bearingarms--2020-06-08--Anti-Gun Hysteria Hits Looney Tunes

Anti-Gun Hysteria Hits Looney Tunes

Growing up , the Looney Tunes was a special treat .
Among other things , I loved watching characters like Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd come up short against Bugs Bunny despite being better armed .
I didn ’ t think much of the guns in the show , though , because so many other shows used firearms as well .
It was just a part of life at the time .
When I learned we were going to get new Looney Tunes , I was thrilled .
I couldn ’ t help but think about how my daughter would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entertainment I used to love as a kid .
Only , it seems that anti-gun hysteria has infiltrated the once-beloved brand .
Classic cartoon character Elmer Fudd won ’ t be holding his famed rifle in a reboot of the Looney Tunes series .
HBO Max premiered the remake of Looney Tunes Cartoons last week , and the executive producer told the New York Times that weapons such as dynamite and other “ Acme stuff ” will be used in the series but not guns .
“ We ’ re not doing guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we can do cartoony violence — TNT , the Acme stuff .
All that was kind of grandfathered in.
” Character Yosemite Sam will also not be using guns as weapons , according to outlet Comic Book .
Instead of a gun , Fudd uses a scythe to try to catch his nemesis , Bugs Bunny .
The series will feature 200 new episodes starring fan favorites such as Daffy Duck , Porky Pig , and Sylvester the Cat .
So , blowing stuff up is fine–something that is generally considered an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm isn ’ t ?
Of course , this is part of the ongoing anti-gun jihad the entertainment industry has been trying to carry out for years now .
Usually , their love of money trumps that–there ’ s a reason we still see action blockbusters every year–but not always .
Many have argued that violence in cartoons leads to violence in real life , yet that ’ s a claim I ’ ve always been skeptical of .
After all , when Looney Tunes was in regular Saturday morning rotation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way of school shootings .
In fact , you didn ’ t get a lot of gun violence from kids at all .
For many , the new Looney Tunes won ’ t be the same and many may not even suggest their kids watch the program .
The fact that they ’ ve ordered 200 episodes suggests they ’ re confident the show will be a hit , but I can ’ t help but wonder if the removal of such iconic aspects of beloved characters will have negative ramifications going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also possible that this isn ’ t a case of trying to message anything , merely a case of pandering .
After all , no one wants to be protests , especially when you live in the anti-gun bubble that is the entertainment industry .
What I do know , though , is that they ’ ve not really accomplished anything except risk the legacy of one of the most beloved franchises in entertainment history .
This is disappointing , but really , none of us should be surprised by it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest example of guns being denormalized guns in the mind of many Americans , to make them taboo .
It ’ s an effort to further stigmatize gun ownership in this country .

Growing up, the Looney Tunes was a special treat. Among other things, I loved watching characters like Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd come up short against Bugs Bunny despite being better armed. I didn’t think much of the guns in the show, though, because so many other shows used firearms as well. It was just a part of life at the time.
When I learned we were going to get new Looney Tunes, I was thrilled. I couldn’t help but think about how my daughter would get to enjoy the same kind of entertainment I used to love as a kid.
Only, it seems that anti-gun hysteria has infiltrated the once-beloved brand.
Classic cartoon character Elmer Fudd won’t be holding his famed rifle in a reboot of the Looney Tunes series. HBO Max premiered the remake of Looney Tunes Cartoons last week, and the executive producer told the New York Times that weapons such as dynamite and other “Acme stuff” will be used in the series but not guns. “We’re not doing guns,” Peter Browngardt said. “But we can do cartoony violence — TNT, the Acme stuff. All that was kind of grandfathered in.” Character Yosemite Sam will also not be using guns as weapons, according to outlet Comic Book. Instead of a gun, Fudd uses a scythe to try to catch his nemesis, Bugs Bunny. The series will feature 200 new episodes starring fan favorites such as Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, and Sylvester the Cat.
So, blowing stuff up is fine–something that is generally considered an act of terrorism in the real world–but a firearm isn’t?
Of course, this is part of the ongoing anti-gun jihad the entertainment industry has been trying to carry out for years now. Usually, their love of money trumps that–there’s a reason we still see action blockbusters every year–but not always.
Many have argued that violence in cartoons leads to violence in real life, yet that’s a claim I’ve always been skeptical of. After all, when Looney Tunes was in regular Saturday morning rotation, you didn’t get much in the way of school shootings. In fact, you didn’t get a lot of gun violence from kids at all.
For many, the new Looney Tunes won’t be the same and many may not even suggest their kids watch the program. The fact that they’ve ordered 200 episodes suggests they’re confident the show will be a hit, but I can’t help but wonder if the removal of such iconic aspects of beloved characters will have negative ramifications going forward.
Then again, it’s also possible that this isn’t a case of trying to message anything, merely a case of pandering. After all, no one wants to be protests, especially when you live in the anti-gun bubble that is the entertainment industry.
What I do know, though, is that they’ve not really accomplished anything except risk the legacy of one of the most beloved franchises in entertainment history.
This is disappointing, but really, none of us should be surprised by it in the least. It’s just the latest example of guns being denormalized guns in the mind of many Americans, to make them taboo. It’s an effort to further stigmatize gun ownership in this country.


bearingarms--2020-06-08--An Obituary For Gun Control

An Obituary For Gun Control

To say 2020 is a strange year would be putting it mildly .
We already expect some oddness because it ’ s an election year and while politicians can screw up plenty , giving us some hilariously odd moments , but what we got was something very different .
From talk of World War III we went to Australia being on fire , then on to COVID-19 , and now riots .
Somewhere in between were the murder hornets , too , because why the hell not ?
However , it also looks like 2020 might also be the year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal restrictions on self-defense rights , 2020 is a disaster .
It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed , while the communities they terrorize should be helpless .
It is also to insist that when police fail at their supposedly core task of protecting the public , people should be deprived of the means for defending themselves .
As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what ’ s necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unlikely that they ’ ll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don ’ t work for government even more vulnerable to those who do .
Back in January , prominent gun control advocate and then-presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg responded to reports that an armed church security guard stopped a would-be mass murderer by sniffing that such behavior is inappropriate .
“ It may be true—I wasn ’ t there and don ’ t know the facts—that somebody in the congregation had his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two other people , but it ’ s the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot .
You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place , ” he said .
That comment hasn ’ t aged well in a world dominated by names of victims of police violence such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , and uniformed perpetrators like former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin .
Now , most of us know that these instances aren ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , decent people just trying to work a tough job .
However , many of those who disagree with that point are also people who routinely argue for gun control , the very people saying that only the police should have guns .
That never really squared up in my mind , especially in the Age of Trump .
After all , if you honestly believe the president is a tyrant and the police are brutal oppressors of marginalized people , on what planet does it actually make sense to make it so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns ?
Well , it seems like many are asking that same question .
Take , for example , Tom Arnold .
Roseanne Barr ’ s less-talented ex-husband routinely spouts idiotic nonsense on Twitter , much of it anti-gun .
However , even he is starting to talk a bit differently .
Yeah , he ’ s still screaming demented stuff , but he ’ s now seeming to recognize the role of the gun in America .
After all , haven ’ t we been saying the purpose of firearms isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation against tyranny , either foreign or domestic ?
Well , Arnold thinks he ’ s seeing tyranny and is calling for using guns to oppose it .
Don ’ t get me wrong , pretty much everything he said was idiotic , up to and including a bit that Colion Noir smacked him down over .
He ’ s not wrong , of course .
Right now , a lot of long-time anti-gun supporters are rethinking their positions .
They ’ re wondering why they should trust the same police they accuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being among the few to possess deadly weapons .
Don ’ t be surprised if gun control suddenly drops off the radar as a campaign issue for Democrats moving forward .
More importantly , though , even people we disagree with on almost everything else may well be coming around to understanding the importance of the Second Amendment and why it shouldn ’ t be further infringed upon .

To say 2020 is a strange year would be putting it mildly. We already expect some oddness because it’s an election year and while politicians can screw up plenty, giving us some hilariously odd moments, but what we got was something very different. From talk of World War III we went to Australia being on fire, then on to COVID-19, and now riots. Somewhere in between were the murder hornets, too, because why the hell not?
However, it also looks like 2020 might also be the year gun control died.
For fans of legal restrictions on self-defense rights, 2020 is a disaster. It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed, while the communities they terrorize should be helpless. It is also to insist that when police fail at their supposedly core task of protecting the public, people should be deprived of the means for defending themselves. As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what’s necessary to shield lives and property, it’s unlikely that they’ll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don’t work for government even more vulnerable to those who do. Back in January, prominent gun control advocate and then-presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg responded to reports that an armed church security guard stopped a would-be mass murderer by sniffing that such behavior is inappropriate. “It may be true—I wasn’t there and don’t know the facts—that somebody in the congregation had his own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people, but it’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place,” he said. That comment hasn’t aged well in a world dominated by names of victims of police violence such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and uniformed perpetrators like former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
Now, most of us know that these instances aren’t the norm. Most police officers are good, decent people just trying to work a tough job.
However, many of those who disagree with that point are also people who routinely argue for gun control, the very people saying that only the police should have guns.
That never really squared up in my mind, especially in the Age of Trump.
After all, if you honestly believe the president is a tyrant and the police are brutal oppressors of marginalized people, on what planet does it actually make sense to make it so they’re the only ones with guns?
Well, it seems like many are asking that same question.
Take, for example, Tom Arnold. Roseanne Barr’s less-talented ex-husband routinely spouts idiotic nonsense on Twitter, much of it anti-gun. However, even he is starting to talk a bit differently.
2nd Amendment is for everyone including black men with long guns but it’s fucking time for us white liberal men to stand up for our brothers & sisters. Borrow our dad’s hunting rifles & go nose to nose with Trump’s gang of misfit tools. Let’s do it @robreiner #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/KIf5OFAp3r — Tom Arnold (@TomArnold) June 7, 2020
Yeah, he’s still screaming demented stuff, but he’s now seeming to recognize the role of the gun in America. After all, haven’t we been saying the purpose of firearms isn’t to hunt but to defend our nation against tyranny, either foreign or domestic?
Well, Arnold thinks he’s seeing tyranny and is calling for using guns to oppose it.
Don’t get me wrong, pretty much everything he said was idiotic, up to and including a bit that Colion Noir smacked him down over.
Bro relax, we’re black men not children, we don’t need your help owning guns, we’ve been doing for it decades and continue to do so. I have more long guns than I do food, we’re good. https://t.co/NxD0WxGkUq — Colion Noir (@MrColionNoir) June 8, 2020
He’s not wrong, of course.
Right now, a lot of long-time anti-gun supporters are rethinking their positions. They’re wondering why they should trust the same police they accuse of every manner of injustice with also being among the few to possess deadly weapons.
Don’t be surprised if gun control suddenly drops off the radar as a campaign issue for Democrats moving forward.
More importantly, though, even people we disagree with on almost everything else may well be coming around to understanding the importance of the Second Amendment and why it shouldn’t be further infringed upon.


bearingarms--2020-06-09--Armed Citizen Defends Family From Dog

Armed Citizen Defends Family From Dog

When the topic of guns being used for self-defense comes up , many anti-gunners like to cite how many people are killed in self-defense as evidence that such claims are bogus .
However , that metric is a poor statistic to use because “ self-defense ” doesn ’ t necessarily mean killing someone .
Simply presenting a gun against an attacker can scare many of them off .
Still others run after the first shot is fired , regardless of whether they ’ re hit or not .
Meanwhile , some are shot and don ’ t die from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in any such statistics , yet all were thwarted by an armed citizen .
Here ’ s another example of a defensive gun use you won ’ t see reflected in the self-defense homicide statistics .
Aggressive dogs aren ’ t calculated in most crime statistics , yet dogs can be incredibly dangerous to humans .
While most dogs are great pets , some aren ’ t .
Those that aren ’ t can well be particularly threatening .
Yet dogs aren ’ t the only threatening animals you ’ re likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , there ’ s any number of animals that may threaten you or a loved one .
Here in my neck of the woods , we ’ ve got coyotes , bobcats , and venomous snakes that may well pose a risk to human life , though bobcats aren ’ t usually a threat in most circumstances .
Using a gun against those won ’ t show up in most statistics .
The thing is , though , those are still valid defensive gun uses .
What else are people expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from these kinds of animal attacks ?
Using a firearm defensively can well mean taking out a dangerous animal before it hurts a person .
We , as a species , have always valued human life more than animals and for good reason .
This is just what we do and how we protect our species .
Anti-gunners , however , ignore these incidents .
Arguably , they know about them and opt to ignore them because it doesn ’ t advance their narrative .
Personally , I think it ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think about these kinds of gun uses because many of them live in places where they simply don ’ t happen .
I mean , how many coyote attacks took place in Chicago last year ?
Regardless , animal attacks are a thing , and using a gun to defend a human life from such an attack is a noble act .
People deserve the right to defend themselves from predators , and not just the two-legged variety .
Look , I ’ m an animal lover myself .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is something I prefer not to think about .
But , if it came down to either doing that or allowing an innocent person to be attacked , I ’ d much rather have the means to put the dog down than to be powerless to help .

When the topic of guns being used for self-defense comes up, many anti-gunners like to cite how many people are killed in self-defense as evidence that such claims are bogus. However, that metric is a poor statistic to use because “self-defense” doesn’t necessarily mean killing someone. Simply presenting a gun against an attacker can scare many of them off. Still others run after the first shot is fired, regardless of whether they’re hit or not. Meanwhile, some are shot and don’t die from the wound.
None of them will show up in any such statistics, yet all were thwarted by an armed citizen.
Here’s another example of a defensive gun use you won’t see reflected in the self-defense homicide statistics.
A man recently shot and killed a dog in West Jackson after seeing the dog act aggressively towards family members. Deputies with the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office were called for the incident on Duck Rd. A man shot a dog twice after the dog was seen behaving aggressively at a family member’s house. The dog reportedly growled at a woman and her son and approached them aggressively.
Aggressive dogs aren’t calculated in most crime statistics, yet dogs can be incredibly dangerous to humans. While most dogs are great pets, some aren’t. Those that aren’t can well be particularly threatening.
Yet dogs aren’t the only threatening animals you’re likely to encounter. Depending on where you are, there’s any number of animals that may threaten you or a loved one. Here in my neck of the woods, we’ve got coyotes, bobcats, and venomous snakes that may well pose a risk to human life, though bobcats aren’t usually a threat in most circumstances. Using a gun against those won’t show up in most statistics.
The thing is, though, those are still valid defensive gun uses. What else are people expected to carry that would let them defend themselves from these kinds of animal attacks?
Using a firearm defensively can well mean taking out a dangerous animal before it hurts a person. We, as a species, have always valued human life more than animals and for good reason. This is just what we do and how we protect our species.
Anti-gunners, however, ignore these incidents. Arguably, they know about them and opt to ignore them because it doesn’t advance their narrative. Personally, I think it’s more from a place of ignorance. They don’t think about these kinds of gun uses because many of them live in places where they simply don’t happen. I mean, how many coyote attacks took place in Chicago last year?
Regardless, animal attacks are a thing, and using a gun to defend a human life from such an attack is a noble act. People deserve the right to defend themselves from predators, and not just the two-legged variety.
Look, I’m an animal lover myself. The idea of having to kill a dog is something I prefer not to think about. But, if it came down to either doing that or allowing an innocent person to be attacked, I’d much rather have the means to put the dog down than to be powerless to help.


bearingarms--2020-06-09--Santa Monica Gun Store Looted, 29 Guns Missing

With rioting going on all over the nation , an alarming number of gun stores have been hit during the riots .
Some appeared to have been the work of thieves merely using the riots as a distraction .
After all , the police were pretty busy otherwise .
That ’ s going to bog down response times , even if they know a break-in is taking place .
If they don ’ t ?
Well , that just gravy for thieves .
However , in Santa Monica , California , a gun store wasn ’ t so much robbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group of burglars who broke into a Big 5 Sporting Goods store in Santa Monica during the looting that took place during the George Floyd protests last week , and made off with more than two-dozen guns .
The Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives Monday released details of the May 31 break-in which occurred at about 8 p.m. at the store located at 3121 Wilshire Blvd .
The suspects used a sledgehammer and bolt cutters to get inside , and then stole 29 weapons .
They fled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exact number of suspects and their descriptions were not confirmed .
The ATF and the National Shooting Sports Foundation – a trade association for gun retailers — are offering a combined $ 10,000 for information leading to an arrest .
On the afternoon of Sunday , May 31 , peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd degenerated into chaos when looters descended on the city , ransacking and vandalizing businesses and setting nine fires .
The Third Street Promenade was especially hard hit .
Honestly , officials are fortunate that only 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the rioting and looting , many more could have been taken and used for whatever nefarious purposes the looters wanted .
While the report didn ’ t say , it ’ s believed the looters failed to fill out a Form 4473 and none waited the mandated 10-day waiting period nor obtained the Firearm Safety Certificate .
I know .
I know .
Absolute anarchy .
You ’ re just hard-pressed to find law-abiding looters these days .
Seriously , though , this is awful .
Those 29 guns are in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commit violence .
After all , looting is a violent act .
How many people will be hurt by the criminals who end up with those guns ?
The truth is , none of us will know for certain .
What we do know , however , is that every crime committed , every person hurt with those guns will be used to justify still more gun control in California , even though those guns weren ’ t legally obtained .
It ’ s unfortunate , but it ’ s just how California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Good people will get hurt because they couldn ’ t get a gun in time , meanwhile , criminals continue to steal guns , even looting them when protests turn into riots .
It ’ s absolutely insane , yet we ’ ve seen it play out this way time and time again .
What worries me , though , is that these are looters who appeared to be prepared for the riots and to hit a gun store .
That suggests they planned on doing it the whole time , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instigate a riot .
Are these guns going to Antifa ?
Who knows for sure .
What I do know is that no answer is pleasant .

With rioting going on all over the nation, an alarming number of gun stores have been hit during the riots. Some appeared to have been the work of thieves merely using the riots as a distraction. After all, the police were pretty busy otherwise. That’s going to bog down response times, even if they know a break-in is taking place. If they don’t? Well, that just gravy for thieves.
However, in Santa Monica, California, a gun store wasn’t so much robbed as looted.
Authorities are looking for a group of burglars who broke into a Big 5 Sporting Goods store in Santa Monica during the looting that took place during the George Floyd protests last week, and made off with more than two-dozen guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Monday released details of the May 31 break-in which occurred at about 8 p.m. at the store located at 3121 Wilshire Blvd. The suspects used a sledgehammer and bolt cutters to get inside, and then stole 29 weapons. They fled in a white four-door BMW sedan. The exact number of suspects and their descriptions were not confirmed. Surveillance photos have been released. The ATF and the National Shooting Sports Foundation – a trade association for gun retailers — are offering a combined $10,000 for information leading to an arrest. On the afternoon of Sunday, May 31, peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd degenerated into chaos when looters descended on the city, ransacking and vandalizing businesses and setting nine fires. The Third Street Promenade was especially hard hit.
Honestly, officials are fortunate that only 29 firearms were stolen. After all, with the rioting and looting, many more could have been taken and used for whatever nefarious purposes the looters wanted.
While the report didn’t say, it’s believed the looters failed to fill out a Form 4473 and none waited the mandated 10-day waiting period nor obtained the Firearm Safety Certificate.
I know. I know. Absolute anarchy. You’re just hard-pressed to find law-abiding looters these days.
Seriously, though, this is awful. Those 29 guns are in the hands of people more than willing to commit violence. After all, looting is a violent act. How many people will be hurt by the criminals who end up with those guns?
The truth is, none of us will know for certain. What we do know, however, is that every crime committed, every person hurt with those guns will be used to justify still more gun control in California, even though those guns weren’t legally obtained.
It’s unfortunate, but it’s just how California rolls when it comes to gun laws. Good people will get hurt because they couldn’t get a gun in time, meanwhile, criminals continue to steal guns, even looting them when protests turn into riots. It’s absolutely insane, yet we’ve seen it play out this way time and time again.
What worries me, though, is that these are looters who appeared to be prepared for the riots and to hit a gun store. That suggests they planned on doing it the whole time, perhaps even being part of the effort to instigate a riot. Are these guns going to Antifa? Who knows for sure. What I do know is that no answer is pleasant.


bearingarms--2020-06-09--Soldier Carrying Gun In NY Protest Arrested, Charged

Every gun rights advocate knows that some states are more gun-friendly than others .
New York , for example , isn ’ t .
In fact , they ’ re outright gun hostile .
Being a gun owner in the state isn ’ t necessarily a pleasant thing .
After all , your governor hates you and what you stand for , as do many other elected officials .
However , if you support gun rights and live in New York , you probably already know this .
Unfortunately , a soldier stationed at Fort Drum has been arrested for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldier stationed at Fort Drum , who was among a groups of armed men detained by police during Sunday ’ s Troy Rally for Black Lives , was arrested for possessing a loaded handgun just blocks from the city police station , police said Monday .
Deputy Police Chief Dan DeWolf commended officers for taking the men into custody , praising them “ for averting what may have become a violent encounter that day.
” The matter remains under investigation and additional charges are expected to be filed .
Noah Latham , 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being held without bail at the Rensselaer County jail , the Rensselaer County District Attorney ’ s Office said .
Latham is charged with a single felony count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon , Latham could face up to 15 years in state prison if convicted .
Latham is a member of the U.S. Army ’ s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum in Jefferson County .
He is a specialist E-4 who flies drones for the division .
“ We are aware of it .
We ’ ll let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huff , a spokesman for Fort Drum , said regarding Latham ’ s incarceration in the county jail .
Latham and the other men dressed in fatigues were taken into custody at about 4:30 p.m. Sunday after police said they learned gun-toting men in military-style clothing were seen near Congress and Ferry streets on Sixth Avenue , police said .
Now , there ’ s no evidence that Latham intended to harm a soul .
He and these other “ men dressed in fatigues ” may have simply been there to watch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He may have been there to protect innocent life and businesses , though , which I ’ d be far more likely to believe .
Regardless , we don ’ t know they had any plans to initiate violence .
In New York , though , that doesn ’ t matter .
None of that matters and now Latham may be looking at 15 years in prison .
Latham was at least somewhat familiar with gun laws in the state .
He started a petition to push one county into becoming a sanctuary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s a gun-rights supporter .
One would think he wouldn ’ t go down that road without at least understand what the laws actually are .
Not that it should matter , of course .
By most estimations , Latham and company didn ’ t do anything wrong except be present and be armed .
That shouldn ’ t be illegal .
Unfortunately , this is New York we ’ re talking about here .
Simply existing while armed is sternly frowned upon in the state .
Latham either knew this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now facing charges because of it .
In the meantime , he ’ s also painting the rest of us in a negative light , which is something we don ’ t need .
Hopefully , this gets settled quickly and Latham be ruled free to go , but let ’ s not hold our breath on that one .
It ’ s New York , after all .

Every gun rights advocate knows that some states are more gun-friendly than others. New York, for example, isn’t. In fact, they’re outright gun hostile. Being a gun owner in the state isn’t necessarily a pleasant thing. After all, your governor hates you and what you stand for, as do many other elected officials.
However, if you support gun rights and live in New York, you probably already know this.
Unfortunately, a soldier stationed at Fort Drum has been arrested for illegal possession of a handgun.
A soldier stationed at Fort Drum, who was among a groups of armed men detained by police during Sunday’s Troy Rally for Black Lives, was arrested for possessing a loaded handgun just blocks from the city police station, police said Monday. Deputy Police Chief Dan DeWolf commended officers for taking the men into custody, praising them “for averting what may have become a violent encounter that day.” The matter remains under investigation and additional charges are expected to be filed. Noah Latham, 22, of Lewis Avenue in Fort Drum is being held without bail at the Rensselaer County jail, the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office said. Latham is charged with a single felony count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, Latham could face up to 15 years in state prison if convicted. Latham is a member of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum in Jefferson County. He is a specialist E-4 who flies drones for the division. “We are aware of it. We’ll let it play out,” Major Harold Huff, a spokesman for Fort Drum, said regarding Latham’s incarceration in the county jail. Latham and the other men dressed in fatigues were taken into custody at about 4:30 p.m. Sunday after police said they learned gun-toting men in military-style clothing were seen near Congress and Ferry streets on Sixth Avenue, police said.
Now, there’s no evidence that Latham intended to harm a soul. He and these other “men dressed in fatigues” may have simply been there to watch the protest, though I doubt it. He may have been there to protect innocent life and businesses, though, which I’d be far more likely to believe.
Regardless, we don’t know they had any plans to initiate violence.
In New York, though, that doesn’t matter. None of that matters and now Latham may be looking at 15 years in prison. Latham was at least somewhat familiar with gun laws in the state. He started a petition to push one county into becoming a sanctuary county, after all, which means he’s a gun-rights supporter. One would think he wouldn’t go down that road without at least understand what the laws actually are.
Not that it should matter, of course. By most estimations, Latham and company didn’t do anything wrong except be present and be armed. That shouldn’t be illegal.
Unfortunately, this is New York we’re talking about here. Simply existing while armed is sternly frowned upon in the state. Latham either knew this or should have known this and is now facing charges because of it. In the meantime, he’s also painting the rest of us in a negative light, which is something we don’t need.
Hopefully, this gets settled quickly and Latham be ruled free to go, but let’s not hold our breath on that one. It’s New York, after all.


bearingarms--2020-06-09--Attorney Argues Chattanooga Cops Mistreated Protesting Gun Owner

The protests that have gripped our nation for weeks now are part of American discourse , even if you don ’ t necessarily agree with the message .
People are free to protest as the right is protected by the First Amendment , no matter what some people might like to think .
However , when protests turn to riots in other places , police officers can get a little jumpy .
Well , an attorney argues that those jumpy police officers mistreated an armed citizen just because he had a firearm on him .
An attorney says the Chattanooga @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest in downtown Chattanooga Monday night raises many legal questions .
McCracken Poston , the Catoosa County-based lawyer who is now the attorney for Trevan Young , says Chattanooga Police misrepresented Young and his intent when reporting about his arrest .
He says Young is a veteran who had a legal right to carry the firearm police found disassembled in his backpack , and that he is being unfairly targeted for exercising his Second Amendment rights .
“ His home was raided .
They still have his car , and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poston during an interview with NewsChannel 9 on Monday .
Chattanooga Police say they got a tip that a man was going to bring firearms to the protest , and say they arrested Young because he matched the description given in the tip .
CPD says one of their officers approached Young and asked to speak with him , but he refused and kept walking .
The affidavit says the officer again called for Young to stop and come talk with him , but Young refused , and the officer then approached and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain control of him .
Young resisted the officer ’ s efforts , which led to a confrontation in which Young was arrested .
The problem ?
Poston says the weapon was disassembled in Young ’ s backpack and that Young had been protesting for about two hours–peacefully protesting–when officers approached him .
Then , it seems the police also confiscated his car where another firearm was legally locked up , then raided his house .
Officials claim they were looking for “ gang paraphernalia ” or evidence of involvement in terrorist plots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in gangs are usually not also involved in terrorist activities and vice versa .
Folks usually pick one criminal organization and stick with it .
In other words , the raid appears to have been a fishing expedition because Young dared exercise his Second Amendment rights .
“ Then why did he have a gun in a backpack ?
” some might ask .
The answer is impossible to know without speaking with Young , but he may have had the weapon available in case of violence directed at the protestors or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth is , it didn ’ t matter .
Unless he was breaking the law by having that firearm there–and I can ’ t find a single law he broke by having a disassembled rifle in a backpack–there was no reason to even approach him , much less arrest him for not wishing to speak with police .

The protests that have gripped our nation for weeks now are part of American discourse, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the message. People are free to protest as the right is protected by the First Amendment, no matter what some people might like to think.
However, when protests turn to riots in other places, police officers can get a little jumpy.
Well, an attorney argues that those jumpy police officers mistreated an armed citizen just because he had a firearm on him.
An attorney says the Chattanooga Police arrest of a man at a protest in downtown Chattanooga Monday night raises many legal questions. McCracken Poston, the Catoosa County-based lawyer who is now the attorney for Trevan Young, says Chattanooga Police misrepresented Young and his intent when reporting about his arrest. He says Young is a veteran who had a legal right to carry the firearm police found disassembled in his backpack, and that he is being unfairly targeted for exercising his Second Amendment rights. “His home was raided. They still have his car, and it’s just not making any sense” said Poston during an interview with NewsChannel 9 on Monday. Chattanooga Police say they got a tip that a man was going to bring firearms to the protest, and say they arrested Young because he matched the description given in the tip. CPD says one of their officers approached Young and asked to speak with him, but he refused and kept walking. The affidavit says the officer again called for Young to stop and come talk with him, but Young refused, and the officer then approached and grabbed Young’s right hand to gain control of him.
Young resisted the officer’s efforts, which led to a confrontation in which Young was arrested.
The problem? Poston says the weapon was disassembled in Young’s backpack and that Young had been protesting for about two hours–peacefully protesting–when officers approached him.
Then, it seems the police also confiscated his car where another firearm was legally locked up, then raided his house.
Officials claim they were looking for “gang paraphernalia” or evidence of involvement in terrorist plots, which is…odd. After all, people in gangs are usually not also involved in terrorist activities and vice versa. Folks usually pick one criminal organization and stick with it. In other words, the raid appears to have been a fishing expedition because Young dared exercise his Second Amendment rights.
“Then why did he have a gun in a backpack?” some might ask. The answer is impossible to know without speaking with Young, but he may have had the weapon available in case of violence directed at the protestors or any number of other things.
The truth is, it didn’t matter. Unless he was breaking the law by having that firearm there–and I can’t find a single law he broke by having a disassembled rifle in a backpack–there was no reason to even approach him, much less arrest him for not wishing to speak with police.


bearingarms--2020-06-09--Journalist Tim Pool Describes Headache Of Buying Gun In NJ

Independent journalist Tim Pool used to describe himself as being fairly liberal .
He ’ s definitely not a hard-core conservative .
The one-time Bernie Bro , however , has never really been liked by the left .
He ’ s been accused of being part of the alt-right and who knows what else .
Still , Pool has soldiered through .
He ’ s maintained his stances on things like free speech and many other issues .
He ’ s someone I enjoy watching .
His takes on the news are often enlightening , even if I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , Pool has also started to do something of interest to Bearing Arms readers .
He tried to buy a gun .
Legally , of course .
Unfortunately , for him , he lives in New Jersey .
Pool spoke with conservative talk show host Steven Crowder about his experiences .
In short , Tim had quite a time trying to get a gun .
I mean , when the police tell you to go to a website that doesn ’ t even exist , it ’ s beyond ridiculous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ labyrinth was put in place to discourage firearm ownership .
They can ’ t ban guns , but they figure can make it such a pain in the butt that no one will want to do it .
The problem is , we live in a world where people want guns .
From COVID-19 to riots to whatever the hell is next , millions of Americans like Pool have determined that it ’ s in their best interest to have a firearm for protection .
Especially with talk of defunding police departments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way of that .
The attitude of the police Pool spoke with gets in the way of that .
The Second Amendment exists to prevent that kind of stuff , yet it ’ s been so hamstrung in New Jersey that it is barely hanging on there .
Now , in fairness , not everyone has the same experiences Pool describes .
Different departments have different attitudes .
Some departments are more than willing to help law-abiding citizens obtain firearms .
They understand that armed citizens make everyone safer , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t swoop in to save the day , so they ’ re willing to help empower people to protect themselves .
The problem is , what Pool encountered is too common even if he were the only person to ever run into such a thing .
He ’ s not , though .
New Jersey is a very anti-gun state , perhaps one of the most anti-gun there is .
It ’ s not California , but not for lack of trying .
All of those laws are meant to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Note that I didn ’ t say they ’ re to keep guns out of criminals ’ hands ?
That ’ s because there ’ s this idea that if law-abiding citizens can ’ t get guns , criminals can ’ t get them either .
So yeah , I think the runaround Pool got was intentional .
I believe states like New Jersey want to discourage gun ownership through any means they can , and this is just what they opted to do in order to achieve that goal .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who don ’ t have someone willing to send them one , remember what you encountered while trying to buy a gun come November .

Independent journalist Tim Pool used to describe himself as being fairly liberal. He’s definitely not a hard-core conservative. The one-time Bernie Bro, however, has never really been liked by the left. He’s been accused of being part of the alt-right and who knows what else.
Still, Pool has soldiered through. He’s maintained his stances on things like free speech and many other issues. He’s someone I enjoy watching. His takes on the news are often enlightening, even if I don’t always agree with him on it.
However, Pool has also started to do something of interest to Bearing Arms readers. He tried to buy a gun.
Legally, of course. Unfortunately, for him, he lives in New Jersey.
Pool spoke with conservative talk show host Steven Crowder about his experiences.
In short, Tim had quite a time trying to get a gun. I mean, when the police tell you to go to a website that doesn’t even exist, it’s beyond ridiculous.
Like Tim, I believe this byzantine labyrinth was put in place to discourage firearm ownership. They can’t ban guns, but they figure can make it such a pain in the butt that no one will want to do it.
The problem is, we live in a world where people want guns. From COVID-19 to riots to whatever the hell is next, millions of Americans like Pool have determined that it’s in their best interest to have a firearm for protection. Especially with talk of defunding police departments.
New Jersey’s draconian laws get in the way of that. The attitude of the police Pool spoke with gets in the way of that.
The Second Amendment exists to prevent that kind of stuff, yet it’s been so hamstrung in New Jersey that it is barely hanging on there.
Now, in fairness, not everyone has the same experiences Pool describes. Different departments have different attitudes. Some departments are more than willing to help law-abiding citizens obtain firearms. They understand that armed citizens make everyone safer, but most especially themselves. They know they can’t swoop in to save the day, so they’re willing to help empower people to protect themselves.
The problem is, what Pool encountered is too common even if he were the only person to ever run into such a thing. He’s not, though.
New Jersey is a very anti-gun state, perhaps one of the most anti-gun there is. It’s not California, but not for lack of trying. All of those laws are meant to keep guns out of people’s hands.
Note that I didn’t say they’re to keep guns out of criminals’ hands? That’s because there’s this idea that if law-abiding citizens can’t get guns, criminals can’t get them either. So yeah, I think the runaround Pool got was intentional. I believe states like New Jersey want to discourage gun ownership through any means they can, and this is just what they opted to do in order to achieve that goal.
Luckily, Pool’s getting a gun anyway.
However, for the millions in the state who don’t have someone willing to send them one, remember what you encountered while trying to buy a gun come November.


bearingarms--2020-06-09--Minneapolis City Official: Being Robbed Is A Privilege

I don ’ t think many people can look at the Minneapolis Police Department objectively and think they ’ re not in need of some kind of major overhaul .
After all , in just the last few years , we know of at least two people dying at the hands of police officers in some manner other than self-defense .
It doesn ’ t take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong .
The problem is that now , Minneapolis has decided to completely disband their police department .
Many in the city are worried right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what to do going forward .
When CNN asked the president of the city council , Lisa Bender , about who those folks could call , what they got was an answer that made less sense than disbanding a police department .
That ’ s right , ladies and gentlemen .
You not wanting to be robbed , raped , and murdered is really all about privilege .
If you let go of your privilege , you ’ d be content to have all your crap taken , your wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death like all right-thinking people .
In essence , being robbed is a privilege .
Bender goes on to prattle about how we should think about situations where calling the police may do more harm than good .
The problem is that Bender was asked about a particular situation , a serious problem that is outright terrifying to everyone involved regardless of race .
Someone breaking into an occupied home is often a particularly violent sort of thug .
Bender would have people do what ?
Offer them milk , cookies , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not every situation calls for the police , something like this does .
Many who support defunding police are claiming that “ defunding ” really just means reprioritizing where money goes , that there will still be some kind of law enforcement .
However , it seems quite clear that Bender is all gung ho for dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department , but with no real plan for what to do next .
Over at our sister site , Hot Air , Allahpundit had this to say about Bender ’ s comments : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how vague Bender is about her plans for what comes next after the Minneapolis PD is abolished .
Others have scrambled to fill in those blanks for her .
A professor at Georgetown Law , writing today in WaPo about the “ defund the police ” battle cry , insists that it ’ s less about dismantling the force than outsourcing many of their duties to other , less aggressive agencies : To fix policing , we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary , and can make things worse .
We ask police to take accident reports , respond to people who have overdosed and arrest , rather than cite , people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $ 20 bill .
We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps , resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike , and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need .
It means investing more in mental-health care and housing , and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs .
Okay , but will any of that reduce police brutality ?
Handing off *less confrontational* situations to social-service workers means less of a police presence on the streets but not necessarily much less force used against the public in the aggregate .
In the interview Bender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey , which actually did disband its force in 2012 and replaced it with a new county force .
( Compton also disbanded its force in 2000 , handing policing duties over to Los Angeles County , per the AP . )
Yesterday Alex Tabarrok noted that things did improve in Camden afterward .
Cops who had been stuck working desk jobs were replaced with civilians , freeing up more officers to hit the streets .
The collective bargaining contract with the police union was also nullified , a potentially important step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sheer radicalism of the act of abolishing the force also helped “ reboot ” the culture internally , communicating in the starkest possible way that the attitude of the police towards the city had to change drastically .
He adds that he ’ s quite sure that Bender isn ’ t talking about replacing the department with nothing , but he ’ s not willing to bet the farm on that .
I don ’ t blame him .
From here , it looks quite obvious that something will have to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remotely ready for a world with no policing , nor do I think we ’ ll ever get there .
However , Bender doesn ’ t seem to have a plan , which suggests that the city council that tripped all over itself to disband the police don ’ t have a plan either .
If you live in Minneapolis , it might be a fine time to talk to your neighbors about how well armed they are .
I have a feeling they ’ re going to need something going forward .

I don’t think many people can look at the Minneapolis Police Department objectively and think they’re not in need of some kind of major overhaul. After all, in just the last few years, we know of at least two people dying at the hands of police officers in some manner other than self-defense. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that something is wrong.
The problem is that now, Minneapolis has decided to completely disband their police department.
Many in the city are worried right now, rightly so. They simply don’t know what to do going forward.
When CNN asked the president of the city council, Lisa Bender, about who those folks could call, what they got was an answer that made less sense than disbanding a police department.
CAMEROTA: "What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into. Who do I call?" BENDER: "Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege." pic.twitter.com/WhubQ9yJIf — Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) June 8, 2020
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. You not wanting to be robbed, raped, and murdered is really all about privilege. If you let go of your privilege, you’d be content to have all your crap taken, your wife violated, and your children beaten to death like all right-thinking people. In essence, being robbed is a privilege.
Bender goes on to prattle about how we should think about situations where calling the police may do more harm than good.
The problem is that Bender was asked about a particular situation, a serious problem that is outright terrifying to everyone involved regardless of race. Someone breaking into an occupied home is often a particularly violent sort of thug. Bender would have people do what? Offer them milk, cookies, and their daughter’s virtue?
While not every situation calls for the police, something like this does.
Many who support defunding police are claiming that “defunding” really just means reprioritizing where money goes, that there will still be some kind of law enforcement. However, it seems quite clear that Bender is all gung ho for dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, but with no real plan for what to do next.
Over at our sister site, Hot Air, Allahpundit had this to say about Bender’s comments:
The other striking thing about the interview is how vague Bender is about her plans for what comes next after the Minneapolis PD is abolished. Others have scrambled to fill in those blanks for her. A professor at Georgetown Law, writing today in WaPo about the “defund the police” battle cry, insists that it’s less about dismantling the force than outsourcing many of their duties to other, less aggressive agencies: To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue… Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs. Okay, but will any of that reduce police brutality? Handing off *less confrontational* situations to social-service workers means less of a police presence on the streets but not necessarily much less force used against the public in the aggregate. In the interview Bender mentions the case of Camden, New Jersey, which actually did disband its force in 2012 and replaced it with a new county force. (Compton also disbanded its force in 2000, handing policing duties over to Los Angeles County, per the AP.) Yesterday Alex Tabarrok noted that things did improve in Camden afterward. Cops who had been stuck working desk jobs were replaced with civilians, freeing up more officers to hit the streets. The collective bargaining contract with the police union was also nullified, a potentially important step in increasing officer accountability. I wonder if the sheer radicalism of the act of abolishing the force also helped “reboot” the culture internally, communicating in the starkest possible way that the attitude of the police towards the city had to change drastically.
He adds that he’s quite sure that Bender isn’t talking about replacing the department with nothing, but he’s not willing to bet the farm on that. I don’t blame him.
From here, it looks quite obvious that something will have to replace the MPD. We’re not remotely ready for a world with no policing, nor do I think we’ll ever get there. However, Bender doesn’t seem to have a plan, which suggests that the city council that tripped all over itself to disband the police don’t have a plan either.
If you live in Minneapolis, it might be a fine time to talk to your neighbors about how well armed they are. I have a feeling they’re going to need something going forward.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Everytown Announced Senate Candidates Its Buying

Everytown for Gun Safety has made an announcement .
They ’ ve announced the first round of Senate candidates they ’ re backing in this election cycle .
These are the candidates they ’ re endorsing and will likely be throwing money at as well as likely paying for advertisements in local media at their own expense .
Of course , none of these are really surprising .
Everytown for Gun Safety on Tuesday rolled out its first round of Senate endorsements ahead of November ’ s crucial general election .
The gun-control advocacy group threw its support behind 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona , former Colorado Gov .
John Hickenlooper , Theresa Greenfield in Iowa , Sara Gideon in Maine , Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico , Cal Cunningham in North Carolina , Jaime Harrison in South Carolina and MJ Hegar in Texas .
The endorsement of Gideon is particularly notable given the group endorsed incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins ( D-Maine ) in 2014 .
Of course , we can also look at these individuals as the candidates that Everytown has decided to buy this election cycle .
Oh , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t really care .
After all , they claim the NRA is buying candidates when they do this exact same thing , so what ’ s good for the goose is good for the gander .
No , I don ’ t actually believe Everytown is buying candidates .
That ’ s because I don ’ t believe the NRA is either and , as noted , the two groups are doing the exact same thing .
However , it ’ s only the NRA and other gun rights groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers by making perfectly legal campaign contributions that are replicated by every other special interest group out there .
Why is that ?
It doesn ’ t help that the anti-gun allies that populate most of the media have failed to examine these claims critically .
It ’ s funny how rarely these claims ever show up on fact check sites .
That ’ s because no one on the left or in the media wants them critically examined .
So , if they ’ re going to continue this kind of thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
These candidates are being bought by the anti-gun lobby .
They ’ ll fail to defend our constitutionally-protected rights because they ’ re beholden to their master , Michael Bloomberg .
They won ’ t represent the best interests of their constituents because they have to appease the man who really pays their bills .
And look at what happened to Collins for evidence of that .
She failed to toe the line sufficiently , so they cut her off and have opted to fun her opponent .
Anti-gunners don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of rules .
If these endorsements and contributions are buying candidates if one group does them , then they ’ re not exempt from being held to the precise same standard .
They ’ re trying to buy your rights out from under you .
Don ’ t let them get away with it .
Back the candidates who aren ’ t bought and paid for by the anti-gun lobby and protect your basic civil liberties .
Fail to do that , and your rights may go away forever .

Everytown for Gun Safety has made an announcement. They’ve announced the first round of Senate candidates they’re buying backing in this election cycle. These are the candidates they’re endorsing and will likely be throwing money at as well as likely paying for advertisements in local media at their own expense.
Of course, none of these are really surprising.
Everytown for Gun Safety on Tuesday rolled out its first round of Senate endorsements ahead of November’s crucial general election. The gun-control advocacy group threw its support behind 11 Democratic Senate candidates including Mark Kelly in Arizona, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, Sara Gideon in Maine, Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico, Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, Jaime Harrison in South Carolina and MJ Hegar in Texas. The endorsement of Gideon is particularly notable given the group endorsed incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins (D-Maine) in 2014. The group also backed incumbent Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), Gary Peters
Of course, we can also look at these individuals as the candidates that Everytown has decided to buy this election cycle.
Oh, they’d bristle at the categorization, but I don’t really care. After all, they claim the NRA is buying candidates when they do this exact same thing, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
No, I don’t actually believe Everytown is buying candidates. That’s because I don’t believe the NRA is either and, as noted, the two groups are doing the exact same thing.
However, it’s only the NRA and other gun rights groups that seem to be “buying” lawmakers by making perfectly legal campaign contributions that are replicated by every other special interest group out there. Why is that?
It doesn’t help that the anti-gun allies that populate most of the media have failed to examine these claims critically. It’s funny how rarely these claims ever show up on fact check sites. That’s because no one on the left or in the media wants them critically examined.
So, if they’re going to continue this kind of thing, we should flip the script on them. These candidates are being bought by the anti-gun lobby. They’ll fail to defend our constitutionally-protected rights because they’re beholden to their master, Michael Bloomberg. They won’t represent the best interests of their constituents because they have to appease the man who really pays their bills.
And look at what happened to Collins for evidence of that. She failed to toe the line sufficiently, so they cut her off and have opted to fun her opponent.
Anti-gunners don’t get to play by a different set of rules. If these endorsements and contributions are buying candidates if one group does them, then they’re not exempt from being held to the precise same standard. They’re trying to buy your rights out from under you. Don’t let them get away with it. Back the candidates who aren’t bought and paid for by the anti-gun lobby and protect your basic civil liberties. Fail to do that, and your rights may go away forever.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Local Police Back WA Officer Who Posed For Picture With Armed Citizens

Two police officer unions in Olympia , Washington are publicly backing an officer who ’ s under investigation after she posed with several armed citizens who were protecting a local gun store late last week .
We first told you about the story over the weekend , including some incendiary language from Olympia ’ s mayor accusing both the officer in question and the armed citizens of being white supremacists .
In actuality , members of Washington Three Percent had gathered outside of the local gun shop after its owner requested help to prevent his store from falling victim to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Olympia Police Officer ’ s Guild , the officer in question did absolutely nothing wrong , and wasn ’ t supporting racism or white supremacy when posing for the picture with gun owners .
“ On June 5 , 2020 the Olympia Police Department responded to a routine noise disturbance in west Olympia , ” the guild ’ s statement begins .
“ After the call was handled , an African American male asked the officer to pose for a photo with him and the rest of the group .
The citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as ‘ Washington 3 % .
’ ” The officer wasn ’ t familiar with the organization and “ takes no position ” as to its goals , the response reads .
The guild wrote that members are held to “ a higher standard of conduct ” that requires accountability and transparency and believe that can only be achieved when members are “ extended basic fairness and due process.
” “ The Olympia Police Guild does not believe in any way the officer took part in anything promoting racism/white power , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made while the photo was taken , ” the statement reads .
“ This officer ’ s record of service with the Olympia Police Department reflects their deep commitment to fair and impartial policing and the nondiscriminatory treatment of all citizens.
” Meanwhile , officials at Olympia City Hall sound like they ’ re still trying to manufacture a controversy rather than simply admit that the mayor was wrong to accuse the multi-racial group of gun owners and the Olympia officer of endorsing white supremacy .
Officials with the city and the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city spokesperson Kellie Purce Braseth said Tuesday , so did not want to comment on it .
Braseth called the situation “ fraught.
” “ I think what ’ s important at this point in time is that the community know who we are , ” Braseth said , saying the city and police department “ serve everyone equally.
” The city is hearing from constituents who are upset and calling for the officer to be fired or put on administrative leave , Braseth said .
An investigation is underway , looking into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she said .
“ We won ’ t know what happened until the investigation is complete , ” she said .
“ Any image that could send a message that the city does not serve all members of the community fairly , equally , and well ” is troubling , Braseth said , “ because it ’ s not who we are.
” If the situation in Olympia is “ fraught ” at the moment , it ’ s at least in part because of the response by Mayor Cheryl Selby , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind about what happened before an investigation was even launched , much less finished .
“ After a long week for my community , I ’ m discouraged that I have to make a post like this , ” the mayor wrote .
“ I have confirmed a photo of an Olympia police officer posing with a group of armed militia members , some of whom are displaying white power signs .
I find this behavior to be abhorrent and unequivocally unacceptable .
“ Our council/manager form of government restricts me from discussing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I are demanding a thorough investigation , ” she wrote .
“ As the picture clearly illustrates in no uncertain terms , a culture change within the police department and city government is clearly needed .
“ We hear our community demanding it and we must rise to meet this challenge .
The presence of an armed militia is not what we want to see in Olympia , and we are asking those people to stay home to ensure that peaceful protest can continue in our city.
” She ended her post with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
!
” If anyone needs to resign here , it ’ s the mayor herself .
She ’ s the one who has demonstrated no regard for the citizens of Olympia , because she apparently thinks that if you ’ re a black gun owner protecting a local business with some of your white , Latino , and Jewish friends you ’ re part of a white power militia .
The gun owners weren ’ t making any sort of white power sign with their hands .
They were holding up three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group called Washington Three Percent .
Selby has done a grave disservice to the city she governs with her incendiary description of the gun owners in question , as well as her labeling of the officer ’ s actions as “ abhorrent and unacceptable.
” Even now , rather than simply acknowledge that she made matters worse by leaping to conclusions before an investigation was complete , the mayor ’ s hiding behind a city spokeswoman who also refuses to admit that the mayor ’ s comments helped turn a non-issue into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the investigation is completed and the officer is exonerated of any wrongdoing , the mayor take her message of accountability to heart and hands in her resignation letter .
The citizens and law enforcement alike deserve better leadership than what they ’ ve seen from Mayor Selby in recent days .

Two police officer unions in Olympia, Washington are publicly backing an officer who’s under investigation after she posed with several armed citizens who were protecting a local gun store late last week. We first told you about the story over the weekend, including some incendiary language from Olympia’s mayor accusing both the officer in question and the armed citizens of being white supremacists.
In actuality, members of Washington Three Percent had gathered outside of the local gun shop after its owner requested help to prevent his store from falling victim to a burglary or looting. According to the Olympia Police Officer’s Guild, the officer in question did absolutely nothing wrong, and wasn’t supporting racism or white supremacy when posing for the picture with gun owners.
“On June 5, 2020 the Olympia Police Department responded to a routine noise disturbance in west Olympia,” the guild’s statement begins. “After the call was handled, an African American male asked the officer to pose for a photo with him and the rest of the group. The citizens involved were members of a group known as ‘Washington 3%.’” The officer wasn’t familiar with the organization and “takes no position” as to its goals, the response reads. The guild wrote that members are held to “a higher standard of conduct” that requires accountability and transparency and believe that can only be achieved when members are “extended basic fairness and due process.” “The Olympia Police Guild does not believe in any way the officer took part in anything promoting racism/white power, and the officer was unaware of any hand gestures made while the photo was taken,” the statement reads. “This officer’s record of service with the Olympia Police Department reflects their deep commitment to fair and impartial policing and the nondiscriminatory treatment of all citizens.”
Meanwhile, officials at Olympia City Hall sound like they’re still trying to manufacture a controversy rather than simply admit that the mayor was wrong to accuse the multi-racial group of gun owners and the Olympia officer of endorsing white supremacy.
Officials with the city and the police department had not seen the statement, city spokesperson Kellie Purce Braseth said Tuesday, so did not want to comment on it. Braseth called the situation “fraught.” “I think what’s important at this point in time is that the community know who we are,” Braseth said, saying the city and police department “serve everyone equally.” The city is hearing from constituents who are upset and calling for the officer to be fired or put on administrative leave, Braseth said. An investigation is underway, looking into the events that led to the photo, she said. “We won’t know what happened until the investigation is complete,” she said. “Any image that could send a message that the city does not serve all members of the community fairly, equally, and well” is troubling, Braseth said, “because it’s not who we are.”
If the situation in Olympia is “fraught” at the moment, it’s at least in part because of the response by Mayor Cheryl Selby, who seems to have made up her mind about what happened before an investigation was even launched, much less finished.
“After a long week for my community, I’m discouraged that I have to make a post like this,” the mayor wrote. “I have confirmed a photo of an Olympia police officer posing with a group of armed militia members, some of whom are displaying white power signs. I find this behavior to be abhorrent and unequivocally unacceptable. “Our council/manager form of government restricts me from discussing disciplinary measures, though my council and I are demanding a thorough investigation,” she wrote. “As the picture clearly illustrates in no uncertain terms, a culture change within the police department and city government is clearly needed. “We hear our community demanding it and we must rise to meet this challenge. The presence of an armed militia is not what we want to see in Olympia, and we are asking those people to stay home to ensure that peaceful protest can continue in our city.” She ended her post with “BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!”
If anyone needs to resign here, it’s the mayor herself. She’s the one who has demonstrated no regard for the citizens of Olympia, because she apparently thinks that if you’re a black gun owner protecting a local business with some of your white, Latino, and Jewish friends you’re part of a white power militia. The gun owners weren’t making any sort of white power sign with their hands. They were holding up three fingers because they’re part of a group called Washington Three Percent.
Selby has done a grave disservice to the city she governs with her incendiary description of the gun owners in question, as well as her labeling of the officer’s actions as “abhorrent and unacceptable.” Even now, rather than simply acknowledge that she made matters worse by leaping to conclusions before an investigation was complete, the mayor’s hiding behind a city spokeswoman who also refuses to admit that the mayor’s comments helped turn a non-issue into a controversy. I only hope that when the investigation is completed and the officer is exonerated of any wrongdoing, the mayor take her message of accountability to heart and hands in her resignation letter. The citizens and law enforcement alike deserve better leadership than what they’ve seen from Mayor Selby in recent days.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Are Liberals Who Buy Guns Hypocrites?

Are Liberals Who Buy Guns Hypocrites?

With millions upon millions of new gun owners in recent months , it ’ s safe to say that many of them are liberals buying guns for the first time .
We can safely say as much because of not just how many have been sold , but also where many have been sold .
We ’ ve seen people have their illusions about how easy it is to buy a gun be shattered by the harsh reality .
Many have looked at these liberal gun owners as hypocrites .
After all , they ’ ve been trying to restrict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ages , but the moment they feel endangered , what do they do ?
They flock to the gun stores they ’ ve spent so long working to shut down .
However , a recent op-ed tries to present the case that these folks aren ’ t hypocrites at all .
They probably should feel like hypocrites .
After all , you can ’ t keep trying to infringe on someone ’ s right to own something , call the item evil and vile , call those who support the right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly decide you should get a gun without either correcting your thinking or being an outright hypocrite .
Now , not all liberals are hypocrites about guns .
There are liberals who actually support the right to keep and bear arms .
There aren ’ t nearly enough of them , but they exist .
Second , if you seem to think there ’ s more regulation on buying cars than guns , you clearly don ’ t understand gun laws enough to have a meaningful opinion on the topic .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the number of guns owned , and I am not claiming that many members of March for Our Lives wouldn ’ t prefer the total abolition of gun ownership .
The bottom line , though , is that gun owners and prospective gun owners can support all of those goals .
On the other hand , there are many well-documented myths about armed self-defense .
Owning a gun makes you more , not less , likely to experience gun violence .
The “ good guy with a gun ” is rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a gun.
” Some people , regardless of their politics , still feel safer with a gun around .
“ We all know the statistics that guns don ’ t make us safer , ” psychologist Daniel Levitin wrote for the New York Times .
“ But we fool ourselves into thinking that those statistics don ’ t apply to us… we reach for guns because if there is a confrontation , we don ’ t want to be unprepared and we think we will beat the odds.
” Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that ; if you believe that guns actually make you less safe , but you want one anyway while also decrying people wanting guns for reasons of personal safety , you ’ re a hypocrite .
I ’ m sorry , but that ’ s just how it shakes out .
That ’ s especially true since pretty much every single study that claims guns make us less safe has been debunked .
Further , you need look no further than to compare the estimated number of times guns are used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times they ’ re used to threaten life .
Take whatever estimate you want and it ’ ll still be greater than the number of times guns are used in crime .
Yet anti-gunners who suddenly want guns don ’ t want to look at that .
They don ’ t want to be wrong about guns , yet that doesn ’ t stop many of them from flocking to gun ownership the moment they feel threatened .
In fact , that ’ s yet another example of their hypocrisy .
They mock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime , then suddenly feel terrorized by people who aren ’ t issuing threats against them , only to immediately turn to the same guns they derided .
Then again , this is someone who thinks that by buying a gun , you give money to the NRA , so maybe she should step down as the spokesperson for anti-gunners who want to buy guns .

With millions upon millions of new gun owners in recent months, it’s safe to say that many of them are liberals buying guns for the first time. We can safely say as much because of not just how many have been sold, but also where many have been sold. We’ve seen people have their illusions about how easy it is to buy a gun be shattered by the harsh reality.
Many have looked at these liberal gun owners as hypocrites. After all, they’ve been trying to restrict our right to keep and bear arms for ages, but the moment they feel endangered, what do they do? They flock to the gun stores they’ve spent so long working to shut down.
However, a recent op-ed tries to present the case that these folks aren’t hypocrites at all.
People who support gun control but also want a gun often feel like hypocrites. They aren’t. March for Our Lives, for example, advocates a high standard for gun ownership, with a licensing system comparable to cars, more rigorous background checks and bans on what they call “weapons of war.”
They probably should feel like hypocrites. After all, you can’t keep trying to infringe on someone’s right to own something, call the item evil and vile, call those who support the right to own that something as racist, then suddenly decide you should get a gun without either correcting your thinking or being an outright hypocrite.
Now, not all liberals are hypocrites about guns. There are liberals who actually support the right to keep and bear arms. There aren’t nearly enough of them, but they exist.
Second, if you seem to think there’s more regulation on buying cars than guns, you clearly don’t understand gun laws enough to have a meaningful opinion on the topic.
There are other proposals on their platform that aim to reduce the number of guns owned, and I am not claiming that many members of March for Our Lives wouldn’t prefer the total abolition of gun ownership. The bottom line, though, is that gun owners and prospective gun owners can support all of those goals. On the other hand, there are many well-documented myths about armed self-defense. Owning a gun makes you more, not less, likely to experience gun violence. The “good guy with a gun” is rarely able to stop the “bad guy with a gun.” Some people, regardless of their politics, still feel safer with a gun around. “We all know the statistics that guns don’t make us safer,” psychologist Daniel Levitin wrote for the New York Times. “But we fool ourselves into thinking that those statistics don’t apply to us… we reach for guns because if there is a confrontation, we don’t want to be unprepared and we think we will beat the odds.”
Here’s a tip. If you believe all of that; if you believe that guns actually make you less safe, but you want one anyway while also decrying people wanting guns for reasons of personal safety, you’re a hypocrite. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it shakes out.
That’s especially true since pretty much every single study that claims guns make us less safe has been debunked.
Further, you need look no further than to compare the estimated number of times guns are used to save lives compared to the number of times they’re used to threaten life. Take whatever estimate you want and it’ll still be greater than the number of times guns are used in crime.
Yet anti-gunners who suddenly want guns don’t want to look at that. They don’t want to be wrong about guns, yet that doesn’t stop many of them from flocking to gun ownership the moment they feel threatened.
In fact, that’s yet another example of their hypocrisy. They mock us for feeling threatened by random violent crime, then suddenly feel terrorized by people who aren’t issuing threats against them, only to immediately turn to the same guns they derided.
Then again, this is someone who thinks that by buying a gun, you give money to the NRA, so maybe she should step down as the spokesperson for anti-gunners who want to buy guns.
Just a thought.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Lawless In Seattle: Protesters Demand Abolition Of City Police Department

Remember when the Left thought that counties passing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions were the biggest threat to the rule of law ?
I haven ’ t seen a word of protest from opponents of the 2A Sanctuary movement regarding Seattle ’ s new “ Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone , ” a six-square block that Antifa and other far-left radicals have declared an independent nation in the heart of the city ’ s downtown .
Joining me on today ’ s Bearing Arms Cam & Co to talk about the upending of the rule of law , and where the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk show host Jason Rantz from KTTH radio , who has had a front-row seat to the protests , riots , and now the takeover of several blocks of public and private property .
As Rantz tells me , the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has released a list of demands , beginning with the abolition of the Seattle Police Department .
Those are just a few of the 19 demands related to the criminal justice system offered up by the occupiers of the CHAZ .
The group also has a list of 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranging from the “ de-gentrification ” of Seattle to the removal of any Confederate statutes in the Pacific Northwest city ( the statute of Vladimir Lenin isn ’ t mentioned ) .
Rantz says he ’ s concerned that the occupants of the CHAZ are not going to be leave peacefully , and that Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan has lost any ability to lead that she might have once had .
In fact , there are growing calls from the Left for Durkan to resign , aided in part by hundreds of protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Socialist city council member Kshama Sawant , who Rantz says is trying to co-opt the protests to aid in her own longstanding crusade against Amazon .
Clearly there are a lot of different agendas at work , exploited and exacerbated by the leadership vacuum from the mayor on down .
I ’ ll be very curious to see how this plays out in Seattle over the next few days , and I suspect plenty of Second Amendment Sanctuary supporters are taking notes on how the Left responds to a blatant attempt to ignore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American sovereignty .

Remember when the Left thought that counties passing Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions were the biggest threat to the rule of law? I haven’t seen a word of protest from opponents of the 2A Sanctuary movement regarding Seattle’s new “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” a six-square block that Antifa and other far-left radicals have declared an independent nation in the heart of the city’s downtown.
Joining me on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co to talk about the upending of the rule of law, and where the city might be headed next, is Seattle talk show host Jason Rantz from KTTH radio, who has had a front-row seat to the protests, riots, and now the takeover of several blocks of public and private property. As Rantz tells me, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has released a list of demands, beginning with the abolition of the Seattle Police Department.
The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle. In the transitionary period between now and the dismantlement of the Seattle Police Department, we demand that the use of armed force be banned entirely. No guns, no batons, no riot shields, no chemical weapons, especially against those exercising their First Amendment right as Americans to protest. We demand an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the abolition of youth jails. Get kids out of prison, get cops out of schools. We also demand that the new youth prison being built in Seattle currently be repurposed.
Those are just a few of the 19 demands related to the criminal justice system offered up by the occupiers of the CHAZ. The group also has a list of 11 other demands related to social services, ranging from the “de-gentrification” of Seattle to the removal of any Confederate statutes in the Pacific Northwest city (the statute of Vladimir Lenin isn’t mentioned).
Rantz says he’s concerned that the occupants of the CHAZ are not going to be leave peacefully, and that Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan has lost any ability to lead that she might have once had. In fact, there are growing calls from the Left for Durkan to resign, aided in part by hundreds of protesters who were let into City Hall by Socialist city council member Kshama Sawant, who Rantz says is trying to co-opt the protests to aid in her own longstanding crusade against Amazon.
Clearly there are a lot of different agendas at work, exploited and exacerbated by the leadership vacuum from the mayor on down. I’ll be very curious to see how this plays out in Seattle over the next few days, and I suspect plenty of Second Amendment Sanctuary supporters are taking notes on how the Left responds to a blatant attempt to ignore the rule of law, and even American sovereignty.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--As OH House Considers "Stand Your Ground" Bill, Critics Call It Racist

Stand Your Ground laws exist for one primary purpose .
They make it so people won ’ t be prosecuted for not running away from an attack .
It ’ s something that shouldn ’ t be needed , but people can and have been prosecuted by people who weren ’ t there in the moment but seem to believe that fleeing was not only possible but preferable .
As a result , some people are downright terrified to defend any human life other than their own , and even then they ’ re concerned .
Laws that not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have a right to hold your ground from an attacker protect law-abiding citizens .
Now , Ohio is considering such a bill and , surprise surprise , it has the typically stupid criticisms .
These were just a few of the characterizations people offered to the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee of a “ stand your ground ” proposal that lawmakers reviewed Tuesday Starting in the afternoon and continuing well into the evening , a steady stream of citizens implored lawmakers to nix the proposal .
They said the bill is overly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purportedly in self-defense , and will establish further legal protections of racist killings .
Stand your ground laws are associated with two high-profile deaths of black men by white killers .
Jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin discussed the law in making their decision .
Also , prosecutors initially declined to charge two men in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery , a black man , citing the legal concept .
Trayvon Martin was killed because he was trying to bash George Zimmerman ’ s head in with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process of killing Zimmerman , so Zimmerman fired his gun and ended the attack .
Look , I ’ m no George Zimmerman fan .
He screwed up by the numbers , but he did defend his life .
Further , it wasn ’ t a Stand Your Ground case because Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat from the attack , what with Martin literally on top of him at the time .
Now , I ’ m not going to get into Ahmaud Arbery because that case still hasn ’ t played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what the jury will find .
However , Stand Your Ground laws are designed to only work when defending your own life from an actual attack .
You don ’ t get to gun down someone and then claim you were scared so you can get a pass .
Hyperbolic comments like “ legalized lynching ” are predicated on the idea that the law works in ways it doesn ’ t work .
Plus , all those calling these cases racist are forgetting how this same law can protect minorities who defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only as good as their prosecution .
If a prosecutor decides to only go after minorities who exercise their self-defense rights , you ’ ve got a problem , especially if he or she can somehow manipulate the facts to present a case where retreat is possible .
Stand Your Ground laws protect these people since this is a defense that can convince a jury that retreat wasn ’ t required .
“ Those laws don ’ t work for black folks , ” someone might say .
In fact , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To them , I ask them to present to me the section of the law that says it only applies to white people .
I won ’ t wait indefinitely though while you find it .
That ’ s because it ’ s not there .

Stand Your Ground laws exist for one primary purpose. They make it so people won’t be prosecuted for not running away from an attack. It’s something that shouldn’t be needed, but people can and have been prosecuted by people who weren’t there in the moment but seem to believe that fleeing was not only possible but preferable.
As a result, some people are downright terrified to defend any human life other than their own, and even then they’re concerned.
Laws that not just eliminate that duty but make it clear you have a right to hold your ground from an attacker protect law-abiding citizens.
Now, Ohio is considering such a bill and, surprise surprise, it has the typically stupid criticisms.
Legalized lynching. Citizens’ license to kill. Codification of black men’s deaths. These were just a few of the characterizations people offered to the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee of a “stand your ground” proposal that lawmakers reviewed Tuesday Starting in the afternoon and continuing well into the evening, a steady stream of citizens implored lawmakers to nix the proposal. They said the bill is overly generous to people who shoot someone, purportedly in self-defense, and will establish further legal protections of racist killings. Stand your ground laws are associated with two high-profile deaths of black men by white killers. Jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin discussed the law in making their decision. Also, prosecutors initially declined to charge two men in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a black man, citing the legal concept.
Trayvon Martin was killed because he was trying to bash George Zimmerman’s head in with a freaking sidewalk. He was in the process of killing Zimmerman, so Zimmerman fired his gun and ended the attack.
Look, I’m no George Zimmerman fan. He screwed up by the numbers, but he did defend his life. Further, it wasn’t a Stand Your Ground case because Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat from the attack, what with Martin literally on top of him at the time.
Now, I’m not going to get into Ahmaud Arbery because that case still hasn’t played out yet. We don’t know what the jury will find.
However, Stand Your Ground laws are designed to only work when defending your own life from an actual attack. You don’t get to gun down someone and then claim you were scared so you can get a pass. Hyperbolic comments like “legalized lynching” are predicated on the idea that the law works in ways it doesn’t work.
Plus, all those calling these cases racist are forgetting how this same law can protect minorities who defend themselves from racist prosecution. Laws are only as good as their prosecution. If a prosecutor decides to only go after minorities who exercise their self-defense rights, you’ve got a problem, especially if he or she can somehow manipulate the facts to present a case where retreat is possible.
Stand Your Ground laws protect these people since this is a defense that can convince a jury that retreat wasn’t required.
“Those laws don’t work for black folks,” someone might say. In fact, I’ve heard people say it before. To them, I ask them to present to me the section of the law that says it only applies to white people. I won’t wait indefinitely though while you find it. That’s because it’s not there.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Seattle Protest Charge Proves Ghost Gun Legislation Futility

So-called “ ghost guns ” are any firearm without a serial number .
Anti-gunners have been focused on less than 80 percent receivers and 3D printed firearms as those seem to be the ones keeping them awake at night , though we still lack any hard numbers as to just how prevalent the “ problem ” of such weapons actually are .
Instead , we get vague comments about how the problem is supposedly growing , but little in the way of actual facts .
However , this comes from people who think you can regulate away any problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re really just a bit of legislation away from a gun-free Utopia .
Yet that ’ s not true .
It ’ s not even close to true , actually .
For one thing , 3D printer files are already out “ in the wild , ” so to speak .
Anyone who wants to build a weapon with such files already can .
You ’ re not putting that genie back in the bottle .
But , even if you could , that doesn ’ t stop people like this individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during protests in Seattle .
This particular gun was made out of pieces of pipe held together with plumbing couplings .
In other words , you can buy every item used to make it at Home Depot or Lowe ’ s .
I ’ ve long argued that anyone with a competent knowledge of machining could build an AR-15 from raw materials and that it wouldn ’ t be feasible to try and regulate manufacturing down to that degree .
However , I overlooked these more simple improvised firearms that can be just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun in question measured just 13 inches , making it much easier to hide than many other weapons .
These kinds of weapons don ’ t require a competent level of any kind of knowledge .
All it requires is someone with the most basic of skills .
That means these kinds of weapons can be produced by pretty much anyone .
The only reason we don ’ t see more of these is that guns are easy enough for criminals to buy off the black market .
They ’ re better quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if all of those disappeared , we ’ d start to see these kinds of guns appearing more and more often .
Would we start to regulate plumbing supplies ?
Would we have to undergo background checks for pipe ?
Would only licensed plumbers be allowed to buy them , thus ending DIY projects for millions of Americans ?
Honestly , you ’ re not going to stop bad people from getting guns .
This case in Seattle should prove it quite well .

So-called “ghost guns” are any firearm without a serial number. Anti-gunners have been focused on less than 80 percent receivers and 3D printed firearms as those seem to be the ones keeping them awake at night, though we still lack any hard numbers as to just how prevalent the “problem” of such weapons actually are. Instead, we get vague comments about how the problem is supposedly growing, but little in the way of actual facts.
However, this comes from people who think you can regulate away any problem with firearms. They seem to believe we’re really just a bit of legislation away from a gun-free Utopia.
Yet that’s not true. It’s not even close to true, actually.
For one thing, 3D printer files are already out “in the wild,” so to speak. Anyone who wants to build a weapon with such files already can. You’re not putting that genie back in the bottle.
But, even if you could, that doesn’t stop people like this individual charged for something police found on them during protests in Seattle.
Federal authorities in Seattle have filed their first criminal case stemming from violence during recent protests. A Seattle police sergeant said he found a homemade firearm – called a “slam fire” gun – on Devinare Parker after Parker threw a beer can at the officer’s head on May 31, according to a criminal complaint filed in US District Court in Seattle late Tuesday afternoon. An agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) determined “that the improvised firearm functioned as a firearm,” that is capable of firing shotgun shells, according to the complaint. Parker is charged with Unlawful Possession of a Destructive Device.
This particular gun was made out of pieces of pipe held together with plumbing couplings. In other words, you can buy every item used to make it at Home Depot or Lowe’s.
I’ve long argued that anyone with a competent knowledge of machining could build an AR-15 from raw materials and that it wouldn’t be feasible to try and regulate manufacturing down to that degree. However, I overlooked these more simple improvised firearms that can be just as deadly. In fact, the gun in question measured just 13 inches, making it much easier to hide than many other weapons.
These kinds of weapons don’t require a competent level of any kind of knowledge. All it requires is someone with the most basic of skills.
That means these kinds of weapons can be produced by pretty much anyone. The only reason we don’t see more of these is that guns are easy enough for criminals to buy off the black market. They’re better quality firearms with multiple shots available. Yet if all of those disappeared, we’d start to see these kinds of guns appearing more and more often.
What then?
Would we start to regulate plumbing supplies? Would we have to undergo background checks for pipe? Would only licensed plumbers be allowed to buy them, thus ending DIY projects for millions of Americans?
Honestly, you’re not going to stop bad people from getting guns. This case in Seattle should prove it quite well.