‘They/Them’ Parkland Survivor X González Issues Profanity-Laced Gun Control Rant: ‘Pass Some Fucking Gun Laws’

Parkland shooting survivor “X” González (formerly known as Emma) issued a profanity-laced gun control rant at the D.C. March for Our Lives event on Saturday.

Touting her non-binary status, González began her speech by declaring her pronouns are “they/them” before scolding Congress for not passing gun control laws.

“Happy pride!” she exclaimed to the adoring fans.

After explaining how she no longer wishes to put up a nice front by avoiding profanity, she then dropped more than a few F-bombs.

“I have reached my fucking limit,” she said. “I am not going to hold myself back anymore for the sake of somebody else’s fragile ego.”

Most of González’s speech centered on Congress failing to pass her desired gun laws in the four years since the Parkland shooting. At one point, she brought transgenderism into the mix.

“You say that queer and trans identities are immoral for children,” she said. “But somehow conversations about what to do when a white supremacist terrorist inevitably tries to kill us, are moral.”

González even brought ageism into the equation.

“You say that children are the future and you never fucking listen to what we say once we’re old enough to disagree with you, you decaying degenerates,” she said.

“You really want to protect children? Pass some fucking gun laws,” she screamed.

González’s constant stream of F-bombs flowed so freely that at one point she claimed she was “trying not to curse” before going on to curse some more.

Watch: ‘They/Them’ Parkland Survivor X González Issues Profanity-Laced Gun Control Rant

David Hogg: Putting More Cops in Schools May Endanger Students Who Lack ‘White Privilege’

While speaking at the June 11 March for Our Lives rally, gun control proponent David Hogg suggested that putting more cops in schools may actually endanger students who lack “white privilege.”

Hogg suggested that a common response to school shootings is to put more police in schools.

He then claimed, “Putting more cops in schools hasn’t worked.” He cited two examples to bolster his viewpoint: First he pointed to the armed officer who stood outside Parkland instead of entering, even as the attack was carried out. Then he made claims about the police response to Uvalde.

Hogg did not mention the numerous times armed resource officers have saved lives on campus.

For example, on December 13, 2013, an 18-year-old with a shotgun entered Denver-area Arapahoe High School and had to face the fact that an armed resource officer was coming for him. The Denver Post noted that the resource officer was a deputy sheriff who, hearing a gunshot, ran toward the gunman. As the resource officer closed in, the attacker took his own life, ending the attack.

The Arapahoe attack lasted 80 seconds. The Sandy Hook Elementary attack, where there was no armed resource officer, lasted over nine minutes.

But Hogg rejected calls for more cops on campus, saying, “Realize that putting more cops in schools actually may be a form of endangering our students as well — for the students that don’t have the privilege of having my skin color, or the fact that I am an American citizen.”

David Hogg: Putting More Cops in Schools May Endanger Students Who Lack ‘White Privilege’

Watch Live: Thousands Rally for Gun Control at ‘March for Our Lives’ Protest in D.C.

Thousands of gun control advocates are expected to rally Saturday in Washington, DC, and across the country in a nationwide “March for Our Lives” protest following the deadly mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Watch Live: Thousands Rally for Gun Control at ‘March for Our Lives’ Protest in D.C.

Gun Control Advocates try to Rewrite the History of Biden’s 1994 Gun Ban

The New York Times’ Glenn Thrush has taken a look back at the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” magazines, and more importantly, the expiration of that ban a decade later and says that Democrats now “regret” not extending the ban. I’m sure they do, but there’s a good reason why the ban was allowed to sunset in 2004: even many gun control supporters said it hadn’t had much, if any, impact.

Not all of them, of course. Thrush, for instance, quotes Brady’s Brian Malte, who was in favor of extending the ban, but Malte himself acknowledged that most Democrats were ready to move on rather than try to reauthorize the sweeping restrictions.

“You look around today, and there’s this incredible sense of urgency after Buffalo and Uvalde, but back in 2004, there was no enthusiasm to renew the ban among Democrats — none,” said Brian Malte, a former top official for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which pushed to reauthorize the ban at the time.

“By 2004, Columbine was in the rearview mirror, crime was going down and, well, everyone had kind of moved on,” he added.

Crime was already going down before the ban was put in place, and continued to decline after the ban expired, right up until 2020, when the triple whammy of the COVID pandemic, the riots sparked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, and the subsequent push to defund the police in many cities helped create the conditions that led to a rapid increase in homicides and shootings in many cities.

But it’s also wrong for Malte to simply declare that Democrats had “moved on” from the gun ban because crime was down and Columbine had happened five years earlier. Just a year before the ban expired a man entered the Lockheed Martin plant in Meridian, Mississippi and opened fire on his co-workers, killing six and wounding eight others. There were other high-profile shootings for the gun control lobby to use as justification for the continuation of the ban, including Columbine itself, but the fact remains that Democrats never launched a serious effort to keep the ban in place.

Why? For starters, because they weren’t in the majority in either chamber. Most Democrats in 2004 didn’t want to talk about gun control at all, because many of them blamed the passage of Biden’s ban on “assault weapons” for turning their legislative majorities into minorities in the 1994 elections that closely followed passage of the ban; something that Thrush, to his credit, does point out in his piece.

By 2004, it had become a widespread view within the party that the assault weapons ban led directly to the Republican takeover over of Congress a few weeks after it passed — and even Al Gore’s loss in 2000.

Democrats would go on to recapture both houses of Congress in 2006, in part by de-emphasizing gun control in tight races and encouraging pro-gun Democrats to run in battleground districts and states. One Democrat elected in that era was Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who remains a critical “no” vote on the ban.

“It was hard to get the band back together,” said Adam Eisgrau, a Feinstein staff aide who helped draft the ban.

“One of the things we were able to do in ’94 was to create consensus against the Rambo-ification of what would otherwise be a standard hunting gun,” he said. “At the time, law enforcement was feeling totally outgunned. And we let people know that we didn’t think all guns were evil or that people who use guns are evil. But by 2004, things had changed, positions had hardened.”

In the end, Ms. Feinstein’s attempts to ram through a bill to reauthorize the ban failed. Over the next four years, the senator and several other legislators, including Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat whose son and husband were shot on a commuter train, introduced similar measures. None got out of committee.

Democratic candidates, like President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mr. Biden, have put renewing the ban on their presidential to-do lists. But Democrats, even when they controlled the White House, the Senate and the House from 2009 to 2011, did not act.

In other words, Democrats weren’t in a position to extend the ban in 2004, and declined to do so when they had full control of Congress and the White House starting in 2009. They might have regrets about their unwillingness to take up the issue when Barack Obama was elected, but they decided to overreach on healthcare instead of gun control when the had the chance, and that too cost them their legislative majorities.

Thrush ends his piece with a bit of historical revisionism of his own, declaring that “[t]he sense of urgency that impelled action in 1994 began to intensify in 2012 with the increasing frequency and human toll of mass shootings facilitated, in most cases, by weapons that were once banned…” which simply isn’t true. In 2021, the FBI reported that rifles were used in 13 of the 61 active shooter incidents in documented, with the vast majority of these crimes committed by someone using a handgun. In 2020 the FBI documented 40 active shooter incidents, and in only seven of them were rifles the sole firearm used. Five other active shooters used a combination of rifles, shotguns, and/or handguns, but most of the shootings were perpetrated by individuals using handguns only.

If we want to go back further, we can look at this recently released National Institutes of Justice study, which found that over the past 50 years more than 75% of all mass shootings have involved handguns, with semi-automatic rifles used in approximately 25% of the incidents. The data simply doesn’t match the rhetoric from gun control groups and anti-gun politicians, but that won’t stop them from trying to rewrite history, or the Bill of Rights, going forward.

Gun control advocates try to rewrite the history of Biden’s 1994 gun ban

“Weapons of War!”: Celebrities, Media, Politicians Stoke Fear, Push Gun Control

Many members of the media and politicians came out against Americans’ Second Amendment rights after the shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

A Would-Be School Invader In Alabama Failed When The Doors Were Locked And Police Weren’t Cowards

While Democrats continue exploiting the Uvalde shooting victims to prattle on about “assault weapons” and so-called “common-sense gun control,” another school was attacked on Thursday, but it won’t make the headlines.

That’s because this school — Walnut Park Elementary School in Gadsden, Alabama — didn’t have any victims except the would-be invader, who was shot dead by police after he tried and failed to bust into the building. Here’s how it all reportedly went down.

A passerby saw a man “aggressively” trying to get into the school building. When the man was unsuccessful, he tried several other doors, all of which were locked. The responsible observer called to report the man, the school principal put the building on lockdown and called in a police officer who doubles as the school resource officer, and that officer called for backup. If the reports are correct, the chain of command worked smoothly thanks to decisive action and quickly followed protocols.

The resource officer reportedly engaged the would-be invader, who then also allegedly attempted to forcefully enter a marked police vehicle and to take the officer’s gun. More police officers rushed to the scene to help, and the assailant was shot and killed. According to the city’s school superintendent, the schoolchildren who were there “seemed to be unaware the incident occurred.”

In other words, a man who “aggressively” tried to break into a school and take the firearm of a police officer was stopped because doors were properly locked and police officers acted bravely and urgently.

Hmm. That’s interesting. Because according to President Joe Biden, failed presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, rom-com celebrity Matthew McConaughey, and late-night political scold Jimmy Kimmel, the only way to end the “carnage” of schoolchildren being murdered is to pass anti-gun laws or issue executive orders that radically infringe on the Second Amendment but are slapped with an innocuous “common-sense” qualifier so they don’t sound so bad.

Nothing else would do the trick, such people say — despite the fact that the Uvalde killer had no problem passing a background check, entered through an unlocked door, and faced little resistance from law enforcement for a disgustingly long time.

When Texas Sen. Ted Cruz responded to the Uvalde murder with calls for better school security in the form of locked doors and single-point entry, which could have prevented that killing, leftists and the corporate press ridiculed him for focusing on doors. “[S]enator Ted Cruz comes out bravely against doors,” scoffed The Atlantic’s Molly Jong-Fast on Twitter. “Are they really gonna make it about ‘too many doors on the school’? They are, aren’t they?” chimed in woke comedian Patton Oswalt.

Meanwhile, nobody on the left wants to talk about the criminal failures of the Uvalde police and the Department of Public Safety.

That’s in part because if they had done their jobs rather than standing outside like cowards for the better part of an hour, lives undoubtedly would have been spared.

It’s also because the implication of Democrats disarming responsible citizens is that the only remaining defense will be armed government employees, who may or may not have the courage to actually help anyone.

Thankfully, in Alabama on Thursday, police did have that courage, and lives were saved because of it.

But Democrats and their media lapdogs won’t speak a word of Walnut Park Elementary because it obliterates their gun “do somethingism.”

It turns out we don’t need celebrity lectures and sweeping gun control to keep schoolchildren safe.

We just need locked doors and adults who do their dang jobs.

A Would-Be School Invader Failed Thanks To Locked Doors, Brave Police

BARSH: Why You Actually DO Need an AR-15

Dear Peace-loving Ladies and Gentlemen of America and the Internet,

Did you hear the one about SAFE & EFFECTIVE? Or, I STAND WITH UKRAINE? Or, INFLATION IS TRANSITORY?

How about NO ONE NEEDS AN AR-15?

Whenever I see that on social media, the plurality of responses from advocates of the Second Amendment is some version of ‘I don’t have to need it. I want it.’

While true, I’d argue that you/we/I actually do NEED an AR-15 (or a modern semi-automatic rifle). * Before we move on, be sure to challenge your anti-gun opponent with a quiz question about what ‘AR’ means. Answer below, in case a reader of this blog is on-the-fence, considering a change from being anti to pro.

Anyone who is currently — or down the road stands the chance of being — in a group considered minority or disadvantaged (without the benefit of politically-protected-class status), must have a way to effectively defend him or herself. As a Los Angeles woman, whose weight at 5’ 7’“ hovers around 102 pounds, I find the AR easy to load, hold, aim, and fire with accuracy. It’s light and manageable, despite what one idiot (truly possessing a low-IQ) California congresswoman argues.

Los Angeles is never NOT on the verge of exploding over something; and because of the ideologically twisted, pro-criminal District Attorney enabling predators, my rifle serves as an emotional crutch.

Further, as a Jew in this state, I am part of minority group that’s neither protected nor tolerated. In fact, without going down the rabbit hole of Marxism-permeated public education curriculum, let this story speak for itself.

Every Jew should own a firearm. Just a suggestion…do what you want, of course.https://t.co/Qi8QXOdvY1

— The NonCompliant & Pissed Barsh Consulting Co. (@EmilyTVproducer) June 4, 2022

I’m also part of an unpopular group of people who embrace and adhere to the principles of medical freedom. I’ve done my homework. I follow science — the kind practiced by professionals who are loyal to facts and data. My decisions about how to navigate my risk related to the virus are just that: mine. They do not affect anyone else. Anyone who believes otherwise has not been exposing him/herself to independent journalism or apolitical peer review — the last bulwark against propaganda.

But since no amount of aforementioned facts, data, or empirical evidence has budged our officials, I live in fear. Their measures have become a hard-wired religious ritual. And they’ve weaponized the population, reminiscent of Brown Shirts in World War Two Nazi Germany.

Unarmed citizens in Australia were sent to quarantine camps. Zero-Covid-obsessed Communists have locked Shanghai residents into their apartments, in some cases welding closed their doors. Canada is moving to ban gun sales, after de-banking and in some cases, jailing, truckers who refused to be injected. Police beat people in the streets of Amsterdam for non-compliance.

And as we speak, the Biden Administration is back at the drawing board, trying to rework amendments to the World Health Organization (run by a non-medical-doctor bureaucrat) Global Pandemic Treaty (which is not a treaty) that cede American sovereignty over our country’s public health policy.

Do note, in no way do I believe our federal government is the least bit competent in this regard. (That goes for the administration that didn’t fire Fauci.) I’d just rather not have an arm of the U.N. forcing me to put an experimental and detrimental technology into my deltoid. Thanks.

Gun control does not end well for people who are not in favor. And, a 5-round .22 cal revolver is not likely to intimidate a bad guy who just got out of prison — again — was sent over the border by the cartel, or who shows up on your doorstep from your very own government.

And for a reality check.

International gun homicides chart pic.twitter.com/o2sdePVNpi

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 2, 2022

Another reason people need semi-automatic rifles? Gun control is racist.

— The NonCompliant & Pissed Barsh Consulting Co. (@EmilyTVproducer) June 5, 2022

Speaking of non-whites and guns:

Self-defense is an innate human right. This is what it takes. There are not 2 sides to this. It’s liberty and security vs tyranny and terror.https://t.co/gCjRZcdHza

— The NonCompliant & Pissed Barsh Consulting Co. (@EmilyTVproducer) June 5, 2022

Recently, jaws on both sides of the aisle dropped when Joe Biden nullified the U.S. Constitution (yet again — see above re: sovereignty giveaway) by claiming the Second Amendment is not absolute. Actually it is and there shall be no infringement.

Another thing that is absolute: my right to defend myself, my family, and my property. This is not granted by government. And given the government has done a lousy job stopping the maniacs with illegal weapons and deranged minds, I’m in no mood to count on them.

If you allow them to take away your AR-15, your 9 mm rifle, your Kalashnikov, what’s next?

You do need them.

I don’t think Orwell was eerily prescient. I think he was incredibly present…and paying attention.

— The NonCompliant & Pissed Barsh Consulting Co. (@EmilyTVproducer) June 5, 2022

* ‘AR’ is short for Armalite, the manufacturer. It is not an abbreviation for assault-rifle.

If this is news to you, then you’ll also be surprised to learn that the terms ‘assault rifle,’ ‘high-capacity magazine,’ ‘semi-automatic,’ and ‘ghost gun’ are phrases conceived by the very people who wish to disarm you. They are marketing devices.

There’s no standard legal definition of an ‘assault rifle.’

Eleven rounds would be considered ‘high.’ So think about the panicked victim whose last shot is #10 and misses.

Every non-bolt-action gun in circulation is a semi. It means that ONE round loads into the chamber as soon as one is fired.

The bad guys have machine guns, aka automatics. And speaking of AKs, a Kalashnikov (aka AK-47) is a semi. It’s not a machine gun.

Oh, and finally — ‘red flag’ laws will allow your ex-whatever to fabricate a grievance, and rat you out to the DOJ. Your chances of vindication are slim to none in that case.

BARSH: Why You Actually DO Need an AR-15

The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Didn’t Reduce Gun Violence

Do something.

This is a response—and perhaps a natural one—to a human tragedy or crisis. We saw this response in the wake of 9-11. We saw it during the Covid-19 pandemic. And we’re seeing it again following three mass shootings—in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa Oklahoma—that claimed the lives of more than 30 innocent people, including small children.

In this case, the “something” is gun control. In Canada—where no attack even occurred—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the introduction of legislation that would freeze handgun ownership across the country.

“What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” Trudeau said in a press conference.

In the United States, the rhetoric has tended to be more heated but also vague, though some specific proposals have emerged.

Over the weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris called for an all-out ban of “assault weapons.”

“We know what works on this. It includes, let’s have an assault weapons ban,” Harris told reporters in Buffalo after attending the funeral of a victim.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden, while speaking from the White House Cross Hall before a candlelit backdrop, called on Congress to pass new gun control legislation, including a ban on assault weapons.

“How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” Biden asked.

The 1994 ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: A Brief History

There are numerous problems with this proposal, starting with the sticky question of defining what an “assault weapon” is.

Assault rifles, which by definition are capable of selective fire, are already banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The vague phrase “assault weapon” is basically a tautology—by definition, any weapon can be used to assault someone—and virtually useless. The term might be effective politically, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the guns politicians choose to define as “assault weapons” typically “are no more dangerous than others that are not specified.”

We know this because the US had a ban on “assault weapons” as recently as 2004, something gun control supporters recently pointed out on Twitter.

“We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years: 1994-2004,” said Dr. Joanne Freeman, a historian at Yale University. “The world didn’t end. People kept their (other) guns. They bought new guns. It was hardly an attack on gun ownership.”

We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years: 1994-2004.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 targeted firearms deemed “useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense.”

Freeman is right that the ban lasted a decade before expiring on September 13, 2004. She’s also right that the world “didn’t end” and Americans continued to use and purchase other types of firearms.

What Freeman didn’t bring up was the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the government’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Nearly two decades ago the Department of Justice funded a study to analyze this very topic, and it concluded that the assault weapon prohibition had “mixed” results.

Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons, but noted “the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

In other words, there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms that were banned, but the drop was replaced by crimes committed with other types of firearms that were not banned.

While gun violence overall fell in the US during this period—just like many other countries around the world—the decline continued even after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004. Authors of the government-funded study plainly stated “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence” and any future reduction in gun violence as a result of the ban was likely “to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

One might contend that this is just one study. No study is irrefutable, after all, even ones commissioned by the Justice Department. However, other studies since then have yielded similar conclusions.

A RAND review of gun control studies, which was updated in 2020, concluded there’s “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.” Research published in Criminology & Public Policy the same year (2020) concluded that bans on assault weapons “do not seem to be associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

President Biden has claimed the 1994 crime bill he helped pass “brought down these mass killings,” but fact checkers have contested these claims based on this evidence and much more.

The Problem With the ‘Do Something’ Mentality

It’s unlikely the White House has enough votes to pass a second ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, but it’s far from impossible in an environment in which many Americans—even gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment supporters—are increasingly asking politicians to “do something.”

Unfortunately, when people say “do something” they tend to mean “pass sweeping legislation that infringes on the civil liberties of others.” Such thinking spawned the super-state that sprang forth in the War on Terror following the 9-11 attacks. It also produced government lockdowns during the pandemic, the worst and longest depression in American history, and a host of other disasters.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that the impulse to use collective force to “do something” in the wake of a tragedy or crisis has created far more problems than it has solved.

The economic historian Robert Higgs has noted that the most sprawling encroachments of freedom in history spawned during crises and tragedies; they have given rise to tyrants from Lenin to Mao and beyond. Even when powers are relinquished by government, they are rarely relinquished completely (a phenomenon Higgs describes as the Ratchet Effect).

“When [crises occur] … governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs,” wrote Higgs. “For those who cherish individual liberty and a free society, the prospect is deeply disheartening.”

As we mourn the victims in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Tulsa, we’d do well to remember that one true moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights, and any attempt to deprive humans of these rights for “a greater good” is a perversion of the law.

The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on 'Assault Weapons’ Didn’t Reduce Gun Violence | Jon Miltimore

California: No. 1 In Gun Control, No. 1 In “Active Shooter Incidents”!

An FBI report on ‘Active Shooter Incidents’ in 2021 shows that California was the number one state for such incidents, with six incidents total.

California is also number one for gun law strength, the Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety noted.

According to the FBI, there were 61 “active shooter incidents” across the country in 2021 and 12 of the incidents met the definition of a “mass killing.”