It’s good to see others with large venues getting onboard with the knowledge that gun use for self defense strongly outweighs their use by criminals.

These 11 Examples of Defensive Gun Use Undermine Push for More Gun Control

March is Women’s History Month, yet Congress appears ready to celebrate in the worst way possible by creating more barriers for women who seek to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

While COVID-19-related bills have taken up much of the national spotlight, several gun control bills are primed for passage this week in the House. This is hardly surprising, given that just last month, President Joe Biden called on Congress to enact a plethora of new federal gun legislation.

Unfortunately, however, none of these proposals is meaningfully directed at the root causes of gun violence. Many gun control advocates have fooled themselves—and far too many others—into believing that we create safer communities by placing increasingly burdensome restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

The reality, however, is that firearms are used far more often for lawful purposes than they are used to commit acts of criminal violence.

Almost every major study on the issue found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year, according to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We have good reason to believe that many of these defensive gun uses aren’t reported to police, much less make the local or national news.

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

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

Continue reading “”

2 killed when person they were trying to rob opens fire

HOUSTON – Two people were killed Wednesday when a person they were trying to rob in north Harris County opened fire, according to Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez.

The shooting was reported about 2:45 p.m. in the 4500 block of Shelton Road.

Gonzalez said a person was eating lunch in his car when two other people walked up and tried to rob him. He said that was when the person pulled out a gun and shot the two people trying to rob him.

Gonzalez said the person jumped out of his car and fled the scene in the car believed to be driven by the two people attempting to rob him. He said the person later returned and is cooperating with investigators.

The sheriff said investigators will forward their information to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office who will decide whether charges are necessary.

Beverly man, 69, with concealed carry license, shoots at 3 would-be robbers, injuring 1

A 69-year-old concealed carry license holder defended himself Tuesday night against a group of teenagers in a stolen vehicle when they approached him in Beverly ( ‘community area’ in Chicago ) and demanded his belongings, police said.

Instead of handing over his wallet or other items, the man drew his handgun and shot toward the group of boys trying to rob him about 10:35 p.m. in the 10600 block of South Leavitt Street, according to a statement from police. One of the attackers was shot in the knee, police said.

Two of the three people have since been charged, Karie James, a police spokeswoman, said. They were 15 and 16 years old, she said. The person who was shot in the knee has not been charged with a crime and James did not release his age.

When the 69-year-old shot at the three people, they ran back to a gray Ford Fusion and drove off, authorities said. Police initially misidentified the color of the vehicle as red

They managed to get as far as the Gresham neighborhood, but the Ford crashed in the 8700 block of South Vincennes Avenue, according to police. All three people took off running, but soon were caught by Chicago police officers.

Authorities later learned that Ford Fusion had been reported stolen Sunday night, James said.

The three were taken to an area hospital for evaluation. (pity they didn’t get the full free ride to the morgue.)

Image

BLUF:
Knowing that you will be vilified as some kind of brute abuser if you criticize a New York Times reporter is, for many people, too high of a price to pay for doing it. So people instead refrain, stay quiet, and that is the obvious objective of this lowly strategy.

Criticizing Public Figures, Including Influential Journalists, is Not Harassment or Abuse.
As social media empowers uncredentialed people to be heard, society’s most powerful actors seek to cast themselves as victims and delegitimize all critiques.

The most powerful and influential newspaper in the U.S., arguably the West, is The New York Times. Journalists who write for it, especially those whose work is featured on its front page or in its op-ed section, wield immense power to shape public discourse, influence thought, set the political agenda for the planet’s most powerful nation, expose injustices, or ruin the lives of public figures and private citizens alike. That is an enormous amount of power in the hands of one media institution and its employees. That’s why it calls itself the Paper of Record.

One of the Paper of Record’s star reporters, Taylor Lorenz, has been much discussed of late. That is so for three reasons. The first is that the thirty-six-year-old tech and culture reporter has helped innovate a new kind of reportorial beat that seems to have a couple of purposes. She publishes articles exploring in great detail the online culture of teenagers and very young adults, which, as a father of two young Tik-Tok-using children, I have found occasionally and mildly interesting. She also seeks to catch famous and non-famous people alike using bad words or being in close digital proximity to bad people so that she can alert the rest of the world to these important findings. It is natural that journalists who pioneer a new form of reporting this way are going to be discussed.

The second reason Lorenz is the topic of recent discussion is that she has been repeatedly caught fabricating claims about influential people, and attempting to ruin the reputations and lives of decidedly non-famous people. In the last six weeks alone, she twice publicly lied about Netscape founder Marc Andreessen: once claiming he used the word “retarded” in a Clubhouse room in which she was lurking (he had not) and then accusing him of plotting with a white nationalist in a different Clubhouse room to attack her (he, in fact, had said nothing).

Continue reading “”

Providing confirmation, and self identification (it’s nice when they do intelligence gathering work for you, isn’t it?) that universities are domestic enemy institutions that must eventually be eliminated in self defense.

Top digital journalism professor at Columbia calls for censorship of conservative media.

The top digital journalism professor at Columbia University recently called for some center-right news outlets to be censored in the name of cracking down on misinformation.

Professor Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Media, said it is not an infringement of the First Amendment to audit and vet some news outlets to promote a “truthful news environment.”

She made the comments in response to concerns among U.S. Reps. Jerry McNerney and Anna Eshoo, who sent letters to a multitude of streaming companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Charter, Dish, Cox and Hulu, asking them about censoring “misinformation” in the conservative media.

The Democratic senior members expressed that “right-wing media ecosystem[s]” like “Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News” must be held accountable for supposed fallacies on their networks and suggested they be booted from these venues.

Continue reading “”

Which is the same question asked of them for many years:
What makes you believe that another law will suddenly make a criminal stop violating all the other laws they’ve been violating?
Since it won’t, as demonstrated by past performance of the criminal element from the dawn of history to date, what they want isn’t about stopping criminals from committing crimes, but controlling the populace.

A Simple Question For Democrats About Universal Background Checks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her anti-gun allies are moving forward with votes on a pair of gun control bills dealing with background checks for firearm purchases, armed with a new poll showing broad support from the electorate when it comes to requiring background checks on all sales of firearms. A new Morning Consult poll finds that 84-percent of respondents backed the idea when they were asked, though I suspect that if the question had been worded a little differently we might have seen a very different result.

Do 84-percent of Americans think a person should go to federal prison if they transfer a firearm to their neighbor who’s afraid of her abusive ex showing up at her door? Do 84-percent of Americans think that it should be crime to sell a gun to your cousin without a background check, but legal for you to sell a gun to your aunt without one? I highly doubt it, but that’s exactly what H.R. 8 would require if it were to become law.

We’re gonna hear a lot of talk from Democrats in the next few days about the popularity of universal background checks, but the fact is that most Americans simply don’t know about the details of the Democrats’ proposals and how they could impact legal gun owners.

Beyond the polling, however, I have a serious question for the supporters of H.R. 8, and I hope that Republicans in the House press their anti-gun colleagues for an answer.

How will this bill prevent any illicit private transfer of a firearm? 

Democrats claim that H.R. 8 will stop criminals from getting a gun, but have you noticed that they never actually explain how the bill will do that?

“If you are a criminal, you are a felon, you are deranged, well by God you shouldn’t have access to a weapon, that’s what this bill does. It has the support of about 90% of Americans,” Illinois Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos said.

Bustos says one bill would close the so-called “gun show loophole” by making it illegal for unlicensed persons to transfer firearms to someone else without a background check.

Most criminals don’t get their guns through legal means in the first place, and the bill doesn’t change the fact that convicted felons and those adjudicated as “mentally defective” cannot legally buy or possess a firearm. So how exactly does this bill prevent access to a gun from those not allowed to own one?

Simply put, it doesn’t. At best it allows for a criminal charge after the fact, but even then prosecutors would face significant challenges. They’d first have to find the gun in question, trace it back to the illicit purchaser, who would then have to provide evidence that the gun was purchased without a background check from a private seller after the universal background check bill became law.

In the year after Washington State approved a universal background check measure of its own, there were a total of ten arrests and two convictions of individuals who attempted to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so, but it looks like both of those convictions came as the result of background checks performed on retail sales of guns, not private transfers.

New Mexico also approved universal background checks back in 2019, and in the first year that the law was on the books there were zero arrests for conducing a private gun sale without going through a background check. Are we really supposed to believe that criminals in the Land of Enchantment simply stopped all black market sales, or does it make more sense that criminals simply continued to ignore this law just as they ignore the laws against, say, home invasion or armed robbery?

Democrats maintain that H.R. 8 will prevent criminals from getting their hands on a gun, but I’ve never heard them explain how the legislation will do that. Something tells me that we won’t get any such explanation during the debate of H.R. 8 either, but every pro-2A House member should call them out for their obfuscation and demand that they tell the American people the truth about this bill; it won’t and can’t prevent a single illicit private transfer of a firearm, and is utterly useless as a public safety strategy.

Chick-fil-A robbery suspect captured by Colony Square visitors

Plenty of people love Chick-fil-A, but how many would be willing to confront an armed man suspected of robbing one of the Atlanta restaurant chain’s locations?

According to Atlanta police, multiple people who witnessed a robbery in progress at the Colony Square restaurant did just that, stepping in to confront and subdue the armed suspect.

One of those people was armed, and at some point during the confrontation, he fired several shots, Atlanta police spokeswoman Officer C.J. Johnson said. He and several other Colony Square visitors were able to disarm the suspect, 23-year-old Willie Gloston, and hold him until police arrived, Johnson said.

Officers were sent to the Midtown restaurant about 3 p.m., according to Johnson. Witnesses told investigators that a man walked into the store and demanded money from a cashier. The man was later identified as Gloston.

It’s not clear if they gave the man any money, but the cashier fled to the back of the store and the suspect left.

As Gloston tried to leave Colony Square, he was confronted by bystanders and witnesses, leading to the gunfire and his capture, Johnson said. He was taken to the Fulton County Jail, where he remains.

Gloston is charged with armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Police said no one was hurt by the gunfire. No charges have been filed against the bystander who fired the shots, Johnson said.

An investigation is ongoing.

 

In the Declaration of Independence, it is written that it is a self evident truth that the creator endowed mankind with – among others – the right to life. Abortion can be argued therefore as a secular civil rights, as well as a religious issue, and as I believe that life begins at conception, that life has human rights that mere inconvenience can not supersede.

Arkansas Governor Signs Additional Restrictions on Abortion Into Law

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) signed a bill restricting abortions, SB6, into law on Tuesday. The law prohibits women from obtaining abortions in Arkansas, with one exception for the life of the mother.

Exceptions for rape or incest are not written into the bill, which Hutchinson said that he would have preferred in the final version of the legislation. He hopes the law will compel the Supreme Court to review the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion on the federal level.

“SB6 is a pro-life bill that prohibits abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency. It does not include exceptions for rape and incest,” Hutchinson said on Tuesday “I will sign SB6 because of overwhelming legislative support and my sincere and long-held pro-life convictions. SB6 is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law. I would have preferred the legislation to include the exceptions for rape and incest, which has been my consistent view, and such exceptions would increase the chances for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

 The new law will go into effect by the upcoming summer, upon the legislature adjourning. Other states have implemented similar abortion restrictions in hopes of the Supreme Court taking up an abortion case and reconsidering the landmark Roe decision.

Another Anti-Gun Extremist Promoted for Biden’s Cabinet

President Biden’s nominee to serve as United States Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM), is yet another cog Biden hopes to fit into his administration’s anti-gun machine. Perhaps it would be more newsworthy if we only reported on Biden nominees that don’t support gutting the Second Amendment, but then we might have nothing to say.

Continue reading “”

 

 

 

Wyoming Announces End To Lockdown, Lifts Mask Mandate

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon announced an end to numerous lockdown measures on Monday, including a state-wide mask mandate.

Gordon, a Republican, said that the mask mandate would be lifted and businesses such as restaurants, movie theaters, bars, and gyms would be allowed to open at full capacity on March 16. Gordon’s announcement follows similar moves made by Texas and Mississippi almost a year after such measures were put in place.

Notably, Gordon is still leaving some pandemic measures in place, such as a mask mandate on all elementary through high schools, according to CNN. Gordon touted the state’s vaccination efforts for his decision to lift regulations.

“I thank the people of Wyoming for their commitment to keeping one another safe throughout this pandemic,” Gordon said in a press release. “It is through their efforts that we have kept our schools and businesses operating and our economy moving forward. I ask all Wyoming citizens to continue to take personal responsibility for their actions and stay diligent as we look ahead to the warmer months and to the safe resumption of our traditional spring and summer activities.”

Gordon urged “Wyomingites to wear face coverings in indoor public spaces and to follow the best practices adopted by any business they visit to slow the spread of the virus.”

General Recommends “Quick Reaction Troops” In DC to Protect the Ruling Class From the Slaves

A United States military general, who was appointed by the ruling class, is recommending “quick reaction troop” in Washinton D.C. to protect against the slave uprising.  It sure appears that the powers that believe they own everyone are starting to worry that people no longer need them and are no longer willing to be slaves.

The retired Army general appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead a security study after the January 6 Capitol riot has called for setting up a quick-reaction force to permanently stand ready for threats against the government, according to a report from RT. Meaning any uprising from the “governed” or “the controlled” or the slave lass will not be tolerated by the masters.

Now, are we beginning to understand that government is slavery? It literally doesn’t matter if it’s a republic or a democracy or a socialist dictatorship. None of us should ever be owned by anyone else. The government knows it, and enough of the public must be figuring it out if retired US Army Lt. General Russel Honore says those who desire their freedom are the problem to be dealt with.

Continue reading “”

Analysis of Vitamin D Level Among Asymptomatic and Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients and Its Correlation With Inflammatory Markers

Abstract

COVID-19 is characterized by marked variability in clinical severity. Vitamin D had recently been reviewed as one of the factors that may affect the severity in COVID-19. The objective of current study is to analyze the vitamin D level in COVID-19 patients and its impact on the disease severity. After approval from Ethics Committee, M.L.B Medical College the current study was undertaken as continuous prospective observational study of 6 weeks.

Participants were COVID-19 patients of age group 30-60 years admitted during the study period of 6 weeks. Study included either asymptomatic COVID-19 patients (Group A) or severely ill patients requiring ICU admission (Group B). Serum concentration of 25 (OH)D, were measured along with serum IL-6; TNF? and serum ferritin. Standard statistical analysis was performed to analyze the differences. Current Study enrolled 154 patients, 91 in Group A and 63 patients in Group B. The mean level of vitamin D (in ng/mL) was 27.89 ± 6.21 in Group A and 14.35 ± 5.79 in Group B, the difference was highly significant.

The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was 32.96% and 96.82% respectively in Group A and Group B. Out of total 154 patients, 90 patients were found to be deficient in vitamin D (Group A: 29; Group B: 61). Serum level of inflammatory markers was found to be higher in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients viz. IL-6 level (in pg/mL) 19.34 ± 6.17 vs 12.18 ± 4.29; Serum ferritin 319.17 ± 38.21 ng/mL vs 186.83 ± 20.18 ng/mL; TNF? level (in pg/mL) 13.26 ± 5.64 vs 11.87 ± 3.15. The fatality rate was high in vitamin D deficient (21% vs 3.1%).

Vitamin D level is markedly low in severe COVID-19 patients. Inflammatory response is high in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients. This all translates into increased mortality in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients. As per the flexible approach in the current COVID-19 pandemic authors recommend mass administration of vitamin D supplements to population at risk for COVID-19.

Isn’t it interesting how no 2nd amendment advocate claims this about the 1st amendment?

BLUF:
The Second Amendment is not in conflict with the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, or any of our other rights protected by the Constitution, and our rights don’t have to be exercised one at a time. We don’t give up our Fourth Amendment rights when we peaceably assemble, so why should we lose our Second Amendment rights when we gather in support or opposition to a piece of legislation or governmental action?

Well, the obvious answer is that we shouldn’t have to give up our Second Amendment rights in order to exercise our right of free speech, public assembly, and private worship. Unfortunately, that’s the world that gun control activists want, and it’s one reason why you’re seeing the rise of Second Amendment sanctuaries around the country; a grassroots response to the creeping authoritarianism of gun control.

New Anti-Gun Argument: 2A Getting In The Way Of Other Rights

The Second Amendment has long been treated as a second-class right by gun control activists and even some unarmed Americans who simply aren’t as concerned about protecting a right that they’re not currently exercising. Unfortunately for those opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, 2020 was a banner year for new gun owners with an estimated 8.5-million Americans purchasing a firearm for the very first time.

As you can imagine, gun control activists are not happy about these developments, and their opposition to exercise of our Second Amendment rights is leading some down a dangerous road; arguing that we must restrict the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect other civil rights.

Law professors Joseph Blocher of Duke and Reva Seigel of Yale make that case in a new piece at The Atlantic, proclaiming that we need more gun control laws to protect “citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.”

Continue reading “”

yeah, Mostly peaceful protest™
They do understand one point we should also keep in mind:
“An asymmetrical and decentralized insurgency is nearly impossible to defend against”
That’s one of the basic tenets of 4th Generation Asymmetrical Warfare

South Dakota: Two Pro-Gun Bills Head to the Governor’s Desk for Signature

Wednesday, March 3rd the South Dakota House gave final approval to a pair of pro-gun measures, Senate Bill 100 and Senate Bill 111.  These two important bills now head to the desk of Governor Kristi Noem for her signature.  Please contact Governor Kristi Noem and ask her to sign Senate Bills 100 and 111 into law.

Senate Bill 100 provides protections for gun stores, ranges, or any other entity that engages in the lawful selling or servicing of firearms, components, or accessories. SB 100 also prevents the prohibition, regulation, or seizure of citizens’ Second Amendment rights during a declared State of Emergency.

Senate Bill 111 reduces the cost for some types of concealed carry permits.

Texas Gov. Announces “Operation Lone Star” to Secure Border Against Human and Drug Smuggling in Response to Biden’s Open Border Policies

Governor Greg Abbott (R) on Saturday announced Texas launched “Operation Lone Star” to respond to the Biden Administration’s failure to secure the border.

Joe Biden’s open border policies have created a migrant crisis at the US-Mexico border.

He just doesn’t want us to know what he thinks about it.
And because of that, we do know.

Garland Doesn’t Seem To Know Much About Anything During Questioning

When the Senate confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland to be Joe Biden’s pick for Attorney General kicked off, we quickly learned that there were a number of public policy topics that he’s “never given much thought to,” and didn’t have any opinions to share. Those included issues of illegal immigration and whether or not transgender athletes should be able to compete in girls’ and women’s sports. As the hearings continued, there emerged even more topics that Garland professes to not know very much about. This time the questions dealt with the Second Amendment and the limits of the President’s power to infringe on those rights via the pen and the phone. When Ted Cruz pressed him on some specifics, Garland claimed to be “unfamiliar” with the subject and said that he “cannot offer an opinion.” (Free Beacon)

President Joe Biden’s pick for the top law enforcement post in America told the Senate that he is uninformed about important gun issues, as he faces what could be a close confirmation vote.

Merrick Garland told Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) he was unfamiliar with key gun policy areas in written answers made public Wednesday night. He said he did not know enough about the topic to say whether Biden could unilaterally deny gun sales by permanently delaying background checks. He used the same explanation when asked if Biden could ban the sale of popular rifles like the AR-15—something Biden promised to make law during his campaign.

“I am unfamiliar with this issue and cannot offer an opinion on that question,” Garland said of the unilateral AR-15 ban.

These answers conflict with statements Garland made in February, suggesting that there were changes to gun control policy that Biden could make unilaterally without the need for new legislation from Congress. But now he’s saying that he really doesn’t know what, if any limits there are to the President’s powers in that regard. Just as a reminder, this guy has been on the bench on one of the most influential appeals courts in the country for decades and he came very close to making it onto the Supreme Court. And he hasn’t given any thought to the Second Amendment?

Garland similarly dodged a question about the death penalty. He said he had “developed concerns” over the procedure in recent years, but that was about it. We already know where Joe Biden stands on the subject and Garland will go along with whatever Biden says, so it seemed rather pointless to wiggle out of that one.

What Garland is doing here seems obvious. He doesn’t want to wade into any hot-button topics for fear of antagonizing the Senators from either party and giving some of them an excuse to not vote for him. He’s hardly the first cabinet nominee to play these games and he won’t be the last. But the guy is asking to be approved to be the chief law enforcement official in the country. If he’s really “never thought about” any of these questions and “doesn’t have an opinion” on them, how is he claiming to be qualified to do the job he’s asking for? That’s an awful lot of studying to have to do on day one to get up to speed.

Senator Tom Cotton (R – AR) has already begun pumping the brakes on Garland’s confirmation, insisting that more and better answers are needed. But it still doesn’t seem like he’ll be able to derail the confirmation entirely. Mitch McConnell has already said he plans to vote to confirm him and Chuck Grassley voted for him in committee. That’s really all he would need to avoid the optics of sending Kamala Harris down to break a tie to put him in at the Justice Department. But if these non-answers were to somehow convince both of them to vote no, we’d be back to waiting for Joe Manchin to make up his mind. This fight may not be quite over yet.