“Although there has been no direct empirical evidence linking sexual dysfunction (SD) with gun ownership, speculation has been widespread and persistent for decades.” ?

That ‘speculation’ has actually been nothing more than Junior High School ‘Boy’s room’ level insults from those who have nothing better to use in their anti-gun/anti-civil rights screeds.
That these researchers went to the trouble to finally dump it out on the trash heap of ideas where it should have been the first time it was put forth is to be appreciated.

Sexual Dysfunction and Gun Ownership in America: When Hard Data Meet a Limp Theory

 

 

On track for the next permitless carry state?

Ohio House committee passes bill allowing for concealed carry of guns without training

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio House committee passed legislation Thursday that would allow most Ohioans who are 21 years of age and up to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

Current law allows Ohioans to carry concealed weapons after completing eight hours of training and submitting an application to their county sheriff, who conducts a background check. House Bill 227, if passed, would remove the training and application requirements for anyone who is of age and not prohibited from carrying a weapon by state or federal law.

Over each of the last six years, about 3,900 concealed carry permits on average were either suspended, revoked or denied, according to data from the Ohio Attorney General.

The legislation would also remove Ohioans’ duty under current law to notify police officers that they’re carrying a weapon if they’re stopped in traffic. HB 227 only requires them to notify officers about the weapon if they’re asked.

Passing “permitless carry,” as the legislation is commonly referred to, would forward a steady march of loosening Ohio’s gun laws. Ohio’s concealed carry program launched in 2004 and required 12 hours of training at the time. In 2006, lawmakers passed a bill blocking cities from passing gun control laws stricter than those of the state at large. Republicans passed a “stand your ground” bill last year that removes the legal duty to first seek retreat from a confrontation before responding with deadly force.

The push toward permitless carry comes as gun violence hits record highs. In 2021 so far, 694 people have been killed and nearly 1,600 have been injured in shootings in Ohio, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks media reports of shootings around the U.S.

The legislation passed without much fanfare from Ohio’s House Government Oversight Committee. House Majority Leader Bill Seitz, R-Green Twp., said he was convinced of the need to pass the legislation by gun lobbyists from the National Rifle Association and the Buckeye Firearms Association.

Rep. Tim Ginter, a Salem Republican who also works as an ordained minister, mentioned that the legislation clarifies that people can carry concealed weapons in a house of worship, as many of his parishioners do.

“If you attend the church that I pastor, just be aware that there’s probably a lot of people in there with handguns,” he said.

House Democrats on the committee opposed the legislation. They tried, without success, to amend two anti-gun violence provisions into the bill. One would require background checks to purchase firearms at gun shows and from private sellers. Another would allow judges, if petitioned by family or law enforcement, to temporarily seize weapons from people experiencing mental health crises.

Rep. Paula Hicks-Hudson, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the legislation “short-sighted” and divisive.

“This extreme legislation doesn’t make Ohio any more gun friendly,” she said. “Instead, it makes it a lot less safe for all of us, including gun owners.”

The gun lobby has been pushing for permitless carry in Ohio for at least 10 to 15 years, according to Buckeye Firearms Association’s top lobbyist Rob Sexton. In an interview, he framed the issue around the constitutional right to bear arms and downplayed the existence of a relationship between loosened gun laws and gun violence.

“The law has been liberalized over the last 15 years toward the goal of fully realizing what the Constitution says, and we still haven’t seen the corresponding bad behavior by regular, law abiding gun owners,” he said. “So no, I don’t believe this change will make that happen either.”

In Ohio, the state supreme court holds that the constitutional right to bear arms does not guarantee the right to carry a concealed weapon.

“There is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons,” wrote Justice Paul Pfeifer in a 2003 majority opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court is also set to hear oral arguments Nov. 3 on the constitutionality of a New York law restricting concealed carrying of weapons in the state.

Richelle O’Connor, an activist with Moms Demand Action, said the outcomes of the policy are simple: More people with guns they aren’t trained how to use equals more gun violence.

“If more guns made us safe, then we would be the safest country in the industrialized nation, and we are not,” she said.

After the hearing, Moms Demand Action issued a news release citing two studies linking permitless carry laws to increases in violent crime. A 2018 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research authored by researchers from Stanford and Columbia universities found states with permitless carry laws experience roughly 15% higher rates of violent crime 10 years after adoption than they otherwise would have. Other research published in the American Journal for Public Health found that permitless carry laws were associated with 11% increases in handgun homicide rates.

Twenty-one states allow inhabitants (residents only in North Dakota) to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, according to a count from the U.S Concealed Carry Association. This includes neighboring states of West Virginia and Kentucky.

Permitless carry bills are advancing in other conservative-controlled statehouses around the U.S. including Wisconsin and Alabama and recently passed in Tennessee and Texas.

Shooting suspect killed after confrontation with South Side homeowner

SAN ANTONIO – A shooting suspect in his 20s is dead after a confrontation with a man who he tried to shoot on the South Side, San Antonio police say.

Police say the suspect in his 20s went to a home the 200 block of Pleasanton Circle around 12:55 p.m. Thursday and kicked in the back door. When the man inside confronted the suspect, he pulled out a gun from his waistband.

The homeowner then ran upstairs to his bedroom to get a gun and fired at the suspect who kicked down the door, striking him, according to SAPD.

The suspect fired at the homeowner but did not hit him with gunfire, police said.

Officials say the suspect then got into a car that was waiting for him with a driver inside.

A short while later, officers say they responded to a call in the 7400 block of Barlite Boulevard for a report of a man dropped off at the location with multiple gunshot wounds. They discovered the man with the gunshot wounds was the suspect and called for medical services.

Medical staff members attempted to stabilize the man and transported him to the Brooke Army Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, police said.

Officials say they are still working to identify the driver in the getaway car.

Cliff man killed by gunshot Wednesday

Grant County [NM] sheriff’s deputies were called to Black Mountain Road on Wednesday after a call for a “welfare check,” according to Lt. Melvin Castillo.
“The caller said they had heard an argument and, then, a gunshot,” Castillo said.
When the deputies arrived, they found Jesse Pheifer of Cliff dead, and the suspect, Michael Matuch. Both were listed as Cliff/Gila residents.
Castillo said that when deputies arrived, they found the victim dead and the suspect still at the scene, claiming self-defense.

The district attorney arrived at the scene and went through the evidence with the deputies, and “evidence supported the claim of the suspect,” Castillo said. “The district attorney determined that it was a justifiable shooting, and that no charges will be filed.”

Standing firm on the Second Amendment

The right of American citizens to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and those who choose to lawfully exercise this right should be at liberty to do so.

Firearms play an important role in daily life for many West Virginians. The beautiful Mountain State is home to many who use their guns to hunt, for sport or to protect their homes.

No matter the reason an individual has for owning a firearm, the laws of the land — in no uncertain terms — state they may do so.

Perhaps one of the most important phrases in the Constitution with regards to gun ownership is the very clear provision that this right “shall not be infringed.”

Someone needs to highlight those four words for the current presidential administration, one that stands poised to restrict lawful gun ownership like no U.S. President has done before.

The Biden Administration has already urged enactment of new “red flag” laws, which can allow the confiscation of firearms without due process, and proposed broadening the definition of short-barreled rifles and adding even more burdensome background checks to those already in place.

Our office led a 20-state coalition in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that allowed federal regulators – without congressional action — to outlaw bump stocks, a popular, legal rifle accessory that aids gun owners with limited hand mobility.

Criminalizing ownership of legally purchased bump stocks would result in more than 500,000 of these devices being destroyed or surrendered by their owners. The new regulation allows the Biden Administration to impose serious fines and imprisonment for anyone possessing such a firearm accessory.

Our office is also leading a 20-state coalition in pushing back against another onerous proposal by the Biden Administration, one that greatly expands the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and expands the definition of a receiver, the already heavily regulated part of a firearm that houses its firing mechanism.

Myself and other state attorneys general argue that President Biden’s new rule could put many parts manufacturers out of business and that it improperly grants bureaucrats at the ATF unconstitutional and unrestrained discretion over which parts are subject to regulation and criminalization.

We have also urged the U.S. Supreme Court, in concert with 24 state attorneys general, to push back against a court ruling that would permit states to outlaw ammunition magazines that are currently legal in more than half the nation, including West Virginia.

Our office fervently fights to protect the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners. We have expanded our concealed carry reciprocity agreements with numerous states, allowing West Virginians with concealed handgun licenses to lawfully cross state lines with their firearms.

Gun violence and the senseless death attributed to it should pain all Americans. However, the malevolent acts of a select few should never be a catalyst for stripping law-abiding masses of their Constitutional rights, especially their right to self-defense and to bear arms.

I will not allow the far left to run roughshod over our citizens’ gun rights. If President Biden follows through on his overbroad and far-reaching proposals, we will take swift legal action.

We must tell President Biden we want no part of his proposed gun grab and stand firm on defending the Constitutional rights of our citizens to help West Virginia reach her full potential.

(Patrick Morrisey is the Attorney General of West Virginia.)

Law Professor Misfires On NYSRPA v. Bruen

It’s going to be nearly impossible to address and report on every single solitary bit of non-sense that’s coming from the anti-freedom caucus as we approach November 3rd. Next Wednesday has been marked up as a proverbial “judgement day” for those who wish to keep the citizenry unarmed, as the arguments in NYSRPA v. Bruen will be delivered.

It’s almost as if the concerted effort and universal message from those that wish to enact their will on others, is that what they say will somehow be gospel if they repeat it enough. That might be true about lies, repeating them enough they become fact, but at least in this country we do have legal precedent and historical accounts to lean on. Versus the very scientific “feelings” which the freedom-grabbers use to “prove” their often baseless claims. Take for example an Assistant Professor of Law from Southern Methodist University and his claims:

The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction on carrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.

Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a National Rifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country.

Ruben, the Assistant Law Professor must not have gotten the memorandum about other “most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history.” Yes, he’s correct in asserting that the stakes are high, however this is beyond dramatic. I don’t know if Ruben studied Heller in law school himself, or if they talk about Heller, at Southern Methodist University, but I’d say that case was pretty significant.

We all know that Heller and subsequently McDonald dealt with the complete prohibition of the possession of handguns in certain jurisdictions. I think a complete prohibition trumps the fact that the Bruen case only really applies to the last few hold-out bad actors that don’t recognize the Second Amendment in its full form. How many states is that really? By the books, we’re talking about nine states that are “may-issue” when it comes to carry permits. Of those nine states, the worst offenders on actually not issuing permits, or having really bad jurisdictions that don’t, are: California, Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey. Those four states are the worst offenders.

To have Ruben say that “a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs…could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country” leads me to believe he needs to go to geography class. Four states is not “many parts of the country”. Mathematically that’s 4/50 or 2/25 or 8%. I can see 8% equating to “many parts.”

Ruben reassures us though.

In my view as a Second Amendment scholar, this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches its conclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weapons laws in the future.

Sir, agree this can affect the Second Amendment analysis of weapons laws in the future. I can hardly accept you as a “Second Amendment scholar”. If you’re a “scholar”, who owns you and funds your “research”? Your analysis is biased. Turn in your sheepskin or get a refund. Our scholar goes into the history:

In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted a handgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended to address concealed carrying.

For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit application showing that they have what the law calls “proper cause.”

To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” such as by showing they are being stalked.

Yes, in 1911 the Sullivan Act. was implemented in New York. For those of you looking for a “scholarly” way of presenting that information, you now know it’s called the Sullivan Act. The history of this section of law is much more complicated than “an increase in homicides”. More accurately, it’s laid out in this Post article:

In 1911 — in the wake of a notorious Gramercy Park blueblood murder-suicide — Sullivan sponsored the Sullivan Act, which mandated police-issued licenses for handguns and made it a felony to carry an unlicensed concealed weapon.

This was the heyday of the pre-Prohibition gangs, roving bands of violent toughs who terrorized ethnic neighborhoods and often fought pitched battles with police. In 1903, the Battle of Rivington Street pitted a Jewish gang, the Eastmans, against the Italian Five Pointers. When the cops showed up, the two underworld armies joined forces and blasted away, resulting in three deaths and scores of injuries. The public was clamoring for action against the gangs.

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them as shtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

I don’t expect Ruben to be reading the New York Post, however I do expect him to be familiar with the facts laid out in the extensive piece. The piece gets at the crux of all the issues in may-issue systems:

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

Yeah, convenient. This all speaks for itself and holds true today.

What else did Ruben have to say in his love-letter to anti-freedom?

In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.

When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4 majority struck down Washington, D.C.‘s ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

This is where we’re going to have to part ways widely dear sir. True, in Heller, it was the first time THE COURT held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That’s because prior to that, the matter did not really surface. At least not in such an in your face kind of way. This leaves me to wonder if Ruben, or any of the anti-freedom caucus members have ever actually read the Second Amendment. I know there is so much squabbling over this “militia” thing and what on earth “regulated” means, but that does not change the largest portion of the amendment, the who. Who’s rights shall not be infringed?

…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don’t know how much more plain English the founders could have made that statement. The progressive push to say that the Bruen case may reduce restrictions and all this other hogwash is grossly inaccurate, as the court has an opportunity to right a wrong. A restoration of rights that were infringed upon for over a century. Any “scholar” should be able to figure that out.

No anti-freedom caucus rant would not be complete in 2021 if somehow Trump was not brought up. Kudos! Ruben for working that in there.

Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before. But he will hold little sway if the three justices former President Donald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court’s two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.

Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett – all of whom received the gun group’s blessing.

The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.

Yes Eric, this is significant. It’s also sad. It’s sad it took Trump to step up to the plate and find justices that are willing to read the plain language of the amendment, and possibly hold that it’s meaningful. I’m quite interested in Ruben’s scholarly view on the matter of this case after an opinion. I’m always in need of a good chuckle.

We’ll have to see. Waiting until June of next year or so is much better than the 100+ years of infringement we’ve been dealing with. At least we’ll know where we stand…as citizens or subjects.

Just the Beginning: Ten Afghan Evacuees Detained as National Security Risks.

The Biden administration is giving America gifts that will keep on giving for generations to come, and one of the foremost of these gifts is the newly-arrived group of Afghan evacuees: 70,000 are now in the U.S., and the total number is expected to exceed 124,000 before long. One of Biden’s handlers, unnamed in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal report, has admitted that ten of these evacuees have already been detained as risks to national security. Only ten out of 70,000 isn’t bad, right? Sure. But Biden’s handlers’ catastrophic mishandling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan makes it virtually certain that there will be many more.

The reasons for this are clear. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas noted in late September that 60,000 Afghans had been brought to the United States by that time, including nearly 8,000 who were American citizens or residents of the country, and 1,800 had Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) issued to them for aiding the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

What about the rest? Mayorkas explained:

Of the over 60,000 individuals who have been brought into the United States [from Afghanistan]—and I will give you approximate figures and I will verify them, approximately 7 percent have been United States citizens. Approximately 6 percent have been lawful permanent residents. Approximately 3 percent have been individuals who are in receipt of the Special Immigrant Visas. The balance of that population are individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval who may qualify as SIVs and have not yet applied, who qualify or would qualify—I should say—as P-1 or P-2 refugees who have been employed by the United States government in Afghanistan and are otherwise vulnerable Afghan nationals, such as journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera.

The upshot of this is that over eighty percent of the Afghan evacuees were neither American citizens nor SIV holders. So who are they? No one knows. Certainly Biden’s handlers don’t. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) recently discovered that 12,000 of the Afghans who were sent to Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar and then went on to the U.S. were not just “individuals whose applications have not yet been processed for approval,” as Mayorkas put it, but had no identification at all. Issa stated: “They came with nothing. No Afghan I.D., no I.D. of any sorts. Those people were all forwarded on to the U.S., and that’s quite an admission. So many people had no I.D. whatsoever and yet find themselves in the United States today based on what they said.”

This is no reason to be concerned, say Biden’s handlers. Another (or maybe the same one quoted before) unnamed “senior official” in the Biden administration assured the Wall Street Journal that “the use of biometric and biographic data was a robust screening strategy, as the U.S. had decades to build up databases of information related to national security threats and crime. The official said it was sufficient to address the lack of paperwork or other identifying information.” The official downplayed any risk: “In the case of Afghanistan, we had quite a lot [of data] because we’ve spent almost 20 years in the country. It was actually a particularly rich set of information in those various databases.”

National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne added: “The fact that some have been flagged by our counterterrorism, intelligence, or law enforcement professionals for additional screening shows our system is working. Many of the same people criticizing us for bringing in Afghans were on TV calling for us to evacuate as many Afghans as possible in August.”

There are, as you no doubt already realize, not a few flies in this ointment. The Journal also noted that “federal officials interviewed at U.S. bases overseas stated to Republican aides that they didn’t have any training in identifying fraudulent Afghan documents, raising concerns about the validity of documents that were used.” As a result, several Afghans were able to board a flight in Mazar-e-Sharif with fraudulent documents. They were caught, but how many others weren’t? “There were several people who were traveling with fake passports,” the Biden wonk admitted. However, relax: “They did not have Taliban affiliation.”

Great. But the number of evacuees who have already aroused suspicion is greater than the ten who have been flagged as national security risks. The Washington Post reported on September 10 that “the Department of Homeland Security flagged 44 Afghan evacuees as potential national security risks during the past two weeks as the government screened tens of thousands for resettlement in the United States.”

Not only is the potential for deception virtually limitless when dealing with people who have absolutely no identification; it also must be borne in mind that these people have come from a jihadi hotspot and that ISIS, which has a significant presence in Afghanistan, has repeatedly told its operatives in the West to affect Western clothing and a secular outward appearance in order to fool gullible security officials. And Biden’s security apparatus is so very eager to be fooled, it even denies the ideological and theological basis of Islamic jihad terrorism. How, then, can it vet for it? It can’t. And that means that these ten evacuees who have been detained are only the beginning.

Ignorance Isn’t Why We Don’t Bend Over For Gun Control

Gun control has been an issue in American politics for decades. Back in the 1970s, there was a concerted push to try and ban handguns. After all, they were used in most crimes and you didn’t need them for hunting. Of course, hunting wasn’t what the Second Amendment was about, but that argument was still a thing.

And that wasn’t even the start of the discussion.

Since then, the debate has continued to varying degrees. Today, we’re in the midst of still more gun control talk. And it seems some believe that the only real reason we don’t advance their anti-Second Amendment agenda is ignorance.

This is from a piece titled: “Dumbass nation: Our biggest national security problem is America’s ‘vast and militant ignorance’”

With apologies to Paul Simon, and despite all of the information available to the mortal man, there are still millions of Americans who currently believe they’re gliding down the highway when in fact they’re slip slidin’ away.

As President Biden prepares to travel to Europe to meet with the Pope and our NATO allies next week, there remains a huge national security problem for him to grapple with, one that hasn’t been addressed in any meaningful fashion for many years.

It is the root cause of our problems with China. It’s why some people don’t want to get vaccinated. It’s why some people still gleefully follow Donald Trump. It explains why Congress can’t get together in a bipartisan fashion to deal with infrastructure, health care and gun control. 

It’s why we have problems understanding climate change.
It explains voter suppression.
It’s why “critical race theory” has become controversial, why elements of our population on the left and right are at war with each other and why some believe the earth is flat and the Holocaust didn’t occur.
It’s why some of us believe we’re still the “No. 1” nation in the world when — other than having the largest military — we clearly lag behind other major nations in many critical factors.
More than anything else it explains why we fail.

Of course, the reason we don’t accept their will on gun control is that we just don’t know any better.

Granted, I look at all the same studies they do. I read all their arguments and do so each and every day. To believe that I, as an example, oppose gun control because of some kind of ignorance is, well, ignorant.

See, I know the studies they cite, but I also recognize the problems with the studies. That supposedly massive support for background checks? The questions are written in a way that respondents likely think they’re talking about the current system we have in place. I did more than look at the media reports and accept them at face value. I actually read the study.

The whole “you’re four times more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the home” thing? That study didn’t differentiate between lawful gun owners at criminals who happened to have guns. That’s a significant oversight since criminals are engaged in activities that may result in them being shot while the lawful gun owner doesn’t.

I read that study too.

And here’s the thing: I’m not alone.

Those of us who support the Second Amendment do so from a position of knowledge. We understand both what our Founding Fathers intended with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. More than that, we understand the limitations of the studies cited by anti-Second Amendment types as well as the studies they like to pretend don’t exist. Those are the studies that show guns are used more often to save lives than take them, the studies that show gun ownership reduces crime and that gun control doesn’t work.

And more than that, we hold our elected officials accountable.

The reason there’s been no bipartisan deal on gun control is that Republicans want control of Congress again. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. Kevin McCarthy both recognize they can’t do that until gun owners trust them to protect our rights. Bending over for gun control isn’t going to help them and they know it.

None of that comes from ignorance, though. It comes from a firm understanding of the facts.

Comment O’ The Day

Yes, yes, more!!! I feel terrible for this woman and her daughter but every single normie who voted for Biden because of Trump’s mean Tweets need to see up close and personal what the Left is really like.
No compassion, no civility, just constant aggressive political churning all of the time.
The need their noses rubbed in it like a puppy who pooped on the floor.

US Army commissions 300-kW, target-tracking laser weapon.

General Atomics and Boeing have won a US Army contract to prototype their most powerful distributed-gain laser weapon to date: a groundbreaking 300-kW, solid-state, target-tracking beast that could fry enemy missiles and aircraft out of the air.

The enormous speed advantage of a hypersonic missile means a lot less when you can shoot it down with an energy beam traveling at the speed of light. If a tracking system can keep it pointed in the right direction – which shouldn’t be too hard with a target traveling in a straight line, no matter how fast – a powerful laser can cause crippling damage, melting metal surfaces to play havoc with aerodynamics, and destroying onboard electronics.

Just look what Lockheed Martin’s 30-kW optical fiber laser did to the hood and engine of a truck within a couple of seconds, during a public demonstration back in 2015:

The laser disabled the engine and drivetrain of a small truck

The laser disabled the engine and drivetrain

Continue reading “”

The Gun Culture I Know

In a recent Pundit column in these pages, Ruchama Benhamou paints a grim picture of what she calls “gun culture in America.” This culture, she writes, is one where guns “are often used to promote power and incite fear” as opposed to being used for self-defense. This culture has apparently led “to an increase in mass shootings and gun violence all around the country.” How does she know this? Where has she learned of the inner motives of gun owners and their culture? And how does she know her causal claim that the increase in mass shootings and gun violence can be linked to this pervasive culture? We don’t know, for she cites no sources to justify her claims on both points.

My goal here is not to discuss gun policy and its constitutional implications; I have done that elsewhere. Nor do I want to discuss what accounts for much of this nation’s gun violence. I write here to correct the author’s (mis)perception of gun culture. So, allow me to describe the gun culture that I know.

For the readers who don’t know me personally, I must mention that I am a proud gun owner. I carry my firearm religiously, sliding it into my holster whenever I leave my house, be it to the supermarket or to shul. If you ever catch me out and about here in my hometown of Philadelphia, you’d likely not even notice my gun at my side. But it is there, ready to be used in an act of defense to protect me, my family and everyone around me from a lunatic who wishes to do us harm. My firearm was there to protect my neighbor when I heard his house being broken into this past Passover. My gun was there when, at the height of last summer’s riots, I heard someone smash my (other) neighbor’s car windows in the dead of night, frightening my entire household. The only fear my CZ-P10c has incited is in the hearts of those miscreants who stood down the working end of it; to those behind it, it has brought nothing but comfort and security.

And I am not the only one who can attest to this phenomenon. The CDC has noted that “Americans use firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year.” There are a plethora of stories and anecdotes about good Samaritans using their firearms, like a few years ago:

A concealed-carry permit holder intervened to stop a mentally disturbed man who was endangering drivers by throwing chunks of concrete and metal pipes at cars passing by on the interstate. The man had damaged almost a dozen cars and was holding a large piece of metal when the permit holder drew his handgun and detained the man until police could arrive. One of the drivers whose car was damaged told reporters that she was thankful the permit holder saved her and other drivers from further harm.

The five or so of us guys who carry to shul are a blessing to our congregation, whose members have encouraged us. We are not only trained marksmen, but we are also trained in various levels of first aid. I myself carry a tourniquet in my pocket, realizing that I am likely to use it more than I am likely to draw my gun. Many gun-oriented companies, such as T-Rex Arms or The Warrior Poet Society, emphasize how important it is to be self-sufficient first responders, ready to terminate threats and simultaneously save lives. Any glance at their websites or YouTube pages will make that abundantly clear. Gun ranges across the country often have as much programming dedicated to first aid as they do to marksmanship. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that concealed-carry permit holders are, by far, the most law-abiding demographic of Americans.

Those who are not self-proclaimed members of the gun community and its surrounding culture should recognize how special both are. It is a culture that treasures the sanctity of human life. It is a culture that chooses not to stand idly by in the face of those evil people who have no regard for life or property. It is a culture where, as Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Washington, “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”

This is the gun culture I know. I’m glad you now know it too.

Suspected burglar shot dead during Selma home invasion

A suspected burglar was killed Wednesday night in Selma.

Dallas County District Attorney Michael Jackson said the home invasion happened about 10:45 p.m. at Minter Terrace Apartments on Minter Avenue. The slain suspect’s name has not yet been released.

Jackson said the occupant of the apartment will not be charged, but any co-conspirator of the slain suspect’s could face charges.

“One of the consequences of breaking into somebody’s home or business is that you may be shot and killed,’’ the district attorney said. “That is apparently what happened here.”

“Citizens have a right to use deadly force if someone is breaking into the home,’’ Jackson said.

Hickory County Sheriff’s Office investigating deadly shooting involving suspected intruder

PITTSBURG, Mo. – The Hickory County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a deadly intruder shooting.

Deputies on October 25 responded to a burglary in progress call at a business in Pittsburg.

Investigators say a relative of the business owner showed up after an alarm sounded. He told investigators he was confronted by an intruder inside and shot him. The man died from injuries in the shooting.

Sheriff Greg Burke says the investigation is ongoing.

It’s been busy in Trotwood

Person violating protection order found shot in Trotwood

TROTWOOD, Ohio (WDTN) – A Trotwood man was taken to the hospital after police found him with a gunshot wound Wednesday night.

The incident happened around 9:20 Wednesday night when Trotwood Police officers were called to the 5500 block of Autumn Leaf Drive for a person who had been shot.

When officers arrived, they found a victim lying in the front year of an apartment building with a non-life-threatening gunshot wound. Police said in a release the victim was not being cooperative with officers.

The victim was taken to Miami Valley Hospital.

Trotwood Police detectives learned at the scene the victim had been violating a protection order and instigated the altercation. The victim has not been identified.

The incident remains under investigation.

Coroner identifies man killed after exchange of gunfire at Trotwood apartment

A Huber Heights man has been identified as the man shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire during a reported home invasion robbery in Trotwood Thursday.

Ritchie Moorefield, 26, was identified as the man shot and killed in the incident, Montgomery County Coroner Dr. Kent Harshbarger said in a media release.

Moorefield died from multiple gunshot wounds and his death was ruled a homicide, Harshbarger said.

Additional details were not available.

FIRST REPORT:

A man was killed after he fired shots at the resident of a house on Blairfield Place Thursday morning.

Trotwood police responded to the shooting around 1:45 a.m. in the 800 block of Blairfield.

“The scene investigation revealed the deceased male fired a gun at the resident. The resident returned fire, hitting the deceased multiple times,” Trotwood Sgt. Kim DeLong said in a statement.

Dispatch records indicated the homeowner reported shooting a suspect who broke into their apartment.

Biden’s Folly Armed the Taliban, But He Still Wants Your AR-15

A long the long, dusty roads that connect Afghanistan’s city of Mazar-e-Sharif, capital of Balkh province, to the country’s northern neighbor of Uzbekistan, I saw remnants of Afghan army uniforms, as well as beaten-down Humvees and armored personnel carriers. This was in the immediate aftermath of Balkh province’s fall to the Taliban in August, but within a week, such high-priced goods—courtesy of the United States taxpayer—were simply picked up after being abandoned and shuffled into the new regime’s burgeoning arsenal.

Indeed, members of the brutal outfit wasted no time in recovering the billions-of-dollars-worth of equipment left behind by the fleeing, defeated Afghan National Security Forces. Moreover, the Taliban foot soldiers were quick to start showing off the loot; many even took and sent selfies posing with their new American guns. In Kandahar—the symbolic birthplace of the Taliban—U.S.-funded military hardware was paraded through the streets.

And, according to news reports, in the rare cases a citizen possessed a firearm, the Taliban quickly stripped them of it. “It is terrifying,” one resident in the freshly fallen Kandahar city said to me from his home, which he had barely left for weeks on end. “We weren’t even allowed to buy a single small gun to defend ourselves. Now, this.”

The hard-line Islamic insurgency now has its hands on everything from guns and ammunition to night-vision equipment, helicopters and heavy weapons. It is all courtesy of Washington’s chaotic and hasty withdrawal from a country that was clearly unable to stand on its own feet despite reassurances from the Biden administration, decades of training Afghan military and police forces and gargantuan sums of money tossed its way.

Even more disconcerting is that the Taliban were able to seize and keep their U.S.-financed arms right under the nose of the Americans, with little being done to recapture or destroy the weapons that had tumbled into dangerous hands.

The U.S. military at least disabled some of its high-powered goods just prior to departing Hamid Karzai International Airport (HKIA) in one small attempt to make sure they didn’t add to the terrorist stockpile.

Matériel the Biden administration left behind for the Taliban

Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans must ask why the Biden administration did nothing to stop the Taliban—and the terrorists in their ranks—from getting actual “weapons of war,” even as Biden and anti-Second Amendment extremists are doing all they can to take ordinary semi-automatic rifles away from American citizens.

On the campaign trail, both President Joe Biden (D) and Vice President Kamala Harris (D) pledged to enact more onerous Second Amendment restrictions. Now, national security adviser Jake Sullivan has been forced to admit that the Taliban has recovered a “fair amount” of U.S.-provided military equipment and that they “don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defense materials has gone.”

“We don’t have a sense that they are going to readily hand it over to us at the airport,” Sullivan said wearily, prior to the final evacuation of HKIA by American forces.

Intelligence estimates suggest that the Taliban now possesses thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of aircraft, along with countless guns. Additionally, over the course of the war, the U.S. supplied the now-defunct Afghan forces with hundreds of thousands of small arms and millions of rounds of ammunition. One of the biggest reasons why the Taliban was able to capture key terrain so quickly toward the end of the Afghanistan fall was because they were able to scoop up and use the U.S. weapons.

Yet, the Biden administration doesn’t think Americans can be trusted with the freedom to protect themselves. Instead, Biden thinks American citizens should have to entirely rely on the government to protect them. In June, the Biden team asked the U.S. Senate to “ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” In stark contrast, no one on the Biden team seems too disturbed by the number of Afghans who will suffer at the receiving end of U.S.-issued weapons inside the beleaguered country.

It should also be stressed that whatever happens in Afghanistan does not stay in Afghanistan. And whatever the Taliban possesses now will not likely remain solely in their bloodied hands. The Haqqani network, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, is considered a branch of the Taliban, and has already been put in charge of running Kabul’s security. Kabul’s new leadership is also closely aligned to the few hundred al-Qaeda personnel still operating in Afghanistan.

Adding insult to injury are the disturbing ground reports and imagery indicating the moving of arms and machinery to Iran, where these weapons could be used against American interests in Iraq.

The region has a robust black market that is used by all sides of the equation; meaning that there is little doubt the weapons will be bought and sold to members of the even-more-brutal ISIS-K affiliate that also operates in the region. In addition, the Taliban is already showing signs of leadership struggles and internal power plays, multiple sources warn, which means that splinter terrorist groups, including elements even more hard-line and vicious than the Taliban, could pose additional international security threats in the weeks and months to come.

Chillingly, the Taliban may now be the first terrorist organization with an air force, and the Biden team is unwilling to do anything about it. Instead, they continue to go after the guns used by law-abiding American citizens to protect themselves and their loves ones.

The 5 Best Less Lethal Weapons for Self-Defense

If you’re anything like me, then the protection of yourself and your family is of utmost importance to you. I would contend that none of these less-lethal weapons for self-defense that I will highlight are superior to a firearm in the hands of a well-trained person, but each of them has its place in either civilian or law enforcement arenas. Without further ado, let’s look into some of the most effective and bizarre less-lethal weapons for self-defense that are currently available.

Why Go for a Less-Lethal Weapon for Self-Defense?

First, the term “less-lethal” means exactly what it says. It doesn’t say “not lethal” and it certainly doesn’t say “safe.” From a law enforcement perspective, less-lethal weapons fill a much-needed gap in the use-of-force continuum. From a civilian perspective, less-lethal weapons could be the difference in safety vs. assault, if not life vs. death. I know some of you are probably thinking the same thing I do when considering the effectiveness of less-lethal weapons; that being you’d rather have a firearm than any tool that will be listed below. Let me tell you that I agree. A firearm is the greatest self-defense tool for a violent encounter that has ever been created. In my opinion, the second-best tool to have with you on a daily basis is actually no weapon at all; but more on that at the end.

That said, there are many reasons why a less-lethal weapon could be preferred by some. Some people simply are anti-gun and they refuse to have them in their homes. My brother-in-law and sister-in-law (wife’s side) are exactly this way. They are completely opposed to firearms within their home. Another reason one might not have a firearm is that they live in a dictatorial city like New York or Chicago in which firearm ownership rights are not recognized as they are in much of the rest of the country (which, according to the crime statistics in those two locations doesn’t seem to help much…). In cities like these, a can of pepper spray or a taser may be all that you can legally possess. In that way, less-lethal options become invaluable.

Let’s explore some of the best less-lethal options and you can decide for yourself if any of them may be a good addition to your repertoire.

Continue reading “”

Man shot and killed after forcing his way into Frankford home

PHILADELPHIA – Police are investigating a deadly shooting that happened overnight in Frankford.

The incident happened at approximately 11:30 p.m. Monday on the 1800 block of Sanger Street.

Investigators say a 34-year-old man went to the home looking for his ex-girlfriend when he kicked the door in. According to authorities, the door was completely kicked off the hinges.

Preliminary investigation says at least four shots were fired.

A man inside the home, who police say has a permit to carry, shot the man in the chest and leg. He died at the scene.

Several witnesses, including the shooter, are cooperating with police on the matter.

A handgun was recovered at the scene. Police will be using private surveillance camera footage to help them during their investigation.

It must be awkward for demoncraps who want a police state, but don’t want police.

Who You Gonna Call — the Covid Cops?

Last January, I wrote a piece here on the Pipeline called “When the Sheepdogs Become the Sheep.” In that piece I lamented the ongoing transformation of America’s police officers from crime fighters to Covid code enforcers. Alas, ten months later, that transformation is coming nearer to completion.

There is a growing chasm among two distinct groups of police officers: those who genuinely invest themselves in the fight against crime, whether as a patrol cop or a detective, and those who seek to promote up the ranks to the higher levels in their departments. A Venn diagram of these groups would show a miniscule intersection of the two circles, and recent events will have that intersection grow smaller still.

Among the cops actually engaged in police work, political considerations have no role in their decisions on whom to stop, detain, or arrest. This is not to say every law violator who comes to a police officer’s notice should be arrested and hauled into court. Every good cop knows the value of discretion. Sometimes there are more serious problems that demand his time, or there may be dividends paid in the future when someone is given a pass for some minor violation.

Continue reading “”

Wake Up Patriots: The Commies Are Winning.

Democrats (It’s demoncraps) Communists are horrible people. They are dedicated, I’ll give them that. They refuse to go away and they spread quickly, much like herpes.

If you don’t believe me when I say Democrats are commies, ask Ilhan Omar. She’s pretty clear about her plans.

 

I used to think the nation had “systems” in place to prevent such a takeover. I was wrong. The Democrats found a way to pry Trump, a true patriot, out of the White House. Mark Zuckerberg was a big part of that plan.

Biden sent his apparatchik lap dog, Merrick Garland, to Arizona to threaten the auditors into stopping. Democrats are fighting election audits in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. What’s there to hide, Dems?

Continue reading “”

I’ll say that using the First Amendment to protect a lie is a threat to the whole Bill of Rights.
The – well known to be leftist hacks-  editors of The Atlantic see the ability of their political enemies to defend their rights as a problem for the advancement of their agenda…..and it is.

The Second Amendment Has Become a Threat to the First

Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.

This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.

These kind of data fill a void in ongoing debates about the compatibility of free speech and firearms at protest events. For example, is the phenomenon of armed protests new? Is it frequent? The open display of firearms at public protests, including long rifles and what are sometimes called “assault-style rifles,” is a relatively new phenomenon. Although many states allow firearms in public places, until recently few Americans have openly toted firearms to political demonstrations. The Everytown/ACLED study examined thousands of protests, showing a marked uptick in protests at which people were visibly armed following the police murder of George Floyd. It found that at least 560 events involved an armed protester or counterprotester. Loose state firearms laws are part of the explanation for this phenomenon. The incidence of armed protests was three times higher in states with expansive open-carry laws, the study noted.

Such research makes much clearer the implications of open carry for public safety, public protest, and constitutional democracy. Some have argued that open carry will make protests safer. In fact, tragedies were far less frequent at protests that did not involve firearms, the Everytown/ACLED research revealed: One in 37 turned violent or destructive, and only one in 2,963 unarmed gatherings turned fatal.

In short, the visible presence of firearms increases the risk of violence and death when exercising one’s First Amendment rights. The increased risk of violence from open carry is enough to have a meaningful “chilling effect” on citizens’ willingness to participate in political protests. Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations. In addition, concealed carry may not have the same chilling effect; it’s possible that without weapons visible, protesters will not be deterred. But at the same time, merely knowing that people might be armed could keep people away from public protests.

Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study on the impact of open carry of firearms on the exercise of protest rights, and confirmed what common intuition suggests but included some surprises. The study found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

Participants were asked about their willingness to participate in protests in two groups. In the control group, firearms were not mentioned in the questions. In the experimental group, they were. The questions did not specify whether the participants were visibly carrying firearms or not. The participants in the experimental group were much less willing to participate in expressive activities than participants in the control group to whom firearms were not mentioned.

That hesitation was present regardless of respondents’ political ideology. It was experienced by gun owners and nonowners alike. Survey respondents’ explanations as to why they would refrain from participating in protests where arms are present revealed the significant chilling effects of guns at protests. Among other things, respondents indicated:

I feel like I would be antagonizing [firearms carriers] and that could lead to me being injured.

If they started shooting, I would be concerned they would target me for what I said.

I’ll let the people with the guns do the talking.

Nothing is important enough to be shot over.

Some open-carry proponents insist that they bring firearms to protests to defend themselves against potential violence or to ensure that the First Amendment rights of all participants are respected. However, the Everytown/ACLED study concluded that 77 percent of armed protests during the observed period were “driven by far-right mobilization and reactions to left-wing activism.” The study also found that 84 percent of armed protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were counterprotesters from extremist groups such as the “boogaloo boys,” the Proud Boys, and other right-wing groups. Rather than being motivated by self-defense or civil-rights concerns, the decision to carry a gun tends to follow far-right political ideology.

Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be, the clear social perception of would-be participants is that armed protests are unsafe. That finding is crucial to understanding the potentially devastating effect that bringing guns to protests can have on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether there is a Second Amendment right to carry firearms and other weapons in public places, a question it has yet to weigh in on. A pending case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, involves restrictions on concealed-carry permits. To decide it, the Court will need to determine whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. As the studies show, the answer has profound implications not just for public safety but also for constitutional democracy. As courts and legislatures consider gun regulations, they ought to bear in mind not just the physical dangers of armed protests but also the social harms associated with them. For many—perhaps an increasing number of—Americans, participation in armed public protests may simply not be worth the risk. Even if public protest survives, only those willing to risk their life, or who are inclined and able to carry weapons in defense of their own right to protest, may want to participate. Rather than serving as a democratizing means of expression, protest may become an armed contest and the exclusive preserve of the non-peaceable. Most concerning is that public protest as we know it may cease to exist at all. That would deprive Americans of participating in one of the greatest traditions of this country: expressing their views, engaging in public life, and advocating for democratic change.

Armed man enters convenience store to rob it — but worker shoots him,

A gas station employee halted a would-be armed robbery in Texas, officials said. Two people entered a convenience store with a get-away vehicle ready on Monday in Houston, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said.

The armed man tried to rob the store clerk, but the worker shot him, deputies said.

The wounded man was taken to the hospital and is in critical condition, deputies said. Capt. John Shannon said the employee was not harmed.