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

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

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

Is Carrying a Gun Provocation to be Attacked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

The Battle for Wilson’s Creek’s recognition

 In southern Greene County, there is peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Can “Pro-Gun” Democrats Be Trusted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voters Are Worried About Criminals, Not Legal Gun Owners

Continue reading “”

These 10 Incidents Highlight Importance of Second Amendment for Women

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

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

Tubman and Fields haven’t been alone.

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^^^^^^^^^^^

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Biological Sex Isn’t Up For Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.44 Magnum for self defense

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

Here’s Joe, as transcribed by Becker News:

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

I can guarantee with near metaphysical certitude that if you hear this on the MSM, it’ll be spun to appear as racist as possible.

Experts Say the ‘Defund the Police’ Movement Led to a Massive Spike in Black Murders.

The immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd saw a dramatic increase in violent crime across the country. But the political movement Floyd’s death spawned — “Defund the Police” — ended up creating a massive spike in the murders of black people as law enforcement pulled back from policing black communities in what’s referred to as “The Ferguson Effect.”

The left sniffs at the Ferguson Effect because it, in essence, blames their coddling of violent protesters for the spike in crime. But given the anecdotal evidence from every large city about the reality of the effect —some police making a conscious effort not to get involved — it would seem that the Ferguson Effect can certainly be included among any causes for the increase in violent crime.

The year 2020 may have been unique because of the pandemic and conditions surrounding the lockdowns.

Continue reading “”

California bill targets First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters

Buying your kid a Browning t-shirt could soon be impossible, at least if you live in California. Democrat Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has introduced a bill that is starting to get some attention in the state legislature, and it poses a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters.

In Bauer-Kahan’s view, AB 2571 “seeks to restrict the malicious and manipulative firearms marketing geared towards children and youth,” but a perusal of the text shows her real aim is to crack down on parents who aim to educate their kids about safe and responsible gun ownership.

According to the current language of the measure, the proposed law would “prohibit a person or entity that publishes materials directed to minors in this state in any medium from marketing or advertising firearms in that material, as specified, and would prohibit a person or entity that publishes a marketing or advertising communication from publishing or disseminating marketing or advertising for firearms that is attractive to minors, as specified.”

What makes a particular communication “attractive to minors”? The bill is open-ended, but includes things like using cartoon characters to promote firearms or firearms products; offering firearm brand name merchandise, such as hats, t-shirts, or stuffed animals, for minors; or even offering firearms or firearms accessories with colors or designs that are specifically designed to appeal to minors.
Violations of the law could result in a $25,000 fine, which is clearly an attempt to chill pro-Second Amendment speech.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva tells Bearing Arms that it’s clear that state lawmakers “aren’t satisfied” with curtailing Second Amendment rights and now trying to infringe on the First Amendment as well.

“Commercial speech is still protected speech,” says Oliva, adding, “California’s bought-and-paid for gun control politicians might find it disagreeable that parents actually teach their children safe and responsible firearm ownership, but that is a reality, albeit one they are attempting to erase. Advertising images of parents and youths hunting together would be illegal. Youth hunting clothing branded with firearm and ammunition maker logos would be banned. The bill authors know this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights, but they give no consideration to fundamental rights when it comes to advancing a gun control agenda.”

Why would they, honestly? Most California Democrats don’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental right that must be protected. At best they see it as an anachronism that has no place in 21st Century America, and far too many of them see our right to keep and bear arms as an evil that must be eradicated. They don’t see AB 2571 as the censorious pile of rat droppings that it is. No, they honestly believe they’re protecting innocent children from the evil and twisted firearms industry.. not to mention the deplorable gun-owning dupes those kids might have as parents.

Here’s my question for Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and other backers of this bill: even if gun companies were marketing their products to minors (which I don’t think is actually the case), shouldn’t all of the gun control laws on the books in California prevent minors from getting their hands on a gun? I mean, minors can’t legally purchase firearms or ammunition in the state, and there are background check requirements for all gun transfers and ammunition purchases. If California’s gun control laws work as well as Democrats say they do, then why do they believe this bill is necessary?

Sadly, I know the answer. This legislation isn’t about preventing minors from illegally acquiring firearms. It’s about demonizing the firearms industry.

I would love to say that this bill is going nowhere, but it already has the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and appears to be gaining some traction in the state Assembly, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. The time for California gun owners to speak out is now. I don’t know that even a wave of opposition from gun owners across the state will be enough to derail the bill in the legislature, but it’s the first step in what’s likely to be a long campaign to defend our First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment.

Rep. Stefanik backs new bill protecting gun rights in bankruptcy situations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (WWTI) — Local lawmakers are voicing their support in new legislation aiming to protect second amendment rights.

On April 11, the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2022 (H.R. 7493) was introduced to Congress by House Republications to amend Title 11 of the United States code pertaining to a federal bankruptcy law.

According to lawmakers, if passed, this legislation would modify the federal bankruptcy law to allow an individual debtor to exempt one or more firearms from their bankruptcy estate. These firearms could have up to a total maximum value of $3,000.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik cosponsored this legislation and said it would “ensure an individual’s right to self-defense is not stripped due to financial hardships.”

“I am proud to sponsor legislation to ensure gun owners can always maintain their Constitutional right to bear arms. The government should not be allowed to take advantage of lawful gun owners who have declared bankruptcy,” Stefanik said in a press release.

Stefanik added that the bill also labels firearms as household goods that are not subject to liens. This would be a claim against assets used as a collateral to satisfy a debt in bankruptcy situations.

The full legislation can be read below:

Protecting-Gun-Owners-in-Bankruptcy-Act-of-2022

Almost 50 Years Ago, Soylent Green Portrayed a Grim Future for 2022

In anticipation of Earth Day 2022, it is a good time to reflect on the upcoming 50th anniversary of the release of the eco-apocalypse movie Soylent Green:

It’s the year 2022. Cumulative effects of overpopulation, pollution, and “climate catastrophe” have caused severe worldwide shortages of food, water, and housing. Scientists confirm oceanographic reports saying the oceans are dying. The food chain is disrupted. Food is becoming scarce, and the temperature is so hot that heat waves have become year-round thanks to climate change aka “global warming.”

Homeless people are everywhere; only half the workforce is employed while the other half is barely making it. Many people are illiterate and few factories are producing new goods.

The homes of the elite are barricaded, with private security. Only the elite can afford air conditioning. Strawberries are now a delicacy at $75 a quart. The situation with food has gotten so bad that people are being harvested off the streets and “recycled protein” is being distributed to the population.

The movie Soylent Green was produced and filmed in 1972 and released in 1973. It is a futuristic tale of doom, describing life in the year 2022.

We are living in that year, and things aren’t anywhere near as bad as the movie portrayed. While some of the items it touched on (self-inflicted thanks to COVID-19, green energy policy, inflation) might be considered climate-caused by “climate activists,” the climate itself is not a catastrophe when you look at real-world data.

For example, March 2022 global temperatures measured by satellite are 0.27°F (0.15°C) and U.S. temperature measured by the U.S. Climate Reference Network, is just 0.38°F (0.21°C) above normal; nearly undetectable fractions of a degree, with little change measured in the United States over the past 17 years.

And when we look at other real-word data, such as crop production and the overall health of the planet, we find things are even less like the predictions of the movie for 2022.

Global Crop production is actually up significantly according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture division. The Earth has actually become greener according to NASA, thanks to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And, air pollution is down 50 percent or more since 1990, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA added this note to their report: “During this same period, the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles, and population and energy use increased.”

However, the most significant climate related data in 2022 is the fact that “climate related deaths” have plummeted since the movie came out and is now approaching zero. Using data from the International Disaster Database, climate scientist Bjørn Lomborg found striking drops in the data. As Lomborg writes, “If we look at the death risk for an individual, the risk reduction is even bigger — dropped almost 99% since the 1920s.”

Two years ago, on the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, there was much to celebrate about our present day due to improvements in our environment since 1970.

In contrast, Soylent Green portrayed a “climate catastrophe” and a grim future for 2022 due to climate change that hasn’t manifested itself in a profoundly negative way. In fact, most of what we experience today that could be considered a catastrophe is self-inflicted.

Runaway inflation and energy restrictive policies enforced by the Biden administration are the real catastrophes affecting Americans today.

LAPD chief blames guns for California’s gun control failures

California has the toughest state-level gun control laws in the nation. They heavily restrict pretty much every category of firearm imaginable and they’re constantly looking at how they can further restrict them.

And yet, cities in the state aren’t necessarily safer than anywhere else in the nation.

Despite that, the chief of the LAPD blames…wait for it…guns.

Thirty-four people were shot in Los Angeles last week, a bloody spike in what is already shaping up to be a violent month and year in the City of Angels, according to authorities.

The bulk of the shootings — 23 — of them occurred in a “remarkably small area” of the Los Angeles Police Department’s 77th Street and Southeast divisions, Chief Michel Moore told the Los Angeles Police Commission Tuesday. Moore called last week a “troubling week,” in a year when violent crime has increased 7.1% year-to-date. So far this year, the LAPD has responded to 575 more violent crimes than this time last year.

Barely halfway through the month, 70 people have already been shot in Los Angeles, up from 55 during the same period last year. There have been 107 homicides so far in 2022, while at this point in 2021 there were 109. While the number has decreased slightly in 2022, Moore said it represents a 37% increase over a two-year period. Overall, violent crime — aggravated assaults, street robberies, and commercial robberies — have climbed 15.2 percent over a two-year period.…

“The problem that we have throughout Los Angeles is too many guns in too many hands,” Moore said, reiterating a belief he frequently shares with the commission. The added enforcement in the 77th Street Division resulted in 16 gun arrests involving 20 firearms, including “a number of assault rifles,” Moore said.

So, the issue is guns in the most heavily gun-controlled state in the nation?

Sounds to me an awful lot like all the copious amounts of gun control has managed to accomplish is just make the state more hostile toward law-abiding gun owners, rather than actually do much to curb gun possession by violent criminals.

This isn’t much different than the gang heyday of the 1990s when LA was the epicenter of criminal culture. Since then, the state has passed tons of gun control, ostensibly to impact those same criminals.

As we can see, it worked like a charm.

Look, I get the desire to do something. I also get that people think the problem is the wrong people having guns. I’m not going to argue about armed criminals. But the laws on the books were designed to stop precisely them from having them, yet it doesn’t appear to have accomplished a blasted thing. Meanwhile, Californians who want to comply with the law are treated like criminals for even wanting a firearm.

It’s just not right.

Then again, it’s never been right to restrict the rights of the ordinary citizen because of the actions of a handful of criminals. Yet when the LAPD chief talks about too many guns in too many hands rather than the wrong hands, what do you think he’s proposing? Is he acknowledging that gun control has failed the state, or do you think he’s suggesting more of the same?

Well, since he says the problem is “too many hands” and nothing about criminals in possession, it’s clear where he stands on the issue.

It’s also clear that more of the same isn’t going to make things better.