bearingarms--2020-03-09--Brady Backs Biden For 2020 Elections

Brady Backs Biden For 2020 Elections

We all knew it would happen .
Whoever began to shake out as the Democratic nominee would likely start tallying up the anti-gun endorsements .
Based on recent polling , since the Democratic field all but evaporated and threw their support behind former Vice President Joe Biden , we all knew precisely who that support would go to .
And now it has .
Brady has formally thrown their weight behind Biden in his bid to unseat President Donald Trump from the Oval Office .
Pro-gun safety organization Brady : United Against Gun Violence endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep and consistent commitment to ending gun violence in the United States.
” The endorsement — only the second the group has issued in a presidential primary — provides Biden with a key marker to contrast himself with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the issue of gun safety , something he ’ s placed an increased focus on as the pair competes for the Democratic presidential nomination .
“ At a time when our politics are polarized and people are looking for answers , Joe Biden can break through the division and deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he understands that gun violence affects every community and person , ” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement .
“ There is no other candidate in this race with his record and his commitment to ending gun violence.
” Of course , Biden ’ s “ commitment to ending gun violence ” involves treating a firearm used for a few hundred homicides per year as if they ’ re Class III firearms and would require owners of those rifles to either sell them back to the government or register them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ come for our guns , or so they tell us repeatedly .
This is , of course , what Brady wants and let ’ s face it , Joe Biden has been bought and paid for by the gun control movement for decades .
He ’ s been a glorious foot soldier to their cause for pretty much the entirety of his career .
They made their initial investment into his campaigns early on and they ’ re still doing so .
Honestly , this endorsement , even if rare , isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising thing is that they ’ re doing it during the primary and not the general election after a Democratic nominee has been named .
Of course , the Democrats have pulled out all the stops in an effort to kill the Bernie Sanders campaign .
For all their talk of gun control being a non-partisan issue , it ’ s clear that Brady is backing the Democrats play with this endorsement .
They know that the polling suggests gun control is a key issue for Democrats in the primary so their endorsement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , the group has made it clear that they ’ re really just another arm of the DNC .
Not that many of us will be shocked by that revelation , of course .
It ’ s something many of us already figured to be the case .
I just didn ’ t think they ’ d be stupid enough to come this close to outright admitting it like this .

We all knew it would happen. Whoever began to shake out as the Democratic nominee would likely start tallying up the anti-gun endorsements. Based on recent polling, since the Democratic field all but evaporated and threw their support behind former Vice President Joe Biden, we all knew precisely who that support would go to.
And now it has.
Brady has formally thrown their weight behind Biden in his bid to unseat President Donald Trump from the Oval Office.
Pro-gun safety organization Brady: United Against Gun Violence endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president Sunday, citing his “deep and consistent commitment to ending gun violence in the United States.” The endorsement — only the second the group has issued in a presidential primary — provides Biden with a key marker to contrast himself with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the issue of gun safety, something he’s placed an increased focus on as the pair competes for the Democratic presidential nomination. “At a time when our politics are polarized and people are looking for answers, Joe Biden can break through the division and deliver real change. He has proven that he understands that gun violence affects every community and person,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement. “There is no other candidate in this race with his record and his commitment to ending gun violence.”
Of course, Biden’s “commitment to ending gun violence” involves treating a firearm used for a few hundred homicides per year as if they’re Class III firearms and would require owners of those rifles to either sell them back to the government or register them.
But Brady doesn’t want to come for our guns, or so they tell us repeatedly.
Bull.
This is, of course, what Brady wants and let’s face it, Joe Biden has been bought and paid for by the gun control movement for decades. He’s been a glorious foot soldier to their cause for pretty much the entirety of his career. They made their initial investment into his campaigns early on and they’re still doing so.
Honestly, this endorsement, even if rare, isn’t remotely surprising. The only remotely surprising thing is that they’re doing it during the primary and not the general election after a Democratic nominee has been named.
Of course, the Democrats have pulled out all the stops in an effort to kill the Bernie Sanders campaign. For all their talk of gun control being a non-partisan issue, it’s clear that Brady is backing the Democrats play with this endorsement. They know that the polling suggests gun control is a key issue for Democrats in the primary so their endorsement will carry some weight.
By backing Biden, the group has made it clear that they’re really just another arm of the DNC.
Not that many of us will be shocked by that revelation, of course. It’s something many of us already figured to be the case. I just didn’t think they’d be stupid enough to come this close to outright admitting it like this.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--GA Democrats Try To Push Red Flag Bill

GA Democrats Try To Push Red Flag Bill

As a born and bred Georgian , I have a great deal of affection for my home state .
I didn ’ t always , but I was here when the state turned the corner on gun rights and started becoming a pretty pro-gun state .
There ’ s still a lot to do , of course , but strides were made .
Unfortunately , pro-gun movement by state lawmakers has basically ground to a halt .
There ’ s been little of note in recent years , and that ’ s a big problem for me .
To make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state are trying to ram through a red flag bill .
State Representative Matthew Wilson told Fox 5 that people on both sides of the aisle want this bill .
That ’ s troubling to me .
It ’ s not surprising , of course .
Red flag measures are the gun control bill most likely to be backed by Republicans , in part because it ’ s not as potentially egregious as some other measures .
It may impact law-abiding citizens , some might argue , but only on a temporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be caused by these measures .
Plus , we know they can be used vindictively .
We ’ ve already have a couple of examples .
The last thing Georgia needs are a few examples of our own .
Yet the question is , just how likely is this bill to really pass ?
Is Wilson just deluding himself ?
HB 435 has a whopping six co-sponsors as of this writing .
Further , all six are Democrats from around the Atlanta area .
None of them represent the more rural parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to support any kind of gun control .
These are just six Democrats out of a chamber with 180 members .
Hell , there ’ s only six of the 75 total Democrats in the House sponsoring this piece of legislation .
In other words , it may not be as popular as Wilson might like to believe .
Only a tiny fragment of the House has opted to co-sponsor it despite it being introduced on February 22 , 2020 .
It ’ s had enough time to pick up some traction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all that it has .
So yeah , it looks like Wilson is flat wrong about what kind of support this bill actually has .
However , that doesn ’ t mean we Georgians can afford to be complacent .
Make it a point to call your representatives and let them know how you feel about this bill .
That ’ s especially true if you have Democratic representation .
It sounds like many of Wilson ’ s own party don ’ t want any part of this bill either , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us can expect things to work out if we don ’ t do our part .
That means actively opposing these measures with every fiber of our being .
If we don ’ t , we may just end up with a red flag law .

As a born and bred Georgian, I have a great deal of affection for my home state. I didn’t always, but I was here when the state turned the corner on gun rights and started becoming a pretty pro-gun state. There’s still a lot to do, of course, but strides were made.
Unfortunately, pro-gun movement by state lawmakers has basically ground to a halt. There’s been little of note in recent years, and that’s a big problem for me.
To make matters worse, though, Democrats in the state are trying to ram through a red flag bill.
Georgia House Democrats held a public hearing on House Bill 435, otherwise known as “The Red Flag Protective Order Act.” This law would allow for police or family members to ask a state court to temporarily take away firearms from a person who might be a danger to themselves or others.
State Representative Matthew Wilson told Fox 5 that people on both sides of the aisle want this bill.
That’s troubling to me. It’s not surprising, of course. Red flag measures are the gun control bill most likely to be backed by Republicans, in part because it’s not as potentially egregious as some other measures. It may impact law-abiding citizens, some might argue, but only on a temporary basis.
However, real harm can be caused by these measures. Plus, we know they can be used vindictively. We’ve already have a couple of examples. The last thing Georgia needs are a few examples of our own.
Yet the question is, just how likely is this bill to really pass? Is Wilson just deluding himself?
Well, maybe.
HB 435 has a whopping six co-sponsors as of this writing. Further, all six are Democrats from around the Atlanta area. None of them represent the more rural parts of the state, areas which are less likely to support any kind of gun control. These are just six Democrats out of a chamber with 180 members.
Hell, there’s only six of the 75 total Democrats in the House sponsoring this piece of legislation.
In other words, it may not be as popular as Wilson might like to believe. Only a tiny fragment of the House has opted to co-sponsor it despite it being introduced on February 22, 2020. It’s had enough time to pick up some traction, to get some sponsors. This is all that it has.
So yeah, it looks like Wilson is flat wrong about what kind of support this bill actually has. However, that doesn’t mean we Georgians can afford to be complacent. Make it a point to call your representatives and let them know how you feel about this bill. That’s especially true if you have Democratic representation. It sounds like many of Wilson’s own party don’t want any part of this bill either, so let them know.
Look, none of us can expect things to work out if we don’t do our part. That means actively opposing these measures with every fiber of our being. If we don’t, we may just end up with a red flag law.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--Two Years After School Shooting, Santa Fe HS Arms Some Teachers

Officials with the Santa Fe Independent School District have announced that schools will now be protected by armed school staff as part of the state of Texas ’ Guardian Plan , which allows for trained and vetted volunteer teachers and staff to carry firearms as a first line of defense against an active shooter .
Unfortunately , the students and staff at Santa Fe High School know all too well what that unthinkable horror is like , because in 2018 a student killed 10 people and injured 13 others .
Ever since , the school board has been looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ultimately decided on the Guardian Plan as their answer .
School board President Rusty Norman told The Texas Tribune the district ultimately chose the Guardian Plan over the school marshal program because it allows employees to carry firearms on their person rather than in a lockbox .
“ This is not some knee-jerk reaction , this is not something we are taking lightly , ” said Norman , adding that more than 300 school districts across Texas have implemented the Guardian Plan .
“ We have a school and we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we ’ ve had to respond accordingly , with things that others may or may not choose to do.
” Starting March 16 , when Santa Fe students and staff return from spring break , signs will be posted around school buildings indicating that personnel on campus may be armed , Norman said .
School employees will be able to volunteer to become a Guardian if they have a handgun license , though the application process has yet to formally begin , he said .
The district plans to fund the Guardian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pay for the Guardians ’ training , Superintendent Leigh Wall told The Texas Tribune .
There doesn ’ t seem to be much opposition to the idea within Santa Fe itself , though the Texas Tribune did find a former legislator who said he was “ surprised ” the district didn ’ t adopt the school Marshal plan that he authored .
Jason Villalba says the Marshal program requires firearms to be kept in a lockbox , which he says made some parents feel better about the idea of staff having access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norman of the Santa Fe school board , they considered the other plan , but felt it didn ’ t suit the needs of the district .
Approved applicants for Santa Fe ISD ’ s Guardian Program will be required to complete a minimum of 40 hours of training and meet the same marksmanship standards as a Santa Fe ISD police officer , Norman said .
The selection process will also require criminal background screening and psychological evaluations using the same process and standards as police officer applicants , according to a district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not creating programs where we ’ re going to have people out there acting as first responders , ” Norman said .
“ This is just another layer as a last line of defense , if something gets past all of those other layers and becomes an issue in a classroom or hallway or in one of the school facilities , that someone may be there that could protect themselves along with all the students and staff that are around them.
” Joe Biden opposes arming teachers .
I ’ m curious if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the school board members in Santa Fe of caring more about guns than kids , or being in the pocket of “ the gun lobby ” because they ’ ve decided to take this step .
What would he think about the teachers who are volunteering to serve as an armed response , if necessary , to an active assailant on campus ?
Would he say they ’ re “ full of shit ” , as he called the gun owner in Michigan who dared question Biden about another one of his gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just want to make it harder for you to protect yourself .
They want to make it impossible for school districts to determine for themselves how best to protect students .
Biden , Bloomberg , and the rest talk a lot about protecting kids , but their real agenda is simply about disarming adults as much as possible , even at the expense of student safety .

Officials with the Santa Fe Independent School District have announced that schools will now be protected by armed school staff as part of the state of Texas’ Guardian Plan, which allows for trained and vetted volunteer teachers and staff to carry firearms as a first line of defense against an active shooter.
Unfortunately, the students and staff at Santa Fe High School know all too well what that unthinkable horror is like, because in 2018 a student killed 10 people and injured 13 others. Ever since, the school board has been looking at ways to best keep students safe, and ultimately decided on the Guardian Plan as their answer.
From the Texas Tribune:
School board President Rusty Norman told The Texas Tribune the district ultimately chose the Guardian Plan over the school marshal program because it allows employees to carry firearms on their person rather than in a lockbox. “This is not some knee-jerk reaction, this is not something we are taking lightly,” said Norman, adding that more than 300 school districts across Texas have implemented the Guardian Plan. “We have a school and we have a community that suffered a mass tragedy, and we’ve had to respond accordingly, with things that others may or may not choose to do.” Starting March 16, when Santa Fe students and staff return from spring break, signs will be posted around school buildings indicating that personnel on campus may be armed, Norman said. School employees will be able to volunteer to become a Guardian if they have a handgun license, though the application process has yet to formally begin, he said. The district plans to fund the Guardian Program out of its general fund and will pay for the Guardians’ training, Superintendent Leigh Wall told The Texas Tribune.
There doesn’t seem to be much opposition to the idea within Santa Fe itself, though the Texas Tribune did find a former legislator who said he was “surprised” the district didn’t adopt the school Marshal plan that he authored. Jason Villalba says the Marshal program requires firearms to be kept in a lockbox, which he says made some parents feel better about the idea of staff having access to a firearm.
According to Rusty Norman of the Santa Fe school board, they considered the other plan, but felt it didn’t suit the needs of the district.
Approved applicants for Santa Fe ISD’s Guardian Program will be required to complete a minimum of 40 hours of training and meet the same marksmanship standards as a Santa Fe ISD police officer, Norman said. The selection process will also require criminal background screening and psychological evaluations using the same process and standards as police officer applicants, according to a district press release. “We’re not creating programs where we’re going to have people out there acting as first responders,” Norman said. “This is just another layer as a last line of defense, if something gets past all of those other layers and becomes an issue in a classroom or hallway or in one of the school facilities, that someone may be there that could protect themselves along with all the students and staff that are around them.”
Joe Biden opposes arming teachers. I’m curious if he’d accuse Mr. Norman and the school board members in Santa Fe of caring more about guns than kids, or being in the pocket of “the gun lobby” because they’ve decided to take this step. What would he think about the teachers who are volunteering to serve as an armed response, if necessary, to an active assailant on campus? Would he say they’re “full of shit”, as he called the gun owner in Michigan who dared question Biden about another one of his gun control proposals?
The anti-gun crowd doesn’t just want to make it harder for you to protect yourself. They want to make it impossible for school districts to determine for themselves how best to protect students. Biden, Bloomberg, and the rest talk a lot about protecting kids, but their real agenda is simply about disarming adults as much as possible, even at the expense of student safety.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--SC County Skips Sanctuary Resolution, Sends Letter Instead

All over the nation , a number of counties have embraced the status of Second Amendment sanctuary counties .
They ’ ve all declared they will not enforce unconstitutional gun law regardless of what bills get passed at the state or federal level .
There are a lot of them and I fully expect to see a lot more spring up .
However , Spartanburg County in South Carolina has opted not to join their ranks .
Spartanburg County Council opted to show its support of the Second Amendment with a letter to lawmakers rather than declaring the county a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently asked .
A letter signed by all seven council members was sent Feb. 28 to each state lawmaker in the Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation , and to U.S. Sens .
Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott and U.S. Rep. William Timmons .
“ We … respectfully request your careful consideration of any legislation that may potentially impact the rights afforded under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 , Section 20 of the South Carolina Constitution in order to ensure preservation of those rights , ” the letter states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barnett asked council to pass a resolution declaring Spartanburg County a “ Second Amendment Sanctuary Jurisdiction.
” Undoubtedly , there will be some who will take this decision as something of a slap in the face .
Believe me , I get it .
But , on the same token , it ’ s not like the county council is just ignoring the threat to the Second Amendment , either .
While a letter might not be overly productive in the long run , it ’ s still a stand in defense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It might not be a strong one , but it ’ s still a far cry better than the nothing that many other counties have thus far opted to do .
Look , it ’ s likely that Spartanburg County simply doesn ’ t see gun control becoming a state issue for them , and they ’ re probably right .
That means it ’ s most likely going to come from the feds , so addressing their congressional representation makes a lot of sense .
Only , none of that delegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , I get why some people might be less than thrilled about the relatively weak stance .
However , let ’ s also remember that at least there is a stance .
They have made it clear how the leadership of Spartanburg County feel when it comes to gun rights .
Further , there ’ s nothing about this that stays their hand at revisiting the issue should the chance of gun control become far more substantial .
If it ’ s imminent , they can always change their minds and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , what is the Second Amendment sanctuary movement but a message to lawmakers , a warning that much of the country doesn ’ t support anti-gun regulations ?
A letter is little different in that regard , especially without any impending threat of new gun control regulations hovering over their heads .
The real question is whether a letter will accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things .
Then again , let ’ s hope it ’ s not needed .

All over the nation, a number of counties have embraced the status of Second Amendment sanctuary counties. They’ve all declared they will not enforce unconstitutional gun law regardless of what bills get passed at the state or federal level. There are a lot of them and I fully expect to see a lot more spring up.
However, Spartanburg County in South Carolina has opted not to join their ranks.
Spartanburg County Council opted to show its support of the Second Amendment with a letter to lawmakers rather than declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction as two gun rights activists recently asked. A letter signed by all seven council members was sent Feb. 28 to each state lawmaker in the Spartanburg County Legislative Delegation, and to U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott and U.S. Rep. William Timmons. “We … respectfully request your careful consideration of any legislation that may potentially impact the rights afforded under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 20 of the South Carolina Constitution in order to ensure preservation of those rights,” the letter states. Last month, Cibby Crell and Ryan Barnett asked council to pass a resolution declaring Spartanburg County a “Second Amendment Sanctuary Jurisdiction.”
Undoubtedly, there will be some who will take this decision as something of a slap in the face. Believe me, I get it.
But, on the same token, it’s not like the county council is just ignoring the threat to the Second Amendment, either. While a letter might not be overly productive in the long run, it’s still a stand in defense of the right to keep and bear arms. It might not be a strong one, but it’s still a far cry better than the nothing that many other counties have thus far opted to do.
Look, it’s likely that Spartanburg County simply doesn’t see gun control becoming a state issue for them, and they’re probably right. That means it’s most likely going to come from the feds, so addressing their congressional representation makes a lot of sense.
Only, none of that delegation is likely to back gun control anyway.
So, I get why some people might be less than thrilled about the relatively weak stance. However, let’s also remember that at least there is a stance. They have made it clear how the leadership of Spartanburg County feel when it comes to gun rights.
Further, there’s nothing about this that stays their hand at revisiting the issue should the chance of gun control become far more substantial. If it’s imminent, they can always change their minds and adopt a sanctuary resolution then.
After all, what is the Second Amendment sanctuary movement but a message to lawmakers, a warning that much of the country doesn’t support anti-gun regulations? A letter is little different in that regard, especially without any impending threat of new gun control regulations hovering over their heads.
The real question is whether a letter will accomplish anything in the grand scheme of things. Then again, let’s hope it’s not needed.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--Biden Loses Argument Over Gun Ban With Michigan Voter

A campaign stop at an auto factory under construction in Michigan went off the rails for Joe Biden on Monday , as the former vice-president told a worker he was “ full of sh*t ” for accusing Biden of wanting to erode the right to keep and bear arms .
Over the course of 90 seconds or so , Biden referred to the AR-15 as an “ AR-14 , ” claimed that he supports the Second Amendment , before comparing the most commonly sold rifle in the United States to a machine gun and declaring that both are illegal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rounds of ammunition .
Oh , and he refused to answer the voter ’ s questions , including why Biden wants to ban so-called assault weapons , but isn ’ t calling for a handgun ban despite pistols being used far more frequently in crimes .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. we break down Biden ’ s buffoonish comments on your right to keep and bear arms as well as ask the candidate a few questions of our own , like “ If you ’ re such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one gun control law that you think would or does infringe on the right to keep and bear arms ?
” We ’ re going to be told a gajillion times between now and Election Day that “ Joe Biden supports the Second Amendment , ” but we ’ re never going to be told how he supports our right to keep and bear arms .
The media will , by and large , let him get away with vacuous statements like that , but that doesn ’ t mean voters should .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new gun control laws , you ’ re not a Second Amendment supporter .
If you want to criminalize the possession of commonly owned firearms and magazines , you ’ re not a Second Amendment supporter .
If you believe that possessing a firearm without a government-issued permission slip should be a federal felony , you ’ re not a Second Amendment supporter .
Joe Biden is no Second Amendment supporter .
That much is obvious .
What ’ s just as obvious is the fact that the media is going to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take a look at some of the responses from the commentariat to Biden ’ s angry and ignorant response to the voter .
That ’ s Politico cartoonist Matt Weurker , with perhaps my favorite response of all , given that his description bears absolutely no resemblance to Biden ’ s actual remarks at all .
Others , including David Frum , are also acting like Biden somehow won this exchange .
If you think this clip makes Biden look terrific , then you ’ re just as ill-informed and ignorant as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to ban , as well as how he wants to do it .
Biden talked about AR-15 ’ s being illegal like machine guns , which was supposed to be ( I think , anyway ) a nod to his plan to require owners of AR-15 ’ s to either register them under the National Firearms Act , or turn them in to the government via a compensated confiscation ( what Biden calls a “ buyback ” ) .
Biden ’ s plan also calls for owners of “ high capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; register them with the government under the NFA or turn them over to Uncle Sam .
Now , to non-gun owners maybe this sounds like a good idea , but it ’ s actually completely unworkable .
First of all , there may be as many as one billion magazines in the United States that would fall under Biden ’ s definition of “ high capacity.
” At ten bucks a magazine , you ’ re looking at a $ 10-billion investment to try to buy them from gun owners , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ammunition magazine under the NFA because they ’ re not serialized .
Biden also wants to register some 15-million firearms that are already legally owned under the National Firearms Act , a process which would require existing gun owners to be fingerprinted , pay a $ 200 fee ( per firearm and magazine ) , and wait for government approval to continue to possess their arms .
As NSSF points out , gun owners now are already having to wait up to nine months for NFA approval , so you can imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to register millions of firearms at one time .
That doesn ’ t even address the constitutional concerns over Biden ’ s proposals , which are many .
It also doesn ’ t address the fact that Biden says he ’ s putting Robert Francis “ Beto ” O ’ Rourke in charge of gun control if he wins election , and O ’ Rourke ’ s still out there bleating about the need for “ mandatory buybacks.
” Biden ’ s one-on-one with the Michigan gun owner did the candidate no favors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stark reminder of what ’ s at stake in November .

A campaign stop at an auto factory under construction in Michigan went off the rails for Joe Biden on Monday, as the former vice-president told a worker he was “full of sh*t” for accusing Biden of wanting to erode the right to keep and bear arms.
Over the course of 90 seconds or so, Biden referred to the AR-15 as an “AR-14,” claimed that he supports the Second Amendment, before comparing the most commonly sold rifle in the United States to a machine gun and declaring that both are illegal, and questioned why anyone would need 100 rounds of ammunition. Oh, and he refused to answer the voter’s questions, including why Biden wants to ban so-called assault weapons, but isn’t calling for a handgun ban despite pistols being used far more frequently in crimes.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. we break down Biden’s buffoonish comments on your right to keep and bear arms as well as ask the candidate a few questions of our own, like “If you’re such a Second Amendment supporter, can you name one gun control law that you think would or does infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?”
We’re going to be told a gajillion times between now and Election Day that “Joe Biden supports the Second Amendment,” but we’re never going to be told how he supports our right to keep and bear arms. The media will, by and large, let him get away with vacuous statements like that, but that doesn’t mean voters should. If your only proposals regarding firearms involve new gun control laws, you’re not a Second Amendment supporter. If you want to criminalize the possession of commonly owned firearms and magazines, you’re not a Second Amendment supporter. If you believe that possessing a firearm without a government-issued permission slip should be a federal felony, you’re not a Second Amendment supporter.
Joe Biden is no Second Amendment supporter. That much is obvious. What’s just as obvious is the fact that the media is going to cover as much as they can for Biden. Take a look at some of the responses from the commentariat to Biden’s angry and ignorant response to the voter.
Not at all what he said. Listen to the whole thing. Biden makes a sensible and calm argument for modest gun control. — Matt Wuerker (@wuerker) March 10, 2020
That’s Politico cartoonist Matt Weurker, with perhaps my favorite response of all, given that his description bears absolutely no resemblance to Biden’s actual remarks at all. Others, including David Frum, are also acting like Biden somehow won this exchange.
Kind of amazing that anybody thinks this video makes Biden look anything other than terrific. He shushes the aide who wants to lead him away – and then engages a hostile critic face to face, fact to fact. Impressive. https://t.co/yINIKi4Ffi — David Frum (@davidfrum) March 10, 2020
If you think this clip makes Biden look terrific, then you’re just as ill-informed and ignorant as the candidate is about the firearms that he wants to ban, as well as how he wants to do it. Biden talked about AR-15’s being illegal like machine guns, which was supposed to be (I think, anyway) a nod to his plan to require owners of AR-15’s to either register them under the National Firearms Act, or turn them in to the government via a compensated confiscation (what Biden calls a “buyback”). Biden’s plan also calls for owners of “high capacity” magazines to do the same thing; register them with the government under the NFA or turn them over to Uncle Sam.
Now, to non-gun owners maybe this sounds like a good idea, but it’s actually completely unworkable. First of all, there may be as many as one billion magazines in the United States that would fall under Biden’s definition of “high capacity.” At ten bucks a magazine, you’re looking at a $10-billion investment to try to buy them from gun owners, and there’s no way to register an ammunition magazine under the NFA because they’re not serialized.
Biden also wants to register some 15-million firearms that are already legally owned under the National Firearms Act, a process which would require existing gun owners to be fingerprinted, pay a $200 fee (per firearm and magazine), and wait for government approval to continue to possess their arms. As NSSF points out, gun owners now are already having to wait up to nine months for NFA approval, so you can imagine the wait times if Americans are attempting to register millions of firearms at one time.
That doesn’t even address the constitutional concerns over Biden’s proposals, which are many. It also doesn’t address the fact that Biden says he’s putting Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke in charge of gun control if he wins election, and O’Rourke’s still out there bleating about the need for “mandatory buybacks.”
This guy makes the case for both an assault weapons ban and a mandatory buyback program better than I ever could. These are weapons of war that have no place in our communities, in our politics or in our public discourse. https://t.co/ce5PvaxqMk — Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 6, 2020
Biden’s one-on-one with the Michigan gun owner did the candidate no favors, but it did offer gun owners a stark reminder of what’s at stake in November.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--Wild Hogs Story Not About Hogs But Defense

Right after El Paso and Dayton , anti-gun hysteria kicked into high gear .
Everyone was freaking out , and it wasn ’ t difficult to understand why .
El Paso took place in a Walmart of all places .
Dayton was an outdoor second of a bar .
It seemed like nowhere was safe .
As a result , the hysteria kicked into overdrive .
In the midst of it all , someone asked a question .
It was a simple one .
How would you protect your family from 30-50 wild hogs ?
Like I said , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s amazing how the folks over at Vice missed the point .
Absolute pandemonium ensued , confusion followed by skepticism followed by gleeful , devastating clownings of McNabb ’ s tweet .
Personalities from Rob Delaney to Jonny Sun weighed in , and the jokes continued for days , reveling in the sheer absurdity of the extremely specific ( and yet nonspecific ) threatthat faced America that absolutely had to be heard out and dealt with before the automatic weapons debate could be settled : somewhere between 30 and 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a yard without so much as a heads-up .
Twitter is famous for finding a good meme and running it into the ground before most people even hear of its existence , but the response to “ 30-50 feral hogs ” was like a dam break , and the site ’ s users riffed like classic rock never died .
The intensity of the response , and the ridiculous sound of the original tweet ( feral hogs are a problem , but not best solved by handing out guns , according to experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the desperate circumstances from which it arose : two unspeakable tragedies in rapid succession .
It ’ s hard not to wonder if we didn ’ t latch onto the sheer stupidity of this one incredibly inane argument for personal rights to arms as a kind of coping mechanism for the incomprehensibly painful circumstances we found ourselves in : near-constant deaths , and no clear path to stopping them within a system that works very hard to protect the status quo .
The problem is , the question wasn ’ t about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the need to protect one ’ s family , and that ’ s not something you ’ re likely to see an answer on from the people at Vice .
They ’ re too busy trying to mock a problem that they in their coastal or urban enclaves are likely never to experience .
They can ’ t understand that it only takes a single wild hog to ruin your day if it ’ s angry enough .
They can ’ t understand what it ’ s like to call the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to make it from across the county .
It ’ s not something they care about .
Instead , they want you to focus on El Paso and Dayton .
They want you upset and afraid .
They want you to be hysterical .
What they don ’ t want you to do , though , is recognize that it ’ s your duty to protect yourself and your family .
No one else will because no one else can .
The police , even if they did have a duty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t going to be available the split second you need them .
I had some recent experience that drove that home for me .
They ’ re not going to be there in time .
The moment you realize that , though , is the moment you realize that nothing Vice is trying to sell is worth buying .
They don ’ t care about hogs .
They care about making it so you and yours don ’ t have the means to protect yourself from a violent attack , be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Right after El Paso and Dayton, anti-gun hysteria kicked into high gear. Everyone was freaking out, and it wasn’t difficult to understand why. El Paso took place in a Walmart of all places. Dayton was an outdoor second of a bar. It seemed like nowhere was safe.
As a result, the hysteria kicked into overdrive.
In the midst of it all, someone asked a question. It was a simple one. How would you protect your family from 30-50 wild hogs?
Like I said, it’s a simple question. However, it’s amazing how the folks over at Vice missed the point.
Absolute pandemonium ensued, confusion followed by skepticism followed by gleeful, devastating clownings of McNabb’s tweet. Personalities from Rob Delaney to Jonny Sun weighed in, and the jokes continued for days, reveling in the sheer absurdity of the extremely specific (and yet nonspecific) threatthat faced America that absolutely had to be heard out and dealt with before the automatic weapons debate could be settled: somewhere between 30 and 50 hogs, feral ones, rushing into a yard without so much as a heads-up. Twitter is famous for finding a good meme and running it into the ground before most people even hear of its existence, but the response to “30-50 feral hogs” was like a dam break, and the site’s users riffed like classic rock never died. The intensity of the response, and the ridiculous sound of the original tweet (feral hogs are a problem, but not best solved by handing out guns, according to experts), was impossible to separate from the desperate circumstances from which it arose: two unspeakable tragedies in rapid succession. It’s hard not to wonder if we didn’t latch onto the sheer stupidity of this one incredibly inane argument for personal rights to arms as a kind of coping mechanism for the incomprehensibly painful circumstances we found ourselves in: near-constant deaths, and no clear path to stopping them within a system that works very hard to protect the status quo.
The problem is, the question wasn’t about a feral hog problem. The question stemmed from the need to protect one’s family, and that’s not something you’re likely to see an answer on from the people at Vice.
They’re too busy trying to mock a problem that they in their coastal or urban enclaves are likely never to experience. They can’t understand that it only takes a single wild hog to ruin your day if it’s angry enough. They can’t understand what it’s like to call the police and have to wait an hour for them to make it from across the county.
It’s not something they care about.
Instead, they want you to focus on El Paso and Dayton. They want you upset and afraid. They want you to be hysterical.
What they don’t want you to do, though, is recognize that it’s your duty to protect yourself and your family. No one else will because no one else can. The police, even if they did have a duty to protect you as an individual, simply aren’t going to be available the split second you need them. I had some recent experience that drove that home for me. They’re not going to be there in time.
The moment you realize that, though, is the moment you realize that nothing Vice is trying to sell is worth buying.
They don’t care about hogs. They care about making it so you and yours don’t have the means to protect yourself from a violent attack, be it from two-legged critter or four-legged ones.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--Biden, Bernie Trade Barbs On Gun Control

So , in case you didn ’ t care , there was a debate last night .
Two-thirds of the Democratic candidates took to the stage and prattled on about all kinds of things .
OK , so it was just two old guys up there , one of whom had no idea where he was and another who had no idea who to tax .
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard wasn ’ t included in the debate by the party of diversity .
Anyway , though , one of the topics they delved into was gun control .
Biden , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , promoted his support of 1993 legislation that required a five-day waiting period to buy a gun and a 1994 assault weapons ban , which lasted 10 years .
But Biden noted that Sanders voted against the 1993 measure named for James Brady , the White House spokesman who was shot during the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan .
Sanders also supported a 2005 law in the House , which Biden opposed in the Senate , to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits if there was no reason to believe a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m the only guy that has ever passed an assault weapons ban nationally .
I ’ m the only guy that ever limited the amount of bullets can be in a clip , ” Biden said at a CNN town hall in February .
“ And I ’ m the only person who has taken on the NRA and beat them across the board.
” One of the country ’ s largest gun control advocacy groups , Everytown for Gun Safety , endorsed Biden for president .
Both candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate appearances in Charleston , S.C. , where a white supremacist gunman killed nine black people in a church in 2015 .
Sanders said he has changed and that he is proud of his D-minus rating from the National Rifle Association .
He supported a 2004 proposal to extend the assault-weapons ban , which didn ’ t succeed .
He co-sponsored legislation to reverse the protection for manufacturers from lawsuits .
He said people with violent records , including domestic violence , shouldn ’ t own guns .
And he supports universal background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world has changed , and my views have changed , ” Sanders said at an ABC News debate in February .
Let ’ s be honest here , on this one Biden is easily the most consistent .
However , it should be noted that Biden ’ s efforts on the Brady bill didn ’ t pan out as he planned .
After all , there ’ s no five-day waiting period to buy a gun .
Thankfully .
He arguably lost on that issue .
Sure , we got stuck with background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost on that deal too–but that waiting period is something anti-gunners are still pushing for these days .
And really , Biden ’ s mind is well and truly gone if he thinks he ’ s the “ only one ” who passed the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban .
After all , it takes more than just one vote to pass legislation .
There were a lot of Democrats who voted for that measure .
A lot of them found themselves out of work in short order , too .
Biden just wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clear , though , that even one-time pro-gun Bernie Sanders is now part of the Democratic Party ’ s jihad against the Second Amendment .
Not that anyone is surprised by that fact , of course .
If he wants to win , he has to pander to the base .
Now , of course , the question is whether the middle of the road voters will respond to that or not .

Ahead of Super Tuesday 2.0, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and former Vice President Joe Biden continue to spar over their political records. The two have thrown jabs at each other over federal bailouts, bankruptcy law and the Iraq War, just to name a few.
But one of the major topics they’ve delved into this election cycle is their differing positions on gun control over the years.
Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promoted his support of 1993 legislation that required a five-day waiting period to buy a gun and a 1994 assault weapons ban, which lasted 10 years. But Biden noted that Sanders voted against the 1993 measure named for James Brady, the White House spokesman who was shot during the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Sanders also supported a 2005 law in the House, which Biden opposed in the Senate, to protect gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits if there was no reason to believe a weapon would be used in a crime. “I’m the only guy that has ever passed an assault weapons ban nationally. I’m the only guy that ever limited the amount of bullets can be in a clip,” Biden said at a CNN town hall in February. “And I’m the only person who has taken on the NRA and beat them across the board.” One of the country’s largest gun control advocacy groups, Everytown for Gun Safety, endorsed Biden for president. Both candidates were asked about gun control during in separate appearances in Charleston, S.C., where a white supremacist gunman killed nine black people in a church in 2015. Sanders said he has changed and that he is proud of his D-minus rating from the National Rifle Association. He supported a 2004 proposal to extend the assault-weapons ban, which didn’t succeed. He co-sponsored legislation to reverse the protection for manufacturers from lawsuits. He said people with violent records, including domestic violence, shouldn’t own guns. And he supports universal background checks for gun buyers. “The world has changed, and my views have changed,” Sanders said at an ABC News debate in February.
That’s a funny way to phrase “I’m pandering,” Sen. Sanders.
Let’s be honest here, on this one Biden is easily the most consistent. However, it should be noted that Biden’s efforts on the Brady bill didn’t pan out as he planned. After all, there’s no five-day waiting period to buy a gun. Thankfully. He arguably lost on that issue. Sure, we got stuck with background checks for gun purchases–so yeah, we lost on that deal too–but that waiting period is something anti-gunners are still pushing for these days.
And really, Biden’s mind is well and truly gone if he thinks he’s the “only one” who passed the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. After all, it takes more than just one vote to pass legislation. There were a lot of Democrats who voted for that measure. A lot of them found themselves out of work in short order, too. Biden just wasn’t one of them.
It’s clear, though, that even one-time pro-gun Bernie Sanders is now part of the Democratic Party’s jihad against the Second Amendment. Not that anyone is surprised by that fact, of course. If he wants to win, he has to pander to the base.
Now, of course, the question is whether the middle of the road voters will respond to that or not.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--Dick's Sporting Goods Removing Guns From Hundreds More Stores

Pittsburgh-based Dick ’ s Sporting Goods has announced it ’ s removing firearms and ammunition from more than 400 of its stores in a continued effort to divest itself from the shooting sports market .
In 2019 , the retailer dropped firearm sales at 125 stores , but the company announced Tuesday morning that its efforts will ramp up in 2020 .
A total of 440 stores across the country will remove guns and ammunition from their shelves , but the products will still be for sale in approximately 160 locations .
Company Chief Executive Ed Stack has been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida , which left 17 dead .
Immediately following the February 2018 shooting , Stack halted the sale of assault-style rifles at his stores nationwide , and raised the minimum age for gun purchases to 21 .
Reaction from gun rights group at the time was swift and furious , calling Dick ’ s action a slap against law-abiding gun owners and threatening nationwide boycotts .
I don ’ t know of any formal boycott of Dick ’ s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any gun owner who shops there .
Bloomberg.com noted that Dick ’ s reported strong 4th quarter sales , but the company ’ s stock price has also declined by 30-percent this year , compared to a 15-percent decline in the overall S & P 500 .
Dick ’ s CEO Ed Stack reportedly considered a presidential run last fall before backing away from a go at the Democratic presidential nomination , but even without running for office Stack is doing all he can to influence the gun control debate .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was mulling over his campaign prospects , the CEO has been working closely with anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg to target legal gun owners .
It ’ s one thing for Stack to choose not to sell firearms in his stores , but it ’ s something entirely different when Stack works to make it impossible for anyone to buy or sell the most commonly produced rifle in the country .
Dick ’ s can go gun-free if Stack wants , but the American people aren ’ t going to fall in line and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Pittsburgh-based Dick’s Sporting Goods has announced it’s removing firearms and ammunition from more than 400 of its stores in a continued effort to divest itself from the shooting sports market.
In 2019, the retailer dropped firearm sales at 125 stores, but the company announced Tuesday morning that its efforts will ramp up in 2020. A total of 440 stores across the country will remove guns and ammunition from their shelves, but the products will still be for sale in approximately 160 locations.
Company Chief Executive Ed Stack has been a staunch advocate of stricter gun control measures following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 dead. Immediately following the February 2018 shooting, Stack halted the sale of assault-style rifles at his stores nationwide, and raised the minimum age for gun purchases to 21. Reaction from gun rights group at the time was swift and furious, calling Dick’s action a slap against law-abiding gun owners and threatening nationwide boycotts.
I don’t know of any formal boycott of Dick’s, but I also don’t know any gun owner who shops there. Bloomberg.com noted that Dick’s reported strong 4th quarter sales, but the company’s stock price has also declined by 30-percent this year, compared to a 15-percent decline in the overall S&P 500.
Dick’s CEO Ed Stack reportedly considered a presidential run last fall before backing away from a go at the Democratic presidential nomination, but even without running for office Stack is doing all he can to influence the gun control debate. As the National Shooting Sports Foundation noted when Stack was mulling over his campaign prospects, the CEO has been working closely with anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg to target legal gun owners.
As CEO, Stack made the following anti-gun decisions: Ended the sale of all semiautomatic modern sporting rifles at Dick’s Sporting Goods following the tragic Sandy Hook murders.
the tragic Sandy Hook murders. Extended that ban on AR-15s to include Field & Stream Stores following the Parkland murders.
to include Field & Stream Stores following the Parkland murders. Barred the sale of standard-capacity magazines at all stores.
of at all stores. Unilaterally imposed age-based gun bans on law-abiding Americans under the age of 21, regardless of state and federal age-discrimination laws.
Removed firearms and hunting items altogether from 125 locations .
Hired a Washington D.C. lobbyist to impose strict gun control and ban an entire class of firearms.
to impose strict gun control and ban an entire class of firearms. Supports “No-Fly, No Buy” watchlists that deny gun rights without recourse and would serve as an “early warning terrorist notification system.”
It’s one thing for Stack to choose not to sell firearms in his stores, but it’s something entirely different when Stack works to make it impossible for anyone to buy or sell the most commonly produced rifle in the country. Dick’s can go gun-free if Stack wants, but the American people aren’t going to fall in line and join him.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--Is Coronavirus Impacting Gun Show Attendance?

A recent gun show in rural New Mexico saw steep declines in attendance and vendors compared to years past , and organizers are blaming the state ’ s new universal background check law for the drop , though fears of the coronavirus may also have played at least a small role as well .
The Silver City Daily Press reports dozens of vendors stayed away from the High Desert Gun Show , held over the weekend in Grant County , New Mexico , just as organizers had predicted last year .
“ We usually run between 110 to 135 vendor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime , we have to do background checks on every single purchase , ” said show organizer Jerry Louck .
“ Sellers have backed out , and buyers also .
And they ’ re going to buy it , they ’ re just not doing it here .
“ We ’ re way down from last year , by about 28 vendors , ” Louck continued .
“ That equals about 65 tables in this year ’ s show.
” The funds raised by vendor fees of $ 40 per table , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the show , go toward “ Grant County shooting sports with 4-H , ” according to Louck .
The gun club generally raises around $ 8,000 each year , but is anticipating lower numbers as a result of the show ’ s decline in vendors .
“ We buy targets , ammunition and donate money towards gas and lodging for trips ” to competitions , Louck said , adding that the Silver Shooters youth marksmanship team will have to rely more heavily on the donations it receives from organizations like the Elks Lodge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between $ 300 and $ 500 each year .
“ The gun show is our main moneymaker .
Revenue is down.
” While the organizer of the gun show is pointing to the state ’ s new background check law as the primary reason for the decline , others think there are other factors at work .
Sue Castillo works with the Grant County 4-H shooting sports team , and says she ’ s concerned that the show isn ’ t attracting younger gun owners .
“ Our show is mostly [ seniors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re all getting older , ” Castillo said .
“ There ’ s not a lot of young people stepping up to take their place.
” As far as the new requirement to complete a background check on every firearm purchased at the show , Castillo said it hasn ’ t really changed anything .
“ People are scared , and there are misconceptions about what it will be like to buy firearms here — but it ’ s not that different than before .
We ’ ve always had an FFL ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ license to conduct a federal instant background check .
“ It takes five to 10 minutes , ” Castillo said .
“ Unless something comes up , and then there ’ s a three-day waiting period .
But most people can wait for that.
” Did anyone stay away from the gun show over concerns about the coronavirus ?
The local paper doesn ’ t say , but given the fact that the show is skewing older and the virus seems to be hitting the elderly much harder than it ’ s impacting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be surprised if some potential attendees decided to stay home instead .
This will be a much bigger problem for gun shows in the weeks ahead .
Santa Clara County , California , for instance , has already announced a ban on mass gatherings of more than 1,000 people , and other restrictions on large events are likely to be fairly widespread over the next couple of months .
In Europe , the IWA Outdoor Classics show , which is the closest thing to SHOT Show on the European continent , postponed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year over fears of the coronavirus .
As for the next big gathering of gun owners here in the United States , the NRA ’ s Annual Meeting is scheduled for April 16-19 in Nashville , Tennessee .
So far there ’ ve been no announcements on any delays or cancellations , and hopefully the meeting will be able to take place as planned , but Nashville has seen several smaller events cancelled in recent weeks and Ryman Hospitalities , based in Nashville , says they ’ ve already seen $ 40-million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in the city .

A recent gun show in rural New Mexico saw steep declines in attendance and vendors compared to years past, and organizers are blaming the state’s new universal background check law for the drop, though fears of the coronavirus may also have played at least a small role as well.
The Silver City Daily Press reports dozens of vendors stayed away from the High Desert Gun Show, held over the weekend in Grant County, New Mexico, just as organizers had predicted last year.
“We usually run between 110 to 135 vendor tables, but thanks to our communist regime, we have to do background checks on every single purchase,” said show organizer Jerry Louck. “Sellers have backed out, and buyers also. And they’re going to buy it, they’re just not doing it here. “We’re way down from last year, by about 28 vendors,” Louck continued. “That equals about 65 tables in this year’s show.” The funds raised by vendor fees of $40 per table, along with the $5 admission price to the show, go toward “Grant County shooting sports with 4-H,” according to Louck. The gun club generally raises around $8,000 each year, but is anticipating lower numbers as a result of the show’s decline in vendors. “We buy targets, ammunition and donate money towards gas and lodging for trips” to competitions, Louck said, adding that the Silver Shooters youth marksmanship team will have to rely more heavily on the donations it receives from organizations like the Elks Lodge and the Masons, who typically donate between $300 and $500 each year. “The gun show is our main moneymaker. Revenue is down.”
While the organizer of the gun show is pointing to the state’s new background check law as the primary reason for the decline, others think there are other factors at work. Sue Castillo works with the Grant County 4-H shooting sports team, and says she’s concerned that the show isn’t attracting younger gun owners.
“Our show is mostly [seniors] who are vendors. They’re all getting older,” Castillo said. “There’s not a lot of young people stepping up to take their place.” As far as the new requirement to complete a background check on every firearm purchased at the show, Castillo said it hasn’t really changed anything. “People are scared, and there are misconceptions about what it will be like to buy firearms here — but it’s not that different than before. We’ve always had an FFL” — a person with a federal firearms license to conduct a federal instant background check. “It takes five to 10 minutes,” Castillo said. “Unless something comes up, and then there’s a three-day waiting period. But most people can wait for that.”
Did anyone stay away from the gun show over concerns about the coronavirus? The local paper doesn’t say, but given the fact that the show is skewing older and the virus seems to be hitting the elderly much harder than it’s impacting younger individuals, I wouldn’t be surprised if some potential attendees decided to stay home instead.
This will be a much bigger problem for gun shows in the weeks ahead. Santa Clara County, California, for instance, has already announced a ban on mass gatherings of more than 1,000 people, and other restrictions on large events are likely to be fairly widespread over the next couple of months. In Europe, the IWA Outdoor Classics show, which is the closest thing to SHOT Show on the European continent, postponed the massive four day event until later this year over fears of the coronavirus.
As for the next big gathering of gun owners here in the United States, the NRA’s Annual Meeting is scheduled for April 16-19 in Nashville, Tennessee. So far there’ve been no announcements on any delays or cancellations, and hopefully the meeting will be able to take place as planned, but Nashville has seen several smaller events cancelled in recent weeks and Ryman Hospitalities, based in Nashville, says they’ve already seen $40-million in cancelled events at their properties, which includes the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in the city.


bearingarms--2020-03-10--When An Uncritical Media Pushing Moms Demand Action Lies

What a name .
Mostly , everyone just calls the Moms Demand Action .
They ’ re one of the more vocal anti-gun groups out there .
Backed by Michael Bloomberg ’ s money , they continue to infest federal and state elections with annoying frequency .
All of that , however , is their right .
This is the United States of America , after all .
People have a right to be wrong about issues .
However , there ’ s nothing that annoys me more than when a group backed by a billionaire also gets help from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentence in this article here .
While Moms Demand Action “ absolutely respects ” the Second Amendment , it ’ s pushing for what it says are common sense gun regulations , including what the organization said would fix a loophole that bypasses background checks .
Scott Randolph , the state legislative lead for the organization , spoke to Jefferson City Area Indivisible at its monthly meeting Sunday at the Missouri River Regional Library .
Despite putting “ absolutely respects ” in quotation marks , the first sentence has not a hint of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it is absolute , undisputed fact .
Take the rest of Randolph ’ s talk , for example : Since 2008 , gun deaths in Missouri have increased 55 percent , which corresponds with the Missouri Legislature making guns more accessible , he said .
In 2007-08 , he said , the requirement to register firearms was dropped , along with the requirement to have a background check for every gun .
As of 2018 , Missouri has the third highest rate of gun deaths , he said .
The Legislature in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ license — which requires training — to conceal carry .
Also , if individuals buy guns from other people or at gun shows , rather than at stores , they no longer have to get background checks , he said .
Moms Demand Action wants to change that , he said .
They ’ re working to “ close the deadly loopholes in our background check system that allow dangerous people — like felons and domestic abusers — easy access to guns.
” It should be noted , however , that the changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t unique .
Those exact same laws exist in other states , all without a corresponding increase in violent crime , including the nebulous “ gun deaths ” statistic that also includes suicides .
Regardless , Randolph spoke about reversing all of Missouri ’ s progress on gun rights .
Yet you know what Moms Demand Action never does ?
It never backs a pro-gun measure .
It never draws a line where there ’ s too much gun control .
Their “ respect ” for gun control is nothing more than lip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They say they respect the Second Amendment but then , with every ounce of effort they expend , they seek to whittle it away into nothing .
The worst part to me , though it ’ s not surprising , is how a news publication–both editors and the reporter are complicit in this–looked and Randolph ’ s vague claims about respecting the Second Amendment uncritically and published them in such a way .
They know that many people only read the first few paragraphs of a story .
They ’ ll read that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth .
It ’ s journalistic malpractice on top of being a pile of male bovine excrement .

Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America.
What a name. Mostly, everyone just calls the Moms Demand Action. They’re one of the more vocal anti-gun groups out there. Backed by Michael Bloomberg’s money, they continue to infest federal and state elections with annoying frequency.
All of that, however, is their right. This is the United States of America, after all. People have a right to be wrong about issues.
However, there’s nothing that annoys me more than when a group backed by a billionaire also gets help from a complicit media, like this first sentence in this article here.
While Moms Demand Action “absolutely respects” the Second Amendment, it’s pushing for what it says are common sense gun regulations, including what the organization said would fix a loophole that bypasses background checks. Scott Randolph, the state legislative lead for the organization, spoke to Jefferson City Area Indivisible at its monthly meeting Sunday at the Missouri River Regional Library.
Despite putting “absolutely respects” in quotation marks, the first sentence has not a hint of neutrality. The entire sentence reads as if it is absolute, undisputed fact.
It’s not.
Take the rest of Randolph’s talk, for example:
Since 2008, gun deaths in Missouri have increased 55 percent, which corresponds with the Missouri Legislature making guns more accessible, he said. In 2007-08, he said, the requirement to register firearms was dropped, along with the requirement to have a background check for every gun. As of 2018, Missouri has the third highest rate of gun deaths, he said. The Legislature in 2016 dropped the requirement to obtain a license — which requires training — to conceal carry. Also, if individuals buy guns from other people or at gun shows, rather than at stores, they no longer have to get background checks, he said. Moms Demand Action wants to change that, he said. They’re working to “close the deadly loopholes in our background check system that allow dangerous people — like felons and domestic abusers — easy access to guns.”
It should be noted, however, that the changes to Missouri’s laws aren’t unique. Those exact same laws exist in other states, all without a corresponding increase in violent crime, including the nebulous “gun deaths” statistic that also includes suicides. Regardless, Randolph spoke about reversing all of Missouri’s progress on gun rights.
Yet you know what Moms Demand Action never does? It never backs a pro-gun measure. It never draws a line where there’s too much gun control.
Their “respect” for gun control is nothing more than lip service and we all know it. They say they respect the Second Amendment but then, with every ounce of effort they expend, they seek to whittle it away into nothing.
The worst part to me, though it’s not surprising, is how a news publication–both editors and the reporter are complicit in this–looked and Randolph’s vague claims about respecting the Second Amendment uncritically and published them in such a way. They know that many people only read the first few paragraphs of a story. They’ll read that first line and take it as gospel truth.
It’s journalistic malpractice on top of being a pile of male bovine excrement.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Theater Company Claims To Want Conversation On "Gun Violence," But Do They?

One of the things I enjoy doing from time to time is acting with my local theater .
My wife is knee-deep in stuff there , so we get to do these shows together , so it gets kind of cool .
Theater can be a lot of fun .
However , much of the theater world has a decidedly leftward bent .
That means , typically , an anti-gun bent .
So when I hear about a production wanting to “ start a conversation ” about guns or gun violence , I get a little twitchy .
The Roustabouts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Will Cooper ’ s dark comedy “ gUnTOPIA , ” which takes aim at gun violence and hopes to be a conversation starter .
The play presents what playwright Will Cooper described in a press release as , “ a satire about a world where guns have become objects of religious devotion , a world a little like ours.
” Clearly , Cooper is going into this project with an open mind and isn ’ t at all going with a media portrayal of gun owners that has no basis in reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh , it goes on .
The design of the play makes it look like a 1950s sitcom but instead of “ Leave It To Beaver ” or “ Father Knows Best ” family antics we are given a world where gun ownership is universal for children and parents alike , and shooting deaths are no more bothersome than a parking ticket .
“ It takes place in a utopian environment where everybody is armed , ” she said .
“ The idea being that you ’ re safer if everybody is armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing field , an equal .
But some of the elements that come out of that is how disconnected we become from our emotional lives and what are the consequences of that ?
And the play continues on this path from a very satirical opening into a rather dark and unnerving ending.
” Reynolds goes on to claim that it ’ s not satire in that it ’ s taking a side then attacking it , but color me skeptical .
You see , when artistic types decide they want to “ start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they typically mean is for us to sit down , shut up , and be lectured to for a couple of hours .
They ’ re not interested in our take , our opinions .
I mean , the set-up sounds good .
If everyone is armed then everyone is on a level playing field .
Yet the idea that we somehow become “ disconnected…from our emotional lives ” because of that is ridiculous .
Then again , what do you expect when the person wanting to start a conversation almost never actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the discussion .
Look , if you want to start a conversation , there are people out there you can have a conversation with .
Dana Loesch isn ’ t exactly hiding and she went to a town hall in Parkland , Florida just days after a mass shooting under the auspices of CNN of all people .
I ’ m going to take a stab in the dark and say she ’ s willing to talk .
There ’ s our own editor , Cam Edwards , who has done numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s me who hasn ’ t done as many as Cam , but I ’ ve done a few of each as well .
That ’ s just three examples of folks writers could approach if they really want to start a conversation and that ’ s discounting the thousands of pro-gun voices that are much , much closer geographically than any of us .
Any of us would tell you that owning and carrying a gun doesn ’ t make is feel disconnected from our emotional lives .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , but otherwise don ’ t spend a lot of time thinking about except to maintain proficiency with them .
That ’ s it .
While I ’ m a different person than when I first started carrying , that ’ s because I ’ ve gone through a number of life changes since then .
None of them had anything to do with carrying a gun , nor would it .
I can ’ t help but feel like all these “ let ’ s start a conversation ” types don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation actually is .
After all , a conversation would require them to actually listen to us for a change .

One of the things I enjoy doing from time to time is acting with my local theater. My wife is knee-deep in stuff there, so we get to do these shows together, so it gets kind of cool. Theater can be a lot of fun.
However, much of the theater world has a decidedly leftward bent. That means, typically, an anti-gun bent.
So when I hear about a production wanting to “start a conversation” about guns or gun violence, I get a little twitchy.
The Roustabouts Theatre Co. just opened the world premiere of Will Cooper’s dark comedy “gUnTOPIA,” which takes aim at gun violence and hopes to be a conversation starter. The play presents what playwright Will Cooper described in a press release as, “a satire about a world where guns have become objects of religious devotion, a world a little like ours.”
Clearly, Cooper is going into this project with an open mind and isn’t at all going with a media portrayal of gun owners that has no basis in reality or anything, now is he?
Oh, it goes on.
The design of the play makes it look like a 1950s sitcom but instead of “Leave It To Beaver” or “Father Knows Best” family antics we are given a world where gun ownership is universal for children and parents alike, and shooting deaths are no more bothersome than a parking ticket. Rosina Reynolds directs the play. “It takes place in a utopian environment where everybody is armed,” she said. “The idea being that you’re safer if everybody is armed because everybody is somehow on a level playing field, an equal. But some of the elements that come out of that is how disconnected we become from our emotional lives and what are the consequences of that? And the play continues on this path from a very satirical opening into a rather dark and unnerving ending.”
Reynolds goes on to claim that it’s not satire in that it’s taking a side then attacking it, but color me skeptical.
You see, when artistic types decide they want to “start a conversation” about guns, what they typically mean is for us to sit down, shut up, and be lectured to for a couple of hours. They’re not interested in our take, our opinions.
I mean, the set-up sounds good. If everyone is armed then everyone is on a level playing field. Yet the idea that we somehow become “disconnected…from our emotional lives” because of that is ridiculous.
Then again, what do you expect when the person wanting to start a conversation almost never actually speaks with people on the pro-gun side of the discussion.
Look, if you want to start a conversation, there are people out there you can have a conversation with. Dana Loesch isn’t exactly hiding and she went to a town hall in Parkland, Florida just days after a mass shooting under the auspices of CNN of all people. I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say she’s willing to talk.
There’s our own editor, Cam Edwards, who has done numerous national television and radio interviews. There’s me who hasn’t done as many as Cam, but I’ve done a few of each as well. That’s just three examples of folks writers could approach if they really want to start a conversation and that’s discounting the thousands of pro-gun voices that are much, much closer geographically than any of us.
Any of us would tell you that owning and carrying a gun doesn’t make is feel disconnected from our emotional lives. They’re tools that we use if we need one, but otherwise don’t spend a lot of time thinking about except to maintain proficiency with them. That’s it. While I’m a different person than when I first started carrying, that’s because I’ve gone through a number of life changes since then. None of them had anything to do with carrying a gun, nor would it.
I can’t help but feel like all these “let’s start a conversation” types don’t even really know what a conversation actually is. After all, a conversation would require them to actually listen to us for a change.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--New Zealand's Latest Attempt At Gun Control Not Going So Well

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ’ s second round of gun control legislation has stalled in the country ’ s parliament as gun owners and two of the country ’ s major political parties are pushing back on the proposals .
Ardern is still claiming that the new restrictions on legal gun owners will “ soon be in place , ” but for now there ’ s no sign that she ’ s right .
The new proposed laws would establish a gun registration requirement for all firearms , as well as adding new requirements for gun license holders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike the gun ban and compensated confiscation that passed Parliament by wide margins in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch massacre , Ardern ’ s latest proposals are being greeted with much more skepticism .
Since the bill ’ s tabling in September , the opposition National party has flagged concerns , meaning all three government partners must support it for it to become law .
The delay can at least partly be attributed to negotiations between government coalition partners NZ First and Labour .
The NZ First leader and deputy prime minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ work in progress ” .
“ We ’ ve still got things to negotiate and we ’ re working on them as we speak , ” he said .
“ Our major concern is to ensure the law works , that it ’ s fair and that it lasts .
We ’ re not very far away from getting to that.
” I ’ m skeptical that they ’ re anywhere close to getting a gun registration law that works and is fair , especially given the fact that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the firearms banned under Ardern ’ s order were not turned over to the government .
If thousands of gun owners in New Zealand kept ahold of their rifles after the government told them they weren ’ t allowed to keep them , I can ’ t imagine that any type of gun registration scheme is going to see widespread compliance .
That , of course , is where the increased penalties come in .
Ardern has said that in New Zealand , owning a gun is a privilege , not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything in her power to ensure that only a handful of citizens will be allowed that privilege .
Those who attempt to maintain possession of their firearms without the express permission of the government would face criminal charges , and Ardern wants to double the penalty for selling or providing a firearm to an unlicensed individual to two years in prison and a $ 20,000 fine .
Ardern introduced the latest round of gun control legislation back in September of last year , while the compensated confiscation program was still going on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-March and it still hasn ’ t been brought forward for a vote is not only a sign that the legislation is getting some serious pushback , but that her gun ban and confiscation isn ’ t nearly as popular as she thought it was going to be .
Clearly a number of politicians feel that there ’ s not as much appetite for gun control legislation as there was last summer , and they ’ re dragging their feet on moving forward with the bill .
New Zealand ’ s elections are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll see if the additional gun control measures become a campaign issue for either side .
Unfortunately , the most pro-civilian gun ownership party in New Zealand is the ACT Party , which has just one member in Parliament .
They certainly won ’ t take the majority , but they may be able to pick up a few more seats in the September elections based on the blowback to Ardern ’ s anti-gun ( and anti-gun owner ) campaign .

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s second round of gun control legislation has stalled in the country’s parliament as gun owners and two of the country’s major political parties are pushing back on the proposals. Ardern is still claiming that the new restrictions on legal gun owners will “soon be in place,” but for now there’s no sign that she’s right.
The new proposed laws would establish a gun registration requirement for all firearms, as well as adding new requirements for gun license holders and increasing the penalties for non-compliance. Unlike the gun ban and compensated confiscation that passed Parliament by wide margins in the immediate aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, Ardern’s latest proposals are being greeted with much more skepticism.
From The Guardian:
Since the bill’s tabling in September, the opposition National party has flagged concerns, meaning all three government partners must support it for it to become law. The delay can at least partly be attributed to negotiations between government coalition partners NZ First and Labour. The NZ First leader and deputy prime minister, Winston Peters, said negotiators remained a “work in progress”. “We’ve still got things to negotiate and we’re working on them as we speak,” he said. “Our major concern is to ensure the law works, that it’s fair and that it lasts. We’re not very far away from getting to that.”
I’m skeptical that they’re anywhere close to getting a gun registration law that works and is fair, especially given the fact that it’s estimated that as many as 66-percent of the firearms banned under Ardern’s order were not turned over to the government. If thousands of gun owners in New Zealand kept ahold of their rifles after the government told them they weren’t allowed to keep them, I can’t imagine that any type of gun registration scheme is going to see widespread compliance.
That, of course, is where the increased penalties come in. Ardern has said that in New Zealand, owning a gun is a privilege, not a right, and she’s doing everything in her power to ensure that only a handful of citizens will be allowed that privilege. Those who attempt to maintain possession of their firearms without the express permission of the government would face criminal charges, and Ardern wants to double the penalty for selling or providing a firearm to an unlicensed individual to two years in prison and a $20,000 fine.
Ardern introduced the latest round of gun control legislation back in September of last year, while the compensated confiscation program was still going on. The fact that it’s now mid-March and it still hasn’t been brought forward for a vote is not only a sign that the legislation is getting some serious pushback, but that her gun ban and confiscation isn’t nearly as popular as she thought it was going to be. Clearly a number of politicians feel that there’s not as much appetite for gun control legislation as there was last summer, and they’re dragging their feet on moving forward with the bill.
New Zealand’s elections are coming in September, and we’ll see if the additional gun control measures become a campaign issue for either side. Unfortunately, the most pro-civilian gun ownership party in New Zealand is the ACT Party, which has just one member in Parliament. They certainly won’t take the majority, but they may be able to pick up a few more seats in the September elections based on the blowback to Ardern’s anti-gun (and anti-gun owner) campaign.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Indiana Felon With 20+ Guns, Pipe Bombs Sentenced

Federal law bars anyone who is a convicted felon from owning a firearm .
There ’ s no differentiation between different kinds of felonies , either .
Someone convicted of insider trading is just as barred as a murderer or drug kingpin .
No one cares what the felony is , once you ’ re a felon , no more legal guns for you .
Not that the law stops anyone who wants to break the law again .
Sure , you can find plenty of felons who never touched another firearm as long as they live .
They were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that meant additional restrictions for them , so be it .
But a lot of them just don ’ t care .
They ’ re career criminals , and guns are part of their trade .
Take this guy from Fort Wayne , Indiana .
Shawn M. Bacon , 39 , was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 60 years in prison followed by 10 years of supervised released for a variety of charges .
It was December 2017 when officers with the Fort Wayne Police Department ’ s Vice & Narcotics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Devices Unit served a search warrant at 1728 ½ High St. Police had received a tip that the resident inside had been dealing drugs and had a large supply of firearms and explosive devices , according to a police report .
Before the raid , the resident – Bacon – was taken into custody during a traffic stop outside of his home .
He was found with a loaded stolen .38-caliber revolver , the report said .
Inside the home , police found nine handguns and 13 long guns , including one stolen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun and a ballistic bullet resistant vest .
Police also found two 6-inch pipe bombs with a green fuse and a 12-in , 64oz “ Bubba Keg ” also with a green fuse , each described as “ working devices , ” the report said .
Bacon was already a convicted felon , so the .38 was enough to land him back in prison all on its own .
However , Bacon ’ s a drug dealer .
Guns are a requirement for his chosen career path .
He deals with unsavory people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wanted to arm himself .
Then again , he ’ s an unsavory person , so… Yet how did a convicted felon end up with more than 20 firearms when the law expressly forbids it ?
That ’ s easy .
The hint is in the status of the .38 .
It was stolen .
That suggests that Bacon bought his guns on the black market .
Despite all the gun laws on the books and every law being discussed at this moment at the state and federal level , this career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on firearms .
Just because only one was reported as a stolen pistol doesn ’ t mean the others weren ’ t .
If someone doesn ’ t report their stolen gun with a serial number , it ’ s unlikely they ’ ll show up as stolen guns when a criminal is caught with them .
Additionally , they might have come via straw buys .
Again , also illegal .
If you can ’ t keep guns out of a felon ’ s hands despite the laws already on the books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns for law-abiding citizens ?
What we have is failing to stop anything .
Bacon is living proof of that .

Federal law bars anyone who is a convicted felon from owning a firearm. There’s no differentiation between different kinds of felonies, either. Someone convicted of insider trading is just as barred as a murderer or drug kingpin. No one cares what the felony is, once you’re a felon, no more legal guns for you.
Not that the law stops anyone who wants to break the law again.
Sure, you can find plenty of felons who never touched another firearm as long as they live. They were determined to be law-abiding citizens, and if that meant additional restrictions for them, so be it.
But a lot of them just don’t care. They’re career criminals, and guns are part of their trade.
Take this guy from Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Shawn M. Bacon, 39, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 60 years in prison followed by 10 years of supervised released for a variety of charges. It was December 2017 when officers with the Fort Wayne Police Department’s Vice & Narcotics Division, Emergency Services Team and Hazardous Devices Unit served a search warrant at 1728 ½ High St. Police had received a tip that the resident inside had been dealing drugs and had a large supply of firearms and explosive devices, according to a police report. Before the raid, the resident – Bacon – was taken into custody during a traffic stop outside of his home. He was found with a loaded stolen .38-caliber revolver, the report said. Inside the home, police found nine handguns and 13 long guns, including one stolen pistol, along with a TASER stun gun and a ballistic bullet resistant vest. Police also found two 6-inch pipe bombs with a green fuse and a 12-in, 64oz “Bubba Keg” also with a green fuse, each described as “working devices,” the report said.
Bacon was already a convicted felon, so the .38 was enough to land him back in prison all on its own. However, Bacon’s a drug dealer. Guns are a requirement for his chosen career path. He deals with unsavory people, and so, of course, he wanted to arm himself.
Then again, he’s an unsavory person, so…
Yet how did a convicted felon end up with more than 20 firearms when the law expressly forbids it? That’s easy. The hint is in the status of the .38. It was stolen.
That suggests that Bacon bought his guns on the black market.
Despite all the gun laws on the books and every law being discussed at this moment at the state and federal level, this career criminal was able to get his hands on firearms. Just because only one was reported as a stolen pistol doesn’t mean the others weren’t. If someone doesn’t report their stolen gun with a serial number, it’s unlikely they’ll show up as stolen guns when a criminal is caught with them.
Additionally, they might have come via straw buys. Again, also illegal.
If you can’t keep guns out of a felon’s hands despite the laws already on the books, why are you trying to restrict guns for law-abiding citizens? What we have is failing to stop anything. Bacon is living proof of that.


bearingarms--2020-03-12--Will Biden's Michigan Meltdown Be Remembered In November?

Joe Biden had a viral moment this week when his argument with a Michigan construction worker over the candidate ’ s gun ban plans .
While Biden ’ s supporters are clinging to the “ but he fights ” narrative , the truth is Biden once again revealed himself as an arrogant blowhard who ’ d rather insult voters than actually try to engage their criticism or tough but fair questions .
With everything going on in the world , though , will voters remember the exchange when it ’ s time to vote in November .
On today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Townhall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter says “ yes.
” What voters will take from the exchange , he explains , is Biden ’ s temperament .
Biden was having a great time talking with the construction workers until Jerry Wayne confronted him about his gun control platform .
That ’ s when Biden went from slapping backs to threatening to slap Wayne ’ s face , while proclaiming that he actually supports the Second Amendment , even though he wants to turn the vast majority of American gun owners into felons if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to register their legally owned modern sporting rifles and ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition .
There ’ s nothing common sense about Biden ’ s agenda , but rather than try to engage Wayne , Biden simply tried to bluff and bully his way out of the exchange before finally bailing on the conversation when Wayne asked why Biden is so focused on so-called assault weapons when handguns are used in far more crimes .
Schlichter tells me that this could be one of those moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I hope he ’ s right .
One thing is for sure ; Wayne asked Biden the toughest question to date regarding his gun control plans , and it ’ s a major failing of the media that a construction worker , not a campaign correspondent , was the first to seriously grill the Democratic frontrunner on a major campaign plank .
Kurt and I also talk a little about the coronavirus and the panic that seems to be sweeping the globe at the moment .
Stocks are taking a beating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll likely be a few more weeks before we start to turn the corner here in the United States in terms of waning cases .
Right now fear is in the driver ’ s seat , but I do believe that as more facts are known and more Americans understand that this isn ’ t the end of the world , things will start to settle down .
In December of 1776 , mere months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence , Thomas Paine wrote about the panic that had gripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City had been lost to the British , and Washington ’ s forces were scrambling to make it across the Delaware before the British army caught up to them .
The emotional highs of the summer of ’ 76 had been replaced with a deep foreboding that the war would soon be lost .
‘ Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country .
All nations and ages have been subject to them .
Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fourteenth [ fifteenth ] century the whole English army , after ravaging the kingdom of France , was driven back like men petrified with fear ; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman , Joan of Arc .
Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen , and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment !
Yet panics , in some cases , have their uses ; they produce as much good as hurt .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon grows through them , and acquires a firmer habit than before .
But their peculiar advantage is , that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy , and bring things and men to light , which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered .
In fact , they have the same effect on secret traitors , which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer .
They sift out the hidden thoughts of man , and hold them up in public to the world .
Many a disguised Tory has lately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware .
Times like these can try our souls , but Paine was right that panics aren ’ t long-lived .
Our minds will grow through this , and will hopefully acquire firmer habits than we ’ ve had before .
Also on today ’ s show we have the story of a wild shootout at a Church ’ s Chicken restaurant in Memphis , an armed robber shot by his victim who received his day in court ( and a 17-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey police officer in the right place at the right time to save a baby ’ s life .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or to Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co on Apple Podcasts , and thanks as always for watching , listening , and spreading the word !

Joe Biden had a viral moment this week when his argument with a Michigan construction worker over the candidate’s gun ban plans.
While Biden’s supporters are clinging to the “but he fights” narrative, the truth is Biden once again revealed himself as an arrogant blowhard who’d rather insult voters than actually try to engage their criticism or tough but fair questions. With everything going on in the world, though, will voters remember the exchange when it’s time to vote in November.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Townhall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter says “yes.” What voters will take from the exchange, he explains, is Biden’s temperament. Biden was having a great time talking with the construction workers until Jerry Wayne confronted him about his gun control platform.
That’s when Biden went from slapping backs to threatening to slap Wayne’s face, while proclaiming that he actually supports the Second Amendment, even though he wants to turn the vast majority of American gun owners into felons if they don’t hand over or try to register their legally owned modern sporting rifles and ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition.
There’s nothing common sense about Biden’s agenda, but rather than try to engage Wayne, Biden simply tried to bluff and bully his way out of the exchange before finally bailing on the conversation when Wayne asked why Biden is so focused on so-called assault weapons when handguns are used in far more crimes.
Schlichter tells me that this could be one of those moments that ends up resonating with American voters, and I hope he’s right. One thing is for sure; Wayne asked Biden the toughest question to date regarding his gun control plans, and it’s a major failing of the media that a construction worker, not a campaign correspondent, was the first to seriously grill the Democratic frontrunner on a major campaign plank.
Kurt and I also talk a little about the coronavirus and the panic that seems to be sweeping the globe at the moment. Stocks are taking a beating again on Thursday, and it’ll likely be a few more weeks before we start to turn the corner here in the United States in terms of waning cases. Right now fear is in the driver’s seat, but I do believe that as more facts are known and more Americans understand that this isn’t the end of the world, things will start to settle down.
In December of 1776, mere months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine wrote about the panic that had gripped the new United States. New York City had been lost to the British, and Washington’s forces were scrambling to make it across the Delaware before the British army caught up to them. The emotional highs of the summer of ’76 had been replaced with a deep foreboding that the war would soon be lost.
‘Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.
Times like these can try our souls, but Paine was right that panics aren’t long-lived. Our minds will grow through this, and will hopefully acquire firmer habits than we’ve had before.
Also on today’s show we have the story of a wild shootout at a Church’s Chicken restaurant in Memphis, an armed robber shot by his victim who received his day in court (and a 17-year prison sentence), and a New Jersey police officer in the right place at the right time to save a baby’s life.
Don’t forget to subscribe to Townhall Media on YouTube or to Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co on Apple Podcasts, and thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!