While I don’t agree with the premise that possession stats should be publicized, the fact that ‘more guns’ means ‘more safety’ is undeniable.

More guns, more safety

Late in 2008, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, a leading Tennessee newspaper, unleashed a whirlwind of controversy when it decided to publish a database of all state residents with permits to carry handguns. The information was already available through the Tennessee Department of Safety, but the state website wasn’t especially user-friendly.

With the publication of the newspaper database, however, it became easy to search for people with gun-carry permits by name, ZIP code, or city. For a while, the database was the most viewed item on the newspaper’s website, with more than 65,000 page views per day.

Firearms owners and their advocates were furious, as WMC-TV reported at the time:

Some Mid-South gun owners are outraged over a website that lists handgun carry permits, claiming the site gives away too much personal information.

Tom Givens, who runs the Range Master pistol range, said the database, published by the Commercial Appeal, has many of his clients upset.

“First, it’s an invasion of privacy,” Givens said.

Using the database, a visitor to the website can look up the name of anyone who has a permit to carry a hand gun in the state of Tennessee.  Information listed includes the owner’s year of birth, along with his or her city, state, and ZIP code of residence.

Givens said his phone has been ringing off the hook from clients upset about their personal information being so accessible.

“By publishing this database your employers, your co-workers, church members, even relatives that may not know you have a permit, now know that you’ve got one,” he said.

On gun owners’ message boards, complaints abounded. A common concern was that residents with carry permits would be put at particular risk, since the paper’s database enabled any would-be thief looking for a gun to steal to know exactly where to find them. “I’m not happy about it at all,” fumed one resident on the City-Data web forum:

I’m not a criminal — just a law-biding citizen who has a clean background and has undergone background checks in order to exercise my right to protect myself from all the thugs in this world. I could see the database used to “shop” for homeowners to rob who probably have guns in the house. I see no legitimate reason to have this information online other than to demonize permit holders in some way.

The National Rifle Association’s CEO and executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, denounced the Commercial Appeal for engaging in what he called a “hateful, shameful form of public irresponsibility.” Added another NRA official: “What they’ve done is give criminals a lighted pathway to [burglarize] the homes of gun owners.”

But the paper’s editor, Chris Peck, argued that newspapers should be a comprehensive source for community information, and that it was neither illegal nor unethical for the Commercial Appeal to make public records more accessible to the public. In fact, he pointed out in a lengthy column, the Commercial Appeal eliminated street addresses and birth dates from the Department of Safety data it published. That meant that the “posted list of permit holders for concealed weapons has less information about individuals than the phone book, your voter registration form, or the credit card you use to buy dinner at a restaurant.”

As for the potential danger to gun owners from burglars looking for weapons to steal, Peck turned that argument on its head:

Think about it for a minute. Many, if not most, households in Memphis possess a firearm. So you don’t really need a list to find a house with a gun.

And, if criminals were checking the permit-to-carry list before picking a target, would they likely choose a house where they know the owner could be carrying a gun, or would they more likely steer away from that house to avoid a possible confrontation?

Neither logic nor common sense is carrying the day on this issue. It’s emotion.

Peck went on to explain why, in his view, there was “a powerful case to be made both for a permitting process to carry concealed weapons and for keeping that permitting process public.” The Commercial Appeal, he insisted, “isn’t anti-gun” but “pro-news and -information.”

I thought it was a good column, though I doubt it changed the minds of LaPierre and the gun owners who were certain the Commercial Appeal’s reasons for publishing the database weren’t benign. I’d guess, too, that they didn’t buy Peck’s contention that, far from endangering them, the database would lead criminals to avoid their homes.

But now we know: He was right.

After Memphis-area gun permit data was published, districts where more residents were licensed to carry saw a decrease in crime.

Continue reading “”

FPC responds to Duke Center for Firearms Law article on test courts should use on Second Amendment cases

A rebuttal in response to criticism of a scholarly paper authored by FPC Action Foundation director of constitutional studies, Joseph Greenlee, was published today by the Duke Center for Firearms Law. In its April 27 article, “Ghost Guns, History, and the Second Amendment,” the Duke Center called into question an argument Greenlee makes in “The American Tradition of Self-made Arms” defending the test of text as informed by history and tradition (THT) as being the correct methodology for Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Duke Center criticizes THT for “transform[ing] nonregulation into a right,” suggesting that history is only useful in Second Amendment analyses if it proves that “a past practice was protected as a right, not simply that it existed without regulation.” This loose constructionist’s view of the Constitution’s explicit placement of limits on governmental power has it backwards. The People don’t need to prove their enumerated Constitutional rights are protected; it is incumbent on the government to prove it has the authority to regulate or restrict the rights of the People. This is why history and tradition matter.

Continue reading “”

Text, History, and Tradition: A Workable Test that Stays True to the Constitution

Last week Professor Charles highlighted the burgeoning legal controversies involving “ghost guns” (homemade firearms that have no serial numbers) to illustrate what he perceives to be problems with a judicial test based on text, history, and tradition (THT). As an advocate of the THT Test, I offered a response, which Professor Charles graciously accepted. I thank him for presenting my opposing view.

Continue reading “”

Ghost Guns, History, and the Second Amendment

The Biden Administration recently pushed out a new rule to restrict “ghost guns”—firearms without a serial number. The rule would require that kits for homemade do-it-yourself firearms are manufactured only by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) and that the kit’s frame or receiver be marked with a serial number. It also requires that any FFLs or gunsmiths who come into possession of an unserialized firearm  affix a serial number before selling it. As the administration notes, “[t]his requirement will apply regardless of how the firearm was made, meaning it includes ghost guns made from individual parts, kits, or by 3D-printers.” The rule is almost certain to be challenged by gun-rights advocates and, whatever other arguments there may be against the rule (such as the administrative law challenges that have been raised against the bump stock regulation), the Second Amendment is likely to take center stage. And if the Supreme Court in Bruen declares text, history, and tradition to be the guiding methodology for evaluating Second Amendment claims, courts are going to face serious challenges in evaluating the ghost gun rule.

Continue reading “”

We Can’t Let Ourselves Be Oppressed by Weirdos, Losers, and Mutations

Have you noticed the absolute freakshow quality of the people who want to keep us in chains? Perhaps it’s one thing to be repressed by people who are at least nominally badass, like Romans or Mongols. But these geebos who make up the Democrat Party’s loudmouth wing? The sexually hopeless toads outraged because other people who might someday know the loving touch of another human can’t whack their babies? No. Not only does their tyranny fail the freedom test, it fails the aesthetic test.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be serfs toiling in the fields of a bunch of people who, in any just and sane society, would spend their lives living in fear of getting wedgies for being so bizarre.

Look, I’m not saying that our society should bring back bullying nerds. I am simply observing that when nerds were busy trying to avoid swirlies in the boys’ room, they did not have the time to devote to getting their groomer allies access to Kindergarteners. If Melvins and Pointdexters living in fear is the price of little kids not getting chatted up by pedo-adjacent strange-os, I say that’s a bargain.

All leftists are insufferable, but this current crop is insufferable in many diverse ways. It’s not just the ones who defile or mutilate themselves to get their parents’ attention. It also includes ones that don’t tatt up, who appear normal until they open up their kale holes. Think Nina Jankowicz. On the surface, she looks like any other childless, middle-aged Chardonnay-guzzler who is pushing 40 but has failed thus far to earn the love of a man. But when she starts talking, yikes. And just look at the antics of that fascist disinformation girl. She sings show tunes. She’s into Harry Potter – non-threatening sensitive and magical boys are sooooo dreamy. She’s also eager to shove you into a train car headed to a gulag, and as it pulls away from the station she’ll be shouting at you ruffians to use your inside voices.

That’s right – the mediocre girl who played the lead in your high school’s production of “Hello, Dolly!” – which you skipped to go pound Buds with your pals like normal people – is the harbinger of tyranny.

Ugh, that’s so sad. Tyranny is intolerable even if you are facing a worthy foe. But tyranny by this kind of over-credentialed, shame-free dork? No way. Never.

And that’s true of the rest of the salty commie crew. Pierced beings with blue hair. Fat-positive behemoths in spandex. Daddy-issue goofs of all genders who can’t do a push up. If we are going to lose our country and our freedom, it can’t be to this gallery of goblins. At least with proper enemies – like, say, the Hessians – you could get some satisfaction shoving a bayonet into their guts. With these weebles, you fail to call them by their bespoke pronouns and they collapse into a sobbing heap. Where’s the challenge?

We simply cannot lose to these people. It’s undignified.

And it’s unnecessary. The only way they win is if we let them win. They can’t take a punch, and the whole caste of them – which probably numbers a couple million across the country – collectively probably has access to about as many guns as the average Trump voter. The only threat they pose is to fetuses, and pretty soon only in Moloch-friendly states like Cali and New York. They talk big about revolutions and insurrections, but they have neither the cold steel or the upper body strength to pull it off.

What are they going to do – pester us into submission? Yes, that’s actually their plan. They really think that if they call us “racist” enough, if they moan enough about patriarchy, if they bleat enough about how us saying what we think is “unsafe” we will simply give up. And they have a point – a lot of those from the Miracle Whip faction of the GOP have prioritized politeness over freedom and tried to treat this coterie of creeps with respect.

But here’s the thing. These weirdos have not earned our respect. Instead, they leveraged our courtesy and tolerance, often amplified for the fact that we feel sorry for these failed humans, against us to neutralize our resistance. “Oh no, don’t point out how that show tunes girl is a ridiculous adolescent fetishizing children’s books and singing kiddie songs in her affected drama geek voice.” No, we’re supposed to pretend that she’s not a joke, and that we should take seriously her insights into how it’s dangerous to allow us the free speech rights God invested us with upon our creation.

But we’re done pretending. We’re done being nice. We tried being cool, live and letting live, and then we noticed the lack of reciprocity. It’s live and let submit, and that’s a bad deal. Hard pass.

You weirdos, losers, and mutations could have been cool. You could have done your own thing and ignored us like we ignored you. But no. No, you wanted more. You wanted to be the Big Non-binaries on Campus. Except you don’t get to, because you suck and we’re not going to be ruled over by theater dorks, infanticide fetishists, and bitter fringies.

We’re going to rule ourselves, and my advice is to keep the hell out of our faces lest you figuratively end up hanging by your Fruit-of-the-Looms from the flagpole.

Just how many defensive gun uses are there each year?

Gun control will be a hot topic for a very long time. However, one area that doesn’t get discussed nearly enough is the total number of defensive gun uses.

While the media spends a lot of time talking about how many people die from gunshots each and every year–typically conflating suicides with homicides–in an effort to advance a gun control agenda, they ignore the many times law-abiding citizens use firearms defensively every year.

But just how many defensive gun uses are there?

How often are firearms used defensively in the United States? According to the most-recent study, about 1.6 million times annually. Over a lifetime, about a third of gun owners will use a firearm defensively at least once. This recent data is broadly consistent with decades of social-science research.

The first pollster to ask about defensive gun use (DGU) was the Field Poll in California in 1976. Over the subsequent 18 years, polling companies such as Gallup, Hart and Tarrance, as well as scholars and media, conducted their own surveys of DGU. They reported results as low as 764,000 annually (Tarrance, 1994) and as high as 3.6 million (Los Angeles Times, 1994).

In 1993, Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck conducted a survey that was much more methodologically sophisticated than all the above polls. Kleck included safeguards designed to weed out respondents who might misdescribe a DGU story. Kleck and his coauthor Marc Gertz found a midpoint estimate of 2.5 million DGUs annually, with a possible range of 2 to 3 million. Their study is described in the Kleck and Gertz article, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (1995), which is available on the web, and is further described in Kleck’s 1997 book Targeting Guns. The book and the article also examine all previous surveys.

Oh, but some claim, Kleck’s work has been debunked.

Has it, though?

The same journal issue that published the Kleck & Gertz study also published a response by Marvin Wolfgang. He had long been the most-influential criminologist in the English-speaking world, and he was past president of the American Society of Criminology. Wolfgang wrote: “I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country … . I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns … .

Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear … . The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

Wolfgang isn’t exactly an NRA supporter.

Of course, most of us have long known these numbers. We knew how many millions of defensive gun uses there are each year. It well outstrips the number of lives claimed by gunshot wounds, that’s for sure.

However, it’s interesting how even the smallest estimates for defensive gun use outstrip those numbers as well. Literally no credible study shows otherwise. Even the more heavily biased studies that put defensive gun uses at 100,000 each year still argue there are twice as many lives saved by guns than taken.

Why is the media ignoring this reality?

We all know why. They can claim they are simply neutral parties in the debate all they want, but they always seem to miss this. Even if they report the studies themselves, they never seem to make it into later stories about guns and gun control.

But the number of gun deaths always does.

Funny how that shakes out, isn’t it?

Tacoma hotel employee shoots man who threatened 3 employees with a knife

TACOMA — A hotel employee shot a man who was threatening three employees with a weapon Tuesday night in Pierce County.

Police say a 45-year-old man, who brandished a knife, threatened workers at the Quality Inn and Suites Tacoma in the 8800 block of South Hosmer Street around 11:45 p.m.

A 32-year-old female employee shot the man, who was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. He was shot in the left abdomen, according to the police scanner. The woman called 911 claiming she shot someone outside and the victim was still moving on the ground.

The man was booked for three counts of assault upon being released from the hospital.

Homeowner justified in fatal shooting of armed intruder, Kent County prosecutor says

KENT COUNTY, MI — A Kent County homeowner who traded gunfire with an intruder trying to steal his truck keys, killing the man, was justified in using deadly force, prosecutors have ruled.

Kent County Prosecutor Christopher Becker issued a ruling Tuesday, May 3 on the March 30 shooting at a Byron Township home on 108th Street just east of Wilson Avenue.

He ruled that homeowner Alan Lenhart was within his right to shoot and kill 39-year-old Christopher Carl-James Worth of Middleville…….

Los Angeles armed suspects scramble for cover after employee whips out his own gun
Gunfire erupted when four suspects tried committing an armed robbery in the Compton smoke shop, authorities said

Two suspects are wanted in connection with an armed robbery in a Los Angeles smoke shop that resulted in a shootout between a security guard and four others in which one person was killed, authorities said.

The gunfire broke at the “Smoke Shop” just before 7 p.m. in Compton, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department said. Four people entered the store and pointed handguns at an employee behind a counter.

An employee appears to be wearing a ballistic vest with “SECURITY” written on it, according to security footage released by authorities Wednesday. One suspect can be seen taking out a gun and pointing it at him.

Four suspects got into a shootout with a smoke shop employee in Compton, California during an armed robbery. One suspect later died, authorities said.

Four suspects got into a shootout with a smoke shop employee in Compton, California during an armed robbery. One suspect later died, authorities said. (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department)

The employee pulls out a gun and a gun battle ensued. The suspects trip over each other as they try to flee and fire several rounds at the store employee.

He was shot in the neck and face but was later released from the hospital.

A half-hour after the gunfire exchange, deputies responded to Martin Luther King Hospital for a gunshot victim. Investigators said the victim was one of the four suspects at the smoke shop who had been wounded.

The sheriff’s department told Fox News that suspect later died. A second suspect was arrested the following day on April 4.

Keith Rachel and Kahlel Lundy.

Keith Rachel and Kahlel Lundy. (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department)

Kahlel Lundy, 23, and Keith Rachel, 21, were identified as the other two participants in the robbery and are wanted for murder, authorities said.

Just in case it has never crossed you mind.

Dealing with Dentists, Endodontists and Maxillofacial surgeons sucks

Nothing personal, as many of them seem to be kind people and provide relief from pain.

It just sucks having to deal with so many of them to finally get to the specialist that will finally pull the tooth everyone else has said they can’t fix, and can’t do anything else about it.

Oh, before I forget.

Thank God for Papaver Somniferum, more commonly known as the Opium Poppy.

We now return you to our regular programming.

Befuddled Biden: Russians, Hungarians, Ukrainians Are All the Same to Joe

Joe Biden gave some remarks on Tuesday at Lockheed Martin in Alabama about his desire to send more aid to Ukraine.

Biden has asked Congress for $33 billion additional in aid. This was after already getting $13.6 billion last month. Biden claimed that they already had spent that money. Not only that, but he wants to make it a continual thing — to preserve “democracy.” No end in sight as to how much money that might involve. Great concern for Ukraine’s borders, but very little for our own.

But in the process of giving mostly his standard memorized shtick, Biden managed to fumble the delivery in a couple of significant ways.

At one point, Biden claimed that he was arming the Russians before Russia attacked. Yes, he said that.

 

But, that wasn’t the only glaring mistake Biden made when talking about Ukraine. He also confused Ukrainians with Hungarians. During his State of the Union address, Biden confused Ukrainians with Iranians. No, Joe, they’re not the same.

I’d also like to point out another interesting confusion he seemed to have in his remarks made on Tuesday.

In his official written statement, Biden said that the draft opinion meant they needed to get out and vote for pro-choice (Democrats).

Third, if the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.

But then, in his off-the-cuff remarks that he made hours after that statement, he was asked, “What does this mean for the midterms? What does this mean for the Democrats’ argument in the midterms?” His reply? “I haven’t thought that through yet.” So he had some thoughts about it earlier in his official statement but hadn’t thought it through when he was asked about it later. In other words, they’re issuing statements about what “he thinks,” when he can’t even say what he thinks later in person.

It was bad enough when he said that there hadn’t been any senators from Delaware on Monday. That prompted more 25th Amendment talk. But it’s continuing to get worse.

Politics vs. Reality: Iron Sharpening Iron ~ or Not

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

Continue reading “”

Hmm. I’ve never been ‘reasonable’, and I’ve never been sorry about that either.

Sorry, but gun owners are done being “reasonable”

As gun owners, we often find ourselves as something of a political football. We’re the group that has the most at stake when it comes to many gun control laws.

By and large, we don’t support them. After all, we know that it’s not as easy to buy a gun as it’s often portrayed in the media and we know how criminals actually get their guns.

Many people know that we don’t support these laws. That doesn’t stop them from thinking we should.

I’m not even sure why this is an issue that continues to be debated, argued and defended. Background checks and time limits are not taking away anyone’s rights. To own muskets and flintlock pistols is your right. Even a dueling pistol could be tucked away should the need arise to awaken at dawn for a meeting with your wife’s lover in a field. This event would need to be planned and witnessed, with the winner going to prison of course.

I can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled by what has occurred repeatedly at the hands of the irresponsible few. It seems to me the responsible gun owners would support stricter controls knowing that, if the gun violence continues to play out, severe gun laws will be inevitable for all.

Taking guns out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters would save some of the 38,000 Americans who die from gun violence every year in the United States. That’s worth more than a thought and a prayer.

And yet, how would you take guns “out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters” universally? We already have numerous laws on the books at both the federal level and state level that are meant to do just that, and yet, nothing.

But then again, the author can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled at what happens. Well, we are appalled. No rational human being could look at something like a murder and not be appalled.

Where she goes off the rails is the idea that we should somehow support stricter gun control because of it.

The truth is that we were reasonable in 1934 and in 1968. We set aside our rights for the greater good and gun owners watched as the gun they bought at a hardware store in 1930 become a heavily restricted weapon that they had to get permission to buy. They saw laws passed in 1968 not only not reduce violent crime but seemingly encouraged it to skyrocket.

Time and time again, we played nice. We gave a little ground so that we would seem reasonable. Now we have background checks when we go to buy a gun and we’re told that simply isn’t enough.

Well, you know what? We’re done being “reasonable.”

We’re finished with it because none of this is reasonable. No one wants to stamp out advocacy for communism, despite all the unmitigated evil that philosophy has illustrated and the untold suffering it has dropped on the human race, all because free speech matters. Yet we’re supposed to step aside and allow our right to keep and bear arms to be ripped to shreds in the name of appearing reasonable?

This from someone who still equates the Second Amendment to muskets?

And where’s the fact that none of this stuff has actually worked? We watched gun control be passed at state levels for decades as violent crime soared, yet when gun laws started being liberalized, we saw the rates decline. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, the truth is that if the lack of gun laws caused crime to increase, we should have seen the opposite.

We didn’t.

The truth is that this demand that gun owners acquiesce to every demand by gun control advocates is what is truly unreasonable and we’re done. We’ve long been finished.

Hypocrites
Leftists change their minds so quickly it’s a wonder they don’t  have whiplash

Suddenly the Left Remembers That Men CAN’T Get Pregnant

Reaction to the leak of the draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson came in swiftly Monday night. Liberals haven’t been this outraged since Elon Musk bought Twitter. Pro-abortion activists quickly formed a protest outside the court, and politicians released statements that featured fresh new takes on the usual tropes and slogans we’ve heard for decades.

“A woman’s right to choose is not up for debate. A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions is not up for debate,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “We can’t go back. We must not go back. We won’t go back.”

“This is at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said .

“If you think they’ll stop with a women’s right to choose, you haven’t been paying attention. We have to fight like our lives depend on it, because clearly, they do,” tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the packing of the Supreme Court, insisting that overturning Roe would “put the lives of women across the country at risk.”

“I’ll always fight to protect a woman’s right to choose,” insisted Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.). “And that will never change.”

Women. Women. Women.

That’s funny. Hasn’t the radical left been telling us that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant, too” suddenly have such a narrow view about the abortion issue that they only see it as a women’s rights issue? Weird, since less than a month ago, the pregnant man emoji was made available on my iPhone. Before the draft opinion leaked, if you asked a leftist to define what a “woman” is, they couldn’t tell you. Now, these non-biologists know precisely what a woman is.

For most of my life, abortion has been framed as a “women’s rights” issue. Yet on plenty of occasions, Leftists typically didn’t even recognize my right even to have an opinion on abortion because I’m not a woman. As Jennifer Aniston put it last year, “No uterus, no opinion.”

It’s impressive how quickly and easily progressives who have long insisted that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant” showed us that even they know deep down that radical leftist gender theory is nonsensical. It may be fashionable in their circles to buy into it, but they know it’s nonsensical.

Sure, when the outrage cools down, they’ll probably go back to saying “men can get pregnant” and refer to biological women as “birthing people,” but that won’t change the fact that, in the wake of this Supreme Court leak, so many said the quiet part out loud about transgenderism.

Well, .277 Fury basically duplicates 270 Winchester (130/135 gr bullet @ 3,000 fps) specs in a smaller length cartridge in a rifle with a shorter barrel. And the rifle is a SiG MCX Spear, so….?

How good is Army’s new gun? We don’t know

XM5 Rifle on display at the Pentagon.

There are a lot of people who look to the United States Armed Forces for a certain degree of guidance on weapons. If the Army uses it, they’re more than happy to pick up the civilian version of the weapon. After all, the military does test their weapons fairly extensively–though that testing has been interesting in the past.

Still, a lot of people trust it.

Now, the Army is looking at a new rifle. However, as Military.com notes, there are questions that we simply can’t get answers to.

The new guns and ammunition the Army just married and is expected to issue to combat arms units within the next decade will require soldiers to carry an even heavier load.

But information on how those weapons should outperform the guns they’re replacing — the justification for troops to shoulder extra weight on top of mountains of gear already injuring soldiers — is classified.

In April, the Army announced that Sig Sauer will produce replacements for the M4 rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, starting with a trial run of about 40 new guns late next year. Production is expected to ramp up when the Army opens a new ammo plant to produce the new 6.8mm rounds for those weapons around 2026.

Army officials have touted that the new XM5, the M4’s replacement, and XM250, set to replace the SAW, pack a much harder punch and will improve the combat performance of ground troops. But thus far, the service has declined to disclose evidence that those weapons outperform the M4 and SAW, including how far they can shoot accurately. And it’s unclear whether the Army has verified the ranges at which those new weapons can engage an enemy before committing to a multimillion-dollar contract.

Throughout history, the average a soldier carried was about 55 lbs. The Roman legionnaire? About 55 lbs. The medieval man-at-arms? 55 lbs.

And so on through history.

Yet, these days, loads of 150 lbs aren’t exactly uncommon. That’s three times the amount troops historically carried.

Granted, we have a lot of technology that helps make those troops much more effective than those of bygone eras had, but someone still has to carry it.

So now they’re going to have to carry even more?

That might make sense if the new weapons are that much more effective, but are they? We know that 6.8 tends to have more of a punch. It looks like accuracy is about the same.

Yet that’s just the ballistics of the round itself. We don’t know if the weapons make good use of that potential or not, which doesn’t really make that much sense to me.

I get keeping at least some of your capabilities classified, but our enemies have long known just how accurate and powerful our various firearms were for years. We openly published this information and the civilian-legal versions of the same rifles backed that information up.

So why is this version classified?

Truth be told, I don’t like it, but I’m not overly worried. While I can’t help but raise my eyebrow at Sig being the provider of both the sidearm used by the military and now the primary weapon system for the Army, the truth is that Sig produces good weapons, as a general rule. It’s unlikely the guns actually suck or anything.

Still, for people who know about firearms, the idea of our troops potentially going into harm’s way with a weapon we know so little about is a point of concern. After all, this is still the Department of Defense. Anyone familiar with the development of the Bradley knows just how that can go.

Then again, since this is basically a variant of the Sig MCX platform, we shouldn’t worry too much.

That doesn’t address the weight issue, though. Our guys are already carrying too much weight as it is. The additional weight from switching from 5.56 to 6.8 for the same number of rounds is something that might end up being too much.

“Rachel” Levine is a sick, twisted man who wants people to believe that there is a medical consensus for transitioning kids so that more people will do it. This is what a predator looks like.

The Brewing Myth of Medical ‘Consensus’ on Transitioning Children

We’ve all heard the oft-repeated myth that 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade climate change is real. This claim has been the go-to response by climate alarmists and activists for years.

If you’re a regular reader of this site, you know that this claim is pure garbage and has been debunked for a long time. Yet the myth prevails. Barack Obama once tried to up the number to 99.5%, but that didn’t catch on. I guess 97% just sounds cooler?

Truthfully, the number itself isn’t important—and not just because it’s phony—because the critical takeaway is that the fake statistic has been used by climate alarmists as proof that, save for a few on the fringe, there is “consensus” that climate change is real, that it is caused by humanity, and that we need to spend billions and billions of dollars on so-called green energy alternatives; otherwise, we’re all going to die yesterday.

Never mind that literally no apocalyptic climate prediction of the past century has ever panned out. New York City isn’t underwater (though sometimes the idea doesn’t bother me), and the only reason food is less available is because of supply chain problems—not massive droughts.

But the myth of consensus is a vital tool of the left to bring more people into their cause and justify all these billions of dollars being spent on green energy technology companies run by their donors. We know how compelling this argument has been; we’ve seen world leaders cite it repeatedly as fact.

So I am more than just a bit concerned that the radical left is now pushing the myth of “consensus” to justify transgender treatments for children.

During a recent interview with NPR, Rachel Levine, the Assistant Secretary of Health, claimed that “there is no argument” about “gender-affirming care” among pediatricians and doctors who specialize in adolescents.

Really? There’s “no argument” at all? None? Zero? Zilch? Nada? There’s 100% agreement? Not a mere 97%?

That’s what he said.

Continue reading “”

Source Inside the Federal Government Reveals Suspected and Known Terrorists Walk Freely in the United States Following Biden Administration’s Pullout in Afghanistan

  • The records obtained by Project Veritas confirm numerous suspected terrorists are currently living throughout the country, many of whom have work visas despite being flagged by the Terrorist Watchlist for violent offenses like murder and using explosive devices and arms.
  • Project Veritas published redacted government records of suspected terrorists who fall under the “Tier 1” threat level which is labelled as “Armed and Dangerous.” Most of these individuals flagged by the Department of Homeland Security were admitted because of an initiative to shelter fleeing refugees called Operation Allies Welcome.
  • The whistleblower inside the Federal Government has identified numerous cases. The suspected terrorists verified by Project Veritas appear to only be a small sample size. These threats live throughout the country including the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.
  • Project Veritas also published never-before-seen video of the current Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur Jaddou, touting their efforts to expedite the adjudication process of Afghanistan refugees. USCIS is a division within the Department of Homeland Security.

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Apr. 26, 2022] A source within the Federal Government has come forward to reveal suspected and known terrorists are roaming freely in the United States following the Biden administration’s exit strategy in Afghanistan, and subsequent initiatives launched by the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] to shelter fleeing refugees, known as Operation Allies Welcome.

According to records obtained and published by Project Veritas, numerous violent refugees, previously flagged by DHS for a wide range of offenses the agency describes as terrorism, are living in the United States.

Continue reading “”

New Maine GOP Platform Includes Banning Sex Education, Critical Race Theory in Schools

AUGUSTA, Maine (WGME) – Maine Republicans adopted new positions Friday that could change what kids learn in school.

The Maine GOP laid out its platform on several issues over the weekend during the Republican State Convention, including gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage’s proposal to eliminate state income tax. Also outlined Friday were Republicans’ long-standing goals, including welfare reform and enactment of “right to work laws” that limit the power of labor unions.

It was culture war issues in schools that dominated the changes to the state party platform. Some of the specifics include banning sex education and critical race theory in schools, as well as banning teaching genders other than male or female, with the party calling it “child sexual abuse.”

Lawmakers also want to ban books that encourage students to choose their own gender, sexual orientation or pronouns.

The Maine Democratic Party slammed the Republican Party’s new platform, calling it hateful and anti-LGBTQ, but members of the GOP say they are sticking up for families.

Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau accused Republicans of attacking their fellow Mainers.

New Maine GOP platform includes banning sex education, critical race theory in schools (WGME)

“It shows that they are more interested in attacking fellow Mainers and relaunching culture wars from the last decade than actually dealing with real issues affecting Maine’s hardworking families,” he said.

And I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

Relax: Mayorkas Says His New Thought Police Won’t Monitor U.S. Citizens

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the rounds of the talking head shows on Sunday to do some damage control and address concerns that the Biden administration’s new Disinformation Governance Board within the Department of Homeland Security signifies an all-out war against the freedom of speech. Those concerns were only exacerbated by the revelation that the chief of Old Joe’s Thought Police, Nina Jankowicz, is an enthusiastic fascist who is so excited about censorship that she sings musical comedy numbers about it in an affected English accent. Mayorkas, however, is telling us now that there is really nothing, nothing whatsoever, to worry about. But his soothing claims show some signs of being yet more of that disinformation he claims he wants to fight.

We’ve already gotten disinformation about the Disinformation Governance Board. Jen Psaki claimed Friday that it wasn’t the sainted President Dementia at all, but the hated Trump, who set up the Board. There doesn’t appear to be a shred of truth to this, as even Mayorkas had announced the Board as “new,” and on Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Mayorkas, “Would you be okay if Donald Trump were president, if he created this Disinformation Governance Board or if it is in place in 2024, that he’s in charge of such a thing?” Mayorkas didn’t echo Psaki and answer that Trump had actually created the Board. Instead, he insisted “that we’re safeguarding the right of free speech, that we’re safeguarding civil liberties.” Sure they are.

Continue reading “”

Depression-Era foods that are weirdly making a comeback.

The Great Depression lasted a decade, but its effects changed a generation. Echoing events of 2020, the Depression caused widespread unemployment and food shortages of meat, milk, and other pantry staples. Cooks during the unprecedented economic downturn learned eating simple meals without waste could stretch their dollar. The popularity of home gardens, foraging for food, and alternative recipes emerged as a way to work around high food costs of fresh produce, meat, and dairy products. Although 2020, fortunately, didn’t see the same long-term impacts as the 1930s, home cooking doesn’t appear to be going anywhere and Depression-era foods are making a comeback.

During the height of the pandemic, The New York Times reported empty shelves across the country and the inability of grocers to keep staple pantry items and fresh produce in stock. Essentials such as beans, rice, pasta, and peanut butter became hot commodities. Hot dog sales also spiked. Thanks to modern food shortages — and farmers being forced to destroy food — pared-down cooking habits are once again being embraced. Home cooks are turning to Depression-era foods made with affordable and shelf-stable ingredients to feed the whole family.

Continue reading “”