bearingarms--2020-07-06--Rally Unites Armed BLM Protestors, Gun Rights Advocates

The media would have you believe that all who value their Second Amendment rights are racists who are terrified of the idea of minorities .
Of course , they almost never bother to talk to any of us to determine anything about us , but that would be actual journalism .
Can ’ t have that , now can we ?
That same media will often portray gun control as an issue that ’ s championed by minorities .
It makes sense from their perspective , too .
Minorities share the brunt of the cost of gun violence , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warfare–the root of much of our nation ’ s gun violence–aren ’ t white kids from the suburbs .
However , what happens when some in the African-American community start to recognize that their gun rights are essential for their own liberty ?
Well , they show up in interesting places .
Armed Black Lives Matter activists and right-wing groups came together in Richmond , Virginia on Saturday in a united show of support for the 2nd Amendment at an Open Carry rally .
At least 200 people , the majority proudly toting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gathered outside Capitol Square to protest against gun control and the violation of constitutional rights .
The rally , organized by activist group Virginia Knights , also served as a memorial for Duncan Lemp , a 21-year-old man who was fatally shot in his Maryland home in March during a no-knock police raid .
‘ This rally on July Fourth is to show that gun owners will not be trampled on !
We are citizens who demand our 2nd Amendment rights be protected by the very people who swore an oath to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws are an infringement and are unconstitutional !
’ the Facebook event read .
Photos showed protesters , from both ends of the political spectrum , mingling as they exercised their right to bear arms .
Frankly , I ’ m damn happy to see it .
Look , I have issues with the Black Lives Matter organization , but the sentiment itself should serve as a catalyst for gun rights in the African-American community .
After all , what is the crux of much of the anti-gun argument ?
The idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types of weapons–or any weapons at all , depending on how honest the gun control advocate feels–and that we should trust the military and police to take care of us .
Well , many in the black community don ’ t feel that way .
They can ’ t trust the police for whatever reason .
The military isn ’ t going to protect them from a thug on the streets .
So yeah , it makes sense for African-Americans to start buying guns and learning how to use them .
Especially in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in racism is being destroyed .
While I oppose the destruction of statues on general principle , I at least get the sentiment itself .
However , if we ’ re going to destroy things with their roots in racism , how about gun control for a good place to start .
After all , initial gun control laws weren ’ t created to fight growing crime or stop bank robbers .
No , they were to disarm freed slaves who whites didn ’ t want to be able to resist tyranny from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the laws weren ’ t written expressly for black people , they were often written with the understanding that no white sheriff would enforce such a law on a white person , only blacks .
I kind of wonder if that knowledge was behind these activists joining together to oppose Governor Ralph “ Blackface ” Northam ’ s gun control efforts in the state of Virginia .
Lord knows , I sure hope so .
If that ’ s the case , Democrats and their love of gun control are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The media would have you believe that all who value their Second Amendment rights are racists who are terrified of the idea of minorities. Of course, they almost never bother to talk to any of us to determine anything about us, but that would be actual journalism. Can’t have that, now can we?
That same media will often portray gun control as an issue that’s championed by minorities. It makes sense from their perspective, too. Minorities share the brunt of the cost of gun violence, after all. The typical victims of gang warfare–the root of much of our nation’s gun violence–aren’t white kids from the suburbs.
However, what happens when some in the African-American community start to recognize that their gun rights are essential for their own liberty? Well, they show up in interesting places.
Armed Black Lives Matter activists and right-wing groups came together in Richmond, Virginia on Saturday in a united show of support for the 2nd Amendment at an Open Carry rally. At least 200 people, the majority proudly toting rifles, semi-automatic weapons and other firearms, gathered outside Capitol Square to protest against gun control and the violation of constitutional rights. The rally, organized by activist group Virginia Knights, also served as a memorial for Duncan Lemp, a 21-year-old man who was fatally shot in his Maryland home in March during a no-knock police raid. ‘This rally on July Fourth is to show that gun owners will not be trampled on! We are citizens who demand our 2nd Amendment rights be protected by the very people who swore an oath to protect us. Any and all gun laws are an infringement and are unconstitutional!’ the Facebook event read. … Photos showed protesters, from both ends of the political spectrum, mingling as they exercised their right to bear arms.
That includes people explicitly wearing shirts saying “Black Lives Matter.”
Frankly, I’m damn happy to see it.
Look, I have issues with the Black Lives Matter organization, but the sentiment itself should serve as a catalyst for gun rights in the African-American community. After all, what is the crux of much of the anti-gun argument? The idea that ordinary citizens don’t need certain types of weapons–or any weapons at all, depending on how honest the gun control advocate feels–and that we should trust the military and police to take care of us.
Well, many in the black community don’t feel that way. They can’t trust the police for whatever reason. The military isn’t going to protect them from a thug on the streets.
So yeah, it makes sense for African-Americans to start buying guns and learning how to use them.
Especially in an era when anything with any roots in racism is being destroyed. While I oppose the destruction of statues on general principle, I at least get the sentiment itself. However, if we’re going to destroy things with their roots in racism, how about gun control for a good place to start.
After all, initial gun control laws weren’t created to fight growing crime or stop bank robbers. No, they were to disarm freed slaves who whites didn’t want to be able to resist tyranny from groups like the Ku Klux Klan. While the laws weren’t written expressly for black people, they were often written with the understanding that no white sheriff would enforce such a law on a white person, only blacks.
So yeah, gun control is racist.
I kind of wonder if that knowledge was behind these activists joining together to oppose Governor Ralph “Blackface” Northam’s gun control efforts in the state of Virginia. Lord knows, I sure hope so.
If that’s the case, Democrats and their love of gun control are going to be in for a very rude awakening.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--New Residents Of Blue States Face "De Facto Gun Ban"

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , the people ’ s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” The text of the Second Amendment is remarkable straight forward , though people still get tripped up over that opening bit .
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .
It doesn ’ t get much plainer than that .
Despite that , though , we still routinely find states doing everything they can to keep people from buying a gun .
Over at the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of folks have run smack dab into the latest effort , one that ’ s working surprisingly well for the anti-gun states .
Marine Corps reservist Ben Nordstrom looked to purchase a rifle to defend his new home after moving to California in May .
The coronavirus shutdowns of some gun stores in the state proved a minor inconvenience at first , but while stores have reopened , Nordstrom is still without his firearm .
State law mandates that weapons can only be legally sold to people with valid California photo IDs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of coronavirus restrictions in the state .
In addition , thanks to a rare restriction on ammunition purchases , California also requires state ID and a background check to purchase ammunition , which means he can ’ t buy ammo for the gun he already owns .
Jose Pagliery , an investigative journalist who recently moved from New York to New Jersey , said his attempts to buy a gun for home defense have also been thwarted by the continued shutdown of the state ’ s process for issuing drivers licenses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the end of March , Pagliery said New Jersey will not allow him to buy a gun without a valid photo ID issued by the state .
And since he ’ s still unable to attain one after more than a month of trying , he is effectively barred from buying guns in the state despite his clean record .
“ This is a de facto ban on new residents legally acquiring firearms , ” Pagliery told the Free Beacon .
“ Now my concern is that they ’ ll push it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID isn ’ t going away , then they ’ ll push it back indefinitely.
” His repeated attempts to obtain a New Jersey license or provide alternative forms of ID have failed .
When the state ’ s motor vehicle commission announced it would reopen on June 29 , Pagliery planned to show up at dawn .
Then state officials pushed reopening to July 7 .
“ It bothers me that a person who is hell-bent on doing this the right way has no option .
Especially when the whole point of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly , create a safer atmosphere and environment for the general public , ” he said .
“ When I was in Florida , there was no problem with me getting a firearm and now I ’ m going to say it was supposed to be safer and I definitely feel less safe.
” The problem for Pagliery is that New Jersey really doesn ’ t care about him doing things the right way .
They don ’ t want him doing them at all , really .
That ’ s been clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the comments from state officials about guns and gun rights over the years .
The same is true in California .
Both of these states have created an effective way to keep new residents from being able to purchase firearms , one which may push reopening dates back even further if they can figure out how to justify it .
But hey , if it helps public safety , it ’ s all good , right ?
Except , it ’ s not about that .
As Townhall ‘ s Matt Vespa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the choir here , but you loyal Townhall readers have known for years that gun control was never about enhancing public safety .
If that were their aim , Democrats would come to the table to hash out better mental health initiatives and treatment .
Most past mass shooters have exhibited signs of mental illness , but Democrats would rather rush to universal background checks , red flag laws , so-called assault weapon bans , and magazine limits .
The first being a priority since it establishes the framework for a national registry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re more open about their hatred for the Bill of Rights and gun owners , so there ’ s no need to sell their explicitly anti-American agenda on this issue .
They want to shred the Second Amendment .
At any rate , while most of the country has decent gun laws , states that vote Republican , the blue state madness continues—and it ’ s left law-abiding citizens defenseless from this lefty mob ’ s latest campaign of destruction .
Could agree with Matt more .

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The text of the Second Amendment is remarkable straight forward, though people still get tripped up over that opening bit. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t get much plainer than that. Despite that, though, we still routinely find states doing everything they can to keep people from buying a gun.
Over at the Washington Free Beacon, we find that a couple of folks have run smack dab into the latest effort, one that’s working surprisingly well for the anti-gun states.
Marine Corps reservist Ben Nordstrom looked to purchase a rifle to defend his new home after moving to California in May. The coronavirus shutdowns of some gun stores in the state proved a minor inconvenience at first, but while stores have reopened, Nordstrom is still without his firearm. State law mandates that weapons can only be legally sold to people with valid California photo IDs. The Marine cannot get one because of coronavirus restrictions in the state. In addition, thanks to a rare restriction on ammunition purchases, California also requires state ID and a background check to purchase ammunition, which means he can’t buy ammo for the gun he already owns. … Jose Pagliery, an investigative journalist who recently moved from New York to New Jersey, said his attempts to buy a gun for home defense have also been thwarted by the continued shutdown of the state’s process for issuing drivers licenses. While gun stores in the state reopened at the end of March, Pagliery said New Jersey will not allow him to buy a gun without a valid photo ID issued by the state. And since he’s still unable to attain one after more than a month of trying, he is effectively barred from buying guns in the state despite his clean record. “This is a de facto ban on new residents legally acquiring firearms,” Pagliery told the Free Beacon. “Now my concern is that they’ll push it back until it’s clear that COVID isn’t going away, then they’ll push it back indefinitely.” His repeated attempts to obtain a New Jersey license or provide alternative forms of ID have failed. When the state’s motor vehicle commission announced it would reopen on June 29, Pagliery planned to show up at dawn. Then state officials pushed reopening to July 7. “It bothers me that a person who is hell-bent on doing this the right way has no option. Especially when the whole point of these kinds of laws is to, reportedly, create a safer atmosphere and environment for the general public,” he said. “When I was in Florida, there was no problem with me getting a firearm and now I’m going to say it was supposed to be safer and I definitely feel less safe.”
The problem for Pagliery is that New Jersey really doesn’t care about him doing things the right way. They don’t want him doing them at all, really. That’s been clear for anyone who has watched New Jersey and the comments from state officials about guns and gun rights over the years.
The same is true in California.
Both of these states have created an effective way to keep new residents from being able to purchase firearms, one which may push reopening dates back even further if they can figure out how to justify it.
But hey, if it helps public safety, it’s all good, right?
Except, it’s not about that. As Townhall‘s Matt Vespa writes:
I’m preaching to the choir here, but you loyal Townhall readers have known for years that gun control was never about enhancing public safety. If that were their aim, Democrats would come to the table to hash out better mental health initiatives and treatment. Most past mass shooters have exhibited signs of mental illness, but Democrats would rather rush to universal background checks, red flag laws, so-called assault weapon bans, and magazine limits. The first being a priority since it establishes the framework for a national registry needed for confiscation. Now, they’re more open about their hatred for the Bill of Rights and gun owners, so there’s no need to sell their explicitly anti-American agenda on this issue. They want to shred the Second Amendment. At any rate, while most of the country has decent gun laws, states that vote Republican, the blue state madness continues—and it’s left law-abiding citizens defenseless from this lefty mob’s latest campaign of destruction.
Could agree with Matt more.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Anti-Gun Activists Back NC Governor's Veto Of Church Carry Bill

A battle is brewing in North Carolina over Gov .
Roy Cooper ’ s veto of a bill that would have expanded concealed carry to churches in the state that meet in private schools or have private schools on their property .
It ’ s a fairly minor bill , all things considered , but Cooper has morphed over the past few years from a state lawmaker who was “ A-rated ” by the NRA to a governor who ’ ll veto any legislation that strengthens the right to keep and bear arms .
GOP legislative leaders are already talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HB 652 , which received support from a dozen Democrats along with every Republican member of the House .
Now anti-gun activists are weighing in and encouraging supporters of gun control to speak up in opposition to private property and Second Amendment rights .
The anti-gun group North Carolinians Against Gun Violence is lobbying for Cooper ’ s veto to be sustained for the sake of “ school children , teachers , and for people in emergency situations.
” To protect children , current state law prohibits concealed firearms at places of worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief remains sound public policy .
Removing this protection puts school children at increased risk regardless of whether the firearms are allowed during curricular and extracurricular activities .
“ We oppose H652 and are thankful and appreciative that Governor Cooper agrees and vetoed this bill , ” said NCGV Executive Director Becky Ceartas .
“ H652 circumvents state policy outlawing concealed carry of firearms on school grounds and would put school children at greater risk of gun violence .
State law applies to both public and private school property and makes no exception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of worship for a simple reason : it endangers school children.
” Yes , gun control advocates are actually arguing that churches that have an associated school would be putting children at risk by allowing concealed carry in their Sunday services when school isn ’ t in session .
Of course , the anti-gun group doesn ’ t want to stop there .
They ’ re also calling for state law to be changed to prohibit the lawful carrying of firearms in churches completely .
Ideally , for NCAGV , pastors , imams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t be allowed to permit concealed carry in a house of worship .
The gun control advocates want to take that choice away from faith leaders and their congregations , and simply make it a crime for any church to allow the practice .
As NRA-ILA pointed out in a recent member alert about HB 652 , Texas gun owner Jack Wilson was able to thwart a church shooter last year thanks to the fact that he and other church members were able to lawfully carry , but gun control advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if their own pastor disagrees .
In addition , the anti-gun group also objects to other provisions of HB 652 dealing with the renewal of concealed carry licenses and allowing some first responders to lawfully carry while on the job .
NCAGV says the bill : • weakens NC ’ s concealed carry weapons permitting system by making it easier to renew a permit without an in-person firearms safety and training course if renewed within a certain amount of time .
Given that permits last five years , we need to strengthen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• allows on-duty emergency medical services personnel working with law enforcement to carry concealed if they meet certain criteria .
We simply do not need more people carrying deadly weapons in emergency situations .
Again , a simple change like allowing concealed carry holders a couple months grace period to renew their license isn ’ t a huge change , but it ’ s also a bridge too far for the gun control group , which wants to make it has burdensome and onerous as possible to exercise your Second Amendment rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical workers to carry while working with law enforcement allows NCAGV to toss in a little bit of anti-police rhetoric into the mix .
Given the fact that NCAGV has regularly lobbied for gun control laws that would put North Carolinians in prison for non-violent firearms offenses like possessing a “ large capacity ” magazine or an unlicensed handgun , it ’ s important for them to do anything they can to distract their fellow Lefties from the fact that gun control requires enforcement by armed police .
A veto override attempt could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the North Carolina state House , and hopefully gun owners across the state have been contacting their lawmakers to stay the course with their original vote and strike down Gov .
Cooper ’ s veto .
These may be minor changes to state law in the grand scheme of things , but given the vociferous opposition to them by gun control advocates it ’ s important that Second Amendment supporters stand and fight for the commonsense changes to become law .

A battle is brewing in North Carolina over Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill that would have expanded concealed carry to churches in the state that meet in private schools or have private schools on their property. It’s a fairly minor bill, all things considered, but Cooper has morphed over the past few years from a state lawmaker who was “A-rated” by the NRA to a governor who’ll veto any legislation that strengthens the right to keep and bear arms.
GOP legislative leaders are already talking about overriding Cooper’s veto of HB 652, which received support from a dozen Democrats along with every Republican member of the House. Now anti-gun activists are weighing in and encouraging supporters of gun control to speak up in opposition to private property and Second Amendment rights. The anti-gun group North Carolinians Against Gun Violence is lobbying for Cooper’s veto to be sustained for the sake of “school children, teachers, and for people in emergency situations.”
To protect children, current state law prohibits concealed firearms at places of worship that have an associated school. This belief remains sound public policy. Removing this protection puts school children at increased risk regardless of whether the firearms are allowed during curricular and extracurricular activities. “We oppose H652 and are thankful and appreciative that Governor Cooper agrees and vetoed this bill,” said NCGV Executive Director Becky Ceartas. “H652 circumvents state policy outlawing concealed carry of firearms on school grounds and would put school children at greater risk of gun violence. State law applies to both public and private school property and makes no exception for schools owned and operated by places of worship for a simple reason: it endangers school children.”
Yes, gun control advocates are actually arguing that churches that have an associated school would be putting children at risk by allowing concealed carry in their Sunday services when school isn’t in session. Of course, the anti-gun group doesn’t want to stop there. They’re also calling for state law to be changed to prohibit the lawful carrying of firearms in churches completely.
Current law that allows people to carry firearms into a place of worship not associated with a school is also dangerous. At a minimum, places of worship should be required to “opt-in” to concealed carry and post public notices so that people know if people might be legally carrying firearms. At present the default requires religious places of worship to “opt out”. H652 also would require opting out.
Ideally, for NCAGV, pastors, imams, rabbis, and other religious leaders wouldn’t be allowed to permit concealed carry in a house of worship. The gun control advocates want to take that choice away from faith leaders and their congregations, and simply make it a crime for any church to allow the practice. As NRA-ILA pointed out in a recent member alert about HB 652, Texas gun owner Jack Wilson was able to thwart a church shooter last year thanks to the fact that he and other church members were able to lawfully carry, but gun control advocates simply want church-goers to be disarmed, even if their own pastor disagrees.
In addition, the anti-gun group also objects to other provisions of HB 652 dealing with the renewal of concealed carry licenses and allowing some first responders to lawfully carry while on the job. NCAGV says the bill:
weakens NC’s concealed carry weapons permitting system by making it easier to renew a permit without an in-person firearms safety and training course if renewed within a certain amount of time. Given that permits last five years, we need to strengthen our permitting system, not weaken it.
allows on-duty emergency medical services personnel working with law enforcement to carry concealed if they meet certain criteria. We simply do not need more people carrying deadly weapons in emergency situations.
Again, a simple change like allowing concealed carry holders a couple months grace period to renew their license isn’t a huge change, but it’s also a bridge too far for the gun control group, which wants to make it has burdensome and onerous as possible to exercise your Second Amendment rights.
Their opposition to allowing some emergency medical workers to carry while working with law enforcement allows NCAGV to toss in a little bit of anti-police rhetoric into the mix. Given the fact that NCAGV has regularly lobbied for gun control laws that would put North Carolinians in prison for non-violent firearms offenses like possessing a “large capacity” magazine or an unlicensed handgun, it’s important for them to do anything they can to distract their fellow Lefties from the fact that gun control requires enforcement by armed police.
A veto override attempt could come as early as this week in the North Carolina state House, and hopefully gun owners across the state have been contacting their lawmakers to stay the course with their original vote and strike down Gov. Cooper’s veto. These may be minor changes to state law in the grand scheme of things, but given the vociferous opposition to them by gun control advocates it’s important that Second Amendment supporters stand and fight for the commonsense changes to become law.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Gun Businesses Lash Out At Big Tech's Monopolistic Practices

It ’ s tough to have a gun business these days .
At least , it is on the internet .
Sure , walk-in stores are blowing up with business .
Everyone and their brother is wanting a gun for a variety of reasons and stores and having a hard time keeping up .
However , if you ’ re someone whose firearm-related business revolves around the internet , you may have a problem .
You see , most of the big tech giants are anti-gun , which creates problems .
After Karl Kasarda ’ s YouTube channel , InRange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 2018 , the firearm enthusiast said he had little option but to turn to posting clips and reviews on a platform of a different kind : PornHub .
He said navigating the social media landscape when it comes to the Second Amendment is only becoming more frustrating and confusing .
“ The issue of oligarchical control over the Internet and all the impact over the ability to use it for free speech is going to only get worse , ” Kasarda told Fox News , alluding to the “ big five ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter and Instagram .
“ It is unclear what the rules are , ” he added .
“ Specifically , with YouTube , they pretty much enforce whatever they feel based on their bias of the day .
Regardless of your personal belief , firearms and their accessories are legal in the United States .
So why are we seeing continuing restrictions and challenges towards content about something demonstrably legal yet not against that which is clearly illegal ?
” However , we should note that the “ big five ” aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Facebook while YouTube is owned by Google .
So really , you ’ re looking at three companies that control a massive portion of how people interact online .
The problem is , though , that these are private entities and as such have the right to run their businesses however they want .
If you ’ re against government regulation , it ’ s kind of hard to disagree .
That ’ s the hill these companies have been defending for quite some time .
To be sure , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to consider , though , is that none of these entities really compete with each other .
Each giant takes a different approach to the internet , providing very different services that can only be said to compete with one another under the loosest sense of the term .
Because of that , each could be said to be monopolistic , thus allowing them to unilaterally destroy people ’ s livelihoods .
You see , while they may be quite content to run their little fiefdoms however they see fit , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal in this country .
We break them up and have done so before .
Is it that hard to imagine Google being forced to break up their many and varied services , including YouTube ?
As things stood for some time , people allowed the monopolies because they didn ’ t really interfere with what most people were trying to do .
However , that changed .
Now , it ’ s time these outfits be broken up and competition be allowed to rise .
Oh , sure , there are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but they ’ re not really competition and everyone knows it .
Maybe now it ’ s time to change that .

It’s tough to have a gun business these days.
At least, it is on the internet.
Sure, walk-in stores are blowing up with business. Everyone and their brother is wanting a gun for a variety of reasons and stores and having a hard time keeping up.
However, if you’re someone whose firearm-related business revolves around the internet, you may have a problem. You see, most of the big tech giants are anti-gun, which creates problems.
After Karl Kasarda’s YouTube channel, InRange TV, was wiped without warning in early 2018, the firearm enthusiast said he had little option but to turn to posting clips and reviews on a platform of a different kind: PornHub. He said navigating the social media landscape when it comes to the Second Amendment is only becoming more frustrating and confusing. “The issue of oligarchical control over the Internet and all the impact over the ability to use it for free speech is going to only get worse,” Kasarda told Fox News, alluding to the “big five” — YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. “It is unclear what the rules are,” he added. “Specifically, with YouTube, they pretty much enforce whatever they feel based on their bias of the day. Regardless of your personal belief, firearms and their accessories are legal in the United States. So why are we seeing continuing restrictions and challenges towards content about something demonstrably legal yet not against that which is clearly illegal?”
However, we should note that the “big five” aren’t really five. Instagram is owned by Facebook while YouTube is owned by Google. So really, you’re looking at three companies that control a massive portion of how people interact online.
The problem is, though, that these are private entities and as such have the right to run their businesses however they want. If you’re against government regulation, it’s kind of hard to disagree.
That’s the hill these companies have been defending for quite some time. To be sure, they’re not wrong.
What they may want to consider, though, is that none of these entities really compete with each other. Each giant takes a different approach to the internet, providing very different services that can only be said to compete with one another under the loosest sense of the term. Because of that, each could be said to be monopolistic, thus allowing them to unilaterally destroy people’s livelihoods.
You see, while they may be quite content to run their little fiefdoms however they see fit, they forget that monopolies aren’t exactly legal in this country. We break them up and have done so before. Is it that hard to imagine Google being forced to break up their many and varied services, including YouTube?
As things stood for some time, people allowed the monopolies because they didn’t really interfere with what most people were trying to do. However, that changed.
Now, it’s time these outfits be broken up and competition be allowed to rise.
Oh, sure, there are some places that seem to offer similar services, but they’re not really competition and everyone knows it.
Maybe now it’s time to change that.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--The Media's Obvious Double Standard On Armed Protesters

One of the things that ’ s become increasingly apparent over the past few months is that many members of our news media aren ’ t quite as anti-gun as they ’ ve made themselves out to be .
Oh sure , you can still find plenty of pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over armed protesters , as long as the protesters aren ’ t aligned with Black Lives Matter or the defund police movement .
Anything that can be portrayed as a “ right wing militia ” is going to be subject to all kinds of criticism , like this recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington .
On June 19 , 33 local public officials attached their names to a letter titled “ Thurston Leaders Unite Against Vigilantism , ” formally opposing “ the presence of armed vigilantes patrolling our communities ” and calling on business , faith , nonprofit , and neighborhood leaders to do the same .
Local faith leaders who are part of Concerned Clergy of Olympia have affixed their names to their own letter denouncing the groups ’ presence , as have 68 local businesses .
More than 1,800 citizens had signed that same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday .
The letter from public officials specifically calls out groups American Wolf , Proud Boys , and Three Percenters .
“ They have created a climate of fear for our residents , particularly residents of color , local businesses , and all who are nonviolently protesting against police brutality and centuries of racial injustice , ” the letter reads .
“ Their presence has not contributed positively in any way to the protests.
” The officials encourage residents to research the groups to understand their political ties and “ understand their intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter acknowledges concerns about law enforcement cooperating with “ non-permitted militia activity , ” calling that “ unacceptable.
” Meanwhile , “ left-wing militias ” like the Not F*cking Around Coalition , which marched in Atlanta over the weekend , receive much more positive coverage from most media outlets .
Here ’ s how Newsweek covered the armed protesters at Stone Mountain Park .
About 1,000 heavily armed militia , all of whom were Black , marched through Georgia ’ s Stone Mountain Park on Saturday , challenging white nationalist groups in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or join them in demonstrating against the government .
Stone Mountain State Park officials said the Black militia group was peaceful , orderly and escorted by police as they called for the removal of the country ’ s largest Confederate monument near Atlanta .
“ Our initial goal was to have a formation of our militia in Stone Mountain to send a message that as long as you ’ re abolishing all these statues across the country , what about this one ?
” Grand Master Jay said , referencing the massive Confederate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commend Stone Mountain police for offering the all-Black militia support as they exercised their constitutional rights on July 4th .
“ It was all Black … there were no brown people , no white people… everyone was Black .
I am not a protester , I am the commanding general of my militia , we were swearing in new members , ” he added , highlighting there was a second militia “ show of force ” Saturday near Phoenix .
Not a peep of protest from Newsweek about a “ commanding general ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-described “ show of force.
” In fact , Newsweek didn ’ t even bother to get a comment from any gun control organization about the NFAC ’ s march , though it was quick to quiz the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence before the Lobby Day rally in Richmond , Virginia earlier this year that saw tens of thousands of gun owners peacefully assemble in the city ’ s downtown .
Similarly , when a couple in St. Louis pulled out their firearms and displayed them because they claimed to be threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gated community , the national news media turned Mark and Patricia McCloskeys into household names and vilified the pair for whipping out their guns for no reason .
When a Utah man was arrested on Saturday for pulling a gun and firing shots towards a group of Trump supporters , on the other hand , the national news media completely ignored the story .
Kerry Picket of the Washington Examiner joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the blatant double standard in media coverage that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why it ’ s incumbent on Second Amendment supporters to call out the media bias when we see it .
The Second Amendment clearly states that the “ right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” Not “ some people.
” Not “ those people.
” Not “ my people.
” It ’ s the People who possess the right to keep and bear arms , and while it was bad enough when the media opposed gun ownership for anyone , it ’ s actually even worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are okay , or at least not worth making a fuss over , as long as they ’ re in the hands of people they align with politically .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , which also includes my simple advice to gun owners of all political persuasions about how to be a good ambassador for our Second Amendment rights .
Plus , stick around afterwards for the story of two young men out on probation who are now facing attempted murder charges , an armed citizen story from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer in the right place at the right time to save an infant ’ s life on the side of a busy interstate .

One of the things that’s become increasingly apparent over the past few months is that many members of our news media aren’t quite as anti-gun as they’ve made themselves out to be. Oh sure, you can still find plenty of pearl-clutching and hand-wringing over armed protesters, as long as the protesters aren’t aligned with Black Lives Matter or the defund police movement. Anything that can be portrayed as a “right wing militia” is going to be subject to all kinds of criticism, like this recent report from The Olympian in Olympic, Washington.
On June 19, 33 local public officials attached their names to a letter titled “Thurston Leaders Unite Against Vigilantism,” formally opposing “the presence of armed vigilantes patrolling our communities” and calling on business, faith, nonprofit, and neighborhood leaders to do the same. Local faith leaders who are part of Concerned Clergy of Olympia have affixed their names to their own letter denouncing the groups’ presence, as have 68 local businesses. More than 1,800 citizens had signed that same letter in an online petition as of Thursday. The letter from public officials specifically calls out groups American Wolf, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters. “They have created a climate of fear for our residents, particularly residents of color, local businesses, and all who are nonviolently protesting against police brutality and centuries of racial injustice,” the letter reads. “Their presence has not contributed positively in any way to the protests.” The officials encourage residents to research the groups to understand their political ties and “understand their intentions for our community and country.” The letter acknowledges concerns about law enforcement cooperating with “non-permitted militia activity,” calling that “unacceptable.”
Meanwhile, “left-wing militias” like the Not F*cking Around Coalition, which marched in Atlanta over the weekend, receive much more positive coverage from most media outlets. Here’s how Newsweek covered the armed protesters at Stone Mountain Park.
About 1,000 heavily armed militia, all of whom were Black, marched through Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park on Saturday, challenging white nationalist groups in the area to either come out and fight or join them in demonstrating against the government. Stone Mountain State Park officials said the Black militia group was peaceful, orderly and escorted by police as they called for the removal of the country’s largest Confederate monument near Atlanta. “Our initial goal was to have a formation of our militia in Stone Mountain to send a message that as long as you’re abolishing all these statues across the country, what about this one?” Grand Master Jay said, referencing the massive Confederate carving. He added that he must commend Stone Mountain police for offering the all-Black militia support as they exercised their constitutional rights on July 4th. “It was all Black … there were no brown people, no white people… everyone was Black. I am not a protester, I am the commanding general of my militia, we were swearing in new members,” he added, highlighting there was a second militia “show of force” Saturday near Phoenix.
Not a peep of protest from Newsweek about a “commanding general” of a private militia engaging in a self-described “show of force.” In fact, Newsweek didn’t even bother to get a comment from any gun control organization about the NFAC’s march, though it was quick to quiz the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence before the Lobby Day rally in Richmond, Virginia earlier this year that saw tens of thousands of gun owners peacefully assemble in the city’s downtown.
Similarly, when a couple in St. Louis pulled out their firearms and displayed them because they claimed to be threatened by protesters marching through their private, gated community, the national news media turned Mark and Patricia McCloskeys into household names and vilified the pair for whipping out their guns for no reason. When a Utah man was arrested on Saturday for pulling a gun and firing shots towards a group of Trump supporters, on the other hand, the national news media completely ignored the story.
Kerry Picket of the Washington Examiner joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the blatant double standard in media coverage that we’ve been seeing, and why it’s incumbent on Second Amendment supporters to call out the media bias when we see it. The Second Amendment clearly states that the “right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not “some people.” Not “those people.” Not “my people.” It’s the People who possess the right to keep and bear arms, and while it was bad enough when the media opposed gun ownership for anyone, it’s actually even worse when they’ve decided that guns are okay, or at least not worth making a fuss over, as long as they’re in the hands of people they align with politically.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, which also includes my simple advice to gun owners of all political persuasions about how to be a good ambassador for our Second Amendment rights. Plus, stick around afterwards for the story of two young men out on probation who are now facing attempted murder charges, an armed citizen story from rural Kentucky, and an Alabama police officer in the right place at the right time to save an infant’s life on the side of a busy interstate.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Court Rules University of Wyoming CAN Ban Guns On Campus

Many states have preemption laws in place .
The purpose of those laws is to prevent an unwieldy patchwork of gun control laws within a given state , making it virtually impossible for regular folks to be clear on what ’ s legal and what isn ’ t from place to place .
The idea is that such laws should be passed by the legislature to minimize the confusion .
However , a court in Wyoming , however , has found that the University of Wyoming isn ’ t really covered by the state ’ s preemption law .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulate and prohibit firearms on its campus , and its gun policy does not violate the Second Amendment , Tori Kricken , the district court judge in Albany County , ruled Thursday .
This is Kricken ’ s second ruling in the years-long case of Lyle Williams , of Uinta County , who has sought to overturn the university ’ s gun policy through the courts .
Her previous ruling was overturned by the Wyoming Supreme Court on procedural grounds .
Kricken ruled upon a number of separate points related to the university @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that pre-empts most governments below the state level from enacting their own firearms regulations only applies to firearms made in Wyoming , Kricken ruled .
UW acts as an arm of the state , so it is not included in the law that prevents most local or subsidiary elements of government in Wyoming from regulating firearms , Kricken ruled .
The university ’ s regulations do not violate the provisions in the United States and Wyoming constitutions that protect gun rights , either facially or as applied to Williams , Kricken ruled .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the Wyoming Supreme Court .
Particularly controversial is Kricken ’ s claim that the Wyoming law blocking the local regulation of firearms only applies to guns made in Wyoming .
Which is good , because most of that ruling is absolutely nuts .
The only part I can see from a legalistic standpoint is that the university , as a state entity , isn ’ t covered by the preemption law .
That ’ s a bit that the legislature can address easily enough .
As for the rest ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preemption only applies to firearms made within the state .
Honestly , that ’ s got to be some weapons-grade stupidity there .
Of course , with this going to the Wyoming Supreme Court , there ’ s still a good chance that all of this insanity will be overturned .
At least , let ’ s hope so , because if this stands , there ’ s a problem .
You see , claiming that preemption only applies to weapons made in Wyoming opens up the door for communities to enact gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made within the state .
Since most guns are made elsewhere , that opens up a whole lot of doors .
Luckily , I don ’ t see how that bit can withstand a legal challenge .
After all , here ’ s the text of the state ’ s preemption law : ( c ) The sale , transfer , purchase , delivery , taxation , manufacture , ownership , transportation , storage , use and possession of firearms , weapons and ammunition shall be authorized , regulated and prohibited by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the state .
Except as authorized by W.S .
15-1-103 ( a ) ( xviii ) , no city , town , county , political subdivision or any other entity shall authorize , regulate or prohibit the sale , transfer , purchase , delivery , taxation , manufacture , ownership , transportation , storage , use , carrying or possession of firearms , weapons , accessories , components or ammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter .
This section shall not affect zoning or other ordinances which encompass firearms businesses along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinances which are designed for the purpose of restricting or prohibiting the sale , purchase , transfer or manufacture of firearms or ammunition as a method of regulating firearms or ammunition are in conflict with this section and are prohibited .
There is absolutely nothing in there to even hint that it only applies to guns made in the state .
Nothing at all .
Frankly , I ’ d be hardpressed to see how a university qualifies as “ the state ” when that ’ s generally understood to be the legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the ruling the least bit reasonable .
Not much , mind you , just a teensy bit .
If you look at it and squint , that is .
Regardless , let ’ s hope this idiotic decision is overturned quickly .
This is the last thing anyone in Wyoming needs .

Many states have preemption laws in place. The purpose of those laws is to prevent an unwieldy patchwork of gun control laws within a given state, making it virtually impossible for regular folks to be clear on what’s legal and what isn’t from place to place.
The idea is that such laws should be passed by the legislature to minimize the confusion.
However, a court in Wyoming, however, has found that the University of Wyoming isn’t really covered by the state’s preemption law.
The University of Wyoming has the power to regulate and prohibit firearms on its campus, and its gun policy does not violate the Second Amendment, Tori Kricken, the district court judge in Albany County, ruled Thursday. This is Kricken’s second ruling in the years-long case of Lyle Williams, of Uinta County, who has sought to overturn the university’s gun policy through the courts. Her previous ruling was overturned by the Wyoming Supreme Court on procedural grounds. Kricken ruled upon a number of separate points related to the university’s firearms policy: The law that pre-empts most governments below the state level from enacting their own firearms regulations only applies to firearms made in Wyoming, Kricken ruled. UW acts as an arm of the state, so it is not included in the law that prevents most local or subsidiary elements of government in Wyoming from regulating firearms, Kricken ruled. The university’s regulations do not violate the provisions in the United States and Wyoming constitutions that protect gun rights, either facially or as applied to Williams, Kricken ruled. This ruling is expected to be appealed back to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Particularly controversial is Kricken’s claim that the Wyoming law blocking the local regulation of firearms only applies to guns made in Wyoming.
Which is good, because most of that ruling is absolutely nuts.
The only part I can see from a legalistic standpoint is that the university, as a state entity, isn’t covered by the preemption law. That’s a bit that the legislature can address easily enough.
As for the rest? It’s insane. Especially claiming that preemption only applies to firearms made within the state. Honestly, that’s got to be some weapons-grade stupidity there.
Of course, with this going to the Wyoming Supreme Court, there’s still a good chance that all of this insanity will be overturned. At least, let’s hope so, because if this stands, there’s a problem.
You see, claiming that preemption only applies to weapons made in Wyoming opens up the door for communities to enact gun control measures by specifically excluding any firearm made within the state. Since most guns are made elsewhere, that opens up a whole lot of doors.
Luckily, I don’t see how that bit can withstand a legal challenge. After all, here’s the text of the state’s preemption law:
(c) The sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use and possession of firearms, weapons and ammunition shall be authorized, regulated and prohibited by the state, and regulation thereof is preempted by the state. Except as authorized by W.S. 15-1-103(a)(xviii), no city, town, county, political subdivision or any other entity shall authorize, regulate or prohibit the sale, transfer, purchase, delivery, taxation, manufacture, ownership, transportation, storage, use, carrying or possession of firearms, weapons, accessories, components or ammunition except as specifically provided by this chapter. This section shall not affect zoning or other ordinances which encompass firearms businesses along with other businesses. Zoning and other ordinances which are designed for the purpose of restricting or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or manufacture of firearms or ammunition as a method of regulating firearms or ammunition are in conflict with this section and are prohibited.
There is absolutely nothing in there to even hint that it only applies to guns made in the state. Nothing at all.
Frankly, I’d be hardpressed to see how a university qualifies as “the state” when that’s generally understood to be the legislature, but that’s the only part of the ruling the least bit reasonable. Not much, mind you, just a teensy bit. If you look at it and squint, that is.
Maybe.
Regardless, let’s hope this idiotic decision is overturned quickly. This is the last thing anyone in Wyoming needs.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Utah Man Facing Charges After Pulling Gun On Trump Supporters

An Independence Day incident in rural Utah led to the loss of freedom for a 40-year old man arrested on a litany of charges after pulling a gun on a group of Trump supporters and firing several rounds .
Police in Millard County were called out to Fillmore Canyon Saturday afternoon on reports of shots fired .
When they arrived , they found the suspect had already fled the scene , but there were plenty of witnesses on hand to describe to officers exactly what happened .
According to a police affidavit , just before 6 p.m. on Saturday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called to Fillmore Canyon “ on the report of a man with a gun pointing it at people and firing it .
“ While speaking with 11 separate victims , it was identified that Omar had threatened five individuals including one juvenile by pulling a gun out of his waistband and pointing it at them , making statement about them having Trump flags on their four-wheeler and threatening the juvenile that he was going to come break into his house and kill his family , ” the affidavit states .
Police say as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking off in search of his wife , who had quickly left the area a short time earlier after he allegedly pointed the gun at her head and threatened to kill her , along with several other individuals .
“ While confronting them , Omar pointed the gun at all of them , and began firing it out the window of his vehicle getting closer and closer to the victims before ceasing fire , getting out and pulling out what was described as an AR-type rifle and pointing it at them , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught up with Omar a short time later , the guns were no longer in possession .
Police believe he threw the firearms out the window of his car as he sped away from the canyon .
A blood alcohol test administered to Omar at the Millard County jail came back with a result of .144 , or nearly three times higher than the state ’ s DUI limit of .05 .
While we don ’ t know the full extent of Omar ’ s previous criminal history , he is facing three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a restricted person , meaning he wasn ’ t legally allowed to own any of the guns he allegedly used to threaten his wife and the Trump supporters .
Omar is also facing felony charges of illegally carrying a concealed firearm , witness tampering , eleven counts of aggravated assault , and six counts of illegal discharge of a firearm .
Additionally , Omar was charged with several misdemeanors , including threatening to use a weapon in a fight , two counts of evidence tampering , making a threat of violence , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly offended or upset over the Trump flags flying from the back of some ATV ’ s .
I ’ m actually amazed that none of the victims in this incident were armed themselves ( this is Utah we ’ re talking about , after all ) .
Omar should count himself lucky to be in jail instead of in the hospital or the morgue , because any armed citizen would have been well within their rights to defend themselves once Omar began popping off rounds towards the group .
Something tells me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the canyon , they ’ ll be carrying some guns of their own in addition to their cell phones .

An Independence Day incident in rural Utah led to the loss of freedom for a 40-year old man arrested on a litany of charges after pulling a gun on a group of Trump supporters and firing several rounds. Police in Millard County were called out to Fillmore Canyon Saturday afternoon on reports of shots fired. When they arrived, they found the suspect had already fled the scene, but there were plenty of witnesses on hand to describe to officers exactly what happened.
According to a police affidavit, just before 6 p.m. on Saturday, Millard County sheriff’s deputies were called to Fillmore Canyon “on the report of a man with a gun pointing it at people and firing it. “While speaking with 11 separate victims, it was identified that Omar had threatened five individuals including one juvenile by pulling a gun out of his waistband and pointing it at them, making statement about them having Trump flags on their four-wheeler and threatening the juvenile that he was going to come break into his house and kill his family,” the affidavit states.
Police say as they were arriving, Omar was already taking off in search of his wife, who had quickly left the area a short time earlier after he allegedly pointed the gun at her head and threatened to kill her, along with several other individuals.
“While confronting them, Omar pointed the gun at all of them, and began firing it out the window of his vehicle getting closer and closer to the victims before ceasing fire, getting out and pulling out what was described as an AR-type rifle and pointing it at them, before fleeing down the mountain.”
When authorities caught up with Omar a short time later, the guns were no longer in possession. Police believe he threw the firearms out the window of his car as he sped away from the canyon. A blood alcohol test administered to Omar at the Millard County jail came back with a result of .144, or nearly three times higher than the state’s DUI limit of .05.
While we don’t know the full extent of Omar’s previous criminal history, he is facing three counts of possession of a firearm by a restricted person, meaning he wasn’t legally allowed to own any of the guns he allegedly used to threaten his wife and the Trump supporters.
Omar is also facing felony charges of illegally carrying a concealed firearm, witness tampering, eleven counts of aggravated assault, and six counts of illegal discharge of a firearm. Additionally, Omar was charged with several misdemeanors, including threatening to use a weapon in a fight, two counts of evidence tampering, making a threat of violence, and intoxication.
All this because Omar was allegedly offended or upset over the Trump flags flying from the back of some ATV’s. I’m actually amazed that none of the victims in this incident were armed themselves (this is Utah we’re talking about, after all). Omar should count himself lucky to be in jail instead of in the hospital or the morgue, because any armed citizen would have been well within their rights to defend themselves once Omar began popping off rounds towards the group. Something tells me the next time these folks go four-wheeling in the canyon, they’ll be carrying some guns of their own in addition to their cell phones.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Study Finding Cops Aren't Racist Retracted Because Wrong People Citing It

If a study is retracted , it ’ s usually a sign that the authors of the study realized they goofed somewhere along the way .
It ’ s a mechanism where academics can own up to their mistakes .
It ’ s generally considered a solid move by researchers since they ’ re admitting their errors rather than having them exposed by others .
However , that ’ s not an absolute requirement .
Authors can retract studies for any reason they want , apparently .
For example , the authors of a study that found cops aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not that they think they ’ re wrong , they ’ re just upset that people like me are citing it .
The authors of a controversial paper on race and police shootings say they are retracting the article , which became a flashpoint in the debate over killings by police , and now amid protests following the murder of George Floyd .
The 2019 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS ) , titled “ Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings , and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.
” It has been cited 14 times , according to Clarivate Analytics ’ Web of Science , earning it a “ hot paper ” designation .
Joseph Cesario , a researcher at Michigan State University , told Retraction Watch that he and David Johnson , of the University of Maryland , College Park and a co-author , have submitted a request for retraction to PNAS .
In the request , they write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inferences that could be made from our data .
This led to the misuse of our article to support the position that the probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans ( MacDonald , 2019 ) .
To be clear , our work does not speak to this issue and should not be used to support such statements .
We accordingly issued a correction to rectify this statement ( Johnson & Cesario , 2020 ) .
Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of civilians fatally shot by police ) , given continued misuse of the article ( e.g.
, MacDonald , 2020 ) we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections .
We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original article , as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research .
The MacDonald references are two pieces by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute , one in the City Journal and the other in the Wall Street Journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some criticism over their methodology when the study was first published .
Yet they weathered that controversy and stuck to their guns .
It ’ s not until people they don ’ t like started using their study that it became a problem .
For the record , this is the same study cited by an official at Michigan State University that led to him being forced out of a vice presidency at the university .
Normally , a retraction is a good move by researchers .
It ’ s not as good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published , of course , but it ’ s the best alternative to take when there ’ s some kind of a mistake .
In this case , though , but Cesario and Johnson ’ s decision to retract the study reflects incredibly poorly on both of them .
This isn ’ t about the study or its findings , they ’ re just upset that their study is being used to undermine an anti-police narrative .
They ’ re letting their work be dismissed because their research apparently benefits a side in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side with .

If a study is retracted, it’s usually a sign that the authors of the study realized they goofed somewhere along the way. It’s a mechanism where academics can own up to their mistakes. It’s generally considered a solid move by researchers since they’re admitting their errors rather than having them exposed by others.
However, that’s not an absolute requirement. Authors can retract studies for any reason they want, apparently.
For example, the authors of a study that found cops aren’t racist are retracting their study. It’s not that they think they’re wrong, they’re just upset that people like me are citing it.
The authors of a controversial paper on race and police shootings say they are retracting the article, which became a flashpoint in the debate over killings by police, and now amid protests following the murder of George Floyd. The 2019 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), titled “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” found “no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” It has been cited 14 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, earning it a “hot paper” designation. Joseph Cesario, a researcher at Michigan State University, told Retraction Watch that he and David Johnson, of the University of Maryland, College Park and a co-author, have submitted a request for retraction to PNAS. In the request, they write: We were careless when describing the inferences that could be made from our data. This led to the misuse of our article to support the position that the probability of being shot by police did not differ between Black and White Americans (MacDonald, 2019). To be clear, our work does not speak to this issue and should not be used to support such statements. We accordingly issued a correction to rectify this statement (Johnson & Cesario, 2020). Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested (the race of civilians fatally shot by police), given continued misuse of the article (e.g., MacDonald, 2020) we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original article, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research. The MacDonald references are two pieces by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, one in the City Journal and the other in the Wall Street Journal.
Now, Cesario and Johnson received some criticism over their methodology when the study was first published. Yet they weathered that controversy and stuck to their guns.
It’s not until people they don’t like started using their study that it became a problem.
For the record, this is the same study cited by an official at Michigan State University that led to him being forced out of a vice presidency at the university.
Normally, a retraction is a good move by researchers. It’s not as good as being able to keep a study published, of course, but it’s the best alternative to take when there’s some kind of a mistake.
In this case, though, but Cesario and Johnson’s decision to retract the study reflects incredibly poorly on both of them. This isn’t about the study or its findings, they’re just upset that their study is being used to undermine an anti-police narrative. They’re letting their work be dismissed because their research apparently benefits a side in an argument they’d rather not side with.
Honestly, that’s just pathetic.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--New Study Blames "Excessive Gaming" For Guns In School

Are video games to blame for kids bringing guns to school ?
The answer is “ yes , ” according to a new study in the journal Computers in Human Behavior , but there are some major caveats to go along with the conclusion of researchers .
Ofir Turel , one of the study ’ s authors and a a professor of information systems and decision sciences at California State University , told the website PsyPost that he was “ intrigued by the question whether videogames can be , at least to some extent , a culprit [ in school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imprinting very aggressive and delusional mindsets , in which gun carrying everywhere is the norm.
” So , Turel looked at two social science surveys of some 50,000 teenagers conducted between 2012 and 2017 to look at how many hours a week they played video games and whether there was a correlation between high rates of gaming and bringing a gun to school .
According to the surveys , about 1.5 % of students surveyed , reported bringing a gun to school at least once during the month before they participated in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your kid plays less than five hours of video games a day , they ’ re safe… unless they don ’ t play any video games at all .
That ’ s right .
Turel ’ s research shows that not only are kids who play a lot of video games more likely to bring a gun to school , kids who don ’ t game at all are a higher risk as well .
“ Specifically , I found that not playing video games was an equal risk factor to playing over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying to school .
That is , playing videogames between 0.07 hours/day to 4.93/hours a day , has sheltered teenagers from gun carrying behaviors — it kept them busy and off the streets .
In contrast , not playing video games , or playing for over 4.97 hours/day has elevate the risk for gun carrying to school.
” “ The findings also imply that legislators and governments should not necessarily try to restrict video gaming time or adolescent access to even violent video games because ( 1 ) general video gaming associations with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 ) at low levels of general gaming time such activities can be useful and shelter adolescents from other , undesirable behaviors.
” I don ’ t have an issue with Turel ’ s takeaway that trying to legislate screen time for teen gamers isn ’ t likely to do much , but I have some deeper questions about the study itself .
Keep in mind that , out of 50,000+ adolescents surveyed , only about 800 reported bringing a gun to school , and we have no real way of knowing how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do know that Turel wasn ’ t actually able to measure how many of those 800 actually used a firearm , but that number would likely be far lower .
The researcher also wasn ’ t able to obtain information about the type of video games that these “ excessive gamers ” were playing , so he simply assumed that they were violent first-person shooters .
Is it possible that someone playing 8 hours a day of Call of Duty might become desensitized to violence ?
Sure , but what if the teen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead ?
Turel also doesn ’ t explain why non-gamers would be just as likely to carry a gun to school as “ excessive gamers.
” According to Turel ’ s theory , “ at some level of gaming time ( because most popular games adolescents play include violent aspects ) , the assumed imprinting of aggressive behaviors overpowers the positive displacement force , and this can trivialize and naturalize gun-carrying behaviors , and ultimately increase motivation to obtain and carry guns.
” If that ’ s the case , what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t play video games carrying guns to school at roughly the same rate as those who play video games for five hours or more a day ?
It seems to me that if Turel ’ s data is accurate , what he ’ s found is that adolescents who report bringing a gun to school are simply outliers , which makes sense .
They ’ re not like most kids , both in terms of the amount of video games they play and in the fact that they ’ ve brought a gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaming ( or no gaming at all ) as the reason behind the gun-carrying , it might make more sense to view both the illegal gun carrying and the screen time ( or lack thereof ) as evidence of a deeper issue instead of looking at the two behaviors through a lens of cause and effect .
Are these examples of adolescents who ’ ve withdrawn from their family and peers ?
Are rates of depression higher among this small group of students ?
Do they get in more trouble at school ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home ?
There are a number of important questions that could be asked to get a better idea of what might be driving this behavior , but Turel ’ s study focuses exclusively on the issue of video games and violent behavior .
His results don ’ t tell us much at all about why a small number of students report that they ’ ve brought a gun to their school , only that some of them play a lot of video games while others play almost none at all .

Are video games to blame for kids bringing guns to school? The answer is “yes,” according to a new study in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, but there are some major caveats to go along with the conclusion of researchers.
Ofir Turel, one of the study’s authors and a a professor of information systems and decision sciences at California State University, told the website PsyPost that he was “intrigued by the question whether videogames can be, at least to some extent, a culprit [in school shootings], in that they help imprinting very aggressive and delusional mindsets, in which gun carrying everywhere is the norm.”
So, Turel looked at two social science surveys of some 50,000 teenagers conducted between 2012 and 2017 to look at how many hours a week they played video games and whether there was a correlation between high rates of gaming and bringing a gun to school. According to the surveys, about 1.5% of students surveyed, reported bringing a gun to school at least once during the month before they participated in the survey.
“The key message is that videogames can be associated with carrying guns to school, but only in teenagers who play videogames rather excessively (over 5-6 hours/day). In contrast, video gaming is protective against gun carrying behaviors in teenagers who play video games for less than 4.93 hours/day. As such, moral panic over normal video gaming (in my data, up to 4.93 hours/day) is largely unsubstantiated,” Turel told PsyPost.
So, as long as your kid plays less than five hours of video games a day, they’re safe… unless they don’t play any video games at all. That’s right. Turel’s research shows that not only are kids who play a lot of video games more likely to bring a gun to school, kids who don’t game at all are a higher risk as well.
“Specifically, I found that not playing video games was an equal risk factor to playing over 5.71 hours per day, for gun carrying to school. That is, playing videogames between 0.07 hours/day to 4.93/hours a day, has sheltered teenagers from gun carrying behaviors — it kept them busy and off the streets. In contrast, not playing video games, or playing for over 4.97 hours/day has elevate the risk for gun carrying to school.” “The findings also imply that legislators and governments should not necessarily try to restrict video gaming time or adolescent access to even violent video games because (1) general video gaming associations with gun-related behaviors are small, and (2) at low levels of general gaming time such activities can be useful and shelter adolescents from other, undesirable behaviors.”
I don’t have an issue with Turel’s takeaway that trying to legislate screen time for teen gamers isn’t likely to do much, but I have some deeper questions about the study itself. Keep in mind that, out of 50,000+ adolescents surveyed, only about 800 reported bringing a gun to school, and we have no real way of knowing how accurate that number actually is.
We do know that Turel wasn’t actually able to measure how many of those 800 actually used a firearm, but that number would likely be far lower. The researcher also wasn’t able to obtain information about the type of video games that these “excessive gamers” were playing, so he simply assumed that they were violent first-person shooters. Is it possible that someone playing 8 hours a day of Call of Duty might become desensitized to violence? Sure, but what if the teen is obsessed with Animal Crossing or Minecraft instead?
Turel also doesn’t explain why non-gamers would be just as likely to carry a gun to school as “excessive gamers.” According to Turel’s theory, “at some level of gaming time (because most popular games adolescents play include violent aspects), the assumed imprinting of aggressive behaviors overpowers the positive displacement force, and this can trivialize and naturalize gun-carrying behaviors, and ultimately increase motivation to obtain and carry guns.”
If that’s the case, what’s the explanation for kids who don’t play video games carrying guns to school at roughly the same rate as those who play video games for five hours or more a day? It seems to me that if Turel’s data is accurate, what he’s found is that adolescents who report bringing a gun to school are simply outliers, which makes sense. They’re not like most kids, both in terms of the amount of video games they play and in the fact that they’ve brought a gun to school.
Rather than blaming excessive gaming (or no gaming at all) as the reason behind the gun-carrying, it might make more sense to view both the illegal gun carrying and the screen time (or lack thereof) as evidence of a deeper issue instead of looking at the two behaviors through a lens of cause and effect. Are these examples of adolescents who’ve withdrawn from their family and peers? Are rates of depression higher among this small group of students? Do they get in more trouble at school? Are they more likely to have trouble at home?
There are a number of important questions that could be asked to get a better idea of what might be driving this behavior, but Turel’s study focuses exclusively on the issue of video games and violent behavior. His results don’t tell us much at all about why a small number of students report that they’ve brought a gun to their school, only that some of them play a lot of video games while others play almost none at all.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Study Finds Link Between Gun Ownership, Police Shootings

We on the pro-gun side of things argue that more guns equal less crime .
Obviously , the other side argues the opposite .
Both of us can find studies to show whatever we want , though .
After all , we ’ ve seen so many anti-gun researchers seeming to trip all over themselves to “ prove ” that guns are bad .
However , a new study suggests a bit of a different link between gun ownership and shootings .
This time , it ’ s about police shootings .
A police officer is more likely to shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high rate of gun ownership , and the victim is more likely to die from injuries in places where emergency trauma care centers are located too far from the incident .
In a 50-state study , Daniel Nagin , a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University , found a direct correlation between rates of household gun ownership and police shootings .
According to Nagin , officers in high gun-ownership areas are more likely to suspect that an individual they apprehend is carrying a weapon –even if he isn ’ t—and make a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger , especially if they have had little training encouraging them to slow down their response time .
Nagin ’ s research is one of a series of studies published by the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science ( AAPSS ) , in a special volume examining the causes and patterns of fatal police shootings across the U.S. “ Police shootings in America is a solvable problem , ” the AAPSS statement accompanying the volume said .
“ Much of the problem is understandable and some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It will require the re-engineering of police-citizen encounters , with a ‘ safety first ’ priority.
” In other words , it seems clear that much of this issue is a training issue .
After all , law-abiding citizens who care lawfully carrying firearms aren ’ t a threat to law enforcement .
However , criminals also carry guns and for the police , they may simply not understand how to react to an armed citizen .
Again , this suggests it ’ s a training issue .
If the study pans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prodded–it tells us just what we need to do to address many police shootings .
It won ’ t do away with all of them , just the worst examples of them .
On the same token , this gives those of us who carry firearms on a regular basis something to think about .
Time and time again , I ’ ve heard people bemoan police officers trying to keep themselves safe during encounters with armed citizens .
Those citizens , justifiably , take issue with many of the requests .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disarm those citizens in many places , especially if there ’ s no evidence of criminal activity taking place .
However , let ’ s also think about the fact that there ’ s pretty much no play in which you drawing your gun works out in your favor during a police encounter .
At best , you ’ ll end up with an aggravated assault charge .
At worst , you leave the area in a bag .
One thing we need to do is recognize that these officers are often not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed citizens and take steps to help them feel at ease in the encounter .
Militancy has its place , but this is probably not the time for it .
The last thing we need is more innocent people being killed .

We on the pro-gun side of things argue that more guns equal less crime. Obviously, the other side argues the opposite. Both of us can find studies to show whatever we want, though. After all, we’ve seen so many anti-gun researchers seeming to trip all over themselves to “prove” that guns are bad.
However, a new study suggests a bit of a different link between gun ownership and shootings. This time, it’s about police shootings.
A police officer is more likely to shoot a civilian in jurisdictions where there is a high rate of gun ownership, and the victim is more likely to die from injuries in places where emergency trauma care centers are located too far from the incident. In a 50-state study, Daniel Nagin, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University, found a direct correlation between rates of household gun ownership and police shootings. According to Nagin, officers in high gun-ownership areas are more likely to suspect that an individual they apprehend is carrying a weapon –even if he isn’t—and make a “split-second” conclusion that their lives are in danger, especially if they have had little training encouraging them to slow down their response time. Nagin’s research is one of a series of studies published by the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS), in a special volume examining the causes and patterns of fatal police shootings across the U.S. … “Police shootings in America is a solvable problem,” the AAPSS statement accompanying the volume said. “Much of the problem is understandable and some of the solutions can be implemented right now. “It will require the re-engineering of police-citizen encounters, with a ‘safety first’ priority.”
In other words, it seems clear that much of this issue is a training issue. After all, law-abiding citizens who care lawfully carrying firearms aren’t a threat to law enforcement.
However, criminals also carry guns and for the police, they may simply not understand how to react to an armed citizen. Again, this suggests it’s a training issue.
If the study pans out–and studies should always be questioned and prodded–it tells us just what we need to do to address many police shootings. It won’t do away with all of them, just the worst examples of them.
On the same token, this gives those of us who carry firearms on a regular basis something to think about.
Time and time again, I’ve heard people bemoan police officers trying to keep themselves safe during encounters with armed citizens. Those citizens, justifiably, take issue with many of the requests. After all, police have no right to disarm those citizens in many places, especially if there’s no evidence of criminal activity taking place.
However, let’s also think about the fact that there’s pretty much no play in which you drawing your gun works out in your favor during a police encounter. At best, you’ll end up with an aggravated assault charge. At worst, you leave the area in a bag.
One thing we need to do is recognize that these officers are often not trained well on how to deal with armed citizens and take steps to help them feel at ease in the encounter. Militancy has its place, but this is probably not the time for it.
The last thing we need is more innocent people being killed.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Rotten Apple: Mayor Flailing (And Failing) As Crime Surges In NYC

Shootings in New York City have more than doubled compared to the same time period in 2019 , and there ’ s no shortage of finger-pointing about who and what is to blame .
CBS New York reports that some city residents are accusing the NYPD of apathy in their investigations , the city ’ s top cop is blaming a “ perfect storm ” of coronavirus-related court closures and cuts to the NYPD budget , and Mayor Bill de Blasio ?
Well , he ’ s doing his best to ignore the spike in shootings and homicides completely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that de Blasio tweeted about on Monday , as shootings and homicides continued to soar across the city .
One of the latest murders was caught on camera , as a man was gunned down in cold blood as he walked his daughter across a city street , but the mayor seems incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the scope of the problem .
Meanwhile , gun control groups holding a rally on Monday were interrupted by protesters who have set up camp outside City Hall .
Public Advocate Jumaane Williams had to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who apparently believed the focus of the rally needed to be on police brutality , not the street violence that ’ s surging in the five boroughs .
You don ’ t speak for us , ” Shermain Laster , 45 , shouted .
“ I ’ ve been down here for fourteen days protesting against police brutality… you haven ’ t been here.
” The momentarily tense situation was de-escalated by Williams , Bronx/Westchester Congressional candidate Jamaal Bowman and Iesha Sekou from Street Corner Sources .
As things settled one protester , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the podium alongside Williams .
The passionate exchange , Williams said , was interconnected to the recent surge in violence occurring across the city , and he said it was representative of its solution .
“ We need leadership , the violence is too much , the police will play their part , the groups will play their part , electeds will play their part , we need the resources , we need the funding , we need the political courage and political will to address the pain we heard today , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street .
Two things are desperately needed to quell the violence .
First , NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea is right when he talks about the impact that largely shutting down the city ’ s criminal justice system since March has had on violence .
The city needs a functioning criminal justice system if it ’ s going to attempt to hold violent criminals accountable for their actions .
That starts with the NYPD and ends with the court system , but right now leaders like de Blasio are far more likely to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem , not part of the solution .
The city also needs to recognize the fact that its gun control regime is doing nothing to stop these shootings .
The state ’ s SAFE Act isn ’ t keeping people safe , and the city ’ s draconian licensing laws are doing far more to keep New Yorkers from legally owning a gun than in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals .
As crime spikes , more residents , particularly those in high crime neighborhoods , are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for self-defense simply because they have no legal way of exercising their Second Amendment rights .
Given the lack of leadership from the mayor on down , I don ’ t see these needed changes happening anytime soon .
That “ perfect storm ” is likely to linger over the city for some time , and a deluge of more violence should be expected in the weeks to come unless and until de Blasio and other public officials are willing to acknowledge their own failures in addressing the crisis .

Shootings in New York City have more than doubled compared to the same time period in 2019, and there’s no shortage of finger-pointing about who and what is to blame. CBS New York reports that some city residents are accusing the NYPD of apathy in their investigations, the city’s top cop is blaming a “perfect storm” of coronavirus-related court closures and cuts to the NYPD budget, and Mayor Bill de Blasio? Well, he’s doing his best to ignore the spike in shootings and homicides completely.
Good. Her racist behavior could have had dire consequences for a Black man.
Glad she’ll face consequences of her own. https://t.co/l7yNVOX2uM — Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) July 6, 2020
Amazingly, this was the only crime that de Blasio tweeted about on Monday, as shootings and homicides continued to soar across the city. One of the latest murders was caught on camera, as a man was gunned down in cold blood as he walked his daughter across a city street, but the mayor seems incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the scope of the problem.
Meanwhile, gun control groups holding a rally on Monday were interrupted by protesters who have set up camp outside City Hall. Public Advocate Jumaane Williams had to give up the microphone to one protester, who apparently believed the focus of the rally needed to be on police brutality, not the street violence that’s surging in the five boroughs.
You don’t speak for us,” Shermain Laster, 45, shouted. “I’ve been down here for fourteen days protesting against police brutality… you haven’t been here.” The momentarily tense situation was de-escalated by Williams, Bronx/Westchester Congressional candidate Jamaal Bowman and Iesha Sekou from Street Corner Sources. As things settled one protester, Laster, was invited to speak at the podium alongside Williams. The passionate exchange, Williams said, was interconnected to the recent surge in violence occurring across the city, and he said it was representative of its solution. “We need leadership, the violence is too much, the police will play their part, the groups will play their part, electeds will play their part, we need the resources, we need the funding, we need the political courage and political will to address the pain we heard today,” Williams told reporters outside of 1 Centre Street.
Two things are desperately needed to quell the violence. First, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea is right when he talks about the impact that largely shutting down the city’s criminal justice system since March has had on violence. The city needs a functioning criminal justice system if it’s going to attempt to hold violent criminals accountable for their actions. That starts with the NYPD and ends with the court system, but right now leaders like de Blasio are far more likely to see the criminal justice system as part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The city also needs to recognize the fact that its gun control regime is doing nothing to stop these shootings. The state’s SAFE Act isn’t keeping people safe, and the city’s draconian licensing laws are doing far more to keep New Yorkers from legally owning a gun than in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. As crime spikes, more residents, particularly those in high crime neighborhoods, are going to be more likely to illegally acquire a gun for self-defense simply because they have no legal way of exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Given the lack of leadership from the mayor on down, I don’t see these needed changes happening anytime soon. That “perfect storm” is likely to linger over the city for some time, and a deluge of more violence should be expected in the weeks to come unless and until de Blasio and other public officials are willing to acknowledge their own failures in addressing the crisis.


bearingarms--2020-07-07--Atlanta Mayor Wants "Occupied Zone" Cleared, But How?

Yesterday , I wrote about the murder of eight-year-old Secoriea Turner .
Young Miss Turner was shot by a group of protestors near the Wendy ’ s where Rayshard Brooks was killed .
Her crime ?
Damned if I know .
She was a little girl who couldn ’ t have done anything .
Regardless , when the car she was riding in turned to enter a parking lot , they were faced with armed protestors who objected to what the driver was trying to do .
The Mayor of Atlanta wants the city ’ s own version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bottoms has ordered a Black Lives Matter “ occupied zone ” around a downtown Wendy ’ s — the site where Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed in an encounter with cops last month — dismantled and cleared after an 8-year-old girl was allegedly murdered by protesters Sunday .
The young girl , Secoriea Turner , was killed when her mother exited the freeway and turned into a parking lot playing host to the “ occupied ” protest similar to the one that cropped up in Seattle ’ s Capitol Hill neighborhood early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman ’ s vehicle and fired a number of shots at the family , hitting Secoriea .
In a press conference Sunday night , Bottoms ordered the “ occupied ” zone cleared and declared that protesters would no longer be able to set up a long-term camp at the site of Brooks ’ death .
“ After a night of a dozen shootings , including one in which an 8-year-old girl was killed , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms on Sunday said protesters could no longer occupy the Wendy ’ s where a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month , ” Fox News reported Monday .
This , of course , raises an issue , one of the mayor ’ s own making .
You see , the only way to clear the area of protestors who don ’ t want to leave is to either use the police or the National Guard .
The Guard is something of a non-starter for what should be fairly obvious reasons .
The idea of soldiers clearing an area on American soil will not play well on television .
Not in the least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually going to clear it ?
This is a department still struggling with morale problems after the Brooks incident .
An officer was fired and another reassigned before an investigation into their actions could even begin .
That happened at Mayor Bottoms ’ s direction .
It seems unlikely that the Atlanta Police Department would be interested in rolling into an area where the potential exists for more violence knowing that if someone dies , they ’ ll be the ones hung out to dry .
That didn ’ t stop many from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t already moved in .
The AJC Monday tried to ask Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and interim Police Chief Rodney Bryant why the city did not remove the armed protesters , but the mayor , who announced she tested positive for COVID-19 , did not comment .
A spokesperson for the chief didn ’ t respond to questions from the AJC about if police were aware that the group had threatened people with guns , and if so , why they took no action .
The protesters who camped out at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s killing .
The police chief also declined to answer questions about whether Bottoms made the decision to allow protesters to remain at the site , if the department was aware of people being threatened by armed protesters , and why they didn ’ t stop armed demonstrators from using guns to block the road .
Members of Atlanta ’ s City Council could not provide answers to why the city failed to reign in the armed protesters .
City Council President Felicia Moore said she visited the Wendy ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooks was shot .
She described a noticeable lack of police presence , especially after a woman was shot there on June 20 .
Moore said demonstrators believe a white man fired a gun into the crowd and that the police were slow to respond .
Of course , we already have an idea about why they haven ’ t stepped in .
No one wants to be fired and/or prosecuted for trying to do their jobs .
It ’ s just a bad state all-around .
Look , bad cops need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues otherwise .
But there ’ s a process that needs to be followed to determine if someone is a good cop or a bad one after an incident like the death of Rayshard Brooks .
That wasn ’ t followed and so no one should be surprised that officers aren ’ t willing to put it on the line anymore in Atlanta .
If you want to change that , you ’ ve got to give officers the feeling that you ’ ll have their back if they ’ re in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair shake in determining if they ’ re wrong or not .
They don ’ t have that now .
That ’ s on Bottoms and the city of Atlanta .

Yesterday, I wrote about the murder of eight-year-old Secoriea Turner. Young Miss Turner was shot by a group of protestors near the Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was killed. Her crime? Damned if I know. She was a little girl who couldn’t have done anything.
Regardless, when the car she was riding in turned to enter a parking lot, they were faced with armed protestors who objected to what the driver was trying to do.
And a little girl died.
The Mayor of Atlanta wants the city’s own version of the CHOP cleared.
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has ordered a Black Lives Matter “occupied zone” around a downtown Wendy’s — the site where Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed in an encounter with cops last month — dismantled and cleared after an 8-year-old girl was allegedly murdered by protesters Sunday. The young girl, Secoriea Turner, was killed when her mother exited the freeway and turned into a parking lot playing host to the “occupied” protest similar to the one that cropped up in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood early in June. Protesters reportedly swarmed the woman’s vehicle and fired a number of shots at the family, hitting Secoriea. … In a press conference Sunday night, Bottoms ordered the “occupied” zone cleared and declared that protesters would no longer be able to set up a long-term camp at the site of Brooks’ death. “After a night of a dozen shootings, including one in which an 8-year-old girl was killed, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms on Sunday said protesters could no longer occupy the Wendy’s where a police officer shot and killed Rayshard Brooks last month,” Fox News reported Monday.
This, of course, raises an issue, one of the mayor’s own making.
You see, the only way to clear the area of protestors who don’t want to leave is to either use the police or the National Guard. The Guard is something of a non-starter for what should be fairly obvious reasons. The idea of soldiers clearing an area on American soil will not play well on television. Not in the least.
That leaves the police.
Yet, how are the police actually going to clear it? This is a department still struggling with morale problems after the Brooks incident. An officer was fired and another reassigned before an investigation into their actions could even begin. That happened at Mayor Bottoms’s direction. It seems unlikely that the Atlanta Police Department would be interested in rolling into an area where the potential exists for more violence knowing that if someone dies, they’ll be the ones hung out to dry.
That didn’t stop many from asking just why the police hadn’t already moved in.
The AJC Monday tried to ask Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and interim Police Chief Rodney Bryant why the city did not remove the armed protesters, but the mayor, who announced she tested positive for COVID-19, did not comment. A spokesperson for the chief didn’t respond to questions from the AJC about if police were aware that the group had threatened people with guns, and if so, why they took no action. The protesters who camped out at the Wendy’s denied responsibility in Secoriea’s killing. The police chief also declined to answer questions about whether Bottoms made the decision to allow protesters to remain at the site, if the department was aware of people being threatened by armed protesters, and why they didn’t stop armed demonstrators from using guns to block the road. … Members of Atlanta’s City Council could not provide answers to why the city failed to reign in the armed protesters. City Council President Felicia Moore said she visited the Wendy’s more than half a dozen times since Rayshard Brooks was shot. She described a noticeable lack of police presence, especially after a woman was shot there on June 20. Moore said demonstrators believe a white man fired a gun into the crowd and that the police were slow to respond.
Of course, we already have an idea about why they haven’t stepped in. No one wants to be fired and/or prosecuted for trying to do their jobs. It’s just a bad state all-around.
Look, bad cops need to be punished, sure. No one argues otherwise. But there’s a process that needs to be followed to determine if someone is a good cop or a bad one after an incident like the death of Rayshard Brooks. That wasn’t followed and so no one should be surprised that officers aren’t willing to put it on the line anymore in Atlanta.
If you want to change that, you’ve got to give officers the feeling that you’ll have their back if they’re in the right and you’ll get a fair shake in determining if they’re wrong or not. They don’t have that now.
That’s on Bottoms and the city of Atlanta.