bearingarms--2020-08-07--Trump Suggest NRA Move Following Lawsuit

To call the National Rifle Association embattled would be putting it too mildly .
The New York attorney general ’ s lawsuit against the organization is nothing less than an existential threat .
She doesn ’ t mean to punish them for being naughty .
She wants to destroy them so there ’ s no one left to oppose gun control , which she likely figures will make her a Democratic hero .
To say the NRA is in a tough spot is like saying Biden sometimes seems a little confused .
When asked about what he thought , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bizarre suggestion .
President Trump said Thursday that the National Rifle Association should “ move to Texas ” in response to a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James .
“ That ’ s a very terrible thing that just happened .
I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life , ” Trump told reporters at the White House .
The NRA ’ s national headquarters are just outside Washington in Fairfax , Virginia .
Trump also blamed the organization ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , I ’ m still stuck on his “ move to Texas ” suggestion as a response to the legal action taking place against the NRA .
Don ’ t get me wrong .
I think the NRA moving to a more pro-gun state makes a whole lot of sense .
There ’ s absolutely no reason to feed into an anti-gun economy like what currently exists in Virginia .
I can see reasons to wait for the next election cycle to pan out and see if they remain anti-gun , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s really no reason to stay .
And sure , Texas is certainly a viable option .
There are a lot of NRA supporters in Texas , to be sure .
I know quite a few of them .
But I fail to see how that will help with the litigation they ’ re currently facing .
I mean , I guess operating in Texas may be less expensive and they can put up a good fight with what they save , but beyond that ?
I don ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just a little bizarre , from my perspective .
Especially since there is so much else one can say about the lawsuit .
He could have pointed out that it ’ s nothing but malicious lawfare designed to try and destroy a political opponent .
He could have pointed out that the state of New York has waged its own persona jihad against the NRA since Parkland .
He could have pointed any of that out .
Instead , he suggests packing up and moving .
That won ’ t make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their proximity to New York plays a factor .
Gun rights supporters generally view President Trump as something of an ally , and there ’ s a reason for that .
Despite his executive order on bump stocks , he was still better for gun rights than the alternative .
The bump stock ban was going to happen anyway , at least with the order , Democrats didn ’ t get a laundry list of other bans they were looking at .
Not ideal , but better than it could have been .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the president on what is arguably the most important gun rights issue of the day ?
It ’ s just confusing .
Like , listening to Joe Biden talk for five minutes confusing .

To call the National Rifle Association embattled would be putting it too mildly. The New York attorney general’s lawsuit against the organization is nothing less than an existential threat. She doesn’t mean to punish them for being naughty. She wants to destroy them so there’s no one left to oppose gun control, which she likely figures will make her a Democratic hero.
To say the NRA is in a tough spot is like saying Biden sometimes seems a little confused.
When asked about what he thought, though, President Donald Trump had something of a bizarre suggestion.
President Trump said Thursday that the National Rifle Association should “move to Texas” in response to a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James. “That’s a very terrible thing that just happened. I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life,” Trump told reporters at the White House. The NRA’s national headquarters are just outside Washington in Fairfax, Virginia.
Trump also blamed the organization’s financial woes on defending itself from lawsuits.
However, I’m still stuck on his “move to Texas” suggestion as a response to the legal action taking place against the NRA.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the NRA moving to a more pro-gun state makes a whole lot of sense. There’s absolutely no reason to feed into an anti-gun economy like what currently exists in Virginia. I can see reasons to wait for the next election cycle to pan out and see if they remain anti-gun, of course, but after that? There’s really no reason to stay.
And sure, Texas is certainly a viable option. There are a lot of NRA supporters in Texas, to be sure. I know quite a few of them.
But I fail to see how that will help with the litigation they’re currently facing. I mean, I guess operating in Texas may be less expensive and they can put up a good fight with what they save, but beyond that?
I don’t get it. The president’s response is just a little bizarre, from my perspective.
Especially since there is so much else one can say about the lawsuit. He could have pointed out that it’s nothing but malicious lawfare designed to try and destroy a political opponent. He could have pointed out that the state of New York has waged its own persona jihad against the NRA since Parkland. He could have pointed any of that out.
Instead, he suggests packing up and moving.
That won’t make the lawsuit go away–it’s not like their proximity to New York plays a factor.
Gun rights supporters generally view President Trump as something of an ally, and there’s a reason for that. Despite his executive order on bump stocks, he was still better for gun rights than the alternative. The bump stock ban was going to happen anyway, at least with the order, Democrats didn’t get a laundry list of other bans they were looking at. Not ideal, but better than it could have been.
And yet, we get this response from the president on what is arguably the most important gun rights issue of the day? It’s just confusing.
Like, listening to Joe Biden talk for five minutes confusing.


bearingarms--2020-08-07--Are Democrats Pondering Civil War If Biden Loses?

All over the media , there ’ s speculation about what will happen if President Trump loses the election .
Unsurprisingly , many think Trump will refuse to leave office and will use whatever power he can muster to resist any effort to remove him .
I say “ unsurprising ” not because I think Trump will refuse to go , but because I ’ ve heard this rhetoric before .
People said it about Clinton .
They said it about Bush .
They said it about Obama .
And yet , all left office peacefully .
Granted , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were resistant to leaving office , I don ’ t see how that would matter .
Now , though , they ’ re saying it about Trump .
However , there ’ s little talk of what would happen if Biden loses .
While the polls seem to point in that being unlikely , they said the same thing four years ago and we all know how that turned out .
So , if Biden loses , what happens ?
Well , some top Democrats are pondering that possibility .
Far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the behavior of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta .
Podesta also took part in the simulations , and unlike the anti-Trump Republicans , he wasn ’ t pretending to be someone he hates .
Instead , organizers did the sensible thing : they had an anti-Trump Democrat portray an anti-Trump Democrat .
Because the simulation designers apparently wanted to torment him as much as possible , Podesta had to endure an exact 2016 repeat : he played Joe Biden in a simulation where Trump loses the popular vote but wins a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Buried at the bottom of a New York Times article , the paper describes what Podesta did : ‘ Mr Podesta , playing Mr Biden , shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn ’ t let him concede .
Alleging voter suppression , he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College .
‘ In that scenario , California , Oregon , and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr Trump took office as planned.
’ This was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly popped off reading it — and he doesn ’ t even wear one .
The actual text of the final report is even more jarring .
According to a summary of the game , while acting as Biden — rather than accept defeat — Podesta actively instigated secession , and then issued an ultimatum : Trump could only begin his second term if Puerto Rico and DC became states , California was cut into five pieces , and the Electoral College was abolished .
When the ultimatum was refused , Podesta got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ) to declare Biden the president , and then watched to see how the military would react .
If you think Cockburn exaggerates , here ’ s what the document says about ‘ Game 3 : Clear Trump win ’ ( a scenario in which Trump wins the Electoral College and the popular vote ) I ’ d recommend reading the original link for more details , but yeah , it goes on to note the push for secession for the West Coast .
Refresh my memory .
What happened the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union ?
As a born and bred Southerner , my memory on this one is a little hazy ?
Might that have something to do with why there aren ’ t buildings from before the 1860 ’ s still standing in Atlanta ?
However , that ’ s not the only issue being foreseen .
‘ One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by pro-Biden governors . )
Pence and the GOP refused to accept this , declaring instead that Trump was re-elected under the Constitution because of his Electoral College victory .
This partisan division remained unresolved because neither side backed down , and January 20 arrived without a single president-elect entitled to be Commander-in-Chief after noon that day .
It was unclear what the military would do in this situation.
’ In other words , there ’ s a real chance we could see some serious ugliness in this mess .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t made something of a habit of not accepting election results of late , now have they ?
Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams are just two such examples , the latter becoming an outright punchline over it .
It ’ s not a stretch to imagine Joe Biden being among those who might contest the results as well .
Now , all this said , don ’ t think I can ’ t foresee a possibility of civil war if Trump loses , either .
Many won ’ t accept the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting and other things as being used for voter fraud .
In other words , if we ’ re not very careful , we might start seeing things get even uglier than they have in recent months .

All over the media, there’s speculation about what will happen if President Trump loses the election. Unsurprisingly, many think Trump will refuse to leave office and will use whatever power he can muster to resist any effort to remove him.
I say “unsurprising” not because I think Trump will refuse to go, but because I’ve heard this rhetoric before. People said it about Clinton. They said it about Bush. They said it about Obama. And yet, all left office peacefully. Granted, they all got second terms, but if they were resistant to leaving office, I don’t see how that would matter.
Now, though, they’re saying it about Trump.
However, there’s little talk of what would happen if Biden loses. While the polls seem to point in that being unlikely, they said the same thing four years ago and we all know how that turned out.
So, if Biden loses, what happens? Well, some top Democrats are pondering that possibility.
Far more interesting, and totally unnoticed, is the behavior of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Podesta also took part in the simulations, and unlike the anti-Trump Republicans, he wasn’t pretending to be someone he hates. Instead, organizers did the sensible thing: they had an anti-Trump Democrat portray an anti-Trump Democrat. Because the simulation designers apparently wanted to torment him as much as possible, Podesta had to endure an exact 2016 repeat: he played Joe Biden in a simulation where Trump loses the popular vote but wins a close but convincing victory in the Electoral College. Buried at the bottom of a New York Times article, the paper describes what Podesta did: ‘Mr Podesta, playing Mr Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. ‘In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr Trump took office as planned.’ This was so astonishing that Cockburn’s monocle nearly popped off reading it — and he doesn’t even wear one. The actual text of the final report is even more jarring. According to a summary of the game, while acting as Biden — rather than accept defeat — Podesta actively instigated secession, and then issued an ultimatum: Trump could only begin his second term if Puerto Rico and DC became states, California was cut into five pieces, and the Electoral College was abolished. When the ultimatum was refused, Podesta got the Democratic House (played by other Democrats) to declare Biden the president, and then watched to see how the military would react. If you think Cockburn exaggerates, here’s what the document says about ‘Game 3: Clear Trump win’ (a scenario in which Trump wins the Electoral College and the popular vote)
I’d recommend reading the original link for more details, but yeah, it goes on to note the push for secession for the West Coast.
Refresh my memory. What happened the last time states tried to secede from the union? As a born and bred Southerner, my memory on this one is a little hazy?
Might that have something to do with why there aren’t buildings from before the 1860’s still standing in Atlanta?
However, that’s not the only issue being foreseen.
‘One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden (based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.) Pence and the GOP refused to accept this, declaring instead that Trump was re-elected under the Constitution because of his Electoral College victory. This partisan division remained unresolved because neither side backed down, and January 20 arrived without a single president-elect entitled to be Commander-in-Chief after noon that day. It was unclear what the military would do in this situation.’
In other words, there’s a real chance we could see some serious ugliness in this mess.
After all, it’s not like Democrats haven’t made something of a habit of not accepting election results of late, now have they? Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams are just two such examples, the latter becoming an outright punchline over it. It’s not a stretch to imagine Joe Biden being among those who might contest the results as well.
Now, all this said, don’t think I can’t foresee a possibility of civil war if Trump loses, either. Many won’t accept the election results in that case, citing mail-in voting and other things as being used for voter fraud.
In other words, if we’re not very careful, we might start seeing things get even uglier than they have in recent months.


bearingarms--2020-08-07--D.C. Files Suit Against NRA Foundation

D.C. Files Suit Against NRA Foundation

The lawsuit against the NRA is probably the biggest gun rights story we have going on right now .
There ’ s a lot going on with that and there will be a lot of attention directed toward that story .
However , it ’ s important to also understand that it ’ s not the only story out there right now .
There are other stories , to be sure , though many are getting lost in the background noise thanks to the lawsuit .
Yet one of the stories easily lost is that the New York filing isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA this week .
Washington , D.C. , Attorney General Karl Racine ( D ) on Thursday announced a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) Foundation , accusing the gun rights group ’ s charitable arm of misuse of funds .
“ Donors gave money to fund firearms safety , firearms education and marksmanship training , ” Racine said in a tweet announcing the lawsuit .
“ Instead , that money was diverted to support wasteful spending by the NRA and its executives.
” Racine claimed the NRA borrowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two occasions , once in 2017 and again in 2018 .
Racine also accused the foundation of paying millions in fees to the NRA with no oversight and placing the NRA ’ s interests above its own , in violation of its articles of incorporation .
“ Because the Foundation ’ s Board of Trustees and executives are dominated by the NRA , and the NRA had subverted the Foundation ’ s independence , the Foundation has allowed itself to be financially exploited through , among other things , unfair loans and management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit states .
Much like with the New York lawsuit , Racine doesn ’ t actually care if a gun rights organization actually is acting in the best interest of its donors or if the Foundation is providing what it ’ s supposed to provide .
Racine would just as soon see guns vanish from private ownership overnight , I suspect .
No , this is about trying to destroy an obstacle .
While many gun-rights supporters actually disagree with the NRA on a great many things , the truth is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps our gun rights from evaporating .
Other organizations do good work , of course , but they don ’ t have the political weight of the NRA .
Which is why the NRA is being targeted .
They ’ re in the way .
D.C. ’ s lawsuit won ’ t garner the attention that New York ’ s will , but I find the timing more than a little suspicious .
Two lawsuits filed on the same day by two anti-gun governmental authorities ?
I can ’ t help but believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collusion here , an effort to try and overwhelm the NRA ’ s ability to fight back against the onslaught from the anti-gun attorneys general .
What I don ’ t think either one thought about , though , is the backlash .
I suspect the NRA ’ s membership is about to jump up a fair bit .
While some may not like the NRA for whatever reason , the truth is they like people like Racine or New York Attorney General Letitia James even less .
It ’ s time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to get a little wild .

The lawsuit against the NRA is probably the biggest gun rights story we have going on right now. There’s a lot going on with that and there will be a lot of attention directed toward that story.
However, it’s important to also understand that it’s not the only story out there right now. There are other stories, to be sure, though many are getting lost in the background noise thanks to the lawsuit.
Yet one of the stories easily lost is that the New York filing isn’t the only lawsuit filed against the NRA this week.
Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) on Thursday announced a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association (NRA) Foundation, accusing the gun rights group’s charitable arm of misuse of funds. … “Donors gave money to fund firearms safety, firearms education and marksmanship training,” Racine said in a tweet announcing the lawsuit. “Instead, that money was diverted to support wasteful spending by the NRA and its executives.” Racine claimed the NRA borrowed $5 million from the foundation on two occasions, once in 2017 and again in 2018. Racine also accused the foundation of paying millions in fees to the NRA with no oversight and placing the NRA’s interests above its own, in violation of its articles of incorporation. “Because the Foundation’s Board of Trustees and executives are dominated by the NRA, and the NRA had subverted the Foundation’s independence, the Foundation has allowed itself to be financially exploited through, among other things, unfair loans and management fee payments to the NRA,” the lawsuit states.
Much like with the New York lawsuit, Racine doesn’t actually care if a gun rights organization actually is acting in the best interest of its donors or if the Foundation is providing what it’s supposed to provide. Racine would just as soon see guns vanish from private ownership overnight, I suspect.
No, this is about trying to destroy an obstacle.
While many gun-rights supporters actually disagree with the NRA on a great many things, the truth is that the NRA is the 800-pound gorilla that keeps our gun rights from evaporating. Other organizations do good work, of course, but they don’t have the political weight of the NRA.
Which is why the NRA is being targeted. They’re in the way.
D.C.’s lawsuit won’t garner the attention that New York’s will, but I find the timing more than a little suspicious. Two lawsuits filed on the same day by two anti-gun governmental authorities? I can’t help but believe there’s been some degree of collusion here, an effort to try and overwhelm the NRA’s ability to fight back against the onslaught from the anti-gun attorneys general.
What I don’t think either one thought about, though, is the backlash. I suspect the NRA’s membership is about to jump up a fair bit. While some may not like the NRA for whatever reason, the truth is they like people like Racine or New York Attorney General Letitia James even less.
It’s time to buckle up, folks. Things are about to get a little wild.


bearingarms--2020-08-07--NRA Files Lawsuit Against NY In Retaliation

The state of New York is trying to kill the National Rifle Association .
While the state may claim all sorts of things in their legal action against the nation ’ s oldest civil rights organization , the truth of the matter is that all they ’ re doing is in an effort to destroy an ideological opponent .
Oh , they might say the NRA isn ’ t spending money appropriately , but do you think they really give a damn what happens to the money folks like us donate to the NRA ?
Do you think the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our efforts to protect our Second Amendment rights ?
Of course not .
This isn ’ t about any of that .
It ’ s a pretext .
That ’ s an excuse to try and do what they and other anti-gun politicians have wanted to do for ages .
They ’ re trying to destroy the biggest obstacle to gun control in this country .
Well , if they thought the NRA would go along quietly , they were deluding themselves .
The National Rifle Association is fighting back against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attorney general by submitting its own civil suit against the state official , accusing her of defamation and violating its rights to free speech .
The NRA ’ s lawsuit was filed in the federal court of New York and alleges Attorney General Letitia James “ made the political prosecution of the NRA a central campaign theme ” when she was running for the AG ’ s office in 2018 , and has not treated the association fairly since .
“ Despite hopes that playing by the rules would procure a just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated fairly by James ’ s office , ” the 19-page suit states .
“ The New York Democratic Party political machine seeks to harass , defund , and dismantle the NRA because of what it believes and what it says.
” The defamation allegations stem from James ’ public descriptions of the NRA as a “ criminal enterprise ” and “ a terrorist organization.
” “ James boasted that she would strike foul blows against the NRA and pound the NRA into submission .
She vowed that she would use the NYAG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the precise purpose of stanching political speech ( ‘ deadly propaganda ) , ” the lawsuit states .
“ She has begun to deliver on her campaign promises to retaliate against the NRA for constitutionally protected speech on issues that James opposes .
As NYAG , James has regrettably succumbed to ‘ individual passions , and individual malevolence.
’ ” The truth of the matter is that James isn ’ t alone in this .
Immediately after Parkland , Governor Andrew Cuomo began his own personal jihad against the NRA and the firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks–most of whom are headquartered in New York and thus have to play by their rules–to begin severing ties with firearms manufacturers .
We ’ ve seen numerous companies in the firearm industry have accounts be closed suddenly and for no reason because of it .
James ’ s actions are just the latest step in the war New York has declared on gun rights advocates .
It makes sense the NRA would try to fight back .
I ’ m not sure this will go much of anywhere with the defamation claims–those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against a public entity like the NRA–but James made specific claims during her campaign .
That may well work against her in court .
We ’ ll have to see , to be sure , but it ’ s good to see the NRA not going down without a fight .

The state of New York is trying to kill the National Rifle Association. While the state may claim all sorts of things in their legal action against the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the truth of the matter is that all they’re doing is in an effort to destroy an ideological opponent. Oh, they might say the NRA isn’t spending money appropriately, but do you think they really give a damn what happens to the money folks like us donate to the NRA? Do you think the state of New York actually cares about us and our efforts to protect our Second Amendment rights?
Of course not. This isn’t about any of that. It’s a pretext. That’s an excuse to try and do what they and other anti-gun politicians have wanted to do for ages. They’re trying to destroy the biggest obstacle to gun control in this country.
Well, if they thought the NRA would go along quietly, they were deluding themselves.
The National Rifle Association is fighting back against a lawsuit filed Thursday by New York’s attorney general by submitting its own civil suit against the state official, accusing her of defamation and violating its rights to free speech. The NRA’s lawsuit was filed in the federal court of New York and alleges Attorney General Letitia James “made the political prosecution of the NRA a central campaign theme” when she was running for the AG’s office in 2018, and has not treated the association fairly since. “Despite hopes that playing by the rules would procure a just outcome, the NRA has not been treated fairly by James’s office,” the 19-page suit states. “The New York Democratic Party political machine seeks to harass, defund, and dismantle the NRA because of what it believes and what it says.” The defamation allegations stem from James’ public descriptions of the NRA as a “criminal enterprise” and “a terrorist organization.” “James boasted that she would strike foul blows against the NRA and pound the NRA into submission. She vowed that she would use the NYAG’s investigative and enforcement powers for the precise purpose of stanching political speech (‘deadly propaganda),” the lawsuit states. “She has begun to deliver on her campaign promises to retaliate against the NRA for constitutionally protected speech on issues that James opposes. As NYAG, James has regrettably succumbed to ‘individual passions, and individual malevolence.’”
The truth of the matter is that James isn’t alone in this.
Immediately after Parkland, Governor Andrew Cuomo began his own personal jihad against the NRA and the firearms community as a whole. He pushed banks–most of whom are headquartered in New York and thus have to play by their rules–to begin severing ties with firearms manufacturers. We’ve seen numerous companies in the firearm industry have accounts be closed suddenly and for no reason because of it.
James’s actions are just the latest step in the war New York has declared on gun rights advocates.
It makes sense the NRA would try to fight back. I’m not sure this will go much of anywhere with the defamation claims–those are notoriously difficult to prove, especially against a public entity like the NRA–but James made specific claims during her campaign. That may well work against her in court.
We’ll have to see, to be sure, but it’s good to see the NRA not going down without a fight.


bearingarms--2020-08-08--Study Finds Religion Shapes Gun Ownership, But Not Like Some Think

If you asked a hundred people on the streets if religion somehow impacted gun ownership , I suspect the majority would say it did .
If pressed , most would conclude that religion often shapes people ’ s conservative views , which also includes gun ownership .
In fairness , I ’ d have probably answered in a similar way .
Of course , not every gun owner is religious and not every religious person owns a gun .
Some cite their faith as to why they don ’ t own a gun , after all .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , I suspect many would still make some kind of similar speculation .
However , a new study from the University of Kansas found an interesting link worthy of discussion .
A University of Kansas study is showing how religion shapes Americans ’ views on gun ownership .
The University of Kansas says it recently published a study showing how religion shapes gun ownership views .
It says whether it is fear of violence or steadfast belief in constitutional rights , Americans have strong opinions on why they need guns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ People have these stereotypes of religious individuals and think their connections to guns are simple , when in fact they ’ re fairly complex , ” said Margaret Kelley , associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas .
“ One of our main findings is religion actually drives responsible gun ownership .
Because of their duty , they needed to be diligent about training and practicing and making sure they are careful with their firearm.
” Kelley says that white evangelical Protestants are not only more likely to possess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support gun control .
She says they are also more inclined to address gun violence with policy interventions that do not reduce the amount or types of firearms like expanded concealed carry laws , better mental health screenings and a greater emphasis on God in public schools and society .
According to Kelley , despite the close connection to weapons themselves , she found that actually firing them presented entirely different responses .
“ Almost none of these people want to go out and use lethal force .
In fact , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , ” she said .
“ You have to really wrestle with big moral issues to carry a gun and to be willing to use it .
That requires , at least in part , in their religious duty to not create more of a problem .
There are certainly gun-toting folks out there who are not practicing and training , but many , including the individuals in my study , are very diligent.
” This study is vitally important .
It actually undermines many of the narratives we hear about gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for whatever reason .
It shows we ’ re not all a bunch of cowboys looking for an excuse to gun down someone we deem inferior for whatever reason .
However , as great as the study is , it ’ s also limited .
For example , is has a small sample size of just 55 women and seven men .
That ’ s not really enough to make definitive statements about much of anything , unfortunately .
What this study does do , though , is provide an interesting springboard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research holds up for a much larger sample size , then we ’ ve got definitive evidence that much of the anti-gun narrative about gun owners is simply false .
While most of us already know that , it ’ s not like our ideological opponents are going to just take our word for it .
Studies like this , though , can do more to undermine the argument than anything we could do .
Let ’ s hope this line of research will continue and continue to yield fruitful results .

If you asked a hundred people on the streets if religion somehow impacted gun ownership, I suspect the majority would say it did. If pressed, most would conclude that religion often shapes people’s conservative views, which also includes gun ownership.
In fairness, I’d have probably answered in a similar way.
Of course, not every gun owner is religious and not every religious person owns a gun. Some cite their faith as to why they don’t own a gun, after all. In other words, it’s a bit complicated. However, I suspect many would still make some kind of similar speculation.
However, a new study from the University of Kansas found an interesting link worthy of discussion.
A University of Kansas study is showing how religion shapes Americans’ views on gun ownership. The University of Kansas says it recently published a study showing how religion shapes gun ownership views. It says whether it is fear of violence or steadfast belief in constitutional rights, Americans have strong opinions on why they need guns, including concerns of Satan and Armageddon. “People have these stereotypes of religious individuals and think their connections to guns are simple, when in fact they’re fairly complex,” said Margaret Kelley, associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas. “One of our main findings is religion actually drives responsible gun ownership. Because of their duty, they needed to be diligent about training and practicing and making sure they are careful with their firearm.” … Kelley says that white evangelical Protestants are not only more likely to possess guns but are also less likely to support gun control. She says they are also more inclined to address gun violence with policy interventions that do not reduce the amount or types of firearms like expanded concealed carry laws, better mental health screenings and a greater emphasis on God in public schools and society. According to Kelley, despite the close connection to weapons themselves, she found that actually firing them presented entirely different responses. “Almost none of these people want to go out and use lethal force. In fact, that’s the last thing they want to do,” she said. “You have to really wrestle with big moral issues to carry a gun and to be willing to use it. That requires, at least in part, in their religious duty to not create more of a problem. There are certainly gun-toting folks out there who are not practicing and training, but many, including the individuals in my study, are very diligent.”
This study is vitally important. It actually undermines many of the narratives we hear about gun owners, particularly those driven by faith for whatever reason. It shows we’re not all a bunch of cowboys looking for an excuse to gun down someone we deem inferior for whatever reason.
However, as great as the study is, it’s also limited.
For example, is has a small sample size of just 55 women and seven men. That’s not really enough to make definitive statements about much of anything, unfortunately.
What this study does do, though, is provide an interesting springboard for further research. If Kelley’s research holds up for a much larger sample size, then we’ve got definitive evidence that much of the anti-gun narrative about gun owners is simply false. While most of us already know that, it’s not like our ideological opponents are going to just take our word for it.
Studies like this, though, can do more to undermine the argument than anything we could do. Let’s hope this line of research will continue and continue to yield fruitful results.


bearingarms--2020-08-09--NJ Karen Freaks Over Grown-Ups With "Finger Guns"

That ’ s how Heidi Raas started her opinion piece in the Morristown Green .
What was the photo ?
Was it taxpayer money being squandered ?
Was it a beloved landmark being destroyed for development purposes ?
Oh no , none of those .
You see , the problem is that the photo in question was graduates of the Citizens Police Academy posing…with finger guns .
After my concerns and comments on this subject on the July Township Committee Zoom Meeting , after having seen the same photo in the July Municipal Messenger , promoting participation in the Citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I would have thought that more deliberate content would have been selected for publication .
I will say again , I think this photo selection is glamorizing the use of guns in our town and society .
Having them in the hands of our citizens , and promotion of same as endorsed by this police program is unconscionable !
OK , Karen , chill the hell out .
( And you should go look at the original photo for yourself . )
Yes , I know your name is Heidi , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Karen .
You see , Karen , this thing about “ guns in the hands of our citizens ” is ridiculous when they ’ re freaking finger guns for crying out loud .
The police department didn ’ t hand issued firearms to private citizens upon graduating a course that ’ s designed to give those citizens a glimpse at what it is the police do .
Oh no , they did no such thing .
Instead , the graduates decided to have a cheeky bit of fun and held their fingers like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them have done since they were children .
Absolutely none of them had a firearm in their hands .
But , even if they did , so what ?
These are law-abiding citizens who are under the direct supervision of certified law enforcement officers .
They ’ re not remotely a danger to anyone or anything .
Sure , some are pointing their finger guns at the camera , but that doesn ’ t mean jack .
These aren ’ t actually guns !
I remember Newtown actually involving a real firearm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe you should brush up on your history a bit before you freak out about this one .
Reviewing a sampling of Citizen Police Academy programs on municipal websites across the country in both rural areas and cities , and after reviewing hundreds of online images of the program , again from all over the country , I found less than 10 photos of citizens with guns being shown in conjunction with this program .
Quit pretending that these represent a real threat to anything .
They ’ re not real firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is why I can ’ t take anti-gun hysterics seriously .
Karen here is the kind of person who would call the police on a kid who ate his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun and we all know it .
She ’ s clearly not alone in this .
People like this want to push guns so far underground , so far out of the public consciousness , that they can pretend law-abiding citizens have no need of such things .
They want to hide them so others won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility .
Unfortunately for them , though , to do it they have to freak out about finger guns , apparently .
Well , at least we have something and someone to point and laugh at .

I was disheartened, then aggravated, after seeing the above photo published in Morris Township’s August 2020 Municipal Messenger.
That’s how Heidi Raas started her opinion piece in the Morristown Green.
What was the photo? Was it taxpayer money being squandered? Was it a beloved landmark being destroyed for development purposes? Oh no, none of those.
You see, the problem is that the photo in question was graduates of the Citizens Police Academy posing…with finger guns.
She continues:
After my concerns and comments on this subject on the July Township Committee Zoom Meeting, after having seen the same photo in the July Municipal Messenger, promoting participation in the Citizen Police Academy program offered in the Township, I would have thought that more deliberate content would have been selected for publication. Clearly, I was mistaken! I will say again, I think this photo selection is glamorizing the use of guns in our town and society. Having them in the hands of our citizens, and promotion of same as endorsed by this police program is unconscionable!
OK, Karen, chill the hell out. (And you should go look at the original photo for yourself.)
Yes, I know your name is Heidi, but we all know it really should be Karen.
You see, Karen, this thing about “guns in the hands of our citizens” is ridiculous when they’re freaking finger guns for crying out loud. The police department didn’t hand issued firearms to private citizens upon graduating a course that’s designed to give those citizens a glimpse at what it is the police do. Oh no, they did no such thing.
Instead, the graduates decided to have a cheeky bit of fun and held their fingers like firearms. It’s something most of them have done since they were children. Absolutely none of them had a firearm in their hands.
But, even if they did, so what?
These are law-abiding citizens who are under the direct supervision of certified law enforcement officers. They’re not remotely a danger to anyone or anything. Sure, some are pointing their finger guns at the camera, but that doesn’t mean jack. These aren’t actually guns!
Have we forgotten Newtown already?? And our own scare in 2016 at Frelinghuysen Middle School?
I remember Newtown actually involving a real firearm, not finger guns, Karen. Maybe you should brush up on your history a bit before you freak out about this one.
Reviewing a sampling of Citizen Police Academy programs on municipal websites across the country in both rural areas and cities, and after reviewing hundreds of online images of the program, again from all over the country, I found less than 10 photos of citizens with guns being shown in conjunction with this program. Our town is one!
Except, it’s not.
They’re. Finger. Guns.
Quit pretending that these represent a real threat to anything. They’re not real firearms, for crying out loud.
Seriously, this is why I can’t take anti-gun hysterics seriously. Karen here is the kind of person who would call the police on a kid who ate his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun and we all know it. She’s clearly not alone in this.
People like this want to push guns so far underground, so far out of the public consciousness, that they can pretend law-abiding citizens have no need of such things. They want to hide them so others won’t even think of them as a possibility.
Unfortunately for them, though, to do it they have to freak out about finger guns, apparently.
Well, at least we have something and someone to point and laugh at.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--Hurting The NRA Isn't Same As Hurting Gun Rights

For many people , the National Rifle Association is synonymous with the gun rights movement .
When they lash out at the NRA , they ’ re using the organization as a proxy for gun rights activists as a whole .
They typically ignore the other gun rights groups that also serve as a thorn in their sides , mostly because they can ’ t be bothered to recognize that there actually are other groups .
Why does this matter ?
Well , because New York Attorney General Letitia James is going after the NRA .
You see , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA , we also know that so many of her fellow travelers can ’ t separate the NRA from the gun rights movement as a whole .
There ’ s plenty of reason to believe James is among those .
Yet , even if James obtains a complete and total victory , she won ’ t stop the gun rights movement .
Democrats rejoiced at the news that the New York Attorney General is aiming to dissolve the National Rifle Association .
Mondaire Jones , the progressive rising star expected to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat , Thursday summed up the prevailing Democratic view : “ Dissolving the NRA would remove one of the biggest impediments to gun safety measures at the state and federal level.
” But that ’ s a dangerous assumption for Democrats to make .
Even if the NRA is gone or tied down by litigation , about 43 percent of Americans will still live in gun-owning households .
A fervent gun rights culture of hunters , collectors , open carriers , militia members and self-defense enthusiasts would still persist .
Conservative media outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other competing gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America , National Association for Gun Rights and the Second Amendment Foundation would still channel the views of the gun rights grassroots to elected officials and new organizations could crop up to do the same .
Besides , the new lawsuit probably won ’ t kill off the NRA in six months ’ time .
And while it had already been suffering from internal strife , weak fundraising and staff layoffs , the easiest way for the NRA to rekindle its fundraising is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democratic Senate and Democratic gun control legislation .
And don ’ t be surprised if a Democratic presidential victory will spark a spike in gun sales , which is what happened in 2008 when Barack Obama won .
Already this spring and summer , we ’ ve experienced the biggest gun sale surge in 10 years , in panicked reaction to the pandemic and the racial justice protests .
Such frenzied buying is a reminder to politicians that the gun owner constituency remains present , intense and engaged .
Author Bill Scher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NRA , to be sure .
In fact , the way he sings Joe Biden ’ s praises later in the piece , I have to wonder if he ’ s even sane .
That said , he ’ s absolutely right about the outcome of dissolving the NRA .
It ’ s important for people outside of the gun rights world to understands a few things .
First is the fact that while the NRA is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the gun rights movement , it ’ s not universally beloved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While anti-gunner vilify them for their unwillingness to compromise , the NRA is far more willing to accept the fact that they ’ re going to lose a few fights and try to mitigate those losses .
That means many see them as too willing to compromise .
That ’ s right , there are people who think the NRA is too squishy when it comes to gun rights .
If you dissolve the NRA , then all that funding isn ’ t going to vanish .
It ’ s not suddenly going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay teachers ’ salaries .
This isn ’ t how things work .
These are private donations that will be redirected toward other groups that the donors feel will defend gun rights as well or better .
Instead of making the gun rights world implode , the donors will rally behind another group , one that ’ s going to drive an even harder line with politicians of any side .
Oh , James might get the NRA dissolved , though I don ’ t think that ’ s likely .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably not going to like the political landscape afterward .

For many people, the National Rifle Association is synonymous with the gun rights movement. When they lash out at the NRA, they’re using the organization as a proxy for gun rights activists as a whole. They typically ignore the other gun rights groups that also serve as a thorn in their sides, mostly because they can’t be bothered to recognize that there actually are other groups.
Why does this matter?
Well, because New York Attorney General Letitia James is going after the NRA.
You see, while we know James has a grudge against the NRA, we also know that so many of her fellow travelers can’t separate the NRA from the gun rights movement as a whole. There’s plenty of reason to believe James is among those.
Yet, even if James obtains a complete and total victory, she won’t stop the gun rights movement.
Democrats rejoiced at the news that the New York Attorney General is aiming to dissolve the National Rifle Association. Mondaire Jones, the progressive rising star expected to win New York’s 17th Congressional District seat, Thursday summed up the prevailing Democratic view: “Dissolving the NRA would remove one of the biggest impediments to gun safety measures at the state and federal level.” But that’s a dangerous assumption for Democrats to make. Even if the NRA is gone or tied down by litigation, about 43 percent of Americans will still live in gun-owning households. A fervent gun rights culture of hunters, collectors, open carriers, militia members and self-defense enthusiasts would still persist. Conservative media outlets would still cater to their fears. Other competing gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America, National Association for Gun Rights and the Second Amendment Foundation would still channel the views of the gun rights grassroots to elected officials and new organizations could crop up to do the same. Besides, the new lawsuit probably won’t kill off the NRA in six months’ time. And while it had already been suffering from internal strife, weak fundraising and staff layoffs, the easiest way for the NRA to rekindle its fundraising is to start 2021 with a Democratic president, Democratic Senate and Democratic gun control legislation. And don’t be surprised if a Democratic presidential victory will spark a spike in gun sales, which is what happened in 2008 when Barack Obama won. Already this spring and summer, we’ve experienced the biggest gun sale surge in 10 years, in panicked reaction to the pandemic and the racial justice protests. Such frenzied buying is a reminder to politicians that the gun owner constituency remains present, intense and engaged.
Author Bill Scher isn’t a fan of the NRA, to be sure. In fact, the way he sings Joe Biden’s praises later in the piece, I have to wonder if he’s even sane.
That said, he’s absolutely right about the outcome of dissolving the NRA.
It’s important for people outside of the gun rights world to understands a few things. First is the fact that while the NRA is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the gun rights movement, it’s not universally beloved on this side of the fence. While anti-gunner vilify them for their unwillingness to compromise, the NRA is far more willing to accept the fact that they’re going to lose a few fights and try to mitigate those losses. That means many see them as too willing to compromise.
That’s right, there are people who think the NRA is too squishy when it comes to gun rights.
If you dissolve the NRA, then all that funding isn’t going to vanish. It’s not suddenly going to be redirected to the arts or to pay teachers’ salaries. This isn’t how things work. These are private donations that will be redirected toward other groups that the donors feel will defend gun rights as well or better.
Instead of making the gun rights world implode, the donors will rally behind another group, one that’s going to drive an even harder line with politicians of any side.
Oh, James might get the NRA dissolved, though I don’t think that’s likely. Yet if she does, she’s probably not going to like the political landscape afterward.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--WaPo Deputy Editor: James Out Of Line On NRA

There are a lot of places one might expect to see New York Attorney General Letitia James called out for crossing the line by trying to dissolve the NRA .
Here , Townhall , RedState , PJ Media , The Daily Caller , The Daily Wire , and a few other places , to be sure .
There are also a lot of places you don ’ t expect someone to call James out , and that ’ s pretty much anywhere in the mainstream media .
Oh , some of the syndicated op-ed contributors probably would , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them will pretend that doing so would make them balanced and unbiased , but we ’ d all know better .
Further , that would be as far as anyone would go at these papers .
So , imagine my surprise to find that the deputy editorial page editor for the Washington Post stepping up to say James overstepped .
OK , not the most promising of starts , to be sure , but hold on for a sec .
Now , deputy editor Ruth Marcus and I probably disagree on a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fan of the NRA and apparently has a rather warped understanding of what “ shall not be infringed ” actually means .
That said , if she can clearly see that James is going after the NRA for clearly partisan reasons , how hard would it be for anyone else ?
The idea that James is looking out for the NRA ’ s members and donors is laughable on the face of things .
No , we all know the real reasons .
Yet even people are James ’ s side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s doing and are deeply uncomfortable with it .
They should be .
After all , politically-motivated prosecution is something no one should tolerate .
It ’ s only a matter of time before this is used to justify going after another organization , this time one the left actually likes .
This use of the legal system to try and punish ideological enemies runs counter to everything we hold dear as a nation .
It ’ s something we ’ re supposed to be above .
Unfortunately , that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luckily , even some in the media who might otherwise ignore assaults on the NRA are being made uncomfortable by this .
The real question is , just how many aren ’ t ?

There are a lot of places one might expect to see New York Attorney General Letitia James called out for crossing the line by trying to dissolve the NRA. Here, Townhall, RedState, PJ Media, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, and a few other places, to be sure.
There are also a lot of places you don’t expect someone to call James out, and that’s pretty much anywhere in the mainstream media.
Oh, some of the syndicated op-ed contributors probably would, to be sure. The newspapers that would run them will pretend that doing so would make them balanced and unbiased, but we’d all know better. Further, that would be as far as anyone would go at these papers.
So, imagine my surprise to find that the deputy editorial page editor for the Washington Post stepping up to say James overstepped.
I loathe the National Rifle Association. With its reflexive opposition to even the mildest gun regulation, it is complicit in the deaths of thousands.
OK, not the most promising of starts, to be sure, but hold on for a sec.
And yet, I worry that New York Attorney General Letitia James has gone too far in her bid to dissolve the organization. Even assuming that the facts laid out in the state’s lawsuit against the NRA are true — and I believe every word about chief executive Wayne LaPierre’s jaw-dropping greed — the right remedy is fixing the NRA, not dismantling it. The NRA has a First Amendment right to its misguided understanding of the Second. Forcing its dissolution has disturbing implications — made even more disturbing by the fact that the attorney general seeking that step is a Democrat who vowed during her campaign to “take on the NRA” and labeled it a “terrorist organization.” In this country, we don’t go after entities because of what they advocate. James’s lawsuit against the NRA does not mention ideology, even if it strains credulity to think that James would have gone after the ACLU or Planned Parenthood with equal zeal if there were similar facts. Still, the facts as alleged are jaw-dropping — and, if you were a donor who dug deep in defense of gun rights, should be enraging. But dissolution? This is within the attorney general’s powers to seek, and it has happened before, most notably to the Donald J. Trump Foundation , the pseudo-charity operated by the president and his family. James’s predecessor, Barbara Underwood, accused the foundation of “functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests,” and it agreed in 2018 to shut down and to distribute its remaining assets. … Count me uncomfortable. Prosecutors shouldn’t seek sentences they think would be excessive because they figure the judge will end up going easier on the defendant. And while other groups aren’t likely to present such egregious fact patterns, consider the threat of a conservative attorney general going after a disfavored liberal group.
Now, deputy editor Ruth Marcus and I probably disagree on a great deal. She’s clearly not a fan of the NRA and apparently has a rather warped understanding of what “shall not be infringed” actually means. That said, if she can clearly see that James is going after the NRA for clearly partisan reasons, how hard would it be for anyone else?
The idea that James is looking out for the NRA’s members and donors is laughable on the face of things.
No, we all know the real reasons.
Yet even people are James’s side of the gun debate see what she’s doing and are deeply uncomfortable with it. They should be.
After all, politically-motivated persecution prosecution is something no one should tolerate. It’s only a matter of time before this is used to justify going after another organization, this time one the left actually likes. This use of the legal system to try and punish ideological enemies runs counter to everything we hold dear as a nation. It’s something we’re supposed to be above.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.
Luckily, even some in the media who might otherwise ignore assaults on the NRA are being made uncomfortable by this. The real question is, just how many aren’t?


bearingarms--2020-08-10--Will The Surge In New Gun Owners Impact The 2020 Election?

We know for a fact that gun sales have been soaring since the first of the year , and anecdotal evidence points to millions of new gun owners since January .
We ’ ll likely see at least a million more Americans become gun owners before Election Day in November , but what kind of impact will these new additions to the Second Amendment community have on the election ?
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , I talk with the Washington Examiner ‘ s Salena Zito about the electoral effect of these new gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to see them make a difference .
Salena ’ s travels recently took her to Oakmont , Pennsylvania , where gun store owner Gregory “ Gooch ” Ionadi has been seeing a steady stream of new customers walk through the doors of Smoke ‘ N ’ Guns .
Last month , as activists set fires , looted , and called for defunding or abolishing the police , the FBI numbers show that more than 3.6 million firearm background checks were conducted , making July the third-highest month on record .
Those numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge in sales in March and April followed by big numbers in June and July following the riots .
“ You wouldn ’ t believe the first-time gun buyers I ’ ve seen , ” said Ionadi .
“ I started seeing little old ladies , 70 , 80 years old , wanting to defend themselves because of what was going on .
So , I had to change my thinking .
I had to start buying 22 Magnum revolvers .
I have some revolvers here , but I had to start buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use because they are easy to handle .
Semi-auto and a revolver are two different things.
” Oakmont is in Pennsylvania ’ s 18th Congressional District , represented by Democrat Mike Doyle , who ’ s steadily become more anti-gun during his time in office .
The district is rated D+13 by the Cook Political Report , but Doyle could face tougher-than-normal challenge from GOP candidate Luke Negron thanks to the increase in new gun owners in the area .
Permit applications for firearms have doubled in New York City , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand prospective gun owners are going to turn the metropolis Republican and allow Donald Trump to win his home city .
Outside of NYC itself , however , new gun owners could play an outsize role in electing pro-2A members of Congress like Elise Stefanik , who represents a good portion of upstate New York .
The New York Post reports that gun sales have increased across the state by 121 % compared to June of 2019 , with the bulk of those purchases coming from upstate and Long Island .
The odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the support of at least some of those new gun owners , especially since her Democrat opponent Tedra Cobb was caught on camera back in 2018 lying about her position on a so-called assault weapons ban .
According to Zito , it ’ s those swing districts like NY-21 where new gun owners could make the biggest difference come November .
Of course , not every new gun owner is going to vote like their Second Amendment rights depend on it .
I ’ m sure that on Election Day , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this year who turn around and cast their vote for the candidate who has promised to ban their new gun , though I ’ d like to think that those voters will be few and far between .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Salena above , and stick around for more news afterwards , including a Florida woman forced to defend herself from an armed intruder and an off-duty police officer in the right place at the right time who was able to help save a pilot after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire lake .

We know for a fact that gun sales have been soaring since the first of the year, and anecdotal evidence points to millions of new gun owners since January. We’ll likely see at least a million more Americans become gun owners before Election Day in November, but what kind of impact will these new additions to the Second Amendment community have on the election? On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, I talk with the Washington Examiner‘s Salena Zito about the electoral effect of these new gun owners, and where we’re most likely to see them make a difference.
Salena’s travels recently took her to Oakmont, Pennsylvania, where gun store owner Gregory “Gooch” Ionadi has been seeing a steady stream of new customers walk through the doors of Smoke ‘N’ Guns.
Last month, as activists set fires, looted, and called for defunding or abolishing the police, the FBI numbers show that more than 3.6 million firearm background checks were conducted, making July the third-highest month on record. Those numbers reflect Ionadi’s experience: a surge in sales in March and April followed by big numbers in June and July following the riots. “You wouldn’t believe the first-time gun buyers I’ve seen,” said Ionadi. “I started seeing little old ladies, 70, 80 years old, wanting to defend themselves because of what was going on. So, I had to change my thinking. I had to start buying 22 Magnum revolvers. I have some revolvers here, but I had to start buying revolvers that women and older folks could use because they are easy to handle. Semi-auto and a revolver are two different things.”
Oakmont is in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, represented by Democrat Mike Doyle, who’s steadily become more anti-gun during his time in office. The district is rated D+13 by the Cook Political Report, but Doyle could face tougher-than-normal challenge from GOP candidate Luke Negron thanks to the increase in new gun owners in the area.
Permit applications for firearms have doubled in New York City, but it’s highly unlikely that a few thousand prospective gun owners are going to turn the metropolis Republican and allow Donald Trump to win his home city. Outside of NYC itself, however, new gun owners could play an outsize role in electing pro-2A members of Congress like Elise Stefanik, who represents a good portion of upstate New York.
The New York Post reports that gun sales have increased across the state by 121% compared to June of 2019, with the bulk of those purchases coming from upstate and Long Island. The odds are that Rep. Stefanik will benefit from the support of at least some of those new gun owners, especially since her Democrat opponent Tedra Cobb was caught on camera back in 2018 lying about her position on a so-called assault weapons ban.
According to Zito, it’s those swing districts like NY-21 where new gun owners could make the biggest difference come November. Of course, not every new gun owner is going to vote like their Second Amendment rights depend on it. I’m sure that on Election Day, there’ll be voters who purchased an AR-15 earlier this year who turn around and cast their vote for the candidate who has promised to ban their new gun, though I’d like to think that those voters will be few and far between.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with Salena above, and stick around for more news afterwards, including a Florida woman forced to defend herself from an armed intruder and an off-duty police officer in the right place at the right time who was able to help save a pilot after his ultralight aircraft crashed into a New Hampshire lake.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--NYC Gun Applications Double In Recent Months

The good news : Thousands of New Yorkers are interested in exercising their Second Amendment rights , and have applied for a permit to keep a gun in their homes over the past few months .
The bad news ?
Those residents will be waiting for months to be approved to exercise a constitutional right , and only after paying hundreds of dollars in non-refundable fees for the privilege of applying to keep ( not even bear ) arms .
With gunshots ringing out inside the Westside Rifle and Pistol range in Flatiron , workers say a lot more city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In New York City , everyone , they feel very , very threatened , ” said salesman John Aaron .
“ They see the rioting going on , people are getting mugged , the shootings , so they figure the answer is : let me protect myself.
” But at the Westside Rifle and Pistol Range in Manhattan , workers say you won ’ t see people lined up to purchase guns in New York City .
Unlike in most other places across America , it is very difficult and time-consuming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The process can take more than a year and cost a lot of money .
“ When people hear they got to get a license , $ 440 , they have to purchase a weapon — let ’ s say $ 1,000 — and then you need a place to practice , another $ 600 .
That ’ s not cheap .
That really adds up , ” said Aaron .
If a New York City resident applied for their pistol premises permit today , the odds are that they wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometime in the summer of 2021 , and even then , they could be denied for no reason other than the NYPD doesn ’ t think they ’ re suitable to exercise their constitutional rights .
With violence soaring , I wouldn ’ t be surprised if some of those applicants decide to skip the exhausting process of becoming a legal gun owner in the city and become the owner of an illegally possessed gun instead .
I ’ m not recommending that , by the way , but it stands to reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a firearm and the city won ’ t let them easily do so , at least a portion of the pool of applicants will decide it ’ s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six .
Of course the city could adopt a reasonable process for gun ownership that doesn ’ t involve approval by local police and hundreds of dollars in fees , but we ’ re more likely to see the Statue of Liberty replaced by a 200-foot tall statue of Joseph Stalin than the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun licensing laws .
Demand for firearms may be surging in the Big Apple , but the city ’ s politicians are going to continue to do everything they can do prevent as many New Yorkers as possible from actually purchasing a gun for self-defense .
They may not be able to get crime under control , but they ’ ve done a remarkable job of keeping New Yorkers from legally exercising their Second Amendment rights .

The good news: Thousands of New Yorkers are interested in exercising their Second Amendment rights, and have applied for a permit to keep a gun in their homes over the past few months.
The bad news? Those residents will be waiting for months to be approved to exercise a constitutional right, and only after paying hundreds of dollars in non-refundable fees for the privilege of applying to keep (not even bear) arms.
With gunshots ringing out inside the Westside Rifle and Pistol range in Flatiron, workers say a lot more city residents want to be licensed gun owners. “In New York City, everyone, they feel very, very threatened,” said salesman John Aaron. “They see the rioting going on, people are getting mugged, the shootings, so they figure the answer is: let me protect myself.” But at the Westside Rifle and Pistol Range in Manhattan, workers say you won’t see people lined up to purchase guns in New York City. Unlike in most other places across America, it is very difficult and time-consuming to get an NYPD gun license. The process can take more than a year and cost a lot of money. “When people hear they got to get a license, $440, they have to purchase a weapon — let’s say $1,000 — and then you need a place to practice, another $600. That’s not cheap. That really adds up,” said Aaron.
If a New York City resident applied for their pistol premises permit today, the odds are that they wouldn’t even hear back from the city until sometime in the summer of 2021, and even then, they could be denied for no reason other than the NYPD doesn’t think they’re suitable to exercise their constitutional rights. With violence soaring, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those applicants decide to skip the exhausting process of becoming a legal gun owner in the city and become the owner of an illegally possessed gun instead.
I’m not recommending that, by the way, but it stands to reason that if people want to protect themselves with a firearm and the city won’t let them easily do so, at least a portion of the pool of applicants will decide it’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Of course the city could adopt a reasonable process for gun ownership that doesn’t involve approval by local police and hundreds of dollars in fees, but we’re more likely to see the Statue of Liberty replaced by a 200-foot tall statue of Joseph Stalin than the New York City Council rescind the city’s gun licensing laws.
Demand for firearms may be surging in the Big Apple, but the city’s politicians are going to continue to do everything they can do prevent as many New Yorkers as possible from actually purchasing a gun for self-defense. They may not be able to get crime under control, but they’ve done a remarkable job of keeping New Yorkers from legally exercising their Second Amendment rights.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--One Dead, 20 Injured In Shooting In Gun Controled D.C.

The District of Columbia is a pretty gun controlled city .
Sure , they may be a shall-issue jurisdiction when it comes to permits , but that was the result of a court decision they opted not to take to the Supreme Court .
It was an artifact of their support for gun control .
After all , they didn ’ t want to kill may issue laws in other places .
In fact , right now , local officials are doing everything they can to hamstring people trying to lawfully obtain firearms .
Despite all those gun control efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still didn ’ t seem to stop this from happening .
One person was killed and at least another 20 , including an off-duty cop , were injured in a shooting shortly after midnight Sunday at a gathering with hundreds of people in Southeast D.C. , according to police .
Police responded to the 3300 block of Dubois Place SE around 12:20 a.m. , Chief Peter Newsham told reporters at the scene later Sunday morning .
A 17-year-old , Christopher Brown , died at the hospital , Newsham said .
An off-duty 1st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ struggling for her life , ” he said .
Newsham did not believe the other injuries were life-threatening .
He said police are looking for multiple shooters , noting that gunfire broke out from three different directions after a dispute .
The crime scene spanned several blocks and police found 172 bullets , according to the Washington Post .
However , it seems that this spot is a common gathering place .
Perhaps more tellingly , though , it ’ s a gathering place with a history that seems relevant .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advisory Neighborhood Commission and lives a half-mile away from where the shootings took place .
“ I ’ m honestly just floored , ” Howard-Chittams tells DCist .
However , she says this is nothing new .
She ’ s complained about large gatherings of this nature for years , which has resulted in threats and having her tires slashed — it happened this morning , too , Howard-Chittams says .
So these aren ’ t good , clean-cut , all-American kids just hanging out and not causing trouble .
At least some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t above destroying private property to try and intimidate people who don ’ t approve of what they ’ re doing .
And now it ’ s on the police to do something .
That ’ s something Howard-Chittams doesn ’ t think will happen .
However , in the present climate , she believes that there ’ s very little the police can do about it .
“ The politicians are not supporting them .
Our mayor is not supporting them , ” says Howard-Chittams .
“ If [ the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the small stuff , they are accused of over-policing… their hands are tied.
” The truth is , there ’ s reason to believe that hitting folks over the small stuff actually reduces the chances of big stuff happening , big stuff like this .
What didn ’ t reduce the likelihood of this happening , however , is gun control .
The District of Columbia has plenty of it , and yet multiple shooters were able to get guns and open fire on a crowd in our nation ’ s capital .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 others wounded .
If gun control works like anti-gunners claim , this shouldn ’ t have happened , but it did .
Kind of like how pro-Second Amendment folks have been saying it would all along .

The District of Columbia is a pretty gun controlled city. Sure, they may be a shall-issue jurisdiction when it comes to permits, but that was the result of a court decision they opted not to take to the Supreme Court. It was an artifact of their support for gun control. After all, they didn’t want to kill may issue laws in other places.
In fact, right now, local officials are doing everything they can to hamstring people trying to lawfully obtain firearms.
Despite all those gun control efforts in the city, though, it still didn’t seem to stop this from happening.
One person was killed and at least another 20, including an off-duty cop, were injured in a shooting shortly after midnight Sunday at a gathering with hundreds of people in Southeast D.C., according to police. Police responded to the 3300 block of Dubois Place SE around 12:20 a.m., Chief Peter Newsham told reporters at the scene later Sunday morning. A 17-year-old, Christopher Brown, died at the hospital, Newsham said. An off-duty 1st District police officer was seriously injured and was “struggling for her life,” he said. Newsham did not believe the other injuries were life-threatening. He said police are looking for multiple shooters, noting that gunfire broke out from three different directions after a dispute. The crime scene spanned several blocks and police found 172 bullets, according to the Washington Post.
However, it seems that this spot is a common gathering place.
Perhaps more tellingly, though, it’s a gathering place with a history that seems relevant.
Patricia Howard-Chittams is on 7B’s Advisory Neighborhood Commission and lives a half-mile away from where the shootings took place. “I’m honestly just floored,” Howard-Chittams tells DCist. However, she says this is nothing new. She’s complained about large gatherings of this nature for years, which has resulted in threats and having her tires slashed — it happened this morning, too, Howard-Chittams says.
So these aren’t good, clean-cut, all-American kids just hanging out and not causing trouble. At least some of these are little hoodlums who aren’t above destroying private property to try and intimidate people who don’t approve of what they’re doing.
And now it’s on the police to do something. That’s something Howard-Chittams doesn’t think will happen.
However, in the present climate, she believes that there’s very little the police can do about it. “The politicians are not supporting them. Our mayor is not supporting them,” says Howard-Chittams. “If [the police] are aggressive with how they treat the small stuff, they are accused of over-policing… their hands are tied.”
She’s not wrong.
The truth is, there’s reason to believe that hitting folks over the small stuff actually reduces the chances of big stuff happening, big stuff like this. What didn’t reduce the likelihood of this happening, however, is gun control.
The District of Columbia has plenty of it, and yet multiple shooters were able to get guns and open fire on a crowd in our nation’s capital. One person is dead, at least 20 others wounded.
If gun control works like anti-gunners claim, this shouldn’t have happened, but it did.
Kind of like how pro-Second Amendment folks have been saying it would all along.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--Video: The Racist History Of Gun Control

All throughout the nation , people are calling for the destruction of anything and everything they can see that might even be minutely related to slavery and racism that permeates so much of American history .
While this racism is typically overstated to some degree , any honest look at our nation ’ s history has to acknowledge that racism has been a part of that history .
It ’ s been there for far too much of our country ’ s time on this planet .
These days , the destruction of statues has been the predominant way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s another racist legacy that still exists in this country .
The funny thing is , the people ripping down the statues ?
They tend to support that legacy .
In particular , gun control .
Check out this video from The Daily Caller .
None of this was new to me .
I ’ ve seen it all before and it ’ s correct .
Gun control rose out of a desire to see black men and women be unable to fight back against the racism that surrounded them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was illegal to carry a firearm at a “ public gathering.
” The history of that law stems from an incident during Reconstruction .
A number of black legislators had been removed from their offices illegally .
In Camilla , Georgia–not too far from my own home , actually–a group of African-American men and women decided to march to a Republican rally as part of a protest .
In the woods along the march route , white men with guns opened fire , killing about a dozen people and injuring as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of the marchers got guns of their own .
The incident was known as the Camilla Massacre and , in response , lawmakers made it illegal to bring guns to any public gathering .
You see , gun control was passed in this era with a nod and a wink .
It was understood that no white sheriff or prosecutor would go after a white man carrying a gun illegally , only the blacks .
It was a decision meant to unevenly apply laws so they only hurt one portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws still have a similar effect .
While police routinely apply the laws against anyone who breaks them–at least in theory–these laws have a disproportionate impact on African American men and women .
They ’ re the ones who are typically hamstrung in their attempts to lawfully purchase firearms .
They ’ re the ones killed because they couldn ’ t buy a gun to protect themselves and their families .
And yeah , they ’ re the ones prosecuted for violating gun control laws when they step outside the system .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s racist legacy , then why don ’ t they join us in standing against this particular racist legacy ?
Some of us–the very people they typically call racist bigots , I should add–have been opposing this particular legacy for years now .
We ’ d love to welcome them to the fold so we can eradicate this particular blight from our nation .
Somehow , though , I suspect none of them are interested .
What a shame .

All throughout the nation, people are calling for the destruction of anything and everything they can see that might even be minutely related to slavery and racism that permeates so much of American history.
While this racism is typically overstated to some degree, any honest look at our nation’s history has to acknowledge that racism has been a part of that history. It’s been there for far too much of our country’s time on this planet.
These days, the destruction of statues has been the predominant way of pushing back against that history, yet there’s another racist legacy that still exists in this country.
The funny thing is, the people ripping down the statues? They tend to support that legacy.
In particular, gun control. Check out this video from The Daily Caller.
None of this was new to me. I’ve seen it all before and it’s correct. Gun control rose out of a desire to see black men and women be unable to fight back against the racism that surrounded them.
Here in Georgia, up until 2010, it was illegal to carry a firearm at a “public gathering.”
The history of that law stems from an incident during Reconstruction. A number of black legislators had been removed from their offices illegally. In Camilla, Georgia–not too far from my own home, actually–a group of African-American men and women decided to march to a Republican rally as part of a protest.
In the woods along the march route, white men with guns opened fire, killing about a dozen people and injuring as many as 30 others. In response, many of the marchers got guns of their own.
The incident was known as the Camilla Massacre and, in response, lawmakers made it illegal to bring guns to any public gathering.
You see, gun control was passed in this era with a nod and a wink. It was understood that no white sheriff or prosecutor would go after a white man carrying a gun illegally, only the blacks. It was a decision meant to unevenly apply laws so they only hurt one portion of the population.
Even today, such laws still have a similar effect.
While police routinely apply the laws against anyone who breaks them–at least in theory–these laws have a disproportionate impact on African American men and women. They’re the ones who are typically hamstrung in their attempts to lawfully purchase firearms. They’re the ones killed because they couldn’t buy a gun to protect themselves and their families. And yeah, they’re the ones prosecuted for violating gun control laws when they step outside the system.
If these protestors are serious about destroying all of America’s racist legacy, then why don’t they join us in standing against this particular racist legacy? Some of us–the very people they typically call racist bigots, I should add–have been opposing this particular legacy for years now. We’d love to welcome them to the fold so we can eradicate this particular blight from our nation.
Somehow, though, I suspect none of them are interested. What a shame.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--CA Sheriff's Captain Charged With Bribery In Concealed Carry Scheme

Prosecutors in Santa Clara County , California have charged four individuals , including a sheriff ’ s captain , in an alleged “ pay-to-play ” scheme involving rarely-granted concealed carry licenses , and more arrests could be coming .
Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen announced the first charges on Friday , following a year-long investigation into allegations that concealed carry applicants who made contributions to Sheriff Laurie Smith ’ s 2018 re-election campaign received special treatment in exchange for their campaign cash .
Sheriff ’ s office captain James Jensen , attorneys Christopher Schumb and Harpaul Nahal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiring with the CEO and a middle manager of AS Solution Inc. — an international security company — to offer a $ 90,000 bribe to obtain concealed firearms permits ( CCW licenses ) for the company ’ s executive-protection agents .
The activity took place in 2018 while Sheriff Laurie Smith , who had the authority to grant the permits , was in a tough race for reelection in both the primary and general elections .
The Santa Clara County district attorney said the defendants are expected to be arraigned on the charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Justice .
If convicted , all four defendants could face prison .
The DA ’ s office said it is continuing to investigate additional crimes and individuals in relation to the issuing of CCW licenses .
One big question : how much did the sheriff know about the scheme ?
Smith has not been charged , as of yet anyway , but given the fact that the bribe was directed to a campaign group backing Smith ’ s re-election , as well as the suspicious timing of James Jensen ’ s promotion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seems hard to believe that she would have no knowledge whatsoever about what was happening in her own department .
Of course , if the sheriff really is that oblivious to the bribery connected to her own re-election , that raises a whole host of other reasons why she ’ s not fit for the job .
I ’ ll give some credit to the District Attorney for investigating the allegations , especially since Jeff Rosen hasn ’ t exactly been a Second Amendment stalwart during his time in office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a friend to gun owners , he didn ’ t shy away from his conclusion that the concealed carry process in Santa Clara County is being abused by the sheriff ’ s department .
Only a handful of permits are active in the county , and the prosecutor says that ’ s because the average citizen simply have their applications thrown out without even a review .
Rosen said the investigation “ revealed a sad reality ” that two different policies seem to exist within the Santa Clara County Sheriff ’ s Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ For the average member of the public , no matter how pressing or justified their need , if they follow the procedure… and mail in an application , it will not be reviewed , ” Rosen said .
“ However , if you are , in the words of Sheriff ’ s Captain James Jensen , a ‘ VIP ’ , then he will meet you at Starbucks , personally review your application and help you fill it out.
” “ Our concern is not whether the sheriff grants many or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being granted or denied for the wrong reasons , ” Rosen said .
“ CCW licenses should not be given out in exchange for campaign donations .
They should not be for sale.
” Unfortunately , thanks to the state ’ s concealed carry licensing laws , which give sheriffs broad discretion in approving or denying licenses if they don ’ t believe the applicant has demonstrated “ good cause , ” there are plenty of opportunities for graft and corruption .
The easiest thing to do would be for the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ licensing system that recognizes self-defense as a valid reason to carry and removes the discretionary authority of local sheriffs to reject or approve applications based on their own whims , but that seems extraordinarily unlikely given the anti-gun supermajority in the state legislature .
Instead , it ’ s much more likely that we ’ ll continue to see this kind of abuse continue , though perhaps not as blatantly as the Santa Clara County case .
The first suspects arrested in the bribery scandal are due in court on August 31st .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Rosen is keeping his cards pretty close to the vest , but during Friday ’ s press conference he made it clear that this was still an open investigation , and I suspect he ’ s not done filing charges yet .

Prosecutors in Santa Clara County, California have charged four individuals, including a sheriff’s captain, in an alleged “pay-to-play” scheme involving rarely-granted concealed carry licenses, and more arrests could be coming. Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen announced the first charges on Friday, following a year-long investigation into allegations that concealed carry applicants who made contributions to Sheriff Laurie Smith’s 2018 re-election campaign received special treatment in exchange for their campaign cash.
Sheriff’s office captain James Jensen, attorneys Christopher Schumb and Harpaul Nahal and business owner Michael Nichols were charged for conspiring with the CEO and a middle manager of AS Solution Inc. — an international security company — to offer a $90,000 bribe to obtain concealed firearms permits (CCW licenses) for the company’s executive-protection agents. The activity took place in 2018 while Sheriff Laurie Smith, who had the authority to grant the permits, was in a tough race for reelection in both the primary and general elections. The Santa Clara County district attorney said the defendants are expected to be arraigned on the charges Aug. 31 at the San Jose Hall of Justice. If convicted, all four defendants could face prison. The DA’s office said it is continuing to investigate additional crimes and individuals in relation to the issuing of CCW licenses.
One big question: how much did the sheriff know about the scheme? Smith has not been charged, as of yet anyway, but given the fact that the bribe was directed to a campaign group backing Smith’s re-election, as well as the suspicious timing of James Jensen’s promotion to captain shortly after Smith won re-election, it seems hard to believe that she would have no knowledge whatsoever about what was happening in her own department. Of course, if the sheriff really is that oblivious to the bribery connected to her own re-election, that raises a whole host of other reasons why she’s not fit for the job.
I’ll give some credit to the District Attorney for investigating the allegations, especially since Jeff Rosen hasn’t exactly been a Second Amendment stalwart during his time in office. Even though Rosen hasn’t been a friend to gun owners, he didn’t shy away from his conclusion that the concealed carry process in Santa Clara County is being abused by the sheriff’s department. Only a handful of permits are active in the county, and the prosecutor says that’s because the average citizen simply have their applications thrown out without even a review.
Rosen said the investigation “revealed a sad reality” that two different policies seem to exist within the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for those seeking the concealed firearm permits. “For the average member of the public, no matter how pressing or justified their need, if they follow the procedure… and mail in an application, it will not be reviewed,” Rosen said. “However, if you are, in the words of Sheriff’s Captain James Jensen, a ‘VIP’, then he will meet you at Starbucks, personally review your application and help you fill it out.” “Our concern is not whether the sheriff grants many or few CCW licenses, but whether they are being granted or denied for the wrong reasons,” Rosen said. “CCW licenses should not be given out in exchange for campaign donations. They should not be for sale.”
Unfortunately, thanks to the state’s concealed carry licensing laws, which give sheriffs broad discretion in approving or denying licenses if they don’t believe the applicant has demonstrated “good cause,” there are plenty of opportunities for graft and corruption. The easiest thing to do would be for the state to adopt a “shall issue” licensing system that recognizes self-defense as a valid reason to carry and removes the discretionary authority of local sheriffs to reject or approve applications based on their own whims, but that seems extraordinarily unlikely given the anti-gun supermajority in the state legislature. Instead, it’s much more likely that we’ll continue to see this kind of abuse continue, though perhaps not as blatantly as the Santa Clara County case.
The first suspects arrested in the bribery scandal are due in court on August 31st. Will there be more arrests by then? Rosen is keeping his cards pretty close to the vest, but during Friday’s press conference he made it clear that this was still an open investigation, and I suspect he’s not done filing charges yet.


bearingarms--2020-08-10--Chicago Explodes With Looting, Gun Battles With Police

It ’ s almost cliche at this point .
The pro-Second Amendment media almost has to cover Chicago violence come Monday morning .
After all , there ’ s typically plenty of it , all from a very gun-controlled state .
However , today it ’ s a bit different .
Today , there ’ s a special kind of ugly going on in Chi-town .
It ’ s the kind of ugly that most of us thought was over several weeks ago outside of the Pacific Northwest .
Unfortunately for Chicago , it ’ s not .
Perhaps most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one knows just what sparked off this bought of vandalism .
We know what the excuse was for previous looting .
While I don ’ t see how raiding a local Target gets any justice for George Floyd , we do know that was the reason given for those protests turned riots .
We had a reason , a point of reference , even if most of us thought it was ridiculous .
Now , though , we don ’ t even seem to have that .
This wasn ’ t a protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a peaceful demonstration that was infiltrated by Antifa .
At least , there ’ s no indication of that being the case , and I ’ d imagine there would be .
This , though ?
This is something else .
Gun battles with police ?
Senseless looting ?
No , this stinks of something else entirely .
Meanwhile , Mayor Lori Lightfoot seems completely unable to maintain any degree of control over her city .
That shouldn ’ t be too surprising , though .
After all , she ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than actually deal with the violence that already ran rampant over Chicago ’ s streets even before last night ’ s event .
It ’ ll be interesting to see what the response to this turns out to be .
It ’ ll also be interesting to see if this mess continues tonight .

It’s almost cliche at this point. The pro-Second Amendment media almost has to cover Chicago violence come Monday morning. After all, there’s typically plenty of it, all from a very gun-controlled state.
However, today it’s a bit different. Today, there’s a special kind of ugly going on in Chi-town.
It’s the kind of ugly that most of us thought was over several weeks ago outside of the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately for Chicago, it’s not.
Hundreds of people swept through the Magnificent Mile and other parts of downtown Chicago early Monday, smashing windows, looting stores, confronting police and at one point exchanging gunfire with officers, authorities said. The officers had stopped several people on Lake Street near Michigan Avenue when shots were fired from a passing car around 4:30 a.m., nearly five hours into the widespread vandalism, according to police spokesman Tom Ahern. No officers were shot but a squad car was hit, he said. It was not known if anyone in the gunman’s car was shot. Ahern said other officers were injured through the night. Earlier, an officer was seen slumped against a building by Grand and Wabash avenues as other other cops tended to him. It was unclear what had happened to him. Ahern had no details on the injuries. The looting began shortly after midnight as people darted through broken store windows and doors along Michigan Avenue carrying shopping bags full of merchandise. Cars dropped off more people as the crowd grew. At least one U-Haul van was seen pulling up. Police made “a lot of arrests” and recovered at least one gun, officials said. One woman with shopping bags in her hands fell on the sidewalk as an officer was chasing her. Another woman appeared to have been pepper-sprayed. A rock was thrown at a squad car.
Perhaps most troubling, though, is that no one knows just what sparked off this bought of vandalism.
We know what the excuse was for previous looting. While I don’t see how raiding a local Target gets any justice for George Floyd, we do know that was the reason given for those protests turned riots. We had a reason, a point of reference, even if most of us thought it was ridiculous.
Now, though, we don’t even seem to have that. This wasn’t a protest that went rogue. It’s not a peaceful demonstration that was infiltrated by Antifa. At least, there’s no indication of that being the case, and I’d imagine there would be.
This, though? This is something else.
Gun battles with police? Senseless looting? No, this stinks of something else entirely.
Meanwhile, Mayor Lori Lightfoot seems completely unable to maintain any degree of control over her city. That shouldn’t be too surprising, though. After all, she’d much rather snipe at President Donald Trump than actually deal with the violence that already ran rampant over Chicago’s streets even before last night’s event.
It’ll be interesting to see what the response to this turns out to be. It’ll also be interesting to see if this mess continues tonight.