this system much further.

Under its provisions, the attorney general is required “to issue a notice to State, local, or Tribal law enforcement and prosecutors if an individual has attempted to purchase a firearm and been denied pursuant to the national instant criminal background check system.”

In other words, an attempt to buy a firearm while legally barred from owning one can be met with criminal investigation.

In a statement, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warned that this system is dangerous.

“Over 95 percent of all NICS denials are false positives, which means all local and state police would be required to investigate law-abiding citizens when they’re wrongly and unconstitutionally denied the right to purchase a firearm,” NAGR said.

“Make no mistake—the NICS denial reporting embedded inside the Violence Against Women Act constitutes a serious expansion of federal gun control,” said Dudley Brown, president of the NAGR. “Not only does it rapidly expand federal gun control policy, it would actually endanger women, not keep them safe.”

Continue reading “”

Yes, If America Is Ever Invaded, You Must Take Up Arms and Fight
When asked whether they’d flee or fight an invading force, far too many Millennials and Gen-Zers give the wrong answer.

As part of a recent survey of attitudes toward Russia’s execrable invasion of Ukraine, the polling firm Quinnipiac asked Americans whether they would stay and fight if the United States were invaded by Russia. The results make sobering — and often disgraceful — reading. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans said that they would “stay and fight,” with 25 percent indicating that they’d run away.

Among independents, those numbers are 57–36. Among Democrats, they’re in negative territory, at 40–52. Among 50- to 64-year-old men and women, the stay/leave numbers are 66/28. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, they are 45/48. Or, to put it another way: A majority of the prime-aged Americans whom the United States would need were such a crisis to arise imagine that they would flee if that crisis ever came.

For shame.

Lest the excuse-makers try to find nuance where none exists, let us note for the record that this is the most elemental question that a free man can ever be asked. There are no caveats or complexities here, and there is barely any politics, either. If the United States were to be invaded by Russia, America’s defense of itself could not plausibly be construed as “imperialism” or as “interventionism” or as a “foreign war” or “conflict of choice.” Nor could skeptics, à la Rupert Brooke, meaningfully complain that they were being asked to fight and die in a “corner of a foreign field.”

Continue reading “”

January ’23? Why wait so dadgum long?


Alabama Goes Permitless

Allowing concealed gun-carry without a permit is now the most common policy in the country.

A joint conference committee of Alabama state Senators and Representatives came to an agreement on a version of a permitless carry bill on Thursday. The bill was then sent to Governor Kay Ivey (R.), who immediately signed it into law.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Governor Ivey said in a statement. “I have always stood up for the rights of law-abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The move makes Alabama the 22nd state in the country to enact a permitless gun carry regime, officially making the practice more common than both “shall-issue” and “may-issue” permitting policies. Following Ohio and Indiana, Alabama is the third state to pass a permitless carry bill in 2022. It’s the first to sign it into law.

Alabama state representative Shane Stringer (R.), the bill’s primary sponsor, applauded the law’s passage.

“I am deeply thankful to my colleagues in the Legislature for passing this constitutional carry measure, which allows Alabamians to exercise their fundamental rights without first having to pay a gun tax in the form of permit fees,” Stringer said in a statement. “Those who still wish to purchase a permit for reciprocity with other states or other reasons continue to retain that option under this law.”

The law was signed over vocal opposition from certain law enforcement groups, including the Alabama Sheriff’s Association, who said permitless carry would jeopardize public safety. Individual sheriffs in Alabama also voiced concern that doing away with permitting would remove a major source of revenue.

The final version of the law provides a $5 million fund to replace lost revenue.

National gun-control advocacy groups decried the bill after it cleared the state legislature.

“One thing has been made crystal clear — Alabama lawmakers will stop at nothing to appease the gun lobby,” Paula Wilson, a volunteer with the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement. “They’re willing to do the bidding of extremists, even if it means jeopardizing the lives of our families and first responders. They have chosen violence over public safety.”

The NRA, which backed the bill, called it “the most significant pro-Second Amendment measure in Alabama history.”

“As law enforcement is being defunded and criminals aren’t being prosecuted, it is more important than ever that law-abiding Americans’ right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their homes is fully recognized,” NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet said in a statement. “NRA will continue to champion this God-given right until every state in the nation is a constitutional carry state.”

The law will go into effect in January of 2023.

The law requires school districts to adopt procedures that “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.” It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger (that’s 5 to 8 year old kids) 

You know what that means, right? Florida parents found out that schools proggie indoctrination centers had teachers pedophile groomers teaching kindergarten through third grade students about ‘transgenderism’, homosexuality, pornography, and sexual degeneracy in the classroom, and telling the kids not to tell their parents.

and what does Peppermint Psaki have to say about it?


Florida’s parental rights bill is not a ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. It is a full-throated defense of moms and dads against the state-sponsored progressive brainwashing of their kids.

On March 8, Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed the Parental Rights in Education bill.

But you may know it better by the media’s smear name, ‘The Don’t Say Gay Bill.’

It’s a measure that gives parents more control over what their children are taught in public schools.

But that’s not how the White House, Democrats, Hollywood and the media portrayed it.

In fact, they completely mischaracterized it.

President Joe Biden called an early version of the bill ‘hateful.’

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg claimed it will increase suicides among LGBTQ+ youth.

On Tuesday’s episode of ‘Watch What Happens Live’ Bravo host Andy Cohen called the bill’s passage ‘personally disturbing,’ and told Florida Republicans that they’re pretending to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

‘This is one big dog whistle. You’re scaring people into spewing hate and discrimination at the LGBTQ community,’ he said.

On Wednesday, the White House doubled down again.  Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the bill ‘discriminatory,’ ‘horrific,’ and ‘a form of bullying’ against LGBTQ children and families.

On the eve of the bill’s passage, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (who is now expected to sign the bill into law) confronted a local reporter, who framed the legislation as anti-gay.

‘I want to ask about the Parental Rights in Education, what critics call the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill,’ said Evan Donovan.

DeSantis was having none of it, and snapped, ‘Does it say that in the bill? You are pushing false narratives…’

So does the bill prohibit teachers’ from saying the word ‘gay’?

In a word – no!

Continue reading “”

Oh to those people pushing the vaxx because it ‘safe’ or something? This is from The Lancet, which is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.


Comment O’ The Day (from a GP MD)

1% of those who had a reaction to the vaccine are dead.
Sorry if that was not made clear. But remember the cut off at the CDC for pulling a vaccine or medicine from the market is 50 deaths. Hit that magic number and it is off the market.

The jabs in all their glory are far above that. And this is all being done under a EUA for a disease that is not that lethal. So you get a reaction to the jab, depending on the type of one given, you stand a 1% chance of dying. Remember, the VAERS data is skewed to make those numbers lower. The vaccine is not safe given the usual definition per the CDC.

My biggest problem is they had this data and it was not disclosed to people in terms of informed consent. How many people would have taken the jab if they were told: “The vaccine is considered safe, but 1% of those who get a reaction are dead.”

Mind you, the vaccine failed to contain the disease and was considered not effective in preventing morbidity after 6 months. Why was this data not discussed earlier? Well that is pretty clear in that when it came to consent time, most would have said “I’ll just take my chances.”


Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe

PDF download

Table 1 Characteristics of reports received and processed by VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
Both mRNA vaccines (n=340 522)

BNT162b2 vaccine (n=164 669) mRNA-1273 vaccine (n=175 816)
Category
Non-serious 313 499 (92·1%) 150 486 (91·4%) 162 977 (92·7%)
Serious, including death 27 023 (7·9%) 14 183 (8·6%) 12 839 (7·3%)
Serious, excluding death 22 527 (6·6%) 12 078 (7·3%) 10 448 (5·9%)
Death 4496 (1·3%) 2105 (1·3%) 2391 (1·4%)

Summary

Background

In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA.
We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.

Continue reading “”

Yeah, another overeducated moron who majored in ‘journalism’.
He’s stupid, doesn’t know he’s stupid, and will never accept that he’s stupid because all of his education indoctrination from the mid 80s onward has been to produce stupid people who can’t actually think, but simply believe the proggie propaganda they’ve had poured into their heads since they were children.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” Proverbs 22:6

 

This red tape right here:

Biden’s U.S. Oil Embargo
His assault on domestic energy works against his ban on Russian imports.

President Biden made the right decision Tuesday in banning Russian oil and natural gas imports. Yet at the same time he declared full-steam ahead on his green energy “transition” that includes an assault on U.S. fossil fuels. The contradiction is maddening.
Banning Russian energy imports is fine as far as it goes, which isn’t very. The U.S. imports only 3% of its petroleum supply and less than 1% of coal from Russia. About 70% of Russian oil currently can’t find buyers because of sanctions risk. That’s the main reason crude prices have shot up to $130 per barrel.
Once uncertainty about the scope of sanctions clears up, Russia will probably find global buyers for its energy at a discount. Imposing so-called secondary U.S. sanctions on institutions that finance Russia’s energy trade would be more effective. But the White House won’t do that because it fears it could drive gasoline prices even higher.
If that’s the worry, then here’s a better idea: Stand at the White House and declare that his Administration will support the development of U.S. oil and gas. Rescind all regulations designed to curb production, development and consumption. Announce a moratorium on new ones. Expedite permits, and encourage investment. Our guess is the price of Brent crude would fall $20 a barrel in anticipation of higher production.
Yet Mr. Biden is doing precisely the opposite. On Tuesday he even blamed U.S. companies—not his policies—for not producing more. There are 9,000 available unused drilling permits, he claimed, and only 10% of onshore oil production takes place on federal land. Talk about a misdirection play.
First, companies have to obtain additional permits for rights of way to access leases and build pipelines to transport fuel. This has become harder under the Biden Administration. Second, companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits before they can contract rigs because of the regulatory difficulties of operating on federal land.

Continue reading “”

New Hampshire: House Expected to Vote on Two Gun Bills Tomorrow

Tomorrow Today the New Hampshire House is scheduled to consider pro-gun House Bill 1636, and anti-gun House Bill 1151. NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to contact their State Representative and ask them to SUPPORT House Bill 1636 and to OPPOSE House Bill 1151.

Pro-Gun Bill:

House Bill 1636: “ATV-Carry” allows the carry of a loaded firearm on an Off-Highway Recreation Vehicle (OHRV) or snowmobile. This legislation also helps to clean up the law from when Permitless Carry was passed and a snowmobile prohibition remained. If you can carry a gun in your vehicle, or on your person, you shouldn’t have to surrender your right to self-defense simply because you’re operating a snowmobile.

Anti-Gun Bills:

House Bill 1151: imposes a ban on the open carry of firearms at various public demonstrations, including parades, marches, rallies, etc. This arbitrary ban is simply anti-gun virtue signaling that only affects law-abiding citizens, dictating how they must exercise a constitutional right, while doing nothing to improve public safety

Gun ownership for women is on the rise
A new study finds that close to half of all new U.S. gun buyers since 2019 have been female. A Girl and A Gun is a local women’s shooting league out of Michigan.

TAYLOR, Mich. (WXYZ) — A girl and a gun, a fitting name for a shooting league created for women by women.

“It’s kind of like being on a bowling league, only we shoot guns,” said Audree Danielson.

A new study finds that close to half of all new U.S. gun buyers since 2019 have been female. In Michigan, a growing number of women are learning how to use a firearm. Images showing unprecedented turnout – 1000 to 2000 women – wrapped around the block during the pandemic to attend the free firearm training event Legally Armed in Detroit.

Continue reading “”

Missouri House approves plan to allow guns on public transit

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri House approved legislation Wednesday that would allow people who have concealed weapons permits to carry their guns on public transportation.

The measure, which has been debated several times in recent years but has not become law, also would lower the age requirement from 19 to 18 years of age or older for a concealed carry permit.

The proposal also would remove the prohibition on the carrying of firearms in churches and other places of worship by a person with a valid concealed carry permit.

It advanced to the Senate on 101-40 vote.

Republicans who control the Legislature have worked to loosen restrictions on guns for years, resulting in Missouri being ranked 47th in the nation by the Giffords Law Center for gun safety. [an honor, I assure you]

In 2007, for example, lawmakers dumped a universal background-check law. In 2016, the Legislature repealed a law so that Missourians could carry concealed firearms without a permit in most places.

In 2021, the GOP-led General Assembly approved the Second Amendment Preservation Act, prohibiting police in Missouri from enforcing any federal firearms laws that aren’t mirrored in state law.

That law has triggered a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice Department.

Opponents of the latest move said they are concerned it could open the door for extremists to attack worshipers.

“I am not anti-gun. I just don’t want to see more hate crimes,” said Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City.

The legislation also includes a provision known as Blair’s Law, which would criminalize “celebratory gunfire.” It is named for Blair Shanahan Lane, who was struck in the neck by a bullet fired from more than a half-mile away.

The legislation is House Bill 1462.

“Second Amendment Protection Act” Clears [Wyoming] House By 43 – 15 Margin

A bill aimed at prohibiting Wyoming law enforcement officers from enforcing unconstitutional restrictions on Second Amendment rights won final approval from the House on Wednesday.

Representatives voted 43-15 to approve Senate File 102, the “Second Amendment Protection Act” in its final House review

Defenders of the bill debated opponents who maintained the bill should be killed because it was weaker than one considered and rejected earlier in the session.

“I, for one, would like my constituents to have something rather than nothing,” said Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette. “When we say it’s a weak bill, but we’re willing to go with no protection at all, which is weaker?”

SF102 would prohibit any Wyoming law enforcement agent from enforcing unconstitutional federal restrictions on the Second Amendment. If an unconstitutional federal rule was enforced, the enforcing officer could face one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

The bill had been roundly criticized by backers of another gun rights bill, SF87, the “Second Amendment Preservation Act.” The bill, which failed to win introduction early in the session, would have allowed citizens to sue officials they felt were responsible for enforcing unconstitutional barriers to the Second Amendment, including increases in taxes and fees on ammunition.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Clearly, simply being armed doesn’t stop every threat to our national or personal security. It does, however, give us a fighting chance at survival, and in these perilous times I’d argue it’s more important than ever for us to protect, preserve, and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms. We might not have to worry much about a Russian invasion of U.S. soil, but unfortunately there are still plenty of homegrown madmen capable of committing atrocities against innocents, and an unarmed populace would only put more of us at risk..

The importance of armed deterrence for national and personal defense

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to some strange political sights here at home, including some Democrats cheering on a government handing out “assault weapons” to civilians, even as they try to criminalize ownership of modern sporting rifles here at home. Meanwhile, gun control activists are trying to shut down any comparison between Ukraine’s self-defense as a nation-state and the importance of the individual right of self-defense.

Continue reading “”