Scarborough on Gun Legislation: ‘A Lie’ to ‘Say Second Amendment Rights Are Being Trampled On’

MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on Monday pushed back against the notion that gun legislation being proposed in the wake of recent mass shootings was “trampling” on Second Amendment rights.

According to Scarborough, universal background checks and adding regulations do not “infringe on Second Amendment rights.” He argued it was a “lie” to say that Second Amendment rights were “being trampled on.”

“I mean, if you look at a gun the wrong way, people go, ‘Oh, you’re trampling my Second Amendment rights,‘” Scarborough asserted. “There is nothing in any legislation that’s being proposed right now, whether you’re talking about universal background checks, that does anything to infringe on Second Amendment rights. Nothing at all. If you read the Constitution if you read the Second Amendment if you read Heller, the decision that said Second Amendment said what the Second Amendment said, there’s nothing in there.”

“We’re not even talking about military-style weapons, banning them,” he added. “But even if you were to regulate them more, other states are doing it. The court hasn’t overruled those; haven’t said that’s unconstitutional whether you agree or disagree, that’s one thing. But to say that Second Amendment rights are being trampled on, that’s what everybody says. It’s a lie. It’s just a lie.”

Scarborough on Gun Legislation: 'A Lie’ to 'Say Second Amendment Rights Are Being Trampled On’

Rep. Greg Steube Shows How Democrats Magazine Ban Would Also Outlaw Handguns

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) showed the House Judiciary Committee Thursday how a ban on high-capacity gun magazine would lead to the outlawing of many popular handguns.

New York Gun Reform Laws Hurt The Law-Abiding

Democrats ADMIT They’ll Do ANYTHING To Take Your Guns

Glenn and Stu debunk the Left’s latest gun lies after two Democratic congressmen admitted that they don’t care what’s standing in their way, whether it’s the Constitution or the Supreme Court: They WILL take AR-15s away from Americans. And President Biden is right there with them, despite what he says about the “respect” he gives to “lawful gun owners.” But Glenn has a feeling they won’t stop at so-called “assault rifles”…

It’s Not MY Second Amendment Right — It’s OURS, and Yes, It’s Worth the Price

There, I said it. I’ll be the big, bad monster “gun nut” the left can hate. Lefties need conservative boogeymen to disdain. I volunteer for the role of “firearm hobgoblin.”

Now for some reality. Everyone believes that kids getting shot is abhorrent. Some of us also think it’s repulsive to dismember a kicking child four days before it’s born or support an attention-starved, 12-year-old boy’s decision to lop off his penis for Facebook “likes,” but that is another conversation.

Nevertheless, the left is willing happy eager to use a school shooting to ask us the following: “Are a bunch of dead kids worth your Second Amendment right???!?!?!”

This question is obviously a vulgar attempt at a “gotcha” moment that liberals use to reinforce their hateful belief that conservatives are fearful, self-absorbed, soulless ghouls suffering from “crotch poverty” who grasp at guns to feel manly.

Also, it’s OUR Second Amendment right. It is a right for all Americans, and more Americans should take it seriously.

The response tweet is from a bot; I checked.

The Second Amendment isn’t about shooting deer; it’s about killing tyrants who have shredded our Constitution and taken control of our government.

The jackpuddings on the left either ignore this fact or are too stupid to think that we may need to stand up and fight for our nation someday, possibly soon.

Or they are in on it.

My favorite lefty lemmings are the bootlickers who say, “You only have a gun; you can’t fight nukes, you stupid Crucifix-clutcher!”

For starters, the U.S. military is highly unlikely to nuke 20,000,000 patriotic Americans who dare stand up for democracy. Nor do I foresee a gun battle in a peach orchard, cornfield, or a suburban neighborhood. I am not predicting Bull Run Part III outside of Washington, D.C. Then again, there was a time when I didn’t think the Democrats would steal a presidential election.

I do see a situation where the Democrats steal a move from Australia and use COVID-19 as an excuse to lock up people they deem “high risk.” Where would I get such a tinfoil hat idea? From the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). They call it “shielding:”

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Screenshot from: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html#r1

Keep in mind that this is all about “protecting” you from a scenario where 98.8% of KNOWN cases of the Bat Stew flu have survived in the U.S. I say “KNOWN” because tens of millions of Americans have tested positive with tests at home and self-medicated. Millions of kids have likely gotten the Hong Kong Fluey and shown no symptoms and hence weren’t even tested. Johns Hopkins University and the CDC will never know how many actual cases we’ve had.

More about the CDC’s “shielding” plan: “In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherenceto protocol.”

Strict adherence you say? COVID camps? To anyone paying attention, that dirty AR-15 and those demonic 30-round mags don’t seem so bad now, do they? I don’t know about you but I’m not going to one of Fauci’s “shielding camps.”

FACT-O-RAMA! The CDC will decide who is/is not “high risk.”

Here is one more from the CDC’s shielding nonsense:

Social/Cultural/ReligiousPractices

Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.

Explanation: Community celebrations (religious holidays), bereavement (funerals) and other rites of passage are cornerstones of many societies. Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.21,22

The CDC is already anticipating violence when they lock us up. Joe Biden wants your guns. Get it yet?

I STRONGLY recommend you read what the CDC/federal government has planned for “our protection.”

WATCH Video:

Republicans understand the importance of the Constitution, and we are willing to fight to keep it intact. Democrats see it as a roadblock to pinko paradise and have been trying to dismantle it for years.

Biden urged the CDC to enact an “eviction moratorium,” meaning that people didn’t have to pay rent. This was blatantly unconstitutional. He did it anyway. Biden also tried to have your employer fire you if you didn’t get an untested “vaccine.” That’s called authoritarianism, and the Constitution was written to keep it off of American soil.

The Democrats view the Constitution the way some people look at the rules of Monopoly; they go with the basics and try to change the ones they don’t like. You know, like ending the Electoral College and raising the number of Supreme Court judges.

Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) gave away the Democrats’ bolshie playbook at a House Judiciary Committee meeting last Thursday.

“You will not stop us from advancing the Protecting Our Kids Act today,”

he threatened.

“If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it.

And we will not rest until we have taken weapons of war out of circulation and our communities each and every day.”

Sure, the unknown congressman is screeching to the choir, but he said the secret part out loud. The enemy is at the gate front door.

Albert Einstein is reported to have written his son and said, “There’s something amazing about America’s democracy, it’s got a gyroscope and just when you think it’s going to go off the cliff, it rights itself.”

Einstein never factored in the possibility of stolen elections. Let’s face it: if the Democrats’ ideas are so good, “allegedly” stealing elections wouldn’t be necessary.

Communism, Nazism, authoritarianism — call it what you like. It’s time for conservatives to wake up and realize, “Yes, it CAN happen here.”

And liberals need to understand that the pesky Second Amendment is the last hope we have of stopping them. I really hope the Democrats don’t take it that far, but I don’t trust them. Neither should you.

It’s Not MY Second Amendment Right — It’s OURS, and Yes, It’s Worth the Price

They’re Coming for Our Guns…

In Joe Biden’s address to the nation on gun control on Thursday night, he made one thing abundantly clear to the American people: Democrats are coming for our guns.

Clearly, the president fails to understand the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly stating the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” No God-given right is safe if our right to keep and bear arms and self-defense is gone.

We will continue reporting the truth about how guns save lives, the truth about the president’s and anti-gun mobs’ communist gun control proposals, and call out their outright lies… but we need your help.

Last night, Biden once again called for another “assault weapon” ban and falsely claimed the 1994 Assault Weapon ban reduced the number of mass shootings across the country. This is false, and Townhall’s Katie Pavlich has previously debunked one of Joe Biden’s favorite lies once and for all.

If the Democrats cannot ban AR-15s or magazines, at a minimum, they not only a national red flag law, the consequences of which would be devastating, but they also want to raise the age to purchase a gun to 21. For Democrats, you can go to war and die for your country at 18, but you cannot purchase a gun for self-defense.

Democrats who want to dictate gun policy are absolutely clueless about firearms. Just this week, President Biden referred to 9mm ammunition as “high caliber,” stating it is not necessary to own. In reality, a ban on 9mm ammunition would effectively ban a majority of handguns. Of course, the White House walked back the president’s statement, but the damage was already done. We know where they stand.

It is time for conservatives and law-abiding gun owners to stand up and fight back against this radical administration and the traitorous RINOs on Capitol Hill that want to disarm us.

They’re Coming for Our Guns

A Tyrannical President Wants to End the Constitutional Amendment Written to Stop a Tyrannical President

I watched Biden’s 17-minute emotional threat to disassemble the 2nd Amendment, and a slew of headlines popped into my mind. I had to pick one for this article carefully because, frankly, I had a number from which to choose. I also liked:

“Nation’s Longest-Serving Political Leader Blames Politicians for Not Doing Something About ‘Gun Violence’ For Decades”

“Ignore the 100,000 People who Die Yearly From Drug Overdoses Due to Biden’s Open Border, Let’s Focus on a Rare School Shooting to Disarm Tens of Millions of Law-abiding Americans”

“Groggy Biden Stands on a Pile of Dead Kids and Says ‘Americans, I can See your Rights Disappearing From Here'”

Biden’s gun-grabbing speech did exactly what one would expect: it appealed to the emotions of the left while ignoring the logic of conservatives and the profound necessity of our Constitutional rights.

Yes, Joe, we get it. School shootings are horrific. P.S. Mad bomb shouts on the burning candles, nice touch. I’m just glad he didn’t mention “white supremacy” again, but he couldn’t, due to the fact that the Uvalde shooter was Hispanic and the Tulsa shooter was black. #Equity

No one hates to see children murdered more than the people who embrace the lives of children, whether or not they’ve been born yet, as well as family values and the idea of the nuclear family. That would be conservatives.

‘DO something. Just Do Something. For God’s Sake, Do Something’

Biden rattled off a handful of past mass shootings and mentioned that nothing has been done over the years. He neglects to mention these are the same years he has been in Washington, either as a senator, vice-president, or president.

Biden tooted his own horn about the mythical “assault weapon ban” from 1994 to 2004, and how mass shootings dropped in those 10 years but went up when “Republicans allowed it to expire.”

Assault Weapon Ban Fast-facts:

▪The ban didn’t keep even ONE semi-automatic rifle from being sold. It merely put restrictions on which/how many options could be put on the gun

▪ Despite what Biden said, Republicans didn’t “let” the “ban” expire, the bill was written to expire in ten years.

▪ Biden claims mass shootings dropped because of the ban. Not true. Check this out from fivethirtyeight.com:

During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher.

A 2004 report commissioned by the Department of Justice on the effects of the assault weapons ban concluded that the law was largely ineffective at limiting access to weapons with the power of the AR-15. According to the report, the ban focused on “features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapons legal.” The report noted that several semi-automatic rifles were functionally equivalent to the AR-15 and untouched by the ban.

This means that Joe Biden stood on the bodies of recently murdered victims and lied to us about the “assault rifle ban” he boasted of helping to write.

FACT-O-RAMA! The number of mass shootings involving a grenade launcher has always been zero, and mass-bayonet attacks have been non-existent since the wrting of the Magna Carta.

Joe went on to bemoan gun locks and mental illness. The shooters in Tulsa, Uvalde, and Buffalo bought their guns just before committing their heinous crimes. Gun locks had nothing to do with anything.

Mental illness is a different animal and certainly worth a discussion, but there is NOTHING that could have stopped the Tulsa, Uvalde, and Buffalo shooters from buying guns. There are tests for mental illness, and laws to keep those who suffer from it from buying guns, but the last time I checked there is no test for evil.

Biden continued by saying that guns are the leading cause of death amongst children. This is not true. As per the New England Journal of Medicine, accidents and injuries are still the leading cause.

What Joe also slyly tried to do was equate gun deaths with “assault rifle” deaths.

The truth is this, more people are killed by knives and also by physical beatings than by ALL styles of rifles combined.

I wrote about that recently:

Here is an FBI chart showing the types of weapons used for murders between 2015-2019.

As you can see, over three times as many people were beaten to death as were killed by all rifle styles combined, and nearly five times as many were killed by knives. So unless your liberal sister-in-law is ready to turn in her cutlery and chop off her hands and those gnarly feet, she can kiss your ass.

What Joe failed to mention was how many kids are shot by stray bullets fired from gangbangers who the Democrats refuse to lock up. Or how many are young gangbangers themselves?

Biden then went on to say the age to purchase a semi-auto rifle should be changed from 18 to 21. This is hard to hear from a man who is down with transgender activism for kids.

Meet the Bolshie family!

14-year-old Britanny “Mom, I’m having an abortion.”

“OK.”

12-year-old Connor “Dad, I’m having my penis removed.”

“Ok”

18-year-old Mike “I"m buying an AR.”

“The FUCK YOU ARE!!!”

— The Kevin Downey, Jr. Show (@KDJRadioShow) June 3, 2022

It wouldn’t be a Biden speech with about a whisper or two. At one point he squeaked out the following: “Why in God’s name should an ordinary citizen be able to purchase an assault weapon that holds 30-round magazines?

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about shooting deer, Joe.

It’s about defending the Constitution against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

It’s for when our elected leaders go rogue. It’s for when an entire political party of the United States goes full commtard and won’t stop shredding the Constitution until it’s dead, floating facedown in the Potomac, enveloped in adipocere. Defending our Constitution is way easier to do with magazines that hold 30 rounds of commie-stoppers.

You can watch the whole hackneyed mouth-trash speech here.

WATCH Video:

A Tyrannical President Wants to End the Constitutional Amendment Written to Stop a Tyrannical President

House Democrat Wants to Tax Assault Weapons 1,000% and It Could Pass Without GOP Votes

In response to a recent string of mass shootings, one House Democrat is drafting a bill designed to severely restrict access to assault weapons.

Rep. Donald Beyer (D-Va.), who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, is looking to put a 1,000% excise tax on AR-15-type rifles as a means of making them less affordable to the public.

“What it’s intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen,” Beyer told Business Insider. “We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation.”

With the affected guns ranging in price from $500 to $2000, the tax could add as much as $20,000 to the final sale price of the weapons. While bullets would not be taxed at the high rate, high-capacity magazines would be.

The details of the legislation are not yet final. Beyer insists that law enforcement agencies and the military would be exempt from the tax, as would existing owners. One can only imagine the surge in sales of the weapons should this legislation make it through. And while the proposal seems absurd on its face, that doesn’t mean it’s doomed to fail; Beyer is looking to use the reconciliation process to bypass a filibuster in the Senate.

House Dem Wants to Tax Assault Weapons 1,000% and It Could Pass Without GOP Votes

Oregan Man Destroys Guns, Claims it’s to Reduce Violence

Like many of you, I have a number of guns sitting in my gun safe. To my knowledge, only one has been used to take human life, and it’s an SKS my father brought back from Vietnam. I have another that might have–a Yugo SKS with a Serbian crest carved into the stock.

None, however, have been fired at an individual since I obtained them. Absolutely none.

The same can be true of most people’s guns.

However, an Oregon man went on TikTok to destroy his own weapons, he says to combat violence.

WATCH Video:

A Hillsboro man is getting national attention on social media after turning his two firearms over to police to be destroyed following the mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas.

“Today I’m turning in my weapons to the Hillsboro Police Department in Oregon, both my AR-15 and my nine millimeter handgun. I no longer want them,” said Ben Beers in his now viral TikTok post.

Next, Beers will cut off his junk in order to combat sexual assault.

After all, that makes just as much sense as getting rid of your guns because of someone else’s actions.

If you’re going to destroy your guns because of what a third party did with a completely different weapon, then clearly your sexual organs are just as responsible for rape as the rapist’s organs are.

Then again, Beers has his perspective a little skewed.

“Which is a good thing,” said Beers. “Hopefully, soon we can all wake up and realize this needs to be done… this is an idea. Guns are not as precious to us and nor are my Second Amendment rights as the lives of my children in school.”

Beers and his wife have two daughters. By the time they’re grown, he said he hopes access to guns in America will look different.

“I can’t even find a PlayStation 5, but I can go get a Glock, you know?” said Beers.

Understand, my daughter is the same age as those killed in Uvalde. I hold her as one of the most important things in my life along with my son and my wife.

But where Beers screws up is in thinking this is a binary thing, that you can’t hold your children precious and support gun rights. Your Second Amendment rights preserve your ability to protect those things you hold dear.

Then again, I don’t think any of that is what matters to Beers.

No, what mattered to him was having the opportunity to virtue signal.

He wanted to get followers and likes on TikTok and used the tragedy and his supposed response to it in order to get them.

He hasn’t made anyone safer.

Hell, following Parkland, a number of people pulled the exact same thing, making a big show of destroying their firearms. Since then, violent crime has skyrocketed.

Now, I’m not saying them destroying their guns caused the spike by any means. However, destroying their guns damn sure didn’t do anything to help, either.

On the same token, Beers hasn’t actually done anything of value, either.

But hey, now he can say he’s big on TikTok. 14-year-old girls everywhere will be totally jealous.

Oregan man destroys guns, claims it’s to reduce violence

The Morning Briefing: Will Squish Republicans Cave to Democrats on Guns?

Thanks to Oval Office Occupier Joe Biden’s speech last Thursday, America’s argument raged on all through the weekend. Let us be clear about one thing: there is no gun “debate” in this country, it’s a knock-down, drag-out fight.

We’ve had a lot of content written these past few days covering the issue. I wrote a column on Friday that included something that comes up in conversations a lot lately:

As I often tell people, in over half a century of shooting, my guns have never shot anybody.

Why should my Second Amendment rights be run roughshod over?

No one has ever been able to make that case to me.

That may seem a little simplistic but I would like someone to take a crack at answering it.

The coastal Democrats are trying to move quickly on new gun legislation, coming up with outlandish ideas like the one Matt wrote about over the weekend:

In response to a recent string of mass shootings, one House Democrat is drafting a bill designed to severely restrict access to assault weapons.

Rep. Donald Beyer (D-Va.), who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, is looking to put a 1,000% excise tax on AR-15-type rifles as a means of making them less affordable to the public.

“What it’s intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen,” Beyer told Business Insider. “We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation.”

Democrats have never encountered a situation that they couldn’t tax to death.

The big worry for pro-Second Amendment types is whether any Republicans might be moved by media pressure to “compromise” on what the Democrats like to laughingly call “common sense” legislation. There were rumors floating around last week that some Republicans were ready to yield on “red flag laws,” which Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) railed against, calling them “unconstitutional.

In his latest column over at Townhall, Schlichter offers up a variety of reasons that the GOP shouldn’t compromise on guns. My big reason has always been this:

the Democrats are never satisfied once Republicans yield to them.

They’ll just want more. Just look at what they’ve done with abortion.

They reject any limitations whatsoever.

Republicans who want to buddy up to the Dems on guns in order to get a pat on the head from The New York Times do so at their own peril, which New York’s Chris Jacobs found out the hard way.

There are no simple paths to an agreement between the left and the right on this issue and Republicans should be wary of any that seem to be.

The Democrats’ end game is to take all of our guns away.

They’ll do it in baby steps and Republicans who are afflicted by Swamp disease will fall for them.

And then one day it will be too late.

The Morning Briefing: Will Squish Republicans Cave to Democrats on Guns?

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.”

California led the nation with six “active shooter incidents.”

California has…

▪ Universal background checks,

▪ An “assault weapons” ban,

▪ A “high capacity” magazine ban, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases,

A a red flag law, gun registration requirements,

▪ A “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance,

▪ A a ban on carrying a gun on a college campus for self-defense, ▪ A ban on K-12 teachers being armed on campus for classroom defense,

▪ A background check requirement for ammunition purchases,

▪ And a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can purchase in a given month, among other controls.

Additionally, ammunition purchases are only allowed if made through a state-approved vendor.

California: No. 1 in Gun Control, No. 1 in ‘Active Shooter Incidents’

Something to Consider:

San Antonio Spurs Head Coach Gregg Popovich Gregg Popovich: I Shouldn’t Be Able to Buy an AR-15, Neither Should You

San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich spoke at a ‘Stand with Uvalde’ rally Saturday, referenced AR-15s, and said, “I shouldn’t be able to buy one, you shouldn’t be able to buy one.”

Outkick.com reported Popovich’s participation in the rally.

Popovich’s statements on AR-15s came after he held up Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) as an example of a politician who is supporting gun control in the wake of the Uvalde attack. On May 27, 2022, Breitbart News noted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tapped Cornyn to work with Democrats in pursuit of “bipartisan” gun control.”

After mentioning Cornyn, Popovich turned to the topic of the Uvalde attacker and criticized his ability to get a gun.

He said:

“Nobody’s trying to take away anybody’s guns, nobody. But they said that this 18-year-old, he probably had mental challenges, but they gave him a gun.

They gave him an AR-15.

They didn’t give him a hunting rifle, they didn’t give him a handgun, and the things that’s amazing to me about that.”

Popovich then started to ask why an 18-year-old can buy an AR-15 but redirected his point to say,

“Wait a minute, why can anybody buy an AR-15?

I shouldn’t be able to buy one, you shouldn’t be able to buy one.

What the hell do you need an AR-15 for?”

San Antonio Spurs’ Gregg Popovich: We Shouldn’t be Able to Buy AR-15s

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

- Constitution of United States of America 1789

Bill Maher: School Attacker’s Advantage Is Not Gun Type But Time

On Friday, HBO’s Bill Maher made clear the Uvalde school attacker’s advantage was not the type of gun he used but the amount of time he had to use it.

Maher said,

“I mean, this kid was in the room for 40 minutes before anybody came in. It wouldn’t have mattered what kind of gun he had. Any kind of gun could do any amount of damage in that time.”

On May 27, 2022, a Breitbart News op-ed noted, “We must understand that the attacker’s advantage in a school shooting is not so much the type of firearm he uses but the time he has without armed resistance and the degree of surprise that results from the launch of his attack.”

When there is no armed guard present to stop the attacker and no perimeter fencing, or there is weak perimeter fencing, and there are no armed teachers, the attacker has time on his side when he gets inside the school.

Consider Maher’s words again: “I mean, this kid was in the room for 40 minutes before anybody came in.”

Breitbart News noted that the February 14, 2018, Parkland attacker had time to pause and reload five times during his rampage. The Sandy Hook Elementary School attacker had more than nine minutes without armed resistance.

Bill Maher: School Attacker’s Advantage Is Not Gun Type But Time

Joe Biden’s Call to Restrict Young Adults’ Second Amendment Rights Previously Defeated in Federal Court

WASHINGTON, DC – President Joe Biden called for American adults ages 18–20 to be barred from buying modern sporting rifles, but a federal appeals court has ruled that the Second Amendment fully applies at age 18, making it likely that such a restriction would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Biden specifically said he would raise the age on “assault weapons,” but there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” Biden’s nominee for ATF director couldn’t even define the term when Sen. Tom Cotton challenged him to do so.

So assuming Biden meant assault rifles – more correctly called modern sporting rifles – the key to this constitutional question is found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and ©(1). Those provisions of a federal law say that, although an 18-year-old can buy a long gun (rifle or shotgun) from anyone, an adult must be at least 21 to buy a handgun (pistol or revolver) from a FFL (a federal firearm license holder) – in other words, a gun store. A citizen can buy a handgun from another source starting at age 18, but an American must be 21 to buy a handgun from a federally regulated retail outlet.

That makes no sense to many people. At age 18 you can buy a handgun from a friend, a sister, or even that creepy neighbor down the street but not from a regulated, monitored, professional store that will first conduct a proper background check. But that is the law.

Biden seemed oblivious to all this when he said – falsely – in his divisive primetime speech that an 18-year-old cannot buy a handgun from any source in Texas. Not surprisingly, various lawsuits have been filed in recent years challenging that restriction.

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the restriction violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, setting the stage to strike it down in the states of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina as this case continues. After many pages of analysis, the court concluded:

A review of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history reveals that 18-year-olds are covered by the Second Amendment. Like most other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment has no explicit age limit, and the most analogous constitutional rights apply equally to everyone. And when a constitutional right applies differently to minors, the age cutoff has consistently been set at 18, not 21.

Founding-era history confirms that the public understood the Second Amendment to cover 18-year-olds. At the time of ratification, every state and the federal government required 18-year-old men to enroll in the militia. Those in the militia, as Heller reminds us, were a subset of the political community known as “the people” that enjoyed Second Amendment rights. While most of the militia laws the government identifies still allowed 18-year-olds to join the militia, those that required enlistees to be 21 are few in number and distant in time from ratification. So the historical basis for those 18 and older having Second Amendment rights rests on firm ground.

Nor is the Fourth Circuit alone. Seven judges in the Fifth Circuit took the same position, as written by one of the most respected federal appeals judges in the nation, Judge Edith Jones. In 2013, Jones explained to seven dissenting judges why the Second Amendment allows law-abiding adults ages 18–20 to buy handguns:

Congress has seriously interfered with this group’s constitutional rights because of a class-based determination that applies to, at best, a tiny percentage of the lawbreakers among the class. Of course, the lawbreakers obtain handguns, but the law-abiding young adults are prevented from doing so, which adds an unusual and perverse twist to the constitutional analysis. I stress again [the judges’ ruling on the other side, saying that younger adults as a group are] “irresponsible”; the Second Amendment protects “law-abiding responsible adults”; the Second Amendment permits “categorical regulation of gun possession by classes of persons” irrespective of their being within the core zone of rights-holders; and finally, “Congress could have sought to prohibit all persons under 21 from possessing handguns—or all guns, for that matter.”

If any of these phrases were used in connection with a First Amendment free speech claim, they would be odious. Free speech rights are not subject to tests of “responsible adults,” speakers are not age-restricted, and class-based abridgement of speech is unthinkable today. Even if it is granted that safety concerns exist along with the ownership of firearms, they exist also with regards to incendiary speech. Some reasonable regulations are surely permissible, but the panel’s approval of banning young adults from the commercial and federally regulated market for the quintessential self-defense weapon is class-based invidious discrimination against a group of largely law-abiding citizens.

It would be interesting to see if the Biden administration attempts to argue that modern sporting rifles should be treated differently than handguns, given that Biden himself suggested in the past few days that he could ban 9mm handguns – which is a common barrel size for a standard handgun and smaller than many other common sizes like .40-caliber – and that modern sporting rifles have a similar profile in the marketplace. It would seem that age-based restrictions on one would stand or fall with the other in a constitutional challenge.

This does not mean that Biden cannot seek to make the purchase age 21. All it means is that because the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms at age 18, any change Biden and his Democrat Party would like to enact regarding the purchase age would likely need to be done through a constitutional amendment. The White House has said nothing to suggest Biden is willing to take on that challenge.

Joe Biden’s Call to Restrict 2nd Amendment for Young Adults Previously Defeated in Federal Court

Gun Control Activist Says it “Makes Sense” to Avoid Talk of Gun Ban… “ For Now.”

If you want a depressing look at how politics is trumping policy in the congressional response to the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, look no further than this report from The Hill on the current state of the gun control debate in Washington, D.C.

While the headline rightly notes that Joe Biden and congressional Democrats are not on the same page in their anti-gun talking points, with Biden pushing for a ban on so-called assault weapons (and maybe even 9mm handguns) and Senate Democrats focused on expanding background checks and giving grants to states to implement “red flag” gun seizure laws (House Democrats have their own legislative package that they’re teeing up, which includes a ban on “large capacity” magazines but no ban on modern sporting rifles), my big takeaway is that even the anti-gun senators hoping to use the horrific events in Uvalde to impose new restrictions on gun owners aren’t pretending that what they’re working on would have prevented that atrocity from taking place.

“It’s really a study of incrementalism, I think that’s what [Sen.] Chris Murphy is doing,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, referring to the lead Democratic negotiator on gun control.

“He’s come to the realization that if he leads with an assault weapons ban, it’s not going to go anywhere. To get the 10 Republicans you need to break the filibuster, you can’t lead with a strong right hand. You’ve got to spar a little bit,” he said.

Murphy (D-Conn.) says he wants to get something done that saves lives, even if it doesn’t directly respond to the recent mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, where in each incident 18-year-old shooters deployed AR-15–style rifles.

“Republicans are not willing to support everything that I support, like banning assault weapons. But I really think that we could pass something that saves lives and breaks this logjam that we’ve had for 30 years,” Murphy said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

Even some gun control activists are willing to hush up about their desire for a gun ban for fear of scuttling the current talks that are underway.

Alex Barrio, the director of advocacy for gun violence prevention policy at the Center for American Progress, pointed out that keeping a proposed assault weapons ban on the back burner keeps Democratic divisions out of the spotlight.

“There are also Democrats that do not support an assault weapons ban. We know that [Sen.] Joe Manchin is one of them. That being said, keeping off the table for now makes sense,” he said.

Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) voted with Manchin (D-W.Va.) and every Senate Republican against Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) proposal to ban assault weapons during the Senate’s last extended gun control debate, in 2013.

You know who else hasn’t signed on to the current “assault weapons” ban bill gathering dust in the Senate? Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the co-founder of the gun control group that bears her name. There’s no doubt that Kelly and Giffords back a ban, but Kelly is also running for re-election to a full six-year term this fall and has been very quiet about pushing for more gun control legislation since he won a special election to fill the remaining term of the late John McCain in 2020.

Kelly might not be able to keep his anti-gun opinions to himself for long, however. Anti-gun activists, including Barrio, say they’ll push for a performative vote on banning modern sporting rifles if the Senate doesn’t pass something that the gun control lobby can call a win.

“If Republicans pull back from these negotiations … if the Republicans refuse to do anything and they decide at the end that they’re going to be 50 votes ‘no’ on everything,” even proposals to encourage red flag laws, “then I do think the assault weapons [ban] does need to go on the floor, there does need to be a vote,” Barrio said.

Christian Heyne, vice president of policy at Brady, a group that advocates for gun control, said, “I certainly think the responsible call to action right now is to call for an assault weapons ban vote.”

“These are weapons with tactical features designed for the battlefield to make these weapons more lethal, which is why they are the connective tissue between so many of these mass-casualty shootings,” he said.

Yeah, about that. According to the FBI’s recent report on 61 active shooter incidents in 2021, 48 of them involved the use of a handgun, while just 10 involved the use of a rifle (several incidents involved suspects with both rifles and handguns, and there were a few instances of a shotgun being used by the attacker as well).

Rifles just aren’t used in a lot of crimes, period. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2019 documented 364 homicides in which a rifle of any kind was used as a murder weapon. That’s less than the 1,476 homicides in which knives or cutting weapons were used, the 397 homicides committed with the use of blunt objects like hammers, and the 600 homicides committed by individuals using hands, fists, and feet.

Not that any of that matters to anti-gun politicians hoping to use the tragedy in Uvalde to chalk up a win of some sort. What we’re watching play out in Washington, D.C. is a strategy based on the politics of the moment, with public safety a secondary concern at best.

Gun control activist says it “makes sense” to avoid talk of gun ban… “for now.”

Hillary Clinton: ‘No One Actually Needs an AR-15’

After enjoying years of taxpayer-funded protection from agencies and departments, many of which avail themselves of AR-15 rifles, Hillary Clinton tweeted Friday, “No one actually needs an AR-15.”

Her tweet:

This is not the first time Clinton has a taken a position against guns that runs totally counter to the fact she has spent many years of her life living with the peace of mind that comes from being protected by good guys with guns.

Following the December 2, 2015, San Bernardino attack that killed 14, Clinton said, “Guns, in and of themselves…will not make Americans safer.”

She reacted to push-back against gun-free zones and calls for more citizens armed for self-defense by saying, “…Arming more people–to do what?–I think it’s not the appropriate response to terrorism.”

On January 3, 2016, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump pushed back against Hillary’s comments, saying, “Hillary said that guns don’t keep you safe. If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!”

Amid President Biden’s current gun control push Breitbart News pointed out he is protected by the very guns he wants to bar Americans from owning.

Hillary Clinton: ‘No One Actually Needs an AR-15’

Don’t Bother Me With Your ‘Common Sense’ Gun-Grabbing Ideas, I’m Not Playing the Game

Over the last two weeks, the United States has had three high-profile mass shootings, Buffalo, NY; Uvalde, TX; and Tulsa, OK. So naturally, the gun-grabbers are on the attack, and most Republican politicians are running like scalded dogs from any defense of the Second Amendment and the God-given right of free men and free women to own and carry the means to preserve their lives and the lives of others.

There are reports that a bipartisan group of ten senators is working to come up with a gun-control package that will get 60 votes in the Senate. The Democrat contribution to the group is Chris Murphy (CT), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Joe Manchin (WV) Martin Heinrich (NM). Our Vichy Republicans are Pat Toomey (PA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Bill Cassidy (LA). John Cornyn (TX) is leading the GOP effort…that should make you feel really comfortable.

Last night, an obviously addled Joe Biden became a caricature of the old-man-shouting-at-the-clouds as he burbled “Enough” and demanded that we “do something.” See my colleague Bonchie’s post on the speech at Joe Biden’s Gun Control Speech Was Washington in a Nutshell.

WATCH Video:

There are two powerful impulses at work here. The first I would attribute to the modernist heresy and the anti-Christian belief in the perfectability of man and the perfectability of society by using government to eradicate all evils.

Evil is mistaken for mental illness because the SmartSet™ could never bring themselves to believe Evil exists. It does exist. Evil is real. It is not a mere philosophical concept. Evil will find a way of acting out. The denial of the existence of Evil leads to a belief that with enough systems, we can prevent the wrong people from acquiring firearms and using them to commit crimes. We can’t.

The ideas being circulated are as old and tired as the members of the group discussing them: a ban on assault weapons, a limit on magazine capacity, waiting periods, age limits, and Red Flag laws. Based on comments by the Dotard-in-Chief, it seems that outlawing 9mm and .223-caliber ammunition could be on the table. We can’t, you know, have sh** in the hands of mere citizens that could “blow your lungs out.” Mass shootings occur in all jurisdictions, even those like New York, that virtually ban modern sporting rifles. These laws don’t work where they are in place, so there is no reason to assume they will work if we impose them on still more people.

The second impulse is political cowardice.

M. Stanton Evans, journalist and former president of the American Conservative Union, said, “We have two parties here, and only two. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. … I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. … Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.”

The heady combination of evil and stupid is what is being brewed on Capitol Hill. No one actually believes that anyone on the Democrat side of this issue is negotiating in good faith. Their objective is to abolish the right of Americans to own and use firearms. There might be any number of noble motivations lurking behind the scenes, but the common ground they are searching for makes firearms ownership more difficult for those who can’t afford private security guards.

Given the prevalence of “scary black rifles” in the country and the extraordinary rarity of their use in committing crimes, it is difficult to conclude that modern sporting rifles or high-capacity magazines constitute a threat to anything other than the ability of the government to control its citizens. It shouldn’t be hard to stand up and pronounce this truth, but for our so-called leaders, it is. Making this gutlessness more absurd is that, according to a post by my colleague Sister Toldjah, see Democrats Hit Two Massive Roadblocks on the Path to Gun Control Legislation. A majority of Americans believe we have enough restrictions on firearms and their ownership.

Notably, things that could make schools safer, like hardening points of ingress and training teachers or parent volunteers to be proficient in firearms and armed, are not on the table. That, I’m convinced, is no accident.

I’m not interested in discussing any of these “common sense solutions” because, in my view, they are either a greater evil than the Evil they purport to prevent, or they are meaningless acts of virtue signaling. In particular, the “Red Flag laws” place your liberty and property in the hands of the nutbags at the American Psychiatric Association, who literally decide what mental illness is. And, by extension, that makes you vulnerable to anyone who doesn’t like you or your politics. If you don’t want a modern sporting rifle and 30-round magazine, don’t buy them. If you want to know why I need them, I need them because fuck you.

I will not engage in the process of negotiating away my rights and the rights of my children because you don’t like guns and are afraid. I don’t need your approval. I will not play this stupid game.

Don’t Bother Me With Your 'Common Sense’ Gun-Grabbing Ideas, I’m Not Playing the Game

Report: Biden Opposes Armed Teachers Because It’s Not Easy to ‘Blow Someone’s Brains Out’

President Biden told attendees at a Democrat fundraiser Friday that one of the reasons he opposes armed teachers is because it is not easy to “blow someone’s brains out,” FOX News reports.

Biden said, “The idea we’re going to provide – the way to deal with gun safety is to provide teachers with guns in classrooms? There’s a reason why the military takes so long to train somebody. It’s not easy to pick up a rifle or a gun and blow somebody’s brains out.”

On May 31 the New York Post noted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s comments about Biden being opposed to “hardening schools” in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting.

“I know there’s been conversation about hardening schools. That is not something he believes in,” Jean-Pierre said.

“We are the only country that is dealing with gun violence at the rate that we’re dealing, and other countries have mental health issues. So what’s the problem here? The problem is with guns, and not having legislation to really deal with an issue that is a pandemic here in this country,” she elaborated.

Biden Opposes Armed Teachers Because It’s Not Easy to ‘Blow Someone’s Brains Out’

Michael Moore Calls for Full Repeal of Second Amendment — ‘You Don’t Need a Gun’

Leftist activist and filmmaker Michael Moore used his Friday podcast “Rumble Michael Moore” to call for a full repeal of the Second Amendment in the wake of the Uvalde, TX school shooting.

Moore said, “I know that there are Democratic Party leaders that do not want me saying this we going to lose the election.”

He continued, “I make no apologies for it because I understand the history of this country, and I don’t think we should be afraid to say this. Repeal the Second Amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment.”

Moore added, “That is it. That is what we need to do. We need to start a movement to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something that says it’s not about the right of somebody to own a gun, the right of all of us to be protected from gun violence. We have a right to live.”

He concluded, “Nearly 70% of us do not own a firearm. We don’t own a gun. We are not a nation of gun owners. The 30% who do own a gun, most of them are law-abiding citizens. I don’t know what they think they are going to use that gun for. Those who are hunters, I understand that they like to hunt. Those who like to fire guns on shooting ranges, it’s fun to hit the target, great go for it, but we need to do what other countries do, where you store the gun at the gun club, at the gun range. You don’t want a gun in the house. If you’re afraid of somebody breaking in, get a dog. You don’t need a gun. You have a greater chance of harming yourself or others in your family with that gun in the house.”

Michael Moore Calls for Full Repeal of Second Amendment – ‘You Don’t Need a Gun’

David Hogg: Putting More Cops in Schools May Endanger Non-White Students

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 do not have white skin.

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 Non-White Students

D.C. Gun Control Rally Pressures Senators to Add New Second Amendment Restrictions

A gun control rally is being held in Washington, DC, Saturday with the goal of pressuring senators into passing new restrictions on the Second Amendment in light of recent shootings.

CBS Miami reports that the rally will be held in front of the Washington Monument and feature March for Our Lives founders, members of other gun control groups, and family members of shooting victims.

Patricia Oliver’s son Joaquin was killed in the February 14, 2018, Parkland attack.

Oliver explained her goal in the rally is to “show the country is screaming for justice.”

She criticized the fact that gun control has not passed out of Congress, saying, “Where are your morals? You aren’t working for the people, and we are tired of that.”

The Hill noted that Martin Luther King Jr.’s granddaughter Yolanda Renee King said, “We’re all coming together because this is unacceptable, and we are demanding that our politicians ban the big rifle assault weapons. We have to reduce kids’ anxiety of just going to school and reduce people who look like me’s anxiety to go to the grocery store.”

March for Our Lives’ David Hogg is speaking at the rally.

On Thursday, Breitbart News reported that Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) chief of staff slammed March for Our Lives’ David Hogg for lying about a scheduled meeting.

Hogg tweeted, “Rubio staff said I can’t meet with him or his staff because I “trigger” him. I just wanna have a conversation. Please meet with me [Sen. Rubio] I just want to figure out how we can stop these things from happening. We have to end the continuous debate and find what we can agree on.”

Rubio chief of staff Michael Needham responded, calling Hogg out: “No one said such a thing. As for the meeting, you must be confused as we had a 2p meeting scheduled with you. However, since you are lying and clearly using this all for self-promotion, that meeting is now cancelled.”

D.C. Gun Control Rally Pressures Senators to Add New 2A Restrictions

‘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