Booing is not enough. We must BOOT Cornyn and every treacherous RINO. The party has betrayed us again and again.
US Sen John Cornyn gets viciously booed during much of his speech here at the Republican Party of Texas Convention. Here’s his closing remarks and the cascade of boos. pic.twitter.com/m2Hua9WdrV
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-06-20 08:05:182022-06-20 08:29:29WATCH: Sen. John Cornyn Booed By ENTIRE CROWD At Texas GOP Convention Over Surrender To Democrats On Guns
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.
The Right to Discriminate
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 has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-06-18 15:35:042022-06-18 15:35:04“We Will Grill You.” California Pet Shop Announces They Won’t Give You a Pet Unless You Support Gun Control
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:
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.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
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. Jardines, 569 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.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2022-06-17 12:13:102022-06-18 16:01:00VIDEO: Why Red Flag Laws are a Violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
Do Psychiatric Meds and War Games Lead to Mass Shootings?
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
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 ammo.com at an unknown date1 and subsequently republished by The Libertarian Institute in May 2019,2 and psychreg.org 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
Allowing you to practice genuine real-life scenarios and responses
Repetition of content, which boosts knowledge retention
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MERCOLA Take Control of Your Healthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMERCOLA Take Control of Your Health2022-06-16 06:39:582022-06-16 06:47:3597.8% of Mass Shootings Are Linked to This
“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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-06-15 06:48:092022-06-18 15:59:08JULY 4TH TREASON: Gaggle of 11 Republicans Join Biden To Gut the Second Amendment
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.
“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.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-06-15 05:59:262022-06-15 05:59:26ATF is revoking firearm licenses ‘at a rate of about 500% greater’ under Biden
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.
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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Christian Zieglerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChristian Ziegler2022-06-14 15:54:472022-06-14 15:58:11TAKE ACTION: Sarasota, Florida GOP HQ Vandalized! Hate Has No Home Here!
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 Timesput 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.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2022-06-14 15:28:082022-06-14 15:29:22You REALLY Want Federal Gun Control Intervention? Well, Here’s an Idea for You…
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.
“I sat down with Rick yesterday to ask him how he got that [law] passed and how impactful he thought it would be,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said in an interview with Politico. “I think it ought to be done at the state level,” Scott responded. Murphy believes federal legislation on red flag laws could involve grants that assist states in implementing the policy.
Grants mean money and should not be an incentive or deciding factor for passing State Red Flag Laws.
Scott denied discussing “gun-related legislation” in his talks with Murphy. “Senator Scott is focused on how we can continue to make schools safe,” Scott’s spokesman said. Yet his presence at the bipartisan discussions held today raises an important question: Is there a compromise on red flag laws in the works?
Scott did us no favors in signing the FL Red Flag Law with its age restrictions on 18-20 year olds owning/possessing long guns and its unconstitutional Risk Protection Order taking up 48 pages of the 152 page law (SB 7026) and modeled after Oregon’s draconian law. As written this law does not provide Due Process. How can a seizure 2 weeks before a hearing be considered Due Process. We already had methods to seize guns including the Baker Act, Marchman Law and Court Injunctions where violence occurs. SB 7026 passed by only 1 vote in FL Senate and our own Senator Keli Stargel was the deciding vote.
In Florida, a petition for a risk protection order must be filed to start the process of removing guns from an individual’s possession. Once a petition is filed, the petitioner and respondent attend hearings to argue whether the order should be issued. “Such petition for a risk protection order does not require either party to be represented by an attorney,” according to Florida’s legal code.
If a person cannot afford a lawyer, he or she is not appointed one.
The quote highlighted in italics above is a gross misrepresentation. Law enforcement file the petition and are represented by their attorney at the hearing. In fact, some counties, like Polk have had so many RPO petitions filed that they have hired extra attorneys on contract to handle the cases. The respondent, on the other hand, must hire their own attorney if they expect to win against the accusation they may be a threat to themselves or other(s) sometime in the future.
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.
FL’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 LE 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.
We don’t need Red Flag Laws to provide desperate gun control. What we need are common sense actions I previously addressed in a Call to Action 060322 against more Gun Control.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2022-06-13 15:43:422022-06-15 06:23:19Red Flag Laws now in the U.S. Senate
Bill Maher thinks Hollywood is partially responsible for gun violence in America.
Following multiple horrific mass shootings in America, people have been debating and trying to figure out ways to solve the issue. Maher thinks Hollywood should take a hard look in the mirror.
'Bullet Through Your Head': Florida Sheriff Issues Stern Warning To Potential School Shooters https://t.co/RdPCrJDaR1
“It’s funny. Hollywood is the wokest place on Earth, and every other area of social responsibility. They have intimacy coordinators on set to chaperone sex scenes. They hire sensitivity readers to go through and read scripts. Disney stood up to the “Don’t Say Gay” law. Another studio spent $10 million to digitally remove Kevin Spacey from a movie. But when it comes to the unbridled romanticization of gun violence, crickets,” Maher said during the Friday night episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.”
You can listen to his full comments below.
Honestly, I understand what Maher is saying, but I hate blaming movies and video games for gun violence. Personally, it seems like a cop out and an easy excuse to blame.
Think about how many people watch violent movies and play violent video games every year. It’s probably a number that is borderline impossible to calculate.
'Kill You': Florida Sheriff Issues Blunt Warning To School Shooters In Awesome Video https://t.co/vSVWGbk9vb
Yet, we don’t see massacres every single day. If violent movies were truly the motivating factor, we’d probably see a lot more violence than we do. That’s just my humble opinion, but that is how I see it.
Now, is Hollywood full of massive hypocrites on guns? Without a doubt. They want to disarm you while promoting guns in movies in order to get rich.
It’s beyond sickening, but that’s a bit of a different point than what Maher was making.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-06-12 06:36:342022-06-13 15:09:15Bill Maher Rips Hollywood For Promoting The ‘Romanticization Of Gun Violence’
“You may remember, the last time we did something serious about guns was when I passed the Assault Opens [sic] Ban, I was the guy that sponsored that, got it passed, limiting a number of bullets that could be in a magazine, the whole background checks, a whole range of things. And we passed and violent crime and gun crime dropped off, but I could only get it pass for 10 years, it had to be reauthorized.” – Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. on Jimmy Kimmel Live June 8th, 2022
Other studies, including two published in 2020, reached similar conclusions.
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 world didn’t end. People kept their (other) guns. They bought new guns. It was hardly an attack on gun ownership.
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.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-06-11 16:06:112022-06-11 16:06:11The Federal Government’s Own Study Concluded Its Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ Didn’t Reduce Gun Violence
This is not about two political parties with different ideas. This is treason and treachery on an epic scale. There can be no ‘co-existing’ with murderers, looters, destroyers. And that is what the Democrat party is and what they stand for.
For the past decade, America’s urban centres have been increasingly run by ‘progressive’ activists. Yet today, as US cities reel from collapsed economies, rising crime and pervasive corruption, there’s something of a revolt brewing, the success of which may well determine the role and trajectory of our great urban centres.
This emerging conflict is coming to a head next week in Los Angeles, the US’s second-largest city, in the Democratic primaries for LA mayor. Next week’s vote is likely to lead to a head-to-head between moderate billionaire developer Rick Caruso and progressive congressperson Karen Bass, once considered a potential vice-president for Joe Biden. On the same day, ultra-liberal San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin faces a potential recall amid rising crime rates.
The possible shift towards the centre reflects a move back to more traditional urban policies, particularly on crime and homelessness. It’s not Republicans leading the charge against ultra-progressive policies, either. It is African American, Democratic mayors like Houston’s Sylvester Turner and New York’s Eric Adams.
Even the denizens of left-leaning cities are rethinking progressivism. Last year, Austin – Texas’ blue capital – rescinded provisions, backed by progressives, that allowed vast homeless encampments to spring up across the city. Earlier this year, similarly left-leaning Seattle removed its ultra-progressive district attorney and Buffalo voters defeated a socialist-backed Democrat in favour of a moderate African American. Even in San Francisco, progressive school-board members were overwhelmingly defeated in February 2022 – an ominous development for Boudin’s chances next week.
We could be seeing the beginning of a sea change in urban politics. Not long ago, Republicans were still competitive in urban areas, although larger cities have generally trended Democratic. In 1995, America’s 20 largest cities were evenly divided by party, but today Democrats control 16 out of the 20 largest cities. In the 1990s and 2000s, cities elected successful, pragmatic mayors from both parties – such as Bob Lanier and Bill White in Houston, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg in New York, and Richard Riordan in Los Angeles – who focused on reducing crime, encouraging enterprise and improving basic city services.
Gun sales are flying off the shelves in Canada so fast that many stores are “selling out altogether after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced gun control legislation freezing all pistol purchases.” But something else is happening.Trudeau is now defending another piece of legislation before Parliament that will reduce sentencing requirements for serious gun crimes. The contradiction may seem peculiar to those who haven’t been following Justin Trudeau.
First of all, potential gun owners are properly screened in Canada, so there was no need for tighter gun legislation in the country in the first place.
Trudeau’s ban was announced on the heels of the Texas mass murder, during which Texas police actually stopped parents from trying to go in and save their children. Some Uvalde parents who were armed and ready to storm the school, but were blocked by armed police who refused to go in themselves.
Trudeau branded his gun ban as a safety issue: “Keeping Canadians safe is the Government of Canada’s top priority.” But does Trudeau really care about the safety of Canadians? Trudeau threw out a welcome mat for Islamic State jihadists, and continues a lax immigration policy that provides a perfect opportunity for jihadists and the worst criminals to enter Canada. Yet he touts his commitment to keeping Canadians safe. Trudeau has also faced ethics violations for misusing taxpayer funds. Watch how Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre humiliated and cornered him about his crookedness and breach of the Ethics Act HERE. Trudeau isn’t a man that engenders trust.
Tighter gun controls are feel-good measures employed by Leftist politicians who hijack tragedies to boost their popularity. They do not work. One need only look to Chicago and Washington, DC, with their high rates of violent crime; both are among the strictest jurisdictions for gun laws in America.
Chicago earned the nickname Chiraqto reflect the intensity of its gun violence – comparing the city to the war zone of Iraq. “60% of the guns recovered in Chicago were originally purchased out of state, with Indiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin among the top suppliers.” But Chicago’s violence is driven by illegal guns. Chicago police “recover at least 10,000 firearms every year,” yet “there are zero gun stores within city limits.”
Britain saw knife crime soar in 2020, showing further that it isn’t guns and knives that are activating themselves; it’s disturbed human beings and criminals who are using them.
Leftist leaders continue to push policies that are detrimental to national security, the rule of law, life, the nuclear family, racial harmony, the economy and mental health; yet they scream about gun control in the societies that they helped to destroy.
Gun bans have never worked. Hitler took guns away in Germany, then murdered millions of Jews. Stalin also took guns away, and then murdered millions. Ditto for the worst mass murderer in history, Mao Zedong. Castro also disarmed his population and massacred his own people.
While Trudeau pretends to care about Canada in his move to take away guns from law-abiding citizens, he is merely politicking. His simultaneous reduction of sentences for serious gun crimes is supposedly in service of “racial equity,” which is a real slap in the face to law-abiding blacks and aboriginals. As the Toronto Sun points out:
The prime minister is defending a bill his government has before Parliament to reduce sentencing requirements for gun crimes, saying it’s about racial equity. “What our communities need is a justice system that punishes criminals. What we do not need is a system that targets racialized people because of systemic discrimination.”
Despite Trudeau’s incompetence, dishonesty, ethical infractions, and divisive politics, there is one event that put him on the map globally: the Freedom Convoy. He insulted concerned Canadians before the world as showing “’disrespect to science’ and championing ‘hate, abuse and racism.” Of course, he ignored the many visible minorities and religious groups who took part in the protests. And even prior to Canada’s Freedom Convoy, Lifesite News published the headline: Canada is sinking into totalitarianism. The evidence is overwhelming. It is also worth noting that Trudeau stated during the trucker protests that police requested need for the Emergencies Act to be invoked. But it was recently revealed that he lied. The Emergencies Act was not requested by police.
Canada is not only sinking into totalitarianism. It is sinking into complete decay: economically, socially and in regard to the rule of law.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-06-08 08:59:252022-06-11 07:05:57Trudeau bans handgun sales, and now he’s fighting to lessen penalty for major gun crime
I had already debunked this completely misleading claim from the CDC even before it spread widely and before Biden incorporated it into his gun control speech.
After the Uvalde school shooting, the CDC and the media are pushing a misleading claim that, “firearms were the leading cause of death for kids one and older for the first time in 2020.”
There’s no statistical reason for the CDC to group infants and teenagers together into the same category except to push a gun control agenda. 1-year-olds and 19-year-olds don’t have much in common when it comes to gun violence. And when the numbers are broken down, teenagers have catastrophically high murder and suicide rates, while babies are much less affected.
The CDC’s letter to the New England Journal of Medicine claims that “in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death” for “persons 1 to 19 years of age”.
The CDC buries the salient data in its appendix. It claims that the “increase was seen across most demographic characteristics”. Its own data however shows a massive increase among black teens and a fairly limited one among most other groups.
Nevertheless, in his gun control address, Biden pushed an even worse version of the same claim.
“According to new data just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns are the number one killer of children in the United States of America. The number one killer. More than car accidents.”
Fairly few children are actually killed by guns.
Any statistical category that tops out at 19 years old obviously can’t be characterized as “children”. The majority of deaths in that category involve teenagers and gang activity.
While gun and motor vehicle deaths increased substantially in 2020, the latest year final numbers were available, claims that more children and teens die due to guns than motor vehicles only hold up when 18- to 19-year-olds are included, a group that accounts for nearly as many gun deaths as 1 to 17-year-olds combined do, according to an NBC News analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The gap between vehicular deaths and firearm deaths is narrowing among 1 to 17-year-olds, and may close entirely, according to the CDC’s provisional and incomplete 2021 data…
Provisional data from 2021 shows a gap of 9 deaths separating vehicle fatalities from firearm deaths among children.
A key difference though is that while gun deaths are heavily concentrated among black teens in inner cities, car accidents are widely dispersed. This is the same issue as the mischaracterization of widespread AIDS risk in the eighties. The school shootings are the Ryan White of risk assessment. The data here is skewed by a very high rate of fatalities among a very narrow demographic.
The Johns Hopkins report on gun deaths in 2020 put out last month was much more revealing.
It had the numbers that should have been front and center at the CDC, such as, “In 2020, one out of every 1,000 young Black males (15–34) was shot and killed.”
Even though young black males only make up “2% of the total population”, they account for “38% of all gun homicide fatalities” with a gun homicide rate “almost 21 times higher than white males of the same age group.”
“More than half of all black teens (15–19) who died in 2020—a staggering 52%—were killed by gun violence,” it shockingly observes.
So you have a very high death rate among 2% of the population that’s being narrative laundered to make it seem as if all of America’s kids are at risk.
Guns are the number one killer of black teens. But then again black men are unique in that they’re the only group for whom murder is the top cause of death.
Homicide doesn’t even make the CDC’s top 10 causes of death for men in America, but it’s number four for black men. In 2017, it caused 5% of the deaths of black men, more than strokes, diabetes, or most diseases. The only things more likely to kill black men than black-on-black crime are heart disease, cancer, and accidents.
Among black men under the age of 20, homicide is the leading cause of death at 35.3%.
It’s also the leading cause of death for black men from 20-44 years old at 27.6%.
Only at the age of 65 does homicide drop out of the top 10 causes of death for black men.
So all that the number Biden is quoting really tell us is that a population with high crime rates now has such a high death rate among teens that when combined with the general population, it distorts those numbers dramatically.
Children, thank G-d, do have fairly low death rates in America. And so that data set is the most vulnerable to statistical distortion which I’m sure the gun control advocates at the CDC knew when they decided to push these dishonest statistics.
This is also a reminder of why Republicans were right to block the CDC from doing any gun violence research. The CDC can’t be trusted and any gun violence research inevitably becomes dishonest advocacy for gun control.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-06-07 07:47:212022-06-11 07:06:40FACT CHECK: Biden Lies About Guns Killing More Kids Than Cars
He is being totally disingenuous when he states the following:
“When properly constructed with due process protections, red flag laws are commonsense measures to keep weapons out of the hands of any person who threatens to harm themselves or others.”
“I was proud to recently join Senator Marco Rubio in introducing the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2021 (S. 292) that would build on our efforts at the state level to help keep families safe nationwide. I will continue to review any proposal aimed at keeping Americans safe.”
What Scott, Rubio and others aren’t telling people is the following:
Florida and Indiana are the only 2 States with such a law and it was passed in less than 2 weeks as a knee jerk reaction to a total failure of LE (Broward County Sheriff and FBI) and School Administration. It passed overwhelmingly by RINOs in the House and by only 1 vote in the Senate. The 48 pages within SB 7026, Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act, that codifies the RPO is almost a direct lift of far left Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection law.
RPOs are based on anyone calling LE and complaining that someone is a “threat” without any proof other than a statement and with little investigation by LE. It is basically a rubber stamp process as illustrated by the fact that very few are denied by presiding Judges(s).
RPO is a Civil Process not a Criminal one so the judge issuing the RPO only has to have “reasonable suspicion” based on a statement by someone that a person is a threat to themselves or others. The normal legal standard “Beyond Reasonable Doubt is not used in this process.”
Normal legal principle of being “innocent until proven guilty” is thrown out the window.
Seizure takes place without prior notification and without a hearing involving the person accused of being a threat.
The “Respondent” (person accused of being a threat) is not provided with a Public Defender and must hire a private attorney if they expect to prevail at the hearing. On the other hand, LE who request the RPO are represented by their internal attorney(s) at the hearing.
If respondent is found to be a threat by the Court they lose possession of their property for 1 year and this can be indefinitely extended.
Although a crime has not been committed the respondent is immediately placed in both the FL and National Criminal Data Bases with no procedure spelled out to be taken off. It is very difficult to be taken off.
Respondent can receive RPO for something that was said or occurred up to 1 year ago.
No provisions are made to properly maintain the respondent’s property and return it in same condition as when seized.
Statistics to date in FL reveal that an average of 10% of respondents are found not to be a threat at the after the fact hearing. The respondent has been subjected to a humiliating and frightening process without Due Process or recourse for any kind of recompense. There is no automatic process for removing them from criminal data bases even though no crime has been committed.
Those who are stripped of their 2A rights are left defenseless against criminals who will possess and use firearms in committing crimes regardless of any Red Flag laws.
The RPO process does not recognize or take into account law abiding gun owners with no prior criminal record with CCW permits meaning they have been through a background check.
The RPO can be weaponized and/or politicized against innocent people thus limiting or scaring people from freely exercising their 1st Amendment Rights.
Red Flag Laws are an unconstitutional process which violates 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments and is trading off individual Liberty for possible but unproven Safety. Senator’s Scott, Rubio and any other so called “law makers” who advocate for such laws are helping the Marxist, Communist Democrats and their ilk to chip away at our God given, Constitutionally guaranteed rights for strictly political purposes.
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father
Letter from Senator Rick Scott (R-FL)
Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about gun violence in America. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
The safety of our families is always my top priority, and I am a proud supporter of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding citizens. As Governor of Florida, I worked to increase safety measures in Florida’s schools through the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, which also included a new process to enable law enforcement to seek a judicially issued Extreme Risk Protection Order in appropriate circumstances, commonly referred to as a “red flag” law. When properly constructed with due process protections, red flag laws are commonsense measures to keep weapons out of the hands of any person who threatens to harm themselves or others.
As a United States Senator, I remain focused on making sure that our communities are safe, and that those struggling with mental health issues or threatening harm to themselves or others cannot access or possess a weapon. I was proud to recently join Senator Marco Rubio in introducing the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2021 (S. 292) that would build on our efforts at the state level to help keep families safe nationwide. I will continue to review any proposal aimed at keeping Americans safe.
Again, thank you for your correspondence. I am proud to represent every citizen in Florida and I appreciate the time you took to provide your position on this matter. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.
— KB Formerly New Name TBD 🇺🇸😸🛻💜 (@KB21930284) June 9, 2022
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2022-06-06 09:05:072022-06-11 11:35:07FLORIDA: Senator Rick Scott supports ‘Red Flag’ Laws which are ‘Gun Control’ Laws
