No, Gun Culture Has Not Been Radicalized

In a single issue in March of 1961, Guns & Ammo ran ads for a “Sniper Model” Enfield Match rifle, a French 8mm machine gun (“used in two World Wars”), a Mannlicher military pistol, a U.S. .30 M1 carbine, and a police-ordnance Ingram Model 6 submachine gun chambered in .45 ACP (only $49.95!). If you’re surprised that these machine guns and high-powered military rifles were marketed to hunters in the 1960s, you might have unconsciously accepted a flawed but popular narrative about American gun culture.

According to this story, gun owners have only recently become “militarized,” thanks to the machinations of the National Rifle Association and its infamous leader, Wayne LaPierre. That military-style attitude has further resulted in a recalcitrant stance toward gun control and an obsession with armed self-defense.

There are many examples of this fable, but the most recent comes from the New Yorker, in a declaratively titled piece, “What Happened to Gun Culture.” As author Benjamin Wallace-Wells helpfully explains, gun culture has become “one of the most dangerous elements of the right” during LaPierre’s tenure.

“Military” or “militarization” appears nine times in the article, as Wallace-Wells claims that only since the 1990s have manufacturers been allowed to sell “military-grade weapons” and “market them as military weapons.” Ultimately, Wallace-Wells writes, LaPierre’s NRA “brainwashed an entire country” by transforming a political base of hunters into a “new, expanded audience of gun guys” who support a “maximalist defense of guns.” This new gun culture has spawned characters such as Kyle Rittenhouse, the January 6 rioters, and, most horrifically of all, Black Rifle Coffee Company.

As with all stories that attempt to shoehorn the history of a community into a convenient political narrative, this myth is mostly untrue.

Continue reading “”

What happened to San Jose’s insurance mandate for gun owners?

It’s been more than six months since the city council in San Jose, California unanimously approved a measure requiring all legal gun owners in the city to carry liability insurance and pay the city a fee for the “privilege” of exercising their Second Amendment rights, but so far the city hasn’t taken any concrete steps to start enforcing the ordinance or even explain to gun owners how they’re expected to comply with the unconstitutional mandate.

Still, the city clearly hasn’t given up on the idea, with Mayor Sam Liccardo touting the plan in his recent State of the City address.

Continue reading “”

*sniff*
Smells like some goobermint stooge dropped some propaganda around here

*ahhHRRMMM*

‘Lady Al Qaeda’ the woman Texas synagogue hostage-taker wanted freed: She planned chemical attacks on Empire State Building and Brooklyn Bridge and demanded juror at her trial be DNA tested to see if they were Jewish

Who is Aafia Siddiqui? Details on the woman mentioned during negotiations by the man who took a North Texas synagogue hostage

……By all accounts in the trial record, Siddiqui was a combative defendant, refusing to come to court.

“She also complained that a Zionist conspiracy existed and would prevent her from getting a fair trial,” the judge said at her sentencing. “Indeed, during the course of the proceedings, she said ‘All I did say was that Israel was behind 9/11.’”…..

Nope.  Nothing ‘related to the Jews’ here. Nope, nope, nope

FBI Makes Claims Motive of Man Taking Hostages at Synagogue Was ‘Not Specifically Related to Jewish Community’

As was covered last night, a man who is now dead took multiple people hostage for nearly 12 hours on Saturday at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas. Not only did the man take a rabbi and others hostage during shabbat services, but he demanded the release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who is suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda and was convicted of trying to kill U.S. military officers while in custody in Afghanistan. Yet once all the hostages had been released and were safe, the FBI said during a press conference that the man’s motive was not tied to targeting the Jewish community………..

The only thing really surprising is that the demoncraps feel ‘sporty’ enough to let what they’d like happen out in public.

COVID-19: Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated

While many voters have become skeptical toward the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Democrats embrace restrictive policies, including punitive measures against those who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine.

A new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of voters favor President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the employees of large companies and government agencies. That includes 33% who Strongly Favor the mandate. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed to Biden’s vaccine mandate, including 40% who Strongly Oppose the mandate. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Continue reading “”

Update, if you haven’t already heard:

All hostages safe. Bad guy dead.

And to add. If your congregation doesn’t have some sort of security plan, get one in the works. You’re not playing the odds, you’re playing the stakes.

This is why you should always carry in Church……….

Update: Apparently the man is holding 4 members of the congregation hostage to trade for his sister who is in a federal prison for terrorist attacks on U.S. military personnel in Pakistan.

 

Being a Climate Alarmist Means Never Having to Admit You’re Wrong

A mountain of evidence shows climate alarmists never learn from their mistakes, be they clear misstatements of facts or repeatedly failed prognostications.

Why should they? The press lets climate alarmists get away with making more false claims than any other group on any other topic, including the efficacy of the COVID vaccines in keeping people from catching the disease or requiring hospitalization. Climate alarmists have nothing to fear from so-called fact checkers in corporate or social media, because the “fact checkers” are either true believers themselves or fellow beneficiaries of the climate alarm gravy train.

Accordingly, I have decided to of expose a litany of climate false alarm claims made in recent months periodically in my lead essay of Climate Change Weekly. These essays won’t be about politics or opinions but instead straight exposés of patently false climate science assertions publicized in the preceding months, for which the authors of those stories were never called to the carpet or forced to issue a correction.

In Climate Change Weekly last July, I poked fun at one of the most mystifyingly wrong but persistent claims made by climate alarmists: that a warmer world would mean the disappearance of snow. This claim is definitively refuted by data cited in Climate at a Glance: Snowpack showing average North American snowpack extent is virtually unchanged in recent years compared to the late 1960s, when satellite measurements began. Beyond America, average snowpack has increased throughout the Northern Hemisphere in the fall and winter months, but you’d never know this if you read the headlines of major newspapers or watch climate-related news stories on corporate media outlets.

For example, in December even as huge storm fronts were striking the Western mountain ranges from California through Washington State, the Washington Post published an article titled “Snow may vanish for years at a time in Mountain West with climate warming.” Not to be outdone in the snow stupidity competition, just last week The New York Times published an article asserting “Skiing is an endangered sport, caught between a warming planet and a global pandemic.” The article states, “In recent years, with snow cover diminishing and untouched powder increasingly difficult to reach, skiers like Ms. Backstrom have been pushed onto groomed trails more often.”

Continue reading “”

Quote O’ The Day
Remember that these are people who have no idea how reality works.

Biden Expected To Sign Police Reform Executive Order

NBC News is reporting that Joe Biden is expected to sign an Executive Order on Police Reform since recent efforts in Congress have stalled. The Biden Junta hopes that this Executive Order (EO) will shore up faltering support among Black voters. Likely the policing EO will also give Biden an opportunity to rant against Donald Trump, always popular with the Left, insult half of America, shout for no reason and pound the little mini-desk in his fake Oval Office set.

The good news is that at least most of the Lefty Moonbats have stopped shouting “Defund the Police”. The bad news is that there has been absolutely no effort at bipartisan negotiations on real police reforms. A year and a half ago, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott wrote a not perfect bill with some police reforms. When the Democrats wouldn’t take up Scott’s bill, he said it was because the Dems cynically wanted the issue, a divisive racial issue. Read Deanna’s post here.

In 2020 and 2021, the Democrats have failed to move on the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act”. Creepy Joe Bidenf has failed at absolutely everything he has touched (energy, supply chain, Afghanistan, to name a few) and he got a new dog last month. So what’s a failed President to do? Sign an Executive Order, that’s the ticket.

Not that I think Joe Biden remembers what his positions used to be, but he once was considered strong on law enforcement. From NPR July, 2021:

For years, Biden was a loyal ally to law enforcement, dating back to his days in the Senate when he crafted the 1994 crime bill with their direct help.

“When he was vice president, he would routinely have law enforcement at the residence,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based police think tank. “He told President Obama when he was vice president he wanted the police portfolio. So, he knows this issue.”

But while Biden may know the issue, the issue itself has changed with mounting calls for more accountability among police officers in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing.

Now, Joe’s poll numbers are cratering and he desperately needs a win. Hence, the expected EO on Police Reform. As NBC reports:

President Joe Biden is planning to sign executive actions on police reform as early as this month, three people familiar with the plans said, as his administration seeks to unilaterally jumpstart an issue that’s a top priority for a key constituency.

The executive actions would follow Biden’s uphill battle to advance voting rights legislation, and could coincide with a similar effort by some Democratic lawmakers to revive the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which stalled on Capitol Hill after failed attempts to craft a bipartisan measure.

The focus on police reforms is part of what appears to be a last-ditch effort by the Biden administration to take action on some of the president’s signature initiatives in the run-up to his State of the Union Address on March 1. In addition to voting rights and policing, the White House and congressional Democrats are considering ways to resurrect Biden’s Build Back Better package, either by paring back the legislation or separating it into two bills, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.

The Squad already threatened Biden about breaking up Build Back Better and they don’t play. If Biden doesn’t sign the police EO, he will have nothing but failures to talk about in his March 1 State of the Union Address. Sweet Baby Jesus, that’s going to be awful anyway.

But, wait, there is more:

Two people familiar with the discussions said the White House could roll out the executive actions to mark the beginning of Black History Month in February.

Biden also is expected to use the moment to criticize former President Donald Trump, the people familiar with the discussions said. The president was sharply critical of Trump during a Jan. 6 anniversary speech and again on Tuesday while giving remarks on voting rights.

Yes, the old racist Biden will get a twofer. Black History Month and swatting Trump.

The EO signing will be a combination of the fake office with the teeny desk and the odd yelling like in this video about fewer democracies:

The Police Reform EO will be like everything else Creepy Joe has done: a failure and likely extra Constitutional.

A not so modest proposal for mandatory training

In the past week or so, we’ve seen a push by anti-Second Amendment folks to call for mandatory training prior to people being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. And not just to carry a gun, but to simply own one.

Now, we oppose this when it comes to gun rights for obvious reasons. However, it’s very clear that many don’t. As such, I figured I’d offer something of a compromise.

In particular, if gun control folks are going to be insistent on mandatory training, then I’m going to push back with calls for mandatory training before exercising other rights.

To start with, we should require mandatory training before allowing people to vote.

After all, an uninformed electorate could lead to all kinds of problems. I mean…<gestures toward the White House>.

We should require all citizens wishing to vote to undergo a mandatory training course prior to being able to cast a ballot. The course should require some degree of basic civics as to which elected officials can do what they cannot.

It should also include the constitutional limits to the government so that these voters don’t get led astray by promises that won’t pass legal muster. You know, things like free money, forgiveness of college loans, things like that.

Additionally, we should also require mandatory training before anyone can attend a house of worship of any faith.

After all, you wouldn’t want someone to walk into a mosque and do everything wrong, deeply offending our Muslim neighbors, now would you? The mandatory course would include a basic primer on all faiths worshipped in the United States so people can make an informed decision as to where to worship and what to do when they arrive.

The fact that such a course would amount to the coursework for a theology degree is completely irrelevant.

We should also require mandatory training before exercising one’s freedom of speech. After all, some people talk a lot of nonsense. I mean, I saw someone advocating for communism just yesterday. That shouldn’t be allowed!

So clearly, before people speak, they should be required to undergo a mandatory training class. I mean, they might offend someone by advocating for socialism, communism, or some other faulty line of thinking.

And while we’re at it, we need to mandate training for journalists. No, I’m not talking about journalism school–something that’s not actually required for one to become a journalist–but a government-mandated training course one must go through, lest they report inappropriately. I mean, we can’t have journalists giving government officials a hard time like they did President Trump, right?

What? What’s that? You think this is all out of line and unconstitutional?

Well, that may be, but if you’re someone who thinks I should be forced to undergo training before exercising a right protected by the Constitution, then why shouldn’t you be forced to undergo training before exercising some right precious to you?

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is treated as a second-class right. The idea of mandatory training in order to exercise it illustrates this idea perfectly. Especially since we know that many of these other proposals I just made would be shot down in a heartbeat.

After all, how is something a right if you must pass a course first in order to use it? At that point, it becomes a privilege.

If you have an issue with any of those proposals above, then you should at least show some consistency and stand against mandatory training for gun ownership.

Stop the fearmongering on guns

In a Dec. 31 guest column (”Locked and loaded – and inviting disaster”), Matthew P. Moriarty called the Ohio legislature “gun-crazy” for proposing to make concealed-carry licensing optional. But his arguments parrot the same alarmist talking points we’ve been hearing for 20 years whenever there’s a bill to allow law-abiding gun owners a little more freedom. His most egregious claim was that, “Criminals might be able to carry with no fear of a concealed-weapon prosecution.” That’s misleading.

Nothing in the proposed legislation would empower criminal behavior. Those who are prohibited from possessing guns would continue to be prohibited. Areas off-limits for firearms, such as school zones and posted property, would continue to be off-limits. And the standard for using lethal force in self-defense would not change.

Moriarty talks as if permitless carry is an untested idea. But in fact it’s the law in 21 states, including Ohio’s neighbors West Virginia and Kentucky. Plus, 34 states, including Ohio, already allow open carry without a license.

All of these states are doing just fine. The alarmist claims never materialize. So stop the fearmongering.

Dean Rieck, Westerville

Dean Rieck is executive director of the Buckeye Firearms Association.

When the anti-self defense writer uses ‘information’ from the Brady pro gun control group, he immediately showed his views were not based on actual biblical principles, even though scriptures were used to support them. (Remember, satan himself quoted scripture for his own nefarious purpose)
But read both at your convenience

Guns or Roses?

The issue of Christians owning and using guns, especially against other humans, has been debated almost since firearms and gunpowder appeared in Europe in the 13th century. In today’s fragmented religious environment, many opinions are advanced in churches, in the public square, and on media. Seventh-day Adventist Christians, often influenced by polarizing political, social, or cultural viewpoints, debate this issue both publicly and privately. We asked two authors with contrasting opinions to engage in an imagined conversation with a respected Adventist friend who holds a different opinion about this divisive topic, each explaining their viewpoint from a Christian and Adventist biblical worldview.—Editors.

Continue reading “”

Prosecutors: Green Bay gas station shooting was self-defense

GREEN BAY (WLUK) — A fatal shooting at a Green Bay gas station was self-defense, prosecutors have ruled.

Dominique Marie Wilson, 34, was killed in the Nov. 14 shooting at the Marathon gas station on E. Walnut Street and S. Monroe Avenue.

In a news release Friday, the Brown County district attorney’s office said the incident stemmed from an ongoing dispute between two groups of people. At the gas station in the early morning hours, the two groups confronted each other. Surveillance showed mostly females involved, with some carrying weapons such as baseball bats, brass knuckles and pepper spray.

Prosecutors say at one point Wilson went to her vehicle and got a loaded handgun. Surveillance video showed her pointing the gun at others nearby and trying to fire it at people who were fighting. While this was going on, a person who was there with friends and family members shot and killed Wilson.

Two days later, the shooter turned himself in to Green Bay police. He said he shot Wilson out of fear she would start shooting everyone else.

Prosecutors say no one will be charged in the case. FOX 11 is not naming the shooter because he is not being charged.

Ceres man shot after allegedly trying to break into home

CERES, Calif. — Police believe a man found shot in the backyard of a Ceres home Thursday was trying to break into the home.

According to a press release from the Ceres Police Department, officers received a call Thursday just after 4 a.m. for a report of a man shot outside of a home along the 2300 block of Moffett Road. Upon arrival, police found 23-year-old Anthony Robledo in the backyard of the home, suffering from a gunshot wound.

During their investigation, police believe Robledo was attempting to break into the home through a back window. When a resident of the home saw Robledo with a gun trying to enter, the resident shot at Robledo, hitting him multiple times.

California’s “castle doctrine” is the law that is applied to self-defense inside a person’s home. A Sacramento attorney previously told ABC10 a person may use reasonable force to defend themselves on their own private property when they believe an intruder may cause them harm.

Robledo was taken to the hospital where police said he is listed critical condition.

With this as further confirmation, if you haven’t figured out by now that demoncraps are in any sense American, I can’t help you anymore.

NASA leasing bill transformed into “voting rights” legislation.

WASHINGTON — NASA’s ability to lease property at its facilities to companies or other organizations remains in limbo after a bill meant to reauthorize it was transformed in the House into voting rights legislation.

H.R. 5746 was introduced in October by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), chair of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee. The bill extended NASA’s authorization to enter into what are known as enhanced use leases, or EULs, of agency property to companies, government agencies, or educational institutions, for 10 years. The House passed the bill by a voice vote Dec. 8.

The Senate amended the bill, extending the EUL authorization by only three months instead of 10 years, and passed it by unanimous consent, sending it back to the House.

The Democratic leadership of the House, in an unusual move, then took the Senate-amended bill and stripped out the NASA provisions, replacing it with the text of two voting rights bills and now called the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.” They did so because H.R. 5746 had already passed the House and Senate, so the amended version could go directly to the Senate floor without the threat of a filibuster from Senate Republicans, who oppose the voting rights legislation.

The move effectively sacrificed the NASA portions of the bill, something that Beyer said he accepted. “Though I did not expect this outcome when I first introduced the NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act, if my legislation will help overcome the filibuster, the Senate can finally have the long-overdue debate on voting rights this country deserves,” he said in a Jan. 13 statement. “I would be honored to make this unexpected contribution to the cause of protecting our democracy.”

The House passed the bill Jan. 13 220 to 203 on strict party lines, with Democrats voting in favor of the bill and Republicans against it.

Republican members, including some who co-sponsored the original H.R. 5746, strongly criticized the decision to turn the NASA bill into a vehicle for voting rights legislation. “The majority has taken a practical, bipartisan bill and gutted it, inserting 735 pages of unrelated legislation and forcing the House to vote on it barely 12 hours after the text was released,” Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), ranking member of the House Science Committee, said in a statement. “What’s more, by stripping this NASA bill and replacing it with an attempt to impose federal control of elections, they have killed our only vehicle to extend NASA’s authority to lease out underutilized property and save taxpayer money.”

NASA’s EUL authority lapsed Dec. 31, meaning that the agency cannot enter into new leases until that authority is renewed. NASA had signed leases for 65 properties as of 2019, which provided the agency with nearly $11 million in revenue that went to support other facility improvements.

It’s unclear what the next step is for restoring NASA’s EUL authority. A Senate bill introduced in December proposed a two-year extension, but that bill remains in the Senate Commerce Committee.

“We hope and expect to pass an EUL extension in future legislation,” Aaron Fritschner, spokesman for Rep. Beyer, told SpaceNews Jan. 13 after the House vote, but details on how to do so were still being worked out.

 

Well – they’ve got  crap-for-brains to begin with, so ignoring truth is not ‘second nature’ but first nature for them.

BLUF:
They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

How anti-gunners ignore inconvenient facts

When it comes to a discussion of guns in America, there will always be something of a divide. Those who want to regulate almost anything will always want to regulate guns and those who do not wish to be ruled will argue against such regulations.

It’s really not a difficult dichotomy to comprehend, all things considered.

Currently, with violent crime raging, anti-gun folks are pushing hard and using the violence to justify any and all demands.

Take this bit regarding Iowa.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa wrote an issue brief warning that, while gun violence in Iowa remained relatively low compared with other states, efforts in the Legislature to weaken the state’s gun laws threatened the safety of Iowa communities. Unfortunately, Iowa lawmakers did not heed this warning and in 2021 continued to undermine gun safety in the state by repealing two crucial measures that have helped keep gun violence in Iowa at comparatively low levels: 1) the law requiring a permit, and therefore a background check, prior to every handgun sale and 2) the law requiring a permit to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the community.

At the same time, similar to trends in other states, the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in gun deaths in Iowa: According to early data from the Iowa Department of Public Health, gun-related deaths reached an all-time high in 2020, with an estimated 353 people killed. Once again, it is crucial that policymakers in Iowa take the issue of gun violence seriously and resist efforts to further weaken the state’s gun laws.

Now, on the surface, if you knew nothing else about guns or gun control, it would be easy to look at this plea and think that maybe it’s a good idea.

The problem is, it isn’t.

Now, 2020 was a nasty year for violent crime all across the nation. That includes states that have long favored gun control policies such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and so on.

2021 was a slightly different animal, but not by much.

Chicago saw the highest homicide rate it had seen in 25 years. Los Angeles had the highest it had seen in 15 years.

So clearly, it was rough for a lot of places.

However, we also saw violent crime go down in a couple of large cities. Dallas saw a decline. So did Miami.

So what’s the difference between these four cities? The two where homicides went up were in anti-gun states while the two where it went down were in pro-gun states.

Now, I’ll be the first to concede that this is just a data point and far from conclusive evidence. However, if fewer restrictions on guns result in greater violent crime as the anti-Second Amendment types claim, then shouldn’t Dallas and Miami have seen the worst violent crime compared to Chicago and Los Angeles?

What happens is that anti-Second Amendment folks don’t want to look at that. They prefer to ignore inconvenient truths whenever possible.

Gun-controlled states are having issues while non-gun-controlled states are having fewer problems. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, one based on the actual numbers.

But you’ll never get an anti-Second Amendment type to acknowledge it. Instead, they’ll just pretend those facts don’t exist, all while pushing the next bit of gun control to strike their fancy. They’ll ignore it, all while pretending that those who oppose gun control want to do nothing to address violent crime.

The term is cognitive dissonance. They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

Yes, there is a town named ‘North Pole’ Alaska.

North Pole [Alaska] Gun seller fatally shoots 1 of 2 men who planned to rob him

A firearms sale in which two men planned to rob the seller resulted in one of the men being shot dead, North Pole police said Thursday.

Officers responded to a report of an armed robbery in progress near 301 N. Santa Claus Lane late Wednesday night, the North Pole Police Department said in a statement. Police were told that one person had been shot while another was being held at gunpoint, and when they arrived at the scene, officers detained several people in the parking lot.

Investigators determined Adam Dane Selid, 18, and Dalen Davis, 19, had arranged to meet an individual to buy firearms from them but actually planned to rob the seller during the transaction, police said. During the meetup, Selid and Davis agreed to buy the weapons, then Selid pulled out a gun and threatened the seller, according to police.

During a struggle over Selid’s gun, “the seller was able to retrieve a handgun that he had on his person and fired one round, striking Selid,” police said in the statement.

Selid was shot in the abdomen and taken to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead, police said. Next of kin have been notified.

After investigators interviewed Davis at the police department, he was arrested and taken to the Fairbanks Correctional Center, police said. Online court records show that Davis faces charges of first-degree robbery and second-degree manslaughter. North Pole police said he “knowingly engaged in conduct that resulted in the death of another person.”

The gun seller, who fatally shot Selid, “has not been charged at this time,” police said.

Sinema Kills Biden’s Election Power-Grab Scheme Just as He Arrives on Capitol Hill to Push It

Despite all of President Biden’s blustering fire-and-brimstone doomsday talk about evil Republicans — who are simply operating within the Senate’s established rules — it was a Democrat Senator who on Thursday delivered a mortal blow to the White House’s latest attempt to secure a legislative victory on so-called “voting rights.”

Arizona Democrat Senator Kyrsten Sinema took to the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon to once again explain why the 60-vote threshold to stop a legislative filibuster is both necessary and not worth upending for a temporary wish.

Demonstrating more foresight than the late Harry Reid or current Senate Majority Chuck Schumer demonstrated, Sinema declared that “eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come.” Ending the legislative filibuster in order to force through Democrats’ radical federal takeover of elections is something Sinema said would “worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country.”

“The debate over the Senate’s 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges,” Sinema continued in her floor speech. “There’s no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. There’s no need for me to restate its role protecting our country from wild reversals in federal policy.”

As Vespa covered earlier in January, Sinema’s opposition to getting rid of the legislative filibuster as a tool to ensure broad support for new federal policies has been made clear. And despite Senator Sinema’s detractors who allege she’s being bought off or somewhat manipulated into opposing an overhaul of the process for passing legislative through the Senate, she made clear on Thursday that her support for the legislative filibuster is longstanding, even while she was in the House.

“It is a view I’ve held during my years serving in both the U.S. House and the Senate, and it is the view that I continue to hold,” Sinema explained. “It is the belief that I have shared many times in public settings, and in private settings. Senators of both parties have offered ideas — including some that would earn my support — to make this body more productive, more deliberative, more responsive to Americans’ needs, and a place of genuine debate about our country’s pressing issues,” Sinema said reiterating her point that she’s not opposed to certain changes in how the Senate operates. But when it comes to the legislative filibuster, it’s a non-starter for Sinema.

“A discussion of rules falls short of what is required,” she explained of the current attempt by Schumer to shatter Senate norms. “American politics are cyclical, and the granting of power in Washington, D.C. is exchanged regularly by voters from one party to another. The shift of power back and forth means the Senate’s 60-vote threshold has proved maddening to members of both political parties in recent years,” she reminded.

“Used either as a weapon of obstruction or as a safety net to save the country from radical policies, depending on whether you serve in the majority or the minority,” Sinema said. “What is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators representing a broader cross section of Americans — a guardrail.”

With her floor speech, Senator Sinema effectively ended Schumer’s hopes of changing the rules to allow President Biden’s latest legislative priority to pass. It also proved that Biden’s speech on his election overhaul priority was a total fail.

It turns out that Biden’s hollering about anyone who opposes passing the federal election takeover being equal to the president of the confederacy does not in fact change minds. In making her consistent stance clear on the Senate floor, Sinema has likely handed the White House and congressional Democrat leadership another defeat as the new year begins.

Man shoots attempted burglar

LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) – Lansing Police are investigating a shooting that took place on the 3000 block of S. Washington Ave. at approximately 1:00 p.m. this afternoon.

According to police, a 22-year-old homeowner fired his gun at armed people attempting to break into his apartment.

Within minutes of arriving, officers were notified of a 25-year-old man walking into a nearby hospital room with a gunshot wound.

The gunshot victim was “not forthcoming with information,” police said.

Officers later concluded that the shooting and wounded man were connected.

Police say the man who was shot is expected to survive.

The investigation is ongoing. Both men have been identified and are speaking with investigators.

Washington would-be armed robbery victim shoots suspect after being shot in the arm, police say
Auburn police say victim shot, killed suspect despite being shot in arm

A Washington state man who was shot in the arm during an attempted robbery Tuesday night turned the tables on his attacker when he drew his own gun and fatally shot the suspect, authorities said.

The incident unfolded in Auburn, located about 27 miles south of Seattle, just after 9 p.m. when the victim walked out of a business in a strip mall, Auburn police said.

The male suspect allegedly approached the victim and held him at gunpoint.

When he tried to rob the victim, police said that the victim drew his own gun and exchanged gunfire with the suspect. It was unclear whether the victim was licensed to carry a firearm.

The victim was critically injured after being shot in the arm while drawing his own weapon, Q13 FOX reported, citing police. The suspect was dead at the scene when responding officers arrived.

Police did not immediately release the identities of the victim or suspect.

No further information was released as authorities said they were still in the early stages of the investigation

The gun grabbers used to continually squeal that there would be ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ when concealed carry permit laws were being passed during the last 30+ years.
Now that that has been shown to be absolute BS, they’re trying the same old playbook out with permitless carry.
It’s all they have, and everyone should know by now, from the lack of that ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ in the states that have passed permitless carry, that it’s still absolute BS

The weakest argument yet against Constitutional Carry?

Ohio lawmakers have approved two separate Constitutional Carry bills in recent weeks, but neither have received the final votes needed to be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature, and while the bills are still sitting in the state capitol building opponents have been trying to muster up enough last-minute opposition to derail the legislation from becoming law.

There’ve been no shortage of op-eds and opinion pieces proclaiming that Ohio will become the “Wild, Wild West” or descend into a dystopian hellscape if the state no longer requires a government-issued permission slip before legal gun owners can lawfully carry, but one of the weakest arguments I’ve run across came from retired attorney former law professor Doug Rogers, who seems to believe that the state’s current laws are actually preventing criminals from illegally carrying a gun.

The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio testified that Senate Bill 215 will “create a threat to officer safety.”

Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey testified: “Allowing virtually anyone in Ohio to conceal weapons on their person without training or background checks will make Ohio less safe.”

The Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association testified, “There must be a minimum training requirement for someone … with the awesome right of carrying a weapon that can deprive another person of their life.”

Ohio already allows for the open carrying of firearms without a license or training, and there’s no minimum training requirement to own a firearm either. How is carrying a firearm concealed so much different from openly carrying one? While I strongly encourage every gun owner to continually train with their gun, mandating an official training course before one can exercise a constitutionally-protected right is an undue burden on the right itself.

Rogers goes on to complain about several other aspects of the bill, including language that clarifies when someone who’s legally armed needs to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact.

Finally, the senate bill would further endanger police by: (1) eliminating the current responsibility of a civilian carrying a concealed handgun stopped by the police to promptly notify police that he is carrying a concealed firearm; and (2) switching the duty to the police officer to ask if that civilian is carrying a concealed weapon.

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police said, “To remove the duty to notify is setting us all up for confrontation and potentially tragic failure.”

I’d argue that the current ambiguous language is even more likely to lead to confrontation and potential tragedy. With the clear standard outlined in the permitless carry legislation, an officer can simply ask an individual if they’re carrying a firearm when they initiate the stop. I think that’s a much better solution than leaving it up to the gun owner to “promptly” (a term which isn’t defined in state law) notify police themselves.

There are 21 states with permitless carry laws on the books, and police departments in every one of them have figured out how to continue to do their job and arrest violent criminals after the law took effect. No state has ever gone back and repealed its Constitutional Carry statute, which also says quite a bit about how the law actually works in practice.

Rogers wraps up his lame argument by calling on the legislature to reject Constitutional carry “because it is anti-police and anti-public safety,” which is an outright lie. There’s nothing anti-police about a pro-civil rights piece of legislation. There’s nothing anti-public safety about ensuring that legal gun owners can publicly protect themselves. Frankly, there’s no good reason why Ohio shouldn’t join the 21 other states that have already adopted Constitutional Carry. The bills are there and now’s the time for lawmakers in Columbus to move this legislation across the finish line and send it to the governor for his signature.