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.

 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott makes good on border security threat, authorizes state National Guard to make arrests of illegal aliens in historic first.

Earlier this fall, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, frustrated and angry at the Biden regime’s purposeful inaction on securing the border, stepped up and issued a threat: He will use his authority and empower his own personnel to start arresting illegal aliens in the absence of federal enforcement.

“By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, I hereby order that the Texas National Guard assist DPS in enforcing Texas law by arresting lawbreakers at the border,” Abbott’s letter to  Texas Adjutant General Major Gen. Tracy Norris said in July, when he first issued the order.

USA Features News, which reported on the declaration at the time, added:

Last month, Abbott said during a summit to discuss border security that any migrants who criminally trespass into Texas or commit other offenses would be subject to arrest and jailed.

In addition, the GOP governor announced plans to build new sections of border wall so as to plug gaps left when President Joe Biden canceled federal wall construction begun under the Trump administration.

In arguing as to why National Guard members should be empowered to make arrests, Abbott noted in his letter that “more manpower is needed” to deal with the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have been crashing the Tex-Mex border since Joe Biden took the oath of office for a presidency that was stolen on his behalf.

In addition, Abbott explained that according to the Texas constitution, his powers as “Commander-in-Chief of the military forces” of the state grant him the authority to issue arrest powers to his Guard troops.

Abbott also “likewise recognizes that the governor can call on state military forces ‘to enforce state law’ and ‘to assist civil authorities in guarding [or] conveying prisoners,’” said the letter.

Continue reading “”

2 dead after man says he shot people who broke into NC home

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. (AP) — Two people are dead after a North Carolina man told officers that he shot home intruders on Saturday, police said.

Fayetteville officers were sent to respond to reports of a residential break-in shortly after 5 p.m., the police department said in a news release.

While the officers were on their way to the scene, a caller said he shot people who broke into his residence.

Police confirmed when they arrived that the two people were dead, according to the release. The shooter has not yet been identified, and the names of the victims won’t be released until their relatives are notified.

Authorities did not immediately say whether any charges would be filed.

Video shows armored truck driver turn tables on would-be robber in Philadelphia
As the suspect announced the robbery, the Brinks driver pulled out a gun and opened fire.

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) — The FBI released surveillance video showing the moment a gunman tried to hold up a Brinks Armored truck in North Philadelphia.

It happened around 4:30 p.m. Monday along the 1900 block of North 5th Street, in a crowded parking lot of the Cousin’s Supermarket.
Cameras show a 2017 Nissan Altima drive up near the truck.

When the guard walks to the vehicle, you see the would-be thief jump out and run toward him with a gun.

As the suspect announced the robbery, the Brinks driver pulled out a gun and opened fire.

Police said the attempted robber did not get away with anything, and no one was hurt.

Woman shoots man during Fort Worth burglary attempt

A woman shot a man during an attempted burglary Wednesday in the 6000 block of Starling Drive, police said. Police responded to the area after receiving a report of shots fired. Upon arriving at the scene, officers found a man who they believe is in his 30s suffering from a gunshot wound. He was taken to a hospital and is expected to recover.

The man and woman were in a relationship in 2020, police said. The man faces charges after his release from the hospital, police said.

CNN Once Again Shows How Leftists Miss the Point on Gun Control

A CNN opinion columnist recently revealed she knows as much about the gun issue as Alec Baldwin does about gun safety (too soon?). Author Jennifer Tucker recently published a piece titled “Now that guns can kill hundreds in minutes, Supreme Court should rethink the rights question,” in which she argued that the types of firearms one could carry should be limited even further.

In the piece, Tucker referred to the “Theoretical Lethality Index” (TLI), which was developed by a U.S. Army colonel named Trevor Dupuy, who conducted a study in 1964 to examine the effectiveness of various weapons. The study produced a table in which various weapons are ranked by how many strikes can they can achieve in an hour. For instance, a mid-19th century rifle could strike 102 times while a World War II-era machine gun could strike 3,463 times, making it the more lethal weapon.

Tucker seems to indicate that certain guns like the AR15 have the potential to be exceedingly lethal firearms. She writes:

In the 20th century, bullets became smaller and lighter, enabling soldiers to carry more, while design changes increased the damage they caused upon entering the human body. Today, the highly popular civilian AR-15 is a vastly different and substantially more lethal machine than the flintlock muskets that were in use when the Founders crafted the Second Amendment.

The author continues, recalling the tragic Las Vegas shooting which occurred in 2017 when a gunman murdered 58 people and injured 850 others within a span of 10 minutes. “This would have been physically impossible for a single shooter to do in 1791,” she writes.

Then, she makes an argument typical of anti-gunners: The Founding Fathers did not anticipate the evolution of weapons. She argues:

If the Constitution had been written in the 1880s instead of the 1780s, the Framers would have been much more aware of the pace of innovation. The Founders lived in an era when they could be forgiven for thinking that “a gun is a gun is a gun,” because — as the TLI shows — the killing power of the basic flintlock hadn’t changed in the previous 150 or so years. Dramatic changes occurred, however, during and after the Civil War.

The author insists that “given the rapid technological change we’ve seen in firearms over the last century and a half, the notion that guns should be viewed equally across all times and places is logically flawed.”

She goes on to contend that “just as courts don’t regard the bleeding and purging of patients as the gold standards of health care … “common sense dictates that the law must take into account technological change in firearms.”

Her overall point can be summed up in this statement:

There is room for looking at the lethality of modern firearms when considering the constitutionality of gun regulation. The court implicitly acknowledged this in its Heller decision when it stated that machine gun bans were acceptable. It’s a difficult concession to explain unless the court is considering the modern capabilities of firearms outside of the historical scope of regulation.

The Supreme Court is set to adjudicate what could be a landmark case when it comes to gun rights. The judges will review New York Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, which is a case targeting New York’s gun licensing scheme. The plaintiffs allege that the state’s approach to deciding who is allowed to possess a license to carry a firearm violates the Second Amendment.

In her piece, Tucker argues:

Weapons designed with an ever-increasing capacity to kill large numbers of people in battle, with long barrels and large-capacity magazines, have no place in public spaces, supermarkets, and shopping malls — not on the grounds of a generic right to self-defense. When it takes up this new gun case, the Court should take technological innovation into account and acknowledge that guns are now exponentially more lethal than they were when the Constitution was written.

We’ve heard these arguments before, haven’t we?

Continue reading “”

One More Time™:
When the people who say its a crisis, start living their lives like it’s a real crisis, I’ll think about considering that it may be a crisis.

Joe Biden Forgets Mask, Coughs into His Hand, then Shakes Hands with Democrats

President Joe Biden again forgot to put his mask back on after a speech in New Jersey on Monday and even coughed into his hand before greeting Democrats with handshakes as the coronavirus pandemic continues.

The president arrived at his event wearing a mask but after removing it to speak, he walked away from the podium without it.

Coughing into his hand, Biden exited the stage without his mask and began shaking hands with several New Jersey Democrat officials before an aide rushed up to give him another mask.

All other New Jersey officials were wearing masks as they greeted the president.

Biden continues to promote mask wearing across the country, even though he frequently forgets to put his mask on after a speech.

Last week, Biden was caught exiting a Washington, DC. restaurant without a mask, even though the mayor continues to keeo a mask mandate in place.

The White House defended the president’s mistake as a “moment” that should not distract from his overall support for masks.

“We know masks work. They are uncomfortable sometimes, and they get tired of wearing them. I understand. I really do,” Biden said in September. “And I wear them in the White House.”

 

Yale Doctor: I’d Pull a Healthy Kid From School Before Giving Them the COVID Vaccine

Last week the Biden White House rolled out a plan, ahead of FDA authorization, to administer the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine to children ages 5-11. The administration is moving forward despite the disease being low risk to children.

“In anticipation of the FDA’s independent advisory committee meeting on October 26 and the CDC’s independent advisory committee meeting on November 2-3, today the Biden Administration is announcing a plan to ensure that, if a vaccine is authorized for children ages 5-11, it is quickly distributed and made conveniently and equitably available to families across the country,” the White House released in a “fact sheet.” “The start of a vaccination program for children ages 5-11 will depend on the independent FDA and CDC process and timeline, but our planning efforts mean that we will be ready to begin getting shots in arms in the days following a final CDC recommendation.”

California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom also prematurely mandated the vaccine for admission to public schools.

But during an interview over the weekend with Fox News, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch explained why he’d rather pull a healthy child from school than give them the vaccine.

“If the child has chronic conditions that make their risk appreciable, then there’s reason they should be considered for vaccination. Other than that if it were my child, I would homeschool them. Honestly, I would organize with other parents to take them out of the school and create homeschooling environments,” Risch said. “On the average the benefit is higher for homeschooling than it is for vaccination and being in school.”

Meanwhile the CDC and U.S. Surgeon General are insisting that even after children are vaccinated, they must wear a mask while in school.

 

Do tell……………

New study finds little effect from Massachusetts gun control measures on violent crimes

A new study from American University found that the tightened gun-control measures that went into effect in Massachusetts six years ago had little effect on the violent crime rate in the state, raising questions about enforcement of these laws.
“Gun violence remains at the forefront of the public policy debate when it comes to enacting new or strengthening existing gun legislation in the United States,” said Janice Iwama, assistant professor of justice, law, and criminology at AU, who conducted the study. “Yet the political polarization and relatively limited scholarly research on guns and gun violence make it difficult for policymakers and practitioners to enact and implement legislation that addresses the public health and safety issues associated with gun violence.”
The study, published in Justice Quarterly, used modeling and FBI data from 2006 to 2016 to examine the impact of the 2015 gun law on crimes including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
The law, enacted in the wake of the Sandy Hook, Conn., school shooting by former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, paved the way for the creation of a web portal for gun dealers to check the validity of a firearm license and track sales and transfers of firearms. It also tightened requirements for background checks on the sale of firearms and licensing procedures.
Iwama, who authored the study, noted that the entire country, including the Bay State, experienced a drop in crime since the 1990s. Still, Massachusetts had 287,000 violent crimes from 2006 to 2016, including “198,402 aggravated assaults, 70,361 robberies, 19,107 rapes, and 1,698 instances of murder or non-negligent man-slaughter.”
About 1% to 5% of adult residents in each Massachusetts county have a firearms license.
She found that a one percentage point rise in denied licenses and denied licenses due to unsuitability increased robberies by 7.3% and 8.9%, respectively, after the new law took effect. For every other type of violent crime, including rape, murder and aggravated assault, she found no statistically significant change.
Iwama suggested the issue could be caused by uneven enforcement of the laws across counties, an overall lag in enforcement and/or because residents are obtaining firearms in neighboring states with looser gun laws. She recommended that policymakers revisit the legislation to ensure it’s being property applied and enforced.

The Brit MP got stabbied by a moslem jihadi import, but **Giffords** tries to use this BS article to push for more gun control over here.

**Not Giffords herself, her handlers.  Anyone with one more functioning synapse one can listen to her speak for more than 5 words and can tell she’s nothing more than a cabbage head ChattyCathy pull the string doll, which makes the odds she can write such an article as this highly unlikely.

Opinion: Gabby Giffords: The stabbing of a British MP is another example of how violence eats away at democracy

As the stabbing of Amess makes all too clear, the problem of politicized violence is endemic around the world. But in the United States, this problem is exacerbated by our tragically lax gun laws……………

State Senator Pat Stefano Introduces Legislation To Expand Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine Law

HARRISBURG (KDKA) – State Senator Pat Stefano (R-32) is pushing to expand Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine law.

HARRISBURG (KDKA) – State Senator Pat Stefano (R-32) is pushing to expand Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine law.

Castle Doctrine governs how far a person can go to defend their property.

Stefano introduced new legislation Thursday that would allow Pennsylvanians to use self-defense beyond their home to their property line.

“Forcing law-abiding Pennsylvanians to wait to defend their loved ones until a criminal enters their home could result in the unnecessary loss of innocent life – a tragedy made worse because it could have been prevented,” Sen. Stefano said. “The right to defend oneself should not be limited, as it is in the current weaker standard, based on whether individuals are inside their dwelling or on their property.”

Stefano said the expansion to the law would provide citizens with the ability to, “better protect themselves, their family, and their property.”

The president of Firearms Owners Against Violent Crime, Kim Stolfer, told KDKA the extension in self-defense protections is “absolutely essential.”

Continue reading “”