How the New Gun Control Package Could Harm the Mental Health Community

This week, the US Senate began debate on a bipartisan gun control package supporters have labeled a “compromise” bill.

Earlier this month, Democrats announced they had obtained enough Republican support for legislation to get it out of the Senate. (Though the House has an easy Democrat majority, much of the left’s agenda has stalled under President Joe Biden due to a very slim majority in the Senate that requires the support of at least 10 Republican Senators to overcome a filibuster.)

The gun control package includes several items: Incentives for states to pass red flag laws, a crackdown on “straw purchases,” an end to the “boyfriend loophole,” investments in mental health and suicide prevention as well as crisis and trauma intervention and recovery, an expanded requirement for who must register as a licensed federal firearms dealers, and enhanced background checks for 18-21 year olds looking to buy a gun. Should it pass, NICS (the entity that carries out federal background checks) would basically have to call state and local law enforcement to search for any sealed juvenile records or mental health events as well as agencies in the state that deal with mental health issues before 18 to 21 year olds could purchase a gun.

While supporters of this legislation are presumably well-meaning, it is mostly misguided.

And while there is little indication these agenda items would actually prevent violence or save lives, there’s plenty of evidence to indicate they would deter vulnerable people from seeking mental health treatment.

Regarding the bill, Psychology Today states, “Of course, increased funding for mental health programs is sorely needed. But there is also concern among mental health advocates about reinforcing the false conflation of gun violence and mental illness. Although the popular belief is that those with mental illness are more likely to commit acts of violence, data shows that people with mental illness are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the perpetrator.”

Sixty national mental health advocacy groups also recently crafted a letter condemning the conflation of gun violence and mental health issues. “Attempts to connect mental illness to mass shootings are a distraction that inflicts enormous damage by taking attention from solutions that could actually prevent such events,” they write. “This perpetuates a false narrative that encourages stigmatization of and discrimination against the millions of Americans living with mental health conditions who are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.”

The president and CEO at Meridian Health Services, Hank Milius, also recently authored an op-ed for Yahoo! Finance writing, “gun violence is a public health issue but linking it to mental health only adds to the stigma of mental illness.” He goes on to say, “Certainly, there are cases of gun violence by individuals who have a mental illness. But to suggest there is a cause and effect by inextricably linking the two builds a false narrative.”

Milius also reiterated the talking points of Mental Health America, writing, “Mental illness is not a predictor of violence towards others, but is a predictor of suicide. Firearm deaths associated with mental illness are nearly always suicides. The majority of people with mental illness are not violent. If mental illness were eliminated, gun violence in America would go down by only 4%.”

Sixty percent of gun deaths in the US are attributed to suicide, NPR notes. So if we want to actually reduce gun deaths, mental health is an excellent place to focus our attention and resources.

But while this bill offers an expansion of services…or at least funding for services…numerous components within it would likely lead to fewer people seeking help.

As Milius and Psychology Today make clear, people who suffer from mental illness are far likelier to be victims of gun violence than perpetrators of it. But that being said, when a person in psychosis does not receive the care and or medicine they need, violence can occur. So we should do everything we can to encourage those with mental illness to seek help.

However, this bill goes the opposite way. It risks the healthcare privacy of young adults and puts their ability to defend themselves in jeopardy. If a young woman fears that seeking help for anxiety or suicidal thoughts may lead to her inability to be able to buy a gun and defend herself when she turns 18 and moves out on her own, the reality is a not-insignificant portion of the population will likely take the safe route and forego care.

Dr. Laura Streyffeler, a Licensed Mental Health Counselor, states, “I think if we start having them diagnose and take away weapons and have mental health diagnosis as a way that people are going to lose their firearms I think what’s going to happen is people are going to stop looking for help.”

Furthermore, red flags laws weaponize mental health issues against people who may have absolutely no indication of violence whatsoever. It isn’t ok to condition one’s rights on their health, which is what Red Flag laws do. While the actual language differs from state to state, the gist is that people who know you can alert police to behaviors they think are unstable and that can then be used to take away someone’s guns. What behaviors that includes are pretty arbitrary, subjective, and loosely defined. Does someone not like your politics and think you’re a conspiracy theorist? Does that indicate mental unwellness? Is someone anti-gun in general and believe that merely owning a gun makes you a threat? You get the picture here. These laws could easily be used against people who aren’t mentally ill in the least, but we know they’ll certainly be used against anyone with a history of mental illness.

Civil liberties should never be able to be taken away without due process, a preponderance of the evidence, and a trial. Red flag laws skip those conditions and make people who seek basic healthcare services vulnerable.

The reality is that most mass shooters were not mentally ill, at least not in a diagnosable way. Rather, they are typically young men who are isolated, angry, and entitled. Additionally, according to reporting by Vice, “A new Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings — killings of four or more people in a public place — since 1966 found that the shooters typically have an experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a ‘script’ or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap. And then there’s the fourth thing: access to a firearm.”

Those are signs of future violence we can certainly be on guard against—and people with firearms in their home have the responsibility to make sure their guns are safe and secure—but making mental health a scapegoat for shootings is not the answer.

Instead, the gun control package demonizes and stereotypes innocent people, and makes an already vulnerable population more susceptible to abuse. It also puts too much pressure on our mental healthcare system, which is already buckling under the weight of trying to provide basic services for those who are quantifiably mentally ill. The mental health community can’t do the job of police on top of everything else.

The French economist Frédéric Bastiat once said, “In the economic sphere, an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen. There is only one difference between a good economist and a bad one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those which must be foreseen.”

It’s easy to see Bastiat’s description playing out under this new gun control package, should it pass. Lawmakers believe they are solving one problem, the “seen,” while failing to take into account all of the negative repercussions and implications that will follow, the “unseen.”

This isn’t smart public policy, which is a shame because there are many thoughtful, well-researched people putting out reforms that could actually target violence while upholding individual liberty and ensuring vulnerable populations aren’t further harmed.


Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Unhinged Olbermann: Dissolve SCOTUS Over Pro-2nd Amendment Ruling

Thursday on Twitter, unhinged political performance artist and perennial loser Keith Olbermann responded to the Supreme Court’s pro-Second Amendment ruling by — predictably — calling for the high court to be dissolved.

After SCOTUS struck down New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry, Olbermann flipped out and tweeted, “It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States. The first step is for a state the ‘court’ has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?”

He followed up with this idiotic challenge: “Hey SCOTUS, send the SCOTUS army here to enforce your ruling, you House of Lords radicals pretending to be a court.”

Earlier this month Olbermann, who can’t keep a job even in the leftist media because he’s such a clown, tweeted his embarrassingly ignorant claim that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to “own” guns: “Shove your ‘responsible gun owners’ crap up your ass. The 2nd Amendment does not include the word ‘own.’ There is no right.”

Um, yes there is a right, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your juvenile ranting, Keith.

Keith Olbermann

34 Known Connections

In February 2011, it was announced that Olbermann would work for Current TV, a public-affairs channel co-founded by Al Gore. Olbermann made his Current TV debut on June 20, 2011. His program there — like his previous show at MSNBC — was called Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

Near the end of March 2012, Current TV terminated its increasingly acrimonious relationship with Olbermann and replaced his program with Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer. In response to the firing, Olbermann promptly filed a lawsuit against Current TV, seeking somewhere between $50 million and $70 million.

In July 2013, Olbermann was hired to host a one-hour nightly sports program (debuting August 26) on ESPN-2.

On February 24, 2015, ESPN suspended Olbermann for controversial remarks he made on Twitter, where he derided students who were participating in Penn State University’s annual dance marathon — called “Thon” — which raised money for pediatric cancer research and care. In his various tweets, Olbermann referred to PSU students as “pitiful,” mocked one of his critics as a “goober,” and called another man “stupid.” Olbermann later issued an apology on Twitter, but ESPN decided to suspend him for one week.

In July 2015, ESPN elected not to extend Olbermann’s contract — which was scheduled to expire at the end of that month — after he refused to move his program from its Times Square studio to the network’s headquarters in Bristol, Connecticut…

To learn more about Keith Olbermann, click here.


Tlaib to Pro-Abortion Activists: ‘I Will See You in the Streets’

Mad Max: ‘The Hell with the Supreme Court,’ ‘Defy Them’

AOC Calls Roe v. Wade Reversal ‘Illegitimate’: ‘Into the Streets!’

PP CEO on Roe v Wade: ‘People Will Be Forced into Pregnancy’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gun Ruling Knocks Libs Off Their Rocker

There are some seriously unbalanced liberals running loose out there. They’re losing their minds over the Supreme Court’s gun ruling, among other things.

Most states allow people to carry guns outside the home but, to hear these libs tell it, the Supreme Court’s ruling is ushering in Armageddon.  TV talking head Keith Olbermann said the Supreme Court should be abolished. Libs in the Twitterverse said the Court’s goal is to create chaos and crime to usher in authoritarian government.  Sounds like liberal projection to me, given how libs love Antifa riots, burning cities, and want every criminal to go free.  Joy Reid accused the Court of wanting to “repeal the 20th century” because it actually paid attention to the Constitution.  By the way, Joy, the 20th century ended 22 years ago.  Elie Mystal said the Supreme Court just granted a “right to shoot people.”  Uh-huh.  Actor Rob Perlman said the Court’s decision is for whites only.  That’s crazy.  There was a whole book written about how Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders were all packing heat – for self-protection, the exact rationale the Court employed yesterday.  New York Governor Kathy Hochul trotted out the tired old argument the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.  That’s like saying free speech only applies to quill pens.  The Founders were well aware technology would advance.  That’s why they put patent protections in the Constitution, to promote scientific progress.  That Hochul would make such a stupid argument that can be demolished in two seconds shows you just how unhinged she is.

Let’s look at some other issues that have upended liberals’ mental equilibrium, lately.

A Democrat chief of staff on Capitol Hill hates Marjorie Taylor Greene so much he vandalized her office, not realizing he was being caught on camera the entire time. Oops.

In another case of Liberal Derangement Syndrome making people overlook the obvious, a climate protester tried to smear cream cake on the Mona Lisa, but it’s behind glass.  Nice try.

Unbalanced Squad member Jamaal Bowman honestly believes civil war will break out in this country if Republicans are elected in November.  I’d go, but I don’t think people should be allowed to carry guns outside the home.

Hillary Clinton said Trump supporters are a “clear and present danger to American democracy.”  That would include me.  This from a delusional woman who started the Trump/Russia collusion hoax and still thinks she won the 2016 election.  Calling Dr. Freud.

Speaking of mental illness, a totally bonkers woman made a video after paying $98 to fill up her gas tank blaming Biden’s inflation on the religious right. I’d ask you to see if you can follow that logic, but there isn’t any.

Antiracist guru Ibram X. Kendi is worried about his daughter who likes playing with a white doll.  He suspects her mind has already been taken over – colonized – by white supremacy.  The guy has a million bucks.  You’d think he could afford to buy his daughter a black doll, if that’s what he wants her to play with.

Buried in all this hilarity is a serious point: civil discourse in this country is suffering because liberals and Democrats are making themselves sick in the head, believing all kinds of nonsense.  I implore you, come back to reality.  I miss our long serious talks about the direction of the country, but you don’t seem to be capable of that, at the moment.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

The Supreme Court Stands Up For the Right to Self-Defense

The Supreme Court’s infamous 2007 decision DC vs Heller recognized that the Second Amendment established a right to bear arms in self-defense. But in the years since, the high court has hardly taken any gun rights cases further fleshing out this precedent—leaving loopholes states have exploited to restrict citizens’ right to self-defense.

No more.

In a seismic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court just struck down a New York scheme that heavily restricted citizens’ right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.

The New York policy in question was its “may issue” approach to concealed carry permit applications, which allow citizens to carry a concealed pistol on their person for self-defense. Many states have a permitting process—others have “constitutional carry”—but New York’s was particularly extreme. Not only did it require a basic background check and gun safety certification like many states do, it allowed government officials to deny the application unless the applicant could “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”

That’s right: It made a mockery of our rights and treated them as a privilege, only granting permits to celebrities or people who had explicitly been threatened. Living in a high-crime area or generally wanting to exercise your right to defend yourself wasn’t good enough. This was essentially a way the state worked around the Second Amendment to heavily limit our ability to bear arms.

Thankfully, Justice Clarence Thomas just took a flamethrower to this subjective, unjust system. The court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen strikes down the New York scheme and affirms that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home” without needing to accommodate the subjective whims of some bureaucrat.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Justice Thomas writes. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” the majority opinion concludes.

This is a big win for liberty.

The right to life is an inherent human right, and the right to defend your own life from would-be violence is inherent to that right. This is exactly what the Second Amendment was meant to enshrine. It’s great that the Supreme Court is at long last standing up for our inherent right to self-defense—and standing against petty bureaucrats who would leave us at their mercy.


Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED ARTICLE: New York’s Unconstitutional Gun Law Was Written By A Notorious, Corrupt Thug

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

TAKE ACTION: Ask U.S. Senators To Pass ‘The Stop It Now Act’ & Make School Shootings a Federal Crime!

It is time to act to stop school shootings. We have created a draft letter that readers can send to all U.S. Senators to pass laws to stop school shootings. We have title it The Stop It Now law.

What we have noticed is that politicians have a do something mentality when it comes to school shootings. But their do something legislation focuses on the weapon of choice of the killer and not the killer himself.

The Stop It Now law focuses on the killer and only the killer or potential killer or killers.


Dear Senator ___________________

I ask that you pass before Tuesday, November 8, 2022 a law to prevent violent criminals from attacking our most innocent and vulnerable, the children in our schools. We have seen too many children killed or maimed and criminals not getting tried rapidly and charged in a way that sends a clear signal that this type of attack will not be tolerated by you and your fellow Senators and members of Congress.

It’s past time to take action. 

I suggest calling this new legislation The Stop It Now Act.

The Stop It Now Act would:

  1. Make it a federal crime to plan to enter any school at any level with the intent to do harm to either students or teachers.
  2. If a person, or persons, does enter any school at any level with the intent to do harm to either students or teachers then that person, or persons, would be charged with a federal crime and if convicted with each count being a life sentence in a federal prison.
  3. If any person or persons does enter any school at any level and that person or persons harms or kills either a student or teacher then that person or persons are charged with a federal crime and if convicted are then executed by a means currently used to execute others, e.g. terrorists.
  4. That those who aid or abet a person or persons in carrying out an attack on any school with the knowledge that the person they aided had the intent to harm or kill a student or teacher be prosecuted under provisions 1 and 2 above.
  5. Repeal any and all “Gun Free Zones” federal legislation. Allow each state to decide how to best protect their students and teachers from those who wish to do harm to students and teachers at all levels.

I ask that you and your staff work across party lines to pass such legislation and have it signed by the president before Tuesday, November 8, 2022.



If you wish to alter this email please feel free to do so to add your thoughts and concerns. If you wish please cc us at

Below are the email addresses of the members of the the U.S. Senate, their staff and their campaign headquarters.

Just copy and past the list into the TO box of your email or if you just wish to contact your two senators just select their names.

NOTE: We also ask that you send a copy of the email to your member of congress.

EMAILS OF U.S. SENATORS AND STAFF;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Senate Republicans caving on gun control & amnesty for illegals to a party with a -30 Presidential Approval Index rating!

The below tweet remined us of these lyrics to a song by Stealer Wheel, “Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right.” It seems like déjà vu all over again.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.  On Tuesday, June 21st, 2022 the Biden Approval Index History  shows that 40% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove. The latest figures include 19% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 49% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -30.

QUESTION:  Why are Senate republicans caving on gun rights and giving illegal aliens amnesty?

ANSWER: They aren’t big “R” republicans.

President Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for Governor of California offered what he called the 11th Commandment. The 11th Commandment reads: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

Well, it seems that the time is now to violate Reagans’ 11th Commandment.

The Bottom Line

In our June 9th, 2022 column “It’s not that they have an ‘R’ behind their names it’s how they actually vote that counts!” we wrote:

We have learned over time that politicians who claim to be a republican once elected don’t vote like a big “R” Republican. The  editorial board got this message and showed how little “r’s” say one thing then do the exactly the opposite when introducing or voting on legislation.

 editorial board explains that the real election day is the mid-term primaries. The Editorial Board noted,

Republican voters only get one shot at purging the Republican Party of RINOs each election year and that date comes early – the August Primary election.

But most Republican voters don’t participate…. the Republican voter turnout is only around 30%. It is on August 23rd Republican voters decide the direction of the party when they choose between:

  • A RINO Establishment candidate who doesn’t adhere to the Republican Party Platform 


  • A Republican constitutional conservative candidate who embraces the Republican Party Platform

Do you have some Republican friends you can influence to actually go vote on August 23rd?

Do it.

Do it like your life depends on it. Because it does. When elected Republicans pass Democrat policies, your rights are immediately reduced. From gun rights to Covid restrictions, this is no joke.

August 23rd is your Election Day. 

It’s the primaries stupid! Get out and vote for a “BIG Rs” on August 23rd!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: After the Guns Were Confiscated, the Killing Fields Began

“Our Founding Fathers didn’t give us the Second Amendment for duck hunting or simply for self-protection in a country that at the time had a vast and yet unknown frontier. They bestowed it upon us so that we could protect our precious nation from devolving into tyranny as so many others have done.”

Watch this flashback video of Pamela Geller on the Dr. Drew Show debating gun control:

After the Guns Were Removed, the Killing Fields Began

By: J. William Middendorf, June 16, 2022

J. William Middendorf is a former secretary of the Navy and author of “The Great Nightfall: How We Win the New Cold War” (2020).

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed.

An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine.

Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.

Dictators throughout much of history have disarmed their populations before they began their mass killings. Examples abound beyond Mao: Hitler took guns from the Jews in November of 1938, and Kristallnacht and the Holocaust followed; and then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few.

Cuba and Gun Control

Everybody ought to have a gun, Castro maintained—until he took over Cuba in 1959. At a rally in Havana before he assumed power, he explained: “This is how democracy works: It gives rifles to farmers, to students, to women, to Negroes, to the poor, and to every citizen who is ready to defend a just cause.”

Weapons ranging from Czech submachine guns to Belgian FN automatic rifles were handed out to 50,000 soldiers, 400,000 militiamen, 100,000 members of the factory-guarding popular defense force, and to many men, women, and children in Cuba’s 1 million-strong “neighborhood vigilance committees.”

Immediately after assuming power in 1959, Castro changed his position, following Mao’s rule that guns should not be in the hands of the people.

For three weeks after the Castro government was formed, Radio Havana warned, “All citizens must turn in their combat weapons. Civilians must take arms to police stations, soldiers to military headquarters.”

Radio Havana’s explanation was somewhat contradictory: The guns were in bad shape anyway and the “struggle against our enemies requires a rigorous control of all combat weapons.”

There was an urgency about the new policy that suggested serious concern. Failure to turn in military weapons by Sept. 1, 1959, warned Radio Havana, would be punished not by criminal courts but by the dreaded Revolutionary Tribunals—those kangaroo courts that sentenced thousands of Cubans to death after Castro took over.

Venezuela and Gun Control  

Venezuela is now paying the price for allowing Chavez to implement the Mao rule when he came to power in 2012.

The shocking nature of an economic collapse that led Venezuela from being one of the richest countries in Latin America to one of the poorest has been well documented.

One aspect of the Venezuelan crisis that does not receive much coverage is the country’s gun control regime. All guns were outlawed when Chavez came to power, and harsh penalties were imposed on violators. The Venezuelan Armed Forces have exclusive power to control, register, and potentially confiscate firearms.

Many citizens now regret the repressive gun control legislation the Venezuelan government implemented in 2012. Naturally, this regret is warranted. The Venezuelan government is among the most tyrannical in the world, with a proven track record of violating basic civil liberties such as free speech, debasing its national currency, confiscating private property, and creating economic controls that destroy the country’s productivity.

Elections have proven to be useless, as they’ve been mired with corruption and charges of government tampering. For many, taking up arms is the only option left for the country to shake off its tyrannical government. But the Venezuelan government has prevented such an uprising with its draconian gun control.

These life-and-death lessons of history are lost on too many Americans. Our Founding Fathers didn’t give us the Second Amendment for duck hunting or simply for self-protection in a country that at the time had a vast and yet unknown frontier. They bestowed it upon us so that we could protect our precious nation from devolving into tyranny as so many others have done.

Politicians who respect the American ideal don’t try to diminish the Second Amendment or blame it for other ills of society that they have failed to solve, but rather embrace it as part of the legacy of rights that helps keep America free.



EXCLUSIVE: More Than A Dozen Republican AGs Demand Senators Reject Biden’s ‘Anti-Gun’ ATF Nominee

Five Major Cities on Pace to Pass High 2021 Homicide Totals Halfway Through 2022, UP 25% – All Run By Democrats

Muslim Privilege: Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Ismail Quran Under Investigation for Jew-Hating, Pro-Hitler Tweets

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WATCH: Sen. John Cornyn Booed By ENTIRE CROWD At Texas GOP Convention Over Surrender To Democrats On Guns

Booing is not enough. We must BOOT Cornyn and every treacherous RINO. The party has betrayed us again and again.

Sen. John Cornyn Booed At Texas GOP Convention Over Willingness To Surrender To Democrats On Guns

By: Jordan Boyd, The Federalist, June 17, 2022

Republican Sen. John Cornyn was booed by constituents in his home state at the Texas GOP convention on Friday for his role in leading negotiations with Democrats on federal gun restriction legislation.

From the moment Cornyn, one of 11 Republican senators including Senate Minority Mitch McConnell who have agreed to surrender to Democrats’ demands to impede the sale and purchase of guns, set foot on the GOP stage in Houston, he was met with hostile boos and jeers denouncing his support for a “bipartisan” bill that will likely include sweeping and constitutionally questionable measures such as problematic red flag laws.

During his speech littered with heckling, Cornyn once again found it difficult to praise the legislation created by Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy and instead opted to list off all of the proposals that he worked to exclude from the legislation.

“Democrats pushed for an assault weapons ban, I said no,” Cornyn said. “They tried to get a new three-week mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases, I said no. Universal background checks, magazine bans, licensing requirements, the list goes on and on and on. And I said no, no, 1,000 times no.”

Cornyn’s claims that he “will not under any circumstances support new restrictions for law-abiding citizens” were promptly rejected by the hostile crowd in the Lone Star State who repeatedly chanted “no red flags” and “don’t take our guns.”

The Federalist tried to reach Cornyn by calling his D.C. office, but the voicemail box was full. His communications director did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Cornyn took fire earlier this week from the Republican Party of Texas’ Platform Committee which unanimously approved a resolution rebuking Cornyn and every other Republican who voiced support for “the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill.”

In the past, Cornyn has bragged about his A+ rating from the National Rifle Association but the Republican resolution stated that raising the gun purchasing age, instituting red flag laws, and mandating waiting periods “is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights.”

After facing backlash from his party and his state, Cornyn recently signaled a hesitancy to sign the gun restriction legislation due to concerns over the “boyfriend loophole,” a provision that expands current law to ban boyfriends and girlfriends convicted of domestic violence from obtaining a gun, and a provision that could withhold funds from states that don’t pass red flag laws.

Read the rest….



ATF is revoking firearm licenses ‘at a rate of about 500% greater’ under Biden

VIDEO: Why Red Flag Laws are a Violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

“We Will Grill You.” California Pet Shop Announces They Won’t Give You a Pet Unless You Support Gun Control

The new rule is pretty egregious, but the owner makes one good point.

An animal shelter in California recently announced they will no longer be doing business with anyone who is against gun control. The organization, called Shelter Hope Pet Shop, is located in Thousand Oaks and owned by Kim Sill.

The shelter has a standard list of questions they ask potential adopters to make sure they will be able to take care of their new pet. For example, they ask about the home the pet will be living in, and they make sure the potential owner is at least 25 and can provide a current driver’s license.

However, as of May 31, a new question has been added to that list: “Where do you stand on gun control?” There is a right and wrong answer here. If you are pro gun control, they will continue to work with you. If you are against gun control, however, you will promptly be shown the door.

“We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons,” said Sill in an email announcing the change. “If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you.”

Sill explains in no uncertain terms just how serious she is about this.

“If you lie about being [an] NRA supporter, make no mistake, we will sue you for fraud. If you believe that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves in public places and arm ourselves with a gun–do not come to us to adopt a dog. We have a choice of who we work with. Shelter Hope chooses to work with only like-minded humans.”

“If you are pro guns and believe that no background check is necessary, then do not come to us to adopt,” she continues. “We will grill you before you even get an appointment and visit our rescue. If we ask you ‘do you care about children being gunned down in our schools?’ If you hesitate, because your core belief is that you believe teachers need to carry firearms, then you will not get approved to adopt from us. If you foster for us and believe in guns, please bring our dogs and/or cats back, or we will arrange to have them picked up.”

In an interview with NBC News, Sill mentioned that some of her Republican donors have already threatened to cut off funds if she doesn’t remove the pro-gun-control requirement.

“I say, fine, keep your money,” she said. “If I go out of business, as a result, I go out of business. But I have to do something. And this is the only thing I can do to make the point that mass killings by people armed with guns have to stop.”

The NRA weighed in on the move on Thursday. “Having this asinine political litmus test comes at the expense of needy and homeless dogs and cats,” said NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter.

While Sill’s position is certainly contentious and probably ill-advised, there’s one thing she gets absolutely right. “We have a choice of who we work with.”

Like it or not, she has a point. As the owner of the organization, it’s ultimately her right to decide who she wants to be associated with. The government has no business telling her she must serve everyone equally. Now, there are consequences for discriminating against people based on their political views, but she seems perfectly happy to accept those consequences.

The point is, this isn’t really about gun control. This is about freedom of association. Regardless of where you stand on the gun control issue, people like Sill should be allowed to pick and choose who they do business with. Fortunately, it doesn’t look like there are any laws prohibiting Sill’s actions at the moment. But that doesn’t mean freedom of association is alive and well.

The reality is, while freedom of association gets a lot of lip service, there are many circumstances where it is not upheld. Anti-discrimination laws are the prime example. It sounds nice to have a society where it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., but these laws are actually an infringement on people’s rights. What anti-discrimination laws mean in practice is that you aren’t allowed to choose who you do business with. In other words, you have no freedom of association.

The classic example of this is the gay wedding cake controversy. Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Absolutely not. Like everyone else, they should have the right to discriminate. Now, that doesn’t mean that their actions are necessarily moral or virtuous. It just means that the government shouldn’t be dictating how they run their business.

The same holds true for schools, or any other institution for that matter. Whether it’s on racial or other grounds, forced segregation is clearly wrong. But forced integration is also wrong. The problem in both cases is force. It’s not a question of segregation vs. integration, it’s a question of force vs. freedom. Organizations should have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, not because discrimination is always moral, but because that’s the only way to consistently uphold freedom of association.

Again, this is not to endorse racism, misogyny, or any of the other despicable worldviews that might lead someone to discriminate in this way. Tolerating something is very different from endorsing it, and our ability to live in a free society depends on our ability to grasp that distinction.

Sill’s decision to discriminate against those who believe in gun rights is pretty egregious. But if we want other people to respect our right to decide who we associate with, it’s only fair that we extend the same tolerance to them, even when we vehemently disagree with their choices.

This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.


Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why Red Flag Laws are a Violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments

Seems to me this recent May 17th, 2021 SCOTUS ruling in Caniglia v. Strom et al. could help in declaring Risk Protection Orders unconstitutional.  I’ve often stated they not only violate the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring Due Process but the 4th Amendment involving home invasion as well. Watch:

CANIGLIA v. STROM | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute  –


953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.


Syllabus Caniglia v. Strom et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit

No. 20–157. Argued March 24, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021

During an argument with his wife, petitioner Edward Caniglia placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked his wife to “shoot [him] and get it over with.” His wife instead left the home and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning, she was unable to reach her husband by phone, so she called the police to request a welfare check. The responding officers accompanied Caniglia’s wife to the home, where they encountered Caniglia on the porch. The officers called an ambulance based on the belief that Caniglia posed a risk to himself or others. Caniglia agreed to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation on the condition that the officers not confiscate his firearms. But once Caniglia left, the officers located and seized his weapons. Caniglia sued, claiming that the officers had entered his home and seized him and his firearms without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment to the officers. The First Circuit affirmed, extrapolating from the Court’s decision in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, a theory that the officers’ removal of Caniglia and his firearms from his home was justified by a “community caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement.
Held: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies such warrantless searches and seizures in the home. Cady held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the officers who patrol the “public highways” are often called to discharge noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. 413 U. S., at 441. But searches of vehicles and homes are constitutionally different, as the Cady opinion repeatedly stressed. Id., at 439, 440–442. The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right  of a person to retreat into his or her home and “there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Florida v. Jardines569 U. S. 1, 6. A recognition of the existence of “community caretaking” tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere. Pp. 3–4.

953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Alito, J., and Kavanaugh, J., filed concurring opinions.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sen. John Cornyn Gets Heckled By Texas GOP Amid Gun Control Negotiations

97.8% of Mass Shootings Are Linked to This

Do Psychiatric Meds and War Games Lead to Mass Shootings?


  • While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems
  • Gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem, because the more gun control laws that have been passed, the more mass shootings have occurred
  • 97.8% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” as the perpetrators know legally armed citizens won’t be there to stop them
  • Depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings really take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants
  • Antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are well-known for their ability to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence

While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems.

An article written by Molly Carter, initially published on at an unknown date1 and subsequently republished by The Libertarian Institute in May 2019,2 and in late January 2021,3 noted:

“According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter … during a single incident …

Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs … the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response — they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed ‘solutions’ on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.

Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are NOT the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.

Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting ‘gun-free zones,’ where they know civilian carry isn’t available to law-abiding Americans, is happening.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center,4 97.8% of public shootings occur in ‘gun-free zones’ – and ‘gun-free zones’ are the epitome of the core philosophical tenet of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence …

This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings — mental health and prescription drugs.

Ignoring what’s going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times: ‘But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.’”

The Elephant in the Room: Antidepressants

Thoughts, emotions and a variety of environmental factors play into the manifestation of violence, but mental illness by itself cannot account for the massive rise in mass murder — unless you include antidepressants in the equation. Yet even when mental health does enter the mass shooter discussion, the issue of antidepressants, specifically, is rarely mentioned.

The fact is, depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants.

Prozac, released in 1987, was the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to be approved for depression and anxiety. Only two years earlier, direct-to-consumer advertising had been legalized. In the mid-1990s, the Food and Drug Administration loosened regulations, direct-to-consumer ads for SSRIs exploded and, with it, prescriptions for SSRIs.

In 1989, just two years after Prozac came to market, Joseph Wesbecker shot 20 of his coworkers, killing nine. He had been on Prozac for one month, and the survivors of the drug-induced attack sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac. Since then, antidepressant use and mass shootings have both risen, more or less in tandem.

In the two decades between 1988 and 2008, antidepressant use in the U.S. rose by 400%,5 and by 2010, 11% of the U.S. population over the age of 12 were on an antidepressant prescription.6

In 1982, pre-Prozac, there was one mass shooting in the U.S.7 In 1984, there were two incidents and in 1986 — the year Prozac was released — there was one. One to three mass shootings per year remained the norm up until 1999, when it jumped to five.

How can we possibly ignore the connection between rampant use of drugs known to directly cause violent behavior and the rise in mass shootings?

Another jump took place in 2012, when there were seven mass shootings. And while the annual count has gone up and down from year to year, there’s been a clear trend of an increased number of mass shootings post-2012. Over time, mass shootings have also gotten larger, with more people getting injured or killed per incident.8

How can we possibly ignore the connection between rampant use of drugs known to directly cause violent behavior and the rise in mass shootings? Suicidal ideation, violence and homicidal ideation are all known side effects of these drugs. Sometimes, the drugs disrupt brain function so dramatically the perpetrator can’t even remember what they did.

For example, in 2001, a 16-year-old high schooler was prescribed Effexor, starting off at 40 milligrams and moving up to 300 mg over the course of three weeks. On the first day of taking a 300-mg dose, the boy woke up with a headache, decided to skip school and went back to bed.

Some time later, he got up, took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage at gunpoint. He later claimed he had no recollection of anything that happened after he went back to bed that morning.9

The Risks Are Clear

The risks of psychiatric disturbances are so clear, ever since mid-October 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. must include a black box warning that the drug can cause suicidal thoughts and behaviors, especially in those younger than 25, and that:10

“Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility (aggressiveness), impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.”

SSRIs can also cause emotional blunting and detachment, such that patients report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything or anyone, as well as psychosis and hallucinations. All of these side effects can contribute to someone acting out an unthinkable violent crime.

In one review11,12 of 484 drugs in the FDA’s database, 31 were found to account for 78.8% of all cases of violence against others, and 11 of those drugs were antidepressants.

The researchers concluded that violence against others was a “genuine and serious adverse drug event” and that of the drugs analyzed, SSRI antidepressants and the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), had the strongest associations. The top-five most dangerous SSRIs were:13

  • Fluoxetine (Prozac), which increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
  • Paroxetine (Paxil), which increased violent behavior 10.3 times
  • Fluvoxamine (Luvox), which increased violent behavior 8.4 times
  • Venlafaxine (Effexor), which increased violent behavior 8.3 times
  • Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), which increased violent behavior 7.9 times

Depression Is Vastly Overdiagnosed

In her article, Carter also reviewed the clinical determinants for a diagnosis of clinical depression warranting medication. To qualify, you must experience five or more of the following symptoms, most of the day, every day, for two weeks or more, and the symptoms must be severe enough to interfere with normal everyday functioning:14

Sadness Anxiety
Feeling hopeless Feeling worthless
Feeling helpless Feeling ’empty’
Feeling guilty Irritable
Fatigue Lack of energy
Loss of interest in hobbies Slow talking and moving
Restlessness Trouble concentrating
Abnormal sleep patterns, whether sleeping too much or not enough Abnormal weight changes, either eating too much or having no appetite
Thoughts of death or suicide

The reality is that a majority of patients who receive a depression diagnosis and subsequent prescription for an antidepressant do not, in fact, qualify. In one study,15 only 38.4% actually met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria, and among older adults, that ratio was even lower. Only 14.3% of those aged 65 and older met the diagnostic criteria. According to the authors:16

“Participants who did not meet the 12-month MDE criteria reported less distress and impairment in role functioning and used fewer services. A majority of both groups, however, were prescribed and used psychiatric medications.

Conclusion: Depression overdiagnosis and overtreatment is common in community settings in the USA. There is a need for improved targeting of diagnosis and treatments of depression and other mental disorders in these settings.”

What Role Might War Games Play?

Aside from antidepressants, another factor that gets ignored is the influence of shooting simulations, i.e., violent video games. How does the military train soldiers for war? Through simulations. With the proliferation of video games involving indiscriminate violence, should we really be surprised when this “training” is then put into practice?As reported by World Bank Blogs, young men who experience violence “often struggle to reintegrate peacefully into their communities” when hostilities end.17 While American youth typically have little experience with real-world war, simulated war games do occupy much of their time and may over time color their everyday perceptions of life. As noted by Centrical, some of the top benefits of simulations training include:18

  1. Allowing you to practice genuine real-life scenarios and responses
  2. Repetition of content, which boosts knowledge retention
  3. Personalization and diversification, so you can learn from your mistakes and evaluate your performance, thereby achieving a deeper level of learning

In short, violent mass shooter games are the perfect training platform for future mass shooters. Whereas a teenager without such exposure might not be very successful at carrying out a mass shooting due to inexperience with weapons and tactics, one who has spent many hours, years even, training in simulations could have knowledge akin to that of military personnel.

Add antidepressant side effects such as emotional blunting and loss of impulse control, and you have a perfect prescription for a mass casualty event.

On top of that, we, as a nation, also demonstrate the “righteousness” of war by engaging in them without end.19 When was the last time the U.S. was not at war someplace? It’s been ongoing for decades.

Even now, the U.S. insists on inserting itself into the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and diplomacy isn’t the chosen conflict resolution tool. Sending weapons to Ukraine and calling for more violence against Russians are. Sen. Lindsey Graham has even called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Showing just how serious such a suggestion is, the White House had to publicly disavow it, stating Graham’s comment “is not the position of the U.S. government.”20

Graham, meanwhile, does not appear to understand how his nonchalant call for murder might actually incite murder. In the wake of the Uvalde school shooting, he now wants to mobilize retired service members to enhance security at schools, and while that might be a good idea, how about also vowing never to call for the murder of political opponents? Don’t politicians understand that this could translate into some kid thinking it’s acceptable to murder THEIR perceived opponents?

As far as I can tell, mass shootings have far more to do with societal norms, dangerous medications, a lack of high-quality mental health services, and the normalization of violence through entertainment and in politics, than it does with gun laws per se.

There are likely many other factors as well, but these are clearly observable phenomena known to nurture violent behavior. I’m afraid Americans are in need of a far deeper and more introspective analysis of the problem than many are capable of at the moment. But those who can should try, and make an effort to affect much-needed change locally and in their own home.

Sources and References

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

JULY 4TH TREASON: Gaggle of 11 Republicans Join Biden To Gut the Second Amendment

“Biden’s America is becoming a mirror image of Trudeau’s Canada when it comes to gun control.” ― Dr. Richard M. Swier, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” ― Adolf Hitler

Frank Gaffney in a podcast titled The Senate GOP’s “White Flag” initiative stated,

A gaggle of Republican Senators have just agreed with Democratic counterparts that the something they are prepared to do in response to recent mass shootings is adopt a national ‘Red Flag’ law. As a result, in the name of preventing deplorable, but random, acts of “gun violence,” every American could be one anonymous denunciation away from having their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms eliminated.

This legislation is scheduled to be passed by July 4th, 2022. If it does then American independence is lost. 

Listen to Gaffney’s statement.

Royal A. Brown III, an expert on Florida’s Red Flag law, wrote this about Republican senators joining in the efforts by Biden and Democrats to pass a national Red Flag law,

Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) attended the initial discussions that started on Thursday. As governor of Florida, Scott implemented red flag laws and raised the age to own a rifle to 21 after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

On June 12th, 2022 U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Cory Booker (D- N.J.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) issued the following statement:

Today, we are announcing a commonsense, bipartisan proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country. Families are scared, and it is our duty to come together and get something done that will help restore their sense of safety and security in their communities. Our plan increases needed mental health resources, improves school safety and support for students, and helps ensure dangerous criminals and those who are adjudicated as mentally ill can’t purchase weapons. Most importantly, our plan saves lives while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense proposal into law.

Royal A. Brown III also warns let’s also not forget the following facts:

  • The ex parte Risk Protection Order (RPO) is issued without notice to the respondent and can occur 24 x 7. This is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
  • The “hearing” at which the respondent is present does not take place until 2 weeks after the seizure (this is not Due Process under the 5th and 14th amendments).
  • This process does not recognize the principle of law that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
  • The rules of evidence do not involve “beyond reasonable doubt” but rather “reasonable suspicion” that the respondent may be a threat.
  • Florida’s law calls for the respondent to be immediately entered into the state and federal criminal data bases (even though the RPO is supposedly a civil and not a criminal process, e.g. no crime has been committed). There is no provisions to remove the respondent found innocent from these lists.
  • An RPO can be issued up to a year after reporting a person as a threat.
  • If a respondent is found to be not a threat there are no provisions for prompt return of his/her firearms, ammo, permit nor that this property be returned in the same condition as when seized.
  • Since June 2018 when this law went into effect in Floirda of the over 5,000 RPOs issued, approximately 13% or 650 of those accused respondents have been found not to be a threat at the after the fact hearing – this is far too many and demonstrates 3 possibilities – the accusers lied and/or the law enforcement sending the petition to Judges did not conduct a through investigation and/or the Judges rubber stamp these petitions. Not one of the false accusers have been charged with the 3rd degree misdemeanor called for in the law.
  • This law also facilitates the muting of 1st Amendment law of freedom of speech as people become fearful of stating anything that could be misconstrued as a threat.
  • Furthermore, this law can easily be misused as a weapon against political opponents.

Add to this the fact that Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) warned that Federal Firearms Licenses are being denied at a rate of 500%,

“Federal Firearms Licensees are being denied renewals or their licenses are being taken away at a rate of about 500% greater since Biden was in office [than in] previous years,” Clyde said during a Second Amendment Caucus press conference.

“So it is definitely obvious that the Biden administration is targeting Federal Firearms Licensees because they are the link between manufacturers and people being able to access their Second Amendment rights,” he said.

Clyde, a federal firearms licensee who owns a store in his Athens district called “Clyde Armory,” said that “the motto of my company is we enable individual participation in the preservation of liberty” by giving people access to guns.

Here is Brad Polumbo reacting to 4 gun control tweets that’ll make you’re brain hurt.

The Bottom Line

In America there are approximated 102.5 legal firearms for every 100 citizens. These owners of firearms have an estimated 1 trillion+ rounds of ammunition.

I took an oath as a young Army officer when I was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in 1967 to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That oath doesn’t expire until I do. I and millions of others have taken that same oath. We the people will abide by it.

Jeff Cooper in 1997 book Art of the Rifle wrote,

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

We fully agree. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy or girl with a gun.

On Monday, July 4th, 2022 Americans will be celebrating Independence Day. If this Red Flag law passes the U.S. Senate it may be the last day of our independence and/or the first day of the second American Revolution.

Gird your loins. A war is coming to America.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Sen. John Cornyn Gets Heckled By Texas GOP Amid Gun Control Negotiations

ANOTHER RINO CAVES: Cornyn Joins Democrats in Crushing Second Amendment Rights

Trudeau says guns are not to be used for self-defense in Canada

RELATED VIDEO: The Bipartisan D.C. Gun Grab Is Coming | The Charlie Kirk Show

ATF is revoking firearm licenses ‘at a rate of about 500% greater’ under Biden

Federal firearms dealers are getting their licenses revoked or not renewed by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms at a much greater rate since President Biden first came to office, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) said Wednesday.

Rep. Andrew Clyde says ATF is revoking firearm licenses ‘at a rate of about 500% greater’ under Biden


“Federal Firearms Licensees are being denied renewals or their licenses are being taken away at a rate of about 500% greater since Biden was in office [than in] previous years,” Clyde said during a Second Amendment Caucus press conference.

“So it is definitely obvious that the Biden administration is targeting Federal Firearms Licensees because they are the link between manufacturers and people being able to access their Second Amendment rights,” he said.

Clyde, a federal firearms licensee who owns a store in his Athens district called “Clyde Armory,” said that “the motto of my company is we enable individual participation in the preservation of liberty” by giving people access to guns.

“They enable individual participation in the preservation of liberty, because that’s the only way a person, other than making one themselves, can get a firearm in his hands through a manufacturer is through a Federal Firearms Licensee,” he said. “So if you cut out the Federal Firearms Licensees, then you have denied the American citizens their right to keep in bear arms through not being able to buy a gun. So it’s a problem.”

According to Alan Gottlieb at the Second Amendment Foundation, his organization gets many calls from FFL’s every week telling his group the same story.

“Not so much just a revocation [of an FFl license], but also a fine and just being harassed. There’s a lot more of that going on under the Biden restriction than ever before,” Gottlieb said. “The last time anybody really did anything like that was under Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton figured less guns would be sold if there were less FFL dealers to start with, and so he went out to shrink the number of FFL’s.”

The National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Affairs says that Mr. Biden’s administration is running “Clinton playbook again – operating a ‘zero tolerance’ policy that is shuttering FFLs over trivial violations. This sort of schizophrenic policy-making could give the impression that this ‘strategy’ has been motivated by anti-gun politics rather than concerns about violent crime.”

©TFNTEAM. All rights reserved.

TAKE ACTION: Sarasota, Florida GOP HQ Vandalized! Hate Has No Home Here!

Help Catch The Thug. Share On Facebook.

A Leftist – possessing weapons and zip ties on his way to commit an assassination – was recently arrested outside the home of a Conservative Supreme Court Justice. Outside of some brief initial coverage, the attempted assassination faded from the headlines FAST.

Locally – A Leftist Antifa and anti-2nd Amendment Thug vandalized our Sarasota GOP HQ in the middle of the night (photos below). No coverage by the local media.

PHOTO 1: Picture of vandal.

PHOTO 2: Graffiti 

PHOTO 3: Graffiti 

Isn’t it strange that when Democrats are the victims it seems to marinade in the press, while Conservatives get little to no coverage?

Future suggestion: When we are attacked, we will make it clear to the press that we are identifying as Liberal Democrats during the attack. I suspect that will help us receive some fair media coverage.

Help Catch The Thug. Share On Facebook.

©Christian Ziegler. All rights reserved.

You REALLY Want Federal Gun Control Intervention? Well, Here’s an Idea for You…

Word is that the Senate has the necessary votes for federal gun control legislation designed to, among other things, pressure states into instituting “red flag” laws. These measures are controversial because they involve suspending a person’s rights (i.e., seizing his weapons) without due process. Wherever you stand on them and federal firearms laws in principle, however, a simple fact is under-emphasized in this debate: Laws mean little if not enforced.

What’s more, they’re actually instruments of evil if only enforced to the degree where good people will comply.

Here’s another fact: Corresponding to the general unwillingness among left-wing district attorneys to punish criminals (who aren’t also political opponents), these officials, though claiming firearms are a plague, aren’t punishing most gun crimes. Odd, huh?

An archetypical example is Philadelphia D.A. Larry Krasner. His office withdrew or dismissed 65 percent of gun charges last year, up from 17 percent in 2015. This, along with his characteristic reluctance to hold miscreants to account, explains why the “City of Brotherly Love” had 559 murders in 2021 — an all time record. And, again, his misfeasance reflects that of left-wing prosecutors nationwide.

Thus, if there must be federal gun-oriented intervention (which I’m against), it’s obvious what it should be:

Make localities’ and/or states’ receipt of federal funds contingent upon their adequate enforcement of violent-crime laws — in particular, gun laws.

There you have it. Are you listening, Mitch McConnell?

Unlike what’s currently being proposed, this measure actually would make a difference. It’s not radical within the context of today’s governmental norms, either. After all, the current “bipartisan” gun bill provides “incentives” for states to implement red-flag laws; even more to the point, the Biden administration is apparently threatening to withhold school lunch money from districts that don’t effect the pseudo-elites’ MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, aka “transgender”) agenda. Of course, using federal-funding retention as cudgel with which to impose Washington’s will has long been status quo.

I’ll reiterate that I don’t believe in such strong-arm tactics; in fact, the central government is meant to be a mere agent of the states and should get precious little tax money. But if the feds are going to call the tune with their pay-the-piper power, what better cause than compelling feckless localities to enforce the laws that really matter and save lives?

Earlier this month, more than 170 “big city mayors” met in Reno, Nevada, to kvetch about how they “fear sweeping gun limits are out of reach,” as The New York Times put it.

What misdirection.

What deflection.

What nerve.

What phonies.

Crime isn’t skyrocketing nationwide because firearm laws have changed (they haven’t), but because the law-enforcers have changed.

Enforcement of local laws makes far more sense than any one-size-fits-all policy, too, as crime is not an evenly distributed phenomenon. Consider that more than half of 2016’s murders occurred in just certain parts of two percent of our land’s counties, and 68 percent of the homicides were committed in only small pockets of five percent of the counties.

Oh, these would be exclusively, or almost all, Democrat areas.

In contrast and on average, “73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders from 1977 to 2000,” reported Fox News in 2017. (These would generally be GOP areas.)

In other words, we don’t have a “gun problem.”

We have a Democrat population/governance problem.

What’s so disgusting about enacting more laws but not strictly enforcing those on the books, especially the important ones, is that only good people are affected. They tend to follow laws even when enforcement is lax and punishment for violation is minimal; miscreants won’t without the threat of Draconian measures.

So ponder the vicious circle here:

  • You don’t enforce just laws.
  • Crime consequently proliferates.
  • There’s then a drumbeat for more laws, which take away good people’s freedom but also won’t be enforced on evildoers.
  • Crime then rises further leading to a call for even more laws, and, well….

You get the idea. Wash, rinse, repeat — and soon few freedoms remain. Of course, were you conspiracy minded (perish the thought), you might fancy this the whole point of this seemingly pointless exercise.

As for you politicians, federal and otherwise, focus on enforcing existing laws or forever hold your peace. ’Cause with the way your pet criminals are running wild, a good citizen certainly has to hold his piece.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.