bearingarms--2020-06-10--Portland's Gun Violence Reduction Task Force Axed By Mayor

Mayor Ted Wheeler has announced millions of dollars in budget cuts to the Portland , Oregon police department , including the disbanding of the department ’ s Gun Violence Reduction Task Force , established in 2019 to take on shootings in the city .
Some members of the city council had long called for defunding the task force , which was an offshoot of the city ’ s Gang Enforcement Team , claiming that the task force was ineffective at stopping criminals , while it profiled black residents of the city .
Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismantling the GVRT .
The Portland Police Bureau ’ s controversial Gang Enforcement Team was rebranded into the Gun Violence Reduction Team in January 2019 .
The GET faced criticism by many in the city for targeting the Black community and keeping informal lists of alleged gang members .
An audit of the Gang Enforcement Team ’ s work in 2015-2016 found the officers disproportionately stop Black people and that they lacked data to show how frequently they pull over actual gang members versus how often it unnecessarily stopped other drivers .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have a horrible conviction rate , ” said Hardesty , who has been pushing the city to defund the program since long before she was elected .
“ They couldn ’ t find a gang member if they fell over one.
” The department had already de-emphasized fighting gang violence when it launched the Gun Violence Reduction Task Force , calling it a “ holistic approach ” to reducing shootings in the city .
“ We made this change to align our officers and investigators so they can work collaboratively on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Chief Danielle Outlaw .
“ We will continue to investigate violence committed by those who claim affiliation to criminal gangs , and continue our work with community stakeholders who work to prevent this violence through outreach and other strategies .
This new model will allow for our officers and investigators to work more closely , implement additional strategies and have a more intensive response to all gun violence in the city .
These crimes deeply impact our community and we want to ensure we create a robust team with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Gun Violence Reduction Team will be contacted by officers after every shooting .
Supervisors will determine if members of GVRT , the Robbery Detail , Domestic Violence Reduction Unit , Homicide Detail or another investigative unit will respond to assume the investigation The members of the Gun Violence Reduction Team meet biweekly with representatives from the Multnomah County District Attorney , the United States Attorney for Oregon , as well as members from Parole and Probation , the Multnomah County Sheriff ’ s office and the Gresham Police Department to share information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent future gun violence .
GVRT members also continue to share information with the Office of Youth Violence Prevention in a coordinated effort to reach community members directly impacted by gun violence .
This holistic approach , which includes services and assistance to those involved in or at risk for future violence made available through OYVP is intended to prevent further gun violence and trauma in our community .
There were more than 400 shootings in Portland in 2019 , including 27 homicides , and officers were already complaining that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence , as The Oregonian reported earlier this year as violence surged once again .
What ’ s troubling to officers is the number of bullet casings found at recent crime scenes : 53 at one ; 46 at another , 41 and 38 at others , said Sgt .
Mark Friedman of the Gun Violence Reduction Team .
Police do forensic analysis on all recovered casings and bullets , and in the recent shootings , the quick tests have shown that multiple guns were involved in many of them .
Police said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing rivalry between the Hoover street gang and the Woodlawn Park Bloods .
They also suspect others result from “ spontaneous ’ ’ disputes that erupt over a girl or sign of disrespect .
Bullets fly because gang members are perhaps more at ease carrying guns now as a strapped police force stops them less , some veteran officers said .
On the one hand , perhaps the rising violent crime in Portland is evidence of the failures of the Portland police to effectively deal with gang violence in the city .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force isn ’ t likely to actually improve the ability to make arrests and prosecute shootings .
In fact , it ’ s likely to lead to further increases in violence as gang members become even more emboldened .
In his announcement , Mayor Wheeler said that he “ should have acted with greater urgency to these demands , ” and that his “ privilege shielded ” him “ from difficult and uncomfortable truths on our history and society.
” In his quest to be America ’ s Wokest Mayor , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth ; community service in and of itself won ’ t end gang violence , and law breakers are likely to take advantage of the law enforcement vacuum .
That means that the good people in Portland ’ s worst neighborhoods aren ’ t going to be empowered by this decision .
They ’ re just going to be at a greater risk of violent crime , particularly with Mayor Wheeler and other Oregon lawmakers still embracing a gun control agenda that inhibits the ability of law-abiding residents to protect themselves .

Mayor Ted Wheeler has announced millions of dollars in budget cuts to the Portland, Oregon police department, including the disbanding of the department’s Gun Violence Reduction Task Force, established in 2019 to take on shootings in the city. Some members of the city council had long called for defunding the task force, which was an offshoot of the city’s Gang Enforcement Team, claiming that the task force was ineffective at stopping criminals, while it profiled black residents of the city.
Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, along with activists, had long called for dismantling the GVRT. The Portland Police Bureau’s controversial Gang Enforcement Team was rebranded into the Gun Violence Reduction Team in January 2019. The GET faced criticism by many in the city for targeting the Black community and keeping informal lists of alleged gang members. An audit of the Gang Enforcement Team’s work in 2015-2016 found the officers disproportionately stop Black people and that they lacked data to show how frequently they pull over actual gang members versus how often it unnecessarily stopped other drivers. “At the end of the day, they have a horrible conviction rate,” said Hardesty, who has been pushing the city to defund the program since long before she was elected. “They couldn’t find a gang member if they fell over one.”
The department had already de-emphasized fighting gang violence when it launched the Gun Violence Reduction Task Force, calling it a “holistic approach” to reducing shootings in the city.
“We made this change to align our officers and investigators so they can work collaboratively on all gun violence that occurs in the city,” said Chief Danielle Outlaw. “We will continue to investigate violence committed by those who claim affiliation to criminal gangs, and continue our work with community stakeholders who work to prevent this violence through outreach and other strategies. This new model will allow for our officers and investigators to work more closely, implement additional strategies and have a more intensive response to all gun violence in the city. These crimes deeply impact our community and we want to ensure we create a robust team with the common goal of reducing gun violence.” The Gun Violence Reduction Team will be contacted by officers after every shooting. Supervisors will determine if members of GVRT, the Robbery Detail, Domestic Violence Reduction Unit, Homicide Detail or another investigative unit will respond to assume the investigation The members of the Gun Violence Reduction Team meet biweekly with representatives from the Multnomah County District Attorney, the United States Attorney for Oregon, as well as members from Parole and Probation, the Multnomah County Sheriff’s office and the Gresham Police Department to share information in a collaborative manner with the goal to prevent future gun violence. GVRT members also continue to share information with the Office of Youth Violence Prevention in a coordinated effort to reach community members directly impacted by gun violence. This holistic approach, which includes services and assistance to those involved in or at risk for future violence made available through OYVP is intended to prevent further gun violence and trauma in our community.
There were more than 400 shootings in Portland in 2019, including 27 homicides, and officers were already complaining that they were overwhelmed by the increasing amount of gang-related violence, as The Oregonian reported earlier this year as violence surged once again.
What’s troubling to officers is the number of bullet casings found at recent crime scenes: 53 at one; 46 at another, 41 and 38 at others, said Sgt. Mark Friedman of the Gun Violence Reduction Team. Police do forensic analysis on all recovered casings and bullets, and in the recent shootings, the quick tests have shown that multiple guns were involved in many of them. Police said some of the shootings stem from an ongoing rivalry between the Hoover street gang and the Woodlawn Park Bloods. They also suspect others result from “spontaneous’’ disputes that erupt over a girl or sign of disrespect. Bullets fly because gang members are perhaps more at ease carrying guns now as a strapped police force stops them less, some veteran officers said.
On the one hand, perhaps the rising violent crime in Portland is evidence of the failures of the Portland police to effectively deal with gang violence in the city. On the other hand, ending the task force isn’t likely to actually improve the ability to make arrests and prosecute shootings. In fact, it’s likely to lead to further increases in violence as gang members become even more emboldened.
In his announcement, Mayor Wheeler said that he “should have acted with greater urgency to these demands,” and that his “privilege shielded” him “from difficult and uncomfortable truths on our history and society.” In his quest to be America’s Wokest Mayor, however, Wheeler is choosing to ignore another uncomfortable truth; community service in and of itself won’t end gang violence, and law breakers are likely to take advantage of the law enforcement vacuum. That means that the good people in Portland’s worst neighborhoods aren’t going to be empowered by this decision. They’re just going to be at a greater risk of violent crime, particularly with Mayor Wheeler and other Oregon lawmakers still embracing a gun control agenda that inhibits the ability of law-abiding residents to protect themselves.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Gun Owners Victorious In Federal Court Challenge To CT COVID Restrictions

A U.S. District Judge in Connecticut has granted a temporary injunction requested by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League after Governor Ned Lamont and the state ’ s public safety commissioner halted new gun license applications as part of the state ’ s COVID-19 emergency measures .
The decision , released on Tuesday afternoon , gives the governor one week to modify his order and instruct local police departments to once again begin accepting applications from prospective gun owners in the state .
In his 26 page decision , [ U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A . ]
Meyer ruled that order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it , “ plainly burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment.
” Further , that “ they categorically foreclose a person who does not already have a permit or certification from acquiring a handgun if the person ’ s fingerprints are not already on file .
One can not exercise the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense if one is prevented from acquiring a handgun in the first place.
” According to the CCDL , the state argued Lamont and Rovella did not violate the plaintiffs ’ Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspension was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic , and the federal court should not intervene .
Meyer dispelled that argument and wrote “ If the governor and the commissioner were to issue a gag order barring plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment free speech rights for the balance of the COVID-19 crisis , plaintiffs would surely suffer injury despite the ‘ temporary ’ nature of the crisis.
” Meyer was actually appointed to the bench by then-President Barack Obama in 2014 , which makes his ruling a little surprising .
Still , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly infringing on the ability of residents to keep and bear arms by suspending all gun license applications .
Connecticut ’ s license to own a pistol also serves as a license to carry that firearm , so not only have prospective gun owners in the state been denied their ability to keep a handgun in their home for the past few months , their right to bear arms has been curtailed as well .
The judge was also correct in noting that the “ temporary ” nature of the suspension of license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there ’ s been no sign that the governor was prepared to reverse course anytime soon .
As the judge noted in his decision : As an initial matter , I find no merit to any of the Governor and Commissioner ’ s threshold jurisdictional arguments : that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity , that plaintiffs have no standing , or that plaintiffs ’ request for injunctive relief is moot .
On the merits , I conclude that plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm , that they have a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merits of their Second Amendment claim , and that the balance of equities and public interest weighs in favor of a grant of preliminary injunctive relief .
All in all , I can well understand why the Governor ’ s order and Commissioner ’ s actions were justified at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic .
But with the passage of time it is clear that a categorical ban on the collection of fingerprints no longer bears a substantial relation to protecting public health consistent with respecting plaintiffs ’ constitutional rights .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have given the green light to suspend the ability of a Connecticut resident to acquire a handgun during the first week or two of the COVID-19 emergency as part of the state ’ s broader public health measures , but the longer that ban on collecting fingerprints and processing applications lasts , the less likely it is to be a legitimate exercise of emergency powers and the more likely it is to become just another way for anti-gun politicians to separate the People from a right that shall not be infringed .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word on whether Lamont will appeal the judge ’ s decision or simply revise his emergency order as the judge has mandated , but if the governor is smart , he ’ ll take the loss in district court and abide by the Constitution in the days ahead .

A U.S. District Judge in Connecticut has granted a temporary injunction requested by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League after Governor Ned Lamont and the state’s public safety commissioner halted new gun license applications as part of the state’s COVID-19 emergency measures. The decision, released on Tuesday afternoon, gives the governor one week to modify his order and instruct local police departments to once again begin accepting applications from prospective gun owners in the state.
In his 26 page decision, [U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A.] Meyer ruled that order, and law enforcement’s implementation of it, “plainly burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment.” Further, that “they categorically foreclose a person who does not already have a permit or certification from acquiring a handgun if the person’s fingerprints are not already on file. One cannot exercise the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense if one is prevented from acquiring a handgun in the first place.” According to the CCDL, the state argued Lamont and Rovella did not violate the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights because the “temporary” suspension was necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the federal court should not intervene. Meyer dispelled that argument and wrote “If the governor and the commissioner were to issue a gag order barring plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment free speech rights for the balance of the COVID-19 crisis, plaintiffs would surely suffer injury despite the ‘temporary’ nature of the crisis.”
Meyer was actually appointed to the bench by then-President Barack Obama in 2014, which makes his ruling a little surprising. Still, it’s obvious that the state was clearly infringing on the ability of residents to keep and bear arms by suspending all gun license applications. Connecticut’s license to own a pistol also serves as a license to carry that firearm, so not only have prospective gun owners in the state been denied their ability to keep a handgun in their home for the past few months, their right to bear arms has been curtailed as well.
The judge was also correct in noting that the “temporary” nature of the suspension of license applications has stretched on for months now, and there’s been no sign that the governor was prepared to reverse course anytime soon. As the judge noted in his decision:
As an initial matter, I find no merit to any of the Governor and Commissioner’s threshold jurisdictional arguments: that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, that plaintiffs have no standing, or that plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is moot. On the merits, I conclude that plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm, that they have a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighs in favor of a grant of preliminary injunctive relief. All in all, I can well understand why the Governor’s order and Commissioner’s actions were justified at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. But with the passage of time it is clear that a categorical ban on the collection of fingerprints no longer bears a substantial relation to protecting public health consistent with respecting plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
In other words, the legal system may have given the green light to suspend the ability of a Connecticut resident to acquire a handgun during the first week or two of the COVID-19 emergency as part of the state’s broader public health measures, but the longer that ban on collecting fingerprints and processing applications lasts, the less likely it is to be a legitimate exercise of emergency powers and the more likely it is to become just another way for anti-gun politicians to separate the People from a right that shall not be infringed.
So far, there’s been no word on whether Lamont will appeal the judge’s decision or simply revise his emergency order as the judge has mandated, but if the governor is smart, he’ll take the loss in district court and abide by the Constitution in the days ahead.


bearingarms--2020-06-10--Antifa Pushes Police Out Of Parts Of Seattle

Most people view Antifa as something of a joke .
After all , they ’ re nothing but a bunch of middle- and upper-class kids playing at revolutionary .
In many places , they don ’ t do much except stir things up , break some windows , then go and pat themselves on their backs about how they stuck it to the man .
The thing is , you shouldn ’ t .
This is an organization–and don ’ t let them fool you , they ’ re organized–that is bound and determined to unmake all that has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth .
And they ’ re learning how to succeed .
Don ’ t believe me ?
Just ask folks in Seattle .
Just as the Islamic State ( ISIS ) claimed territory in Iraq and Syria , antifa militants have claimed territory in Seattle , Wash .
According to reports on the ground from The Post Millennial ’ s Andy Ngo and Townhall ’ s Julio Rosas , protesters and antifa instigators have seized land in the Capitol Hill area around the Seattle Police East Precinct .
Like ISIS , the rioters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a government in their occupied territory , naming it “ Free Capitol Hill.
” “ Seattle [ Mayor Jenny Durkan ] is allowing a dangerous situation to fester .
[ Antifa ] militants have taken over & created an ‘ autonomous zone ’ in city w/their own rules .
Police precinct abandoned .
Antifa set up barricades to create a border .
Calling for volunteers to provide armed guard , ” Ngo tweeted .
Seattle @ MayorJenny is allowing a dangerous situation to fester .
# Antifa militants have taken over & created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ w/their own rules .
Police precinct abandoned .
Antifa set up barricades to create a border .
Calling for volunteers to provide armed guard .
pic.twitter.com/ksQI4NI5kP His message included tweets from rioters and pictures of the “ Free Capitol Hill ” poster on the side of a barricade , along with a map of the area antifa had taken over .
“ The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone .
Folks in Seattle have secured six block of city [ at the moment ] , barricaded it , and gotten local businesses and residents to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seattle basically .
It ’ s a flux state in the making , ” Alex Humva tweeted .
“ Speaker at the autonomous zones advocating folks with firearms take shifts defend the barricades .
Sh*t is getting organized , ” another inside the barricades tweeted .
Go read the whole post .
It ’ s long and very detailed about what happened .
Also included is how Townhall ’ s Julio Rosas also tweeted from the area .
Now , this is just one city , but it represents a significant win for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding territory , something I didn ’ t actually see them trying to do .
It ’ s also not the first time this has happened to some degree .
In 2018 , Portland permitted a similar zone to exist .
However , Portland has always been somewhat sympathetic to Antifa and serves as something of a stronghold for the group even today .
While Seattle isn ’ t exactly a conservative bastion , it ’ s not Portland .
Mayor Jenny Durkan took to Twitter to discuss the situation .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whole hell of a lot .
Folks , if you ’ re in a larger city with an active Antifa cell , be prepared .
It ’ s only a matter of time before they try this kind of thing elsewhere .
This is likely to become the moment in the history books where you find maps with different colored arrows .
At least , it will be unless this is put down quickly and effectively .
Unfortunately , it ’ s clear from Durkan ’ s tweets that she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to secure her city .
Antifa thanks her for her support .

Most people view Antifa as something of a joke. After all, they’re nothing but a bunch of middle- and upper-class kids playing at revolutionary. In many places, they don’t do much except stir things up, break some windows, then go and pat themselves on their backs about how they stuck it to the man.
Honestly, it’s easy to dismiss them.
The thing is, you shouldn’t. This is an organization–and don’t let them fool you, they’re organized–that is bound and determined to unmake all that has made the United States the greatest nation on Earth. And they’re learning how to succeed.
Don’t believe me? Just ask folks in Seattle.
Just as the Islamic State (ISIS) claimed territory in Iraq and Syria, antifa militants have claimed territory in Seattle, Wash. According to reports on the ground from The Post Millennial’s Andy Ngo and Townhall’s Julio Rosas, protesters and antifa instigators have seized land in the Capitol Hill area around the Seattle Police East Precinct. Like ISIS, the rioters appear to have decided on setting up a government in their occupied territory, naming it “Free Capitol Hill.” “Seattle [Mayor Jenny Durkan] is allowing a dangerous situation to fester. [Antifa] militants have taken over & created an ‘autonomous zone’ in city w/their own rules. Police precinct abandoned. Antifa set up barricades to create a border. Calling for volunteers to provide armed guard,” Ngo tweeted. Seattle @MayorJenny is allowing a dangerous situation to fester. #Antifa militants have taken over & created an “autonomous zone” in city w/their own rules. Police precinct abandoned. Antifa set up barricades to create a border. Calling for volunteers to provide armed guard. pic.twitter.com/ksQI4NI5kP — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 9, 2020 His message included tweets from rioters and pictures of the “Free Capitol Hill” poster on the side of a barricade, along with a map of the area antifa had taken over. “The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Folks in Seattle have secured six block of city [at the moment], barricaded it, and gotten local businesses and residents to agree to, well, disaffiliate from Seattle basically. It’s a flux state in the making,” Alex Humva tweeted. “Speaker at the autonomous zones advocating folks with firearms take shifts defend the barricades. Sh*t is getting organized,” another inside the barricades tweeted.
Go read the whole post. It’s long and very detailed about what happened. Also included is how Townhall’s Julio Rosas also tweeted from the area.
I’m outside of the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct for @townhallcom. Police have pulled out of the area and protesters have set up barricades in the streets. They have declared it a “Cop Free Zone.” pic.twitter.com/iYFQ9B4jhz — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) June 9, 2020
Some of the signs posted around the area. One calls for the defunding of the Seattle PD and the dropping of all charges against protesters. Another says, “The cops will always be racist because capitalism requires inequality.” pic.twitter.com/hhmHL9q113 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) June 9, 2020
Now, this is just one city, but it represents a significant win for Antifa. They’re taking and holding territory, something I didn’t actually see them trying to do.
It’s also not the first time this has happened to some degree. In 2018, Portland permitted a similar zone to exist. However, Portland has always been somewhat sympathetic to Antifa and serves as something of a stronghold for the group even today.
While Seattle isn’t exactly a conservative bastion, it’s not Portland.
Mayor Jenny Durkan took to Twitter to discuss the situation.
In addition, @SeattleFire has several vehicles stationed near the Precinct to ensure emerging medical needs and fires are addressed if necessary. Keeping this area safe is critical, as there are approximately 500 residential homes in this block. — Mayor Jenny Durkan (@MayorJenny) June 9, 2020
In other words, she’s not doing a whole hell of a lot.
Folks, if you’re in a larger city with an active Antifa cell, be prepared. It’s only a matter of time before they try this kind of thing elsewhere. This is likely to become the moment in the history books where you find maps with different colored arrows.
At least, it will be unless this is put down quickly and effectively. Unfortunately, it’s clear from Durkan’s tweets that she’s not prepared to take the necessary steps to secure her city.
Antifa thanks her for her support.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--Academic Rewrites History To Portray The 2A As "Tool Of The Oppressors"

While we all debate whether protesters are “ rewriting history ” when they tear down statues of Confederate leaders , or if they ’ re merely adding a new chapter to American history with their actions , there is no doubt that some anti-gun advocates are doing everything they can to present a false and misleading portrayal of the reasons for the Second Amendment , as well as erasing the experience of black Americans who ’ ve used firearms in self-defense out of our nation ’ s history .
At The Hill , political scientist and college professor Katie Scofield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens currently using the Second Amendment to “ undermine democracy and individual rights , ” but she argues that the entire reason for the right to keep and bear arms was to provide protection for white Americans against their slaves .
During debates regarding the ratification of the Constitution , some anti-federalists took particular notice of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution .
The offending passages give Congress the “ authority ” to “ call forth ” and “ train ” militias .
At the time , Southern slaveholders worried that since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the militias , Congress could eventually block southern states from using their militias to put down slave rebellions .
The full text of the Second Amendment states : “ A well-regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed.
” It is not an accident that James Madison , a slaveholder himself , mentions the need for states to have militias in the Second Amendment .
In order to make her case , Scofield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push for the inclusion of a right to keep and bear arms in a Bill of Rights didn ’ t only come from slave states .
In fact , some of the loudest calls for what would become the Second Amendment came from states where slavery had already been abolished , like New Hampshire , as I pointed out here not long ago .
In 1783 , New Hampshire passed a law to abolish slavery in the state .
Four years later , during the ratification debates over the proposed Constitution , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment to the document .
Until that point , the Federalists had argued that , since the federal government would have only limited powers , a bill of rights was unnecessary .
However , the New Hampshire convention then proposed one , including a guarantee that “ Congress shall never disarm any citizen , unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
” Other states that had already moved to abolish slavery , including Vermont and Massachusetts , also had debates and discussions about the need to protect the pre-existing right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Constitution .
Ratification conventions demanded a bill of rights when the federal Constitution was proposed in 1787 without one .
In the Massachusetts ratification convention , Samuel Adams proposed “ that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress , .
.
.
to prevent the people of the United States , who are peaceable citizens , from keeping their own arms .
.
.
.
” In the Pennsylvania convention , the Dissent of the Minority demanded a written bill of rights , including the proposal : “ That the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the defense of themselves and their own state , or the United States , or for the purpose of killing game ; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them , unless for crimes committed , or real danger of public injury from individuals… ” Sadly , Scofield ignores all of that history in favor of a simplistic and patently untrue version of American history that proclaims that , if not for slavery , Americans wouldn ’ t have a Second Amendment right to keep and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bad enough , but she then compounds her error by asserting that the right to keep and bear arms has “ historically been a tool of the oppressors rather than the oppressed , ” adding that “ it is time to let go of the myth that the Second Amendment is an effective tool for protecting individual liberties.
” Scofield ’ s myopic perspective that “ guns are bad ” blinds her and her readers to a fundamental truth about American history : black gun ownership has played a vitally important role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day that the Bill of Rights was ratified through our own tumultuous times .
The idea that the Second Amendment is not an effective tool for protecting individual liberties would be laughed at by men like Hartman Turnbow , who defended his family from a Klan attack with the help of his rifle .
When asked afterwards how he could justify using a firearm while preaching non-violence , Turnbow explained “ I wasn ’ t being non-nonviolent .
I was just protecting my family.
” What would Scofield say to Fannie Lou @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said of the segregationists in Mississippi “ Baby , you just got to love ’ em .
Hating just makes you sick and weak.
” It would be easy for Scofield to nod in appreciation of Hamer ’ s words , but how would she react to Hamer ’ s statement that she kept “ a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom and the first cracker even look like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won ’ t write his mama again ” ?
Even Martin Luther King @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to keep and bear arms , stating “ Violence exercised merely in self-defense , all societies , from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized , accept as moral and legal .
The principle of self-defense , even involving weapons and bloodshed , has never been condemned , even by Gandhi… When the Negro uses force in self-defense , he does not forfeit support .
He may even win it , by the courage and the self-respect it reflects.
” One example of that respect earned by acting in self-defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s most shameful acts of racial violence : the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921 .
Ninety-nine years ago this month , the streets of Tulsa exploded with rioting , shooting , and wanton acts of destruction after a black man named Dick Rowland was accused of impropriety for touching the arm of a woman after he stepped on her foot in an elevator .
The woman declined to press charges and the case was dropped , but when a mob of armed white citizens clashed with a group of armed black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lynch mob , the fighting raged for days , left hundreds of Tulsans injured , an unknown number of people killed , and large swaths of city ’ s black neighborhoods burned to ashes .
As Nicholas Johnson notes in his book Negroes and the Gun : The Black Tradition of Arms , in the wake of the Tulsa riots that destroyed much of the black part of town and left thousands of lives forever changed , something happened that sounds exceedingly strange to us today .
Johnson quotes black historian John Hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a child a few years after the riots and later “ observed that the black community viewed the 1921 riot as a manifestation of their courage , and as a lesson about the proper response to racist aggression.
” Tulsa ’ s black residents , according to Franklin , saw the riots as less of a story about black victimization , and instead viewed it as a heroic tale of standing up to oppression .
If Scofield could go back in history , would she lecture the black residents of Tulsa and tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proud of those who fought back when their homes and businesses were firebombed and their neighbors were shot down like dogs in the street ?
What would she make of the fact that black residents shooting in self-defense may have actually made life a little more tolerable in the aftermath of the riots ?
Guns are inanimate objects .
Wielded by an oppressor , they can be tools for oppression .
Wielded by the oppressed , they can be tools for self-determination , individual liberty , and the fundamental right to life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second Amendment has room for villains , but no room for heroes like John Fletcher , who defended his new home from a mob shortly after he moved into an all-white neighborhood in Detroit in 1920 , or Leola Blackmon , who protected her home in Carroll County , Mississippi from cross-burning Klansmen in the 1950s with the help of her 16-shot Winchester repeating rifle .
According to Scofield ’ s point of view , Leona Blackmon , John Fletcher , Fannie Lou Hamer , Hartman Turnbow , and countless others who exercised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been advocating for gun control laws instead .
Never mind that those laws would have likely been used to disarm them while their white neighbors kept ahold of their arms with a wink and a nod from law enforcement .
Ida Wells was apparently wrong when she said that the Winchester repeating rifle deserved a place of honor in every black home as an anti-lynching tool .
Based on Scofield ’ s view of history , she really should have encouraged her readers disarm themselves instead of arming up to fight back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents of individual self-defense , and many more like them , enough to curtail the abuses that black Americans were subjected to by individuals , the mob , and even the State ?
No , and for Scofield apparently that ’ s reason enough to erase them from history .
The reality is , however , that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense has played an instrumental role in advancing the cause of equality and liberty for all Americans .
To deny that is to deny history , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless Americans who used their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves , their families , and their communities .
These individuals aren ’ t just black heroes .
They ’ re American heroes , and their stories should be taught instead of forgotten .

While we all debate whether protesters are “rewriting history” when they tear down statues of Confederate leaders, or if they’re merely adding a new chapter to American history with their actions, there is no doubt that some anti-gun advocates are doing everything they can to present a false and misleading portrayal of the reasons for the Second Amendment, as well as erasing the experience of black Americans who’ve used firearms in self-defense out of our nation’s history.
At The Hill, political scientist and college professor Katie Scofield falsely claims that not only are armed citizens currently using the Second Amendment to “undermine democracy and individual rights,” but she argues that the entire reason for the right to keep and bear arms was to provide protection for white Americans against their slaves.
During debates regarding the ratification of the Constitution, some anti-federalists took particular notice of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The offending passages give Congress the “authority” to “call forth” and “train” militias. At the time, Southern slaveholders worried that since the federal government was given power over the militias, Congress could eventually block southern states from using their militias to put down slave rebellions. The full text of the Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is not an accident that James Madison, a slaveholder himself, mentions the need for states to have militias in the Second Amendment.
In order to make her case, Scofield has to ignore the fact that the push for the inclusion of a right to keep and bear arms in a Bill of Rights didn’t only come from slave states. In fact, some of the loudest calls for what would become the Second Amendment came from states where slavery had already been abolished, like New Hampshire, as I pointed out here not long ago.
In 1783, New Hampshire passed a law to abolish slavery in the state. Four years later, during the ratification debates over the proposed Constitution, the state’s constitutional convention proposed an amendment to the document. Until that point, the Federalists had argued that, since the federal government would have only limited powers, a bill of rights was unnecessary. However, the New Hampshire convention then proposed one, including a guarantee that “Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” Other states that had already moved to abolish slavery, including Vermont and Massachusetts, also had debates and discussions about the need to protect the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. Ratification conventions demanded a bill of rights when the federal Constitution was proposed in 1787 without one. In the Massachusetts ratification convention, Samuel Adams proposed “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress, . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms . . . .” In the Pennsylvania convention, the Dissent of the Minority demanded a written bill of rights, including the proposal: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals…”
Sadly, Scofield ignores all of that history in favor of a simplistic and patently untrue version of American history that proclaims that, if not for slavery, Americans wouldn’t have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms at all. That’s bad enough, but she then compounds her error by asserting that the right to keep and bear arms has “historically been a tool of the oppressors rather than the oppressed,” adding that “it is time to let go of the myth that the Second Amendment is an effective tool for protecting individual liberties.”
Scofield’s myopic perspective that “guns are bad” blinds her and her readers to a fundamental truth about American history: black gun ownership has played a vitally important role in the quest for equality from almost the day that the Bill of Rights was ratified through our own tumultuous times. The idea that the Second Amendment is not an effective tool for protecting individual liberties would be laughed at by men like Hartman Turnbow, who defended his family from a Klan attack with the help of his rifle. When asked afterwards how he could justify using a firearm while preaching non-violence, Turnbow explained “I wasn’t being non-nonviolent. I was just protecting my family.”
What would Scofield say to Fannie Lou Hamer, the famed civil rights activist who said of the segregationists in Mississippi “Baby, you just got to love ’em. Hating just makes you sick and weak.” It would be easy for Scofield to nod in appreciation of Hamer’s words, but how would she react to Hamer’s statement that she kept “a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom and the first cracker even look like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won’t write his mama again”?
Even Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized the value of the right to keep and bear arms, stating “Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi… When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support. He may even win it, by the courage and the self-respect it reflects.”
One example of that respect earned by acting in self-defense can be found in one of our nation’s most shameful acts of racial violence: the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921. Ninety-nine years ago this month, the streets of Tulsa exploded with rioting, shooting, and wanton acts of destruction after a black man named Dick Rowland was accused of impropriety for touching the arm of a woman after he stepped on her foot in an elevator. The woman declined to press charges and the case was dropped, but when a mob of armed white citizens clashed with a group of armed black citizens intent on protecting Rowland from the lynch mob, the fighting raged for days, left hundreds of Tulsans injured, an unknown number of people killed, and large swaths of city’s black neighborhoods burned to ashes.
As Nicholas Johnson notes in his book Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms, in the wake of the Tulsa riots that destroyed much of the black part of town and left thousands of lives forever changed, something happened that sounds exceedingly strange to us today. Johnson quotes black historian John Hope Franklin, who moved to Tulsa as a child a few years after the riots and later “observed that the black community viewed the 1921 riot as a manifestation of their courage, and as a lesson about the proper response to racist aggression.” Tulsa’s black residents, according to Franklin, saw the riots as less of a story about black victimization, and instead viewed it as a heroic tale of standing up to oppression.
“The self-confidence of Tulsa’s Negroes soared, their businesses prospered, their institutions flourished, and they simply had no fear of whites. After 1921, an altercation in Tulsa between a white person and a black person was not a racial incident, even if there was a loss of life. It was just an incident. Such an attitude had a great deal to do with eradicating the fear that a Negro boy growing up in Tulsa might have felt in the years following the riot.”
If Scofield could go back in history, would she lecture the black residents of Tulsa and tell them that they were wrong to be proud of those who fought back when their homes and businesses were firebombed and their neighbors were shot down like dogs in the street? What would she make of the fact that black residents shooting in self-defense may have actually made life a little more tolerable in the aftermath of the riots?
Guns are inanimate objects. Wielded by an oppressor, they can be tools for oppression. Wielded by the oppressed, they can be tools for self-determination, individual liberty, and the fundamental right to life. Scofield’s warped history of the Second Amendment has room for villains, but no room for heroes like John Fletcher, who defended his new home from a mob shortly after he moved into an all-white neighborhood in Detroit in 1920, or Leola Blackmon, who protected her home in Carroll County, Mississippi from cross-burning Klansmen in the 1950s with the help of her 16-shot Winchester repeating rifle.
According to Scofield’s point of view, Leona Blackmon, John Fletcher, Fannie Lou Hamer, Hartman Turnbow, and countless others who exercised their Second Amendment rights in self-defense should have been advocating for gun control laws instead. Never mind that those laws would have likely been used to disarm them while their white neighbors kept ahold of their arms with a wink and a nod from law enforcement. Ida Wells was apparently wrong when she said that the Winchester repeating rifle deserved a place of honor in every black home as an anti-lynching tool. Based on Scofield’s view of history, she really should have encouraged her readers disarm themselves instead of arming up to fight back against the lynch mob.
Were these incidents of individual self-defense, and many more like them, enough to curtail the abuses that black Americans were subjected to by individuals, the mob, and even the State? No, and for Scofield apparently that’s reason enough to erase them from history. The reality is, however, that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense has played an instrumental role in advancing the cause of equality and liberty for all Americans. To deny that is to deny history, and that in turn denies us the knowledge of countless Americans who used their Second Amendment rights in defense of themselves, their families, and their communities. These individuals aren’t just black heroes. They’re American heroes, and their stories should be taught instead of forgotten.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--Authorities In Lubbock, TX Investigating 4 Gun Store Burglaries

If there ’ s one thing the anti-gun side should have in common with the pro-gun side , it ’ s that none of us like stolen guns .
Firearms that are taken from lawful owners or gun stores represent a significant threat , primarily because they get into criminal hands , thus making everyone ’ s life more difficult .
The thing is , since these guns get used in gun crimes , I ’ m fairly sure anti-gunners have some part of them that actually likes stolen guns .
If that ’ s true , then they ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Lubbock , TX lately .
A suspect was arrested in conjunction with the second break-in , but not in any of the other two .
None of the reports tell us how many firearms were stolen , but the potential numbers are rather high , as we ’ ve seen in past burglaries .
Unlike the recent thefts we ’ ve reported here , these do not appear to be tied to any civil unrest or rioting taking place .
In a way , that ’ s good news since it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Antifa looking to create armed insurrection or anything .
Not that the guns taken during looting necessarily went toward that kind of thing .
That ’ s just my own speculation with no evidence to back it up .
But with these , it ’ s even less likely .
Anyway , these guns represent a threat .
Bad people stealing guns tend to provide those guns to other bad people .
It ’ s why gun control never works .
Bad people will always get guns .
If they can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steal them .
Make it so they can ’ t steal them and they ’ ll find another way to acquire them .
You ’ re not going to stop them .
Instead , we get situations like this .
If you have any information about this or any other gun store robbery , please notify the police .
We all need to pull together to try and help get these guns off our streets .
At the end of the day , that ’ s the best way to protect our gun @ @

If there’s one thing the anti-gun side should have in common with the pro-gun side, it’s that none of us like stolen guns. Firearms that are taken from lawful owners or gun stores represent a significant threat, primarily because they get into criminal hands, thus making everyone’s life more difficult. The thing is, since these guns get used in gun crimes, I’m fairly sure anti-gunners have some part of them that actually likes stolen guns.
If that’s true, then they ought to love what’s been happening in Lubbock, TX lately.
Lubbock Police and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are investigating a string of burglaries in Lubbock where guns were stolen from businesses. All of the burglaries have happened within a nine day period. The ATF sent an email out to some residents saying a Federal firearms licensee in Lubbock County experienced a burglary that resulted in a theft of firearms. The email said “Please ensure the security of both your inventory and property and report all suspicious persons or activity to your local police department. Additionally, notify ATF at 888-930-9275 if you find any of your firearms missing, lost or stolen.” The first burglary of a gun store happened on May 31, 2020 at LSG Tactical Arms located at 2650 34th Street. The police report says the burglary happened around 6 a.m. The owner saw a person from the video surveillance system inside the building. The suspects broke into the building and went through glass display cases. The police report says four suspects were seen leaving the business. It is unclear if any firearms were taken during this burglary.
A suspect was arrested in conjunction with the second break-in, but not in any of the other two.
None of the reports tell us how many firearms were stolen, but the potential numbers are rather high, as we’ve seen in past burglaries.
Unlike the recent thefts we’ve reported here, these do not appear to be tied to any civil unrest or rioting taking place. In a way, that’s good news since it’s unlikely these were taken by groups like Antifa looking to create armed insurrection or anything.
Not that the guns taken during looting necessarily went toward that kind of thing. That’s just my own speculation with no evidence to back it up. But with these, it’s even less likely.
Just to clarify.
Anyway, these guns represent a threat. Bad people stealing guns tend to provide those guns to other bad people. It’s why gun control never works. Bad people will always get guns. If they can’t buy them, they’ll steal them. Make it so they can’t steal them and they’ll find another way to acquire them. You’re not going to stop them.
Instead, we get situations like this.
If you have any information about this or any other gun store robbery, please notify the police. We all need to pull together to try and help get these guns off our streets. At the end of the day, that’s the best way to protect our gun rights.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--The Racial Disparity Of Police And Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment reads , ‘ A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state , the people ’ s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
” This is the text so many of us have devoted time and treasure to protect from infringement .
Nothing in that text says it only applies to white folks , either .
This is a point I know I ’ ve made a thousand times and will make at least a thousand more before I ’ m on the other side of the dirt .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist , I point to that text and ask them how it only applies to certain groups and not others .
Few have any answer and those that do tend to focus on different things entirely .
However , an opinion piece at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out , though , that there may be a Second Amendment problem when it comes to racial disparity , but it ’ s not with the amendment itself .
On June 1 , Army veteran Trevan Young , a 29-year-old computer analyst who is black , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chattanooga when a police officer approached , calling for him to stop .
A video of the encounter shows Young backing up as the officer tugs on his arm while half a dozen other cops quickly pile on top of him , bringing him to the pavement as he screams , “ I didn ’ t do anything !
” According to court documents , police said someone saw a black man with an AR-15 heading to the protests .
Police found a disassembled rifle in Young ’ s backpack and two loaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what could have been a very tragic situation , ” Chattanooga police said in a news release .
He was charged with resisting arrest , unlawful possession of a weapon and disorderly conduct and was released on $ 8,000 bond .
A couple of nights later , near the Chattanooga Choo Choo , protesters spotted a bearded guy armed with a semi-automatic weapon standing atop a building and peering down at them .
Police arrived and found Kevin Leko , 35 , with a bag with a gun sticking out of it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ complied .
Police found a loaded AK-47 , two 9 mm pistols and a revolver , all loaded .
Police say that he , too , was loaded .
Leko , who is white , was charged with possession of a firearm while under the influence and bonded out for a mere $ 3,000 .
Now , it ’ s always difficult to look at two cases and see all the nuances between the two .
What may look like a racial disparity may have more to do with other factors that don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports .
All that said , it ’ s arguable that Leko deserved the tougher bond since he was intoxicated while handling firearms during a tense situation .
Yet he didn ’ t .
Young did , all with a weapon that was supposedly disassembled and in a backpack .
Look , if we ’ re going to stand for gun rights , we damn well better stand for everyone ’ s gun rights .
That includes those who might not side with us on any other issue .
That ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights or it ceases to be a right in the first place .
That means it ’ s up to us to call out situations like this , to raise the question of whether police view armed minorities differently than armed white folks , and if they do then oppose it as vehemently as possible .
I don ’ t think that ’ s a problem for the vast majority of us , but if I ’ m right , then we need to step up and do it .
Gun rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people should be free to keep and bear arms in the manner in which they believe is most advantageous to them .
There can ’ t be a set of rules for one law-abiding group and another for every other group of law-abiding citizens .

The Second Amendment reads, ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This is the text so many of us have devoted time and treasure to protect from infringement. Nothing in that text says it only applies to white folks, either. This is a point I know I’ve made a thousand times and will make at least a thousand more before I’m on the other side of the dirt. When people claim the Second Amendment is somehow racist, I point to that text and ask them how it only applies to certain groups and not others.
Few have any answer and those that do tend to focus on different things entirely.
However, an opinion piece at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out, though, that there may be a Second Amendment problem when it comes to racial disparity, but it’s not with the amendment itself.
On June 1, Army veteran Trevan Young, a 29-year-old computer analyst who is black, was carrying a sign and protesting in Chattanooga when a police officer approached, calling for him to stop. A video of the encounter shows Young backing up as the officer tugs on his arm while half a dozen other cops quickly pile on top of him, bringing him to the pavement as he screams, “I didn’t do anything!” According to court documents, police said someone saw a black man with an AR-15 heading to the protests. Police found a disassembled rifle in Young’s backpack and two loaded magazines. “This arrest likely prevented what could have been a very tragic situation,” Chattanooga police said in a news release. He was charged with resisting arrest, unlawful possession of a weapon and disorderly conduct and was released on $8,000 bond. A couple of nights later, near the Chattanooga Choo Choo, protesters spotted a bearded guy armed with a semi-automatic weapon standing atop a building and peering down at them. Police arrived and found Kevin Leko, 35, with a bag with a gun sticking out of it. He was ordered to the ground and complied. Police found a loaded AK-47, two 9 mm pistols and a revolver, all loaded. Police say that he, too, was loaded. Leko, who is white, was charged with possession of a firearm while under the influence and bonded out for a mere $3,000.
Now, it’s always difficult to look at two cases and see all the nuances between the two. What may look like a racial disparity may have more to do with other factors that don’t show up in brief news reports.
All that said, it’s arguable that Leko deserved the tougher bond since he was intoxicated while handling firearms during a tense situation. Yet he didn’t. Young did, all with a weapon that was supposedly disassembled and in a backpack.
Look, if we’re going to stand for gun rights, we damn well better stand for everyone’s gun rights. That includes those who might not side with us on any other issue. That’s how rights work. Either everyone gets their gun rights or it ceases to be a right in the first place.
That means it’s up to us to call out situations like this, to raise the question of whether police view armed minorities differently than armed white folks, and if they do then oppose it as vehemently as possible.
I don’t think that’s a problem for the vast majority of us, but if I’m right, then we need to step up and do it.
Gun rights are human rights. That means all people should be free to keep and bear arms in the manner in which they believe is most advantageous to them. There can’t be a set of rules for one law-abiding group and another for every other group of law-abiding citizens.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--Hollywood's Latest Hate: Shows About Law Enforcement

For years now , Hollywood executives and celebrities have been telling us that violent movies and television shows have absolutely nothing to do with real-life violence , and anti-gun actors like Sylvester Stallone have pontificated about the need for more gun control laws even as they continue to star in shoot-em-up action movies .
Just when we were starting to get used to their hypocritical stance , however , the entertainment industry has suddenly decided that maybe the stories they tell do have an impact on the culture at large .
Violent movies are still okay , mind you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portrays law enforcement in a positive light is problematic .
Joining me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about the sudden animosity for everything from Live PD to the children ’ s cartoon Paw Patrol is film critic and commentator Christian Toto of Hollywood in Toto , who says the entertainment industry is living in such fear of Internet scolds and the perpetually offended that even a top-rated show like Live PD can get the axe before the online mobs even demand its cancellation .
And while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring the show back to another platform , Toto is pessimistic about the chances of that happening .
He argues that networks big and small are living with the same fear of running afoul of the speech police , and it ’ s unlikely that any network would take a chance on a show like Live PD at the moment , despite the consistently high ratings the show drew on A & E .
Over at Hot Air , my friend Ed Morrissey argues that ratings are clearly now secondary to looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and loyal viewer base disappeared because of the anger over the George Floyd homicide , then cancellation would be understandable .
It ’ s still an open question as to whether people might lose their taste for the show after all of the unrest of the last couple of weeks .
But why not wait to let the viewers make that decision on their own ?
If the ratings collapsed , then the “ no way forward ” conclusion might make sense .
The obvious conclusion is that ratings and viewers don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or , perhaps more accurately , ratings and viewers matter less to A & E than pretensions to “ wokeness.
” And in this case , education and transparency regarding law enforcement will lose out to corporate virtue-signaling .
It won ’ t be long now before actors start apologizing for portraying police officers as anything other than monsters in TV shows and films .
And with HBO pulling Gone With the Wind over concerns about its cultural relevance , how long before the cable network yanks The Wire from streaming services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moral panic at the moment , and there ’ s really no telling how far the industry will self-censor in the name of “ justice.
” One thing you can be sure of however : no one in Hollywood is going to go bankrupt giving back all the money they made off of the countless police procedurals , cop dramas , and reality shows featuring law enforcement over the past few years .
After all , getting woke doesn ’ t mean going broke .

For years now, Hollywood executives and celebrities have been telling us that violent movies and television shows have absolutely nothing to do with real-life violence, and anti-gun actors like Sylvester Stallone have pontificated about the need for more gun control laws even as they continue to star in shoot-em-up action movies. Just when we were starting to get used to their hypocritical stance, however, the entertainment industry has suddenly decided that maybe the stories they tell do have an impact on the culture at large. Violent movies are still okay, mind you, but as of this week anything that portrays law enforcement in a positive light is problematic.
Joining me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about the sudden animosity for everything from Live PD to the children’s cartoon Paw Patrol is film critic and commentator Christian Toto of Hollywood in Toto, who says the entertainment industry is living in such fear of Internet scolds and the perpetually offended that even a top-rated show like Live PD can get the axe before the online mobs even demand its cancellation. And while show host Dan Abrams says he wants to bring the show back to another platform, Toto is pessimistic about the chances of that happening. He argues that networks big and small are living with the same fear of running afoul of the speech police, and it’s unlikely that any network would take a chance on a show like Live PD at the moment, despite the consistently high ratings the show drew on A&E.
Over at Hot Air, my friend Ed Morrissey argues that ratings are clearly now secondary to looking “woke”.
If the ratings and loyal viewer base disappeared because of the anger over the George Floyd homicide, then cancellation would be understandable. It’s still an open question as to whether people might lose their taste for the show after all of the unrest of the last couple of weeks. But why not wait to let the viewers make that decision on their own? If the ratings collapsed, then the “no way forward” conclusion might make sense. The obvious conclusion is that ratings and viewers don’t actually matter to A&E. Or, perhaps more accurately, ratings and viewers matter less to A&E than pretensions to “wokeness.” And in this case, education and transparency regarding law enforcement will lose out to corporate virtue-signaling.
It won’t be long now before actors start apologizing for portraying police officers as anything other than monsters in TV shows and films. And with HBO pulling Gone With the Wind over concerns about its cultural relevance, how long before the cable network yanks The Wire from streaming services?
Hollywood is in the midst of a moral panic at the moment, and there’s really no telling how far the industry will self-censor in the name of “justice.” One thing you can be sure of however: no one in Hollywood is going to go bankrupt giving back all the money they made off of the countless police procedurals, cop dramas, and reality shows featuring law enforcement over the past few years. After all, getting woke doesn’t mean going broke.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--Louisville Police Report On Breonna Taylor Death Not Going To Help

Breonna Taylor wasn ’ t doing anything wrong .
After all , she was asleep in her home when police busted through .
She didn ’ t survive the encounter , despite no evidence of her having been armed , much less a threat to law enforcement .
Her death , followed soon after by the death of George Floyd , compounded to make the outrage over what many see as racist policing burn even hotter .
In the wake of Taylor ’ s death , though , it became very important that the investigation be as transparent and fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louisville needed to see definitively that the system was working for them and not just there to protect police from the fallout of their mistakes .
The report just released about the incident doesn ’ t do that in the least .
early three months after Louisville Metro Police officers fatally shot Breonna Taylor in her South End apartment , the department has released the incident report from that night .
Except , it is almost entirely blank .
The four-page report lists the time , date , case number , incident location @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breonna Shaquille Taylor — as well as the fact that she is a 26-year-old black female .
But it redacts Taylor ’ s street number , apartment number and date of birth — all of which have been widely reported .
And it lists her injuries as “ none , ” even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood , according to attorneys for her family .
It lists the charges as “ death investigation — LMPD involved ” but checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced entry , ” even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor ’ s apartment door .
But the most important portion of the report — the “ narrative ” of events that spells out what happened March 13 — has only two words : “ PIU investigation.
” And the rest of the report has no information filled in at all .
Apparently , the LMPD thinks “ transparent , ” in this context , means that you can ’ t see a damn thing .
Look , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not going to cover for them when they screw up , especially if an innocent woman dies because of it .
This report smacks of cover-up , at least to my eyes .
Saying that Taylor was uninjured , despite reportedly being shot eight times ?
That doesn ’ t ring true to anyone .
Meanwhile , with anti-police animosity at an all-time high , it was on the LMPD to handle things right .
They needed to desperately , if for no other reason than to quell the unrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simmering .
Now , all they ’ ve managed to do was tell those with resentments that they were right to distrust the police .
Oh , they might not explode and riot over this one document , but it ’ s priming the powder keg .
At this point , the only outcome that could prevent further unrest are charges against the officers involved .
I honestly don ’ t see how anything less will soothe the animosity , and that ’ s on the LMPD .
That ’ s not how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a fair investigation without anyone having to worry about public sentiment .
Yet this report , a report that has so little information as to be laughable , changes that to some degree .
I ’ m not saying that the officers should be charged regardless of their innocence , only that now people aren ’ t open to them actually being innocent .
In fairness , many probably weren ’ t from the start , but still , this isn ’ t helping .
Instead , I fear this may just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much worse .

Breonna Taylor wasn’t doing anything wrong. After all, she was asleep in her home when police busted through. She didn’t survive the encounter, despite no evidence of her having been armed, much less a threat to law enforcement.
Her death, followed soon after by the death of George Floyd, compounded to make the outrage over what many see as racist policing burn even hotter.
In the wake of Taylor’s death, though, it became very important that the investigation be as transparent and fair as humanly possible. The people of Louisville needed to see definitively that the system was working for them and not just there to protect police from the fallout of their mistakes.
The report just released about the incident doesn’t do that in the least.
early three months after Louisville Metro Police officers fatally shot Breonna Taylor in her South End apartment, the department has released the incident report from that night. Except, it is almost entirely blank. The four-page report lists the time, date, case number, incident location and the victim’s name — Breonna Shaquille Taylor — as well as the fact that she is a 26-year-old black female. But it redacts Taylor’s street number, apartment number and date of birth — all of which have been widely reported. And it lists her injuries as “none,” even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family. It lists the charges as “death investigation — LMPD involved” but checks the “no” box under “forced entry,” even though officers used a battering ram to knock in Taylor’s apartment door. … But the most important portion of the report — the “narrative” of events that spells out what happened March 13 — has only two words: “PIU investigation.” And the rest of the report has no information filled in at all.
Apparently, the LMPD thinks “transparent,” in this context, means that you can’t see a damn thing.
Look, I tend to be fairly pro-police, but I’m not going to cover for them when they screw up, especially if an innocent woman dies because of it. This report smacks of cover-up, at least to my eyes. Saying that Taylor was uninjured, despite reportedly being shot eight times? That doesn’t ring true to anyone.
Meanwhile, with anti-police animosity at an all-time high, it was on the LMPD to handle things right. They needed to desperately, if for no other reason than to quell the unrest in the city that’s still simmering.
Now, all they’ve managed to do was tell those with resentments that they were right to distrust the police.
Oh, they might not explode and riot over this one document, but it’s priming the powder keg. At this point, the only outcome that could prevent further unrest are charges against the officers involved. I honestly don’t see how anything less will soothe the animosity, and that’s on the LMPD.
That’s not how it should work. The officers should get a fair investigation without anyone having to worry about public sentiment. Yet this report, a report that has so little information as to be laughable, changes that to some degree.
I’m not saying that the officers should be charged regardless of their innocence, only that now people aren’t open to them actually being innocent.
In fairness, many probably weren’t from the start, but still, this isn’t helping. Instead, I fear this may just make everything we’re currently seeing that much worse.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--Alexandria, VA, Votes On Banning Guns On City Property

Once upon a time , the city of Alexandria , Virginia , wanted to ban guns on city property .
This was in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting in a municipal building in Virginia Beach .
Somehow , someone figured the problem was simply not enough laws banning where people could have a gun , even when all those laws against shooting people didn ’ t work .
However , the city couldn ’ t make it happen .
State law barred them from passing their own gun control laws .
That was before Democrats grabbed control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam to run roughshod over Virginians ’ civil rights .
Now , there ’ s nothing to stop Alexandria .
So , they voted to ban guns on city property .
On Tuesday , Alexandria City Council voted to schedule a public hearing and final vote to ban guns on certain city property .
The measure would prohibit possession , carrying or transportation of guns on city property , including buildings , parks , recreation centers and community centers .
It also applies to public places such as streets or sidewalks when used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for the offense to be a class 1 misdemeanor , which carries a penalty of up to 12 months in jail or $ 2,500 fine .
After 12 people were killed in the May 31 , 2019 Virginia Beach mass shooting , Alexandria City Council passed a gun ban for city-owned property contingent on action from the Virginia General Assembly .
Because Virginia is a Dillon Rule state , localities are prohibited from enacting local gun control measures unless specifically authorized .
Without General Assembly authorization , Alexandria ’ s July 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is just stupid .
How does anyone figure that banning the carrying of a firearm in certain places will prevent a mass shooting ?
These are rarely spontaneous events , so it ’ s not like someone would follow the law up until they snapped , but couldn ’ t do anything because they were unarmed .
No , these are generally planned out well in advance , which means if someone wants to kill a bunch of people , they ’ re not going to be stopped by some stupid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do you know who will be stopped , though ?
The law-abiding citizen who might have been able to stop such an attack .
We already know that one employee killed in Virginia Beach considered taking her gun to work because she feared a mass shooting that very day , but didn ’ t because she was worried about losing her job .
How many lives might have been spared had she not had to fear job loss ?
Look , I ’ m not going to tell you that gun owners are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any mass shooting .
We ’ re not .
There just aren ’ t nearly enough of us .
What I will tell you , though , is that if you make it so law-abiding citizens can ’ t carry in these places , we can never step in and help .
Again , it ’ s not like mass killers are going to be stopped by a simple rule like this .
After all , the rules against murder aren ’ t really much of a deterrent , so why would a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even the more routine criminals will ignore these rules , just like they do everywhere else .
Frankly , no one in Alexandria will be safer after this .
The city council just wasted time and money and will accomplish nothing else .

Once upon a time, the city of Alexandria, Virginia, wanted to ban guns on city property. This was in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting in a municipal building in Virginia Beach. Somehow, someone figured the problem was simply not enough laws banning where people could have a gun, even when all those laws against shooting people didn’t work.
However, the city couldn’t make it happen. State law barred them from passing their own gun control laws.
That was before Democrats grabbed control of the legislature and allowed Gov. Ralph Northam to run roughshod over Virginians’ civil rights. Now, there’s nothing to stop Alexandria.
So, they voted to ban guns on city property.
On Tuesday, Alexandria City Council voted to schedule a public hearing and final vote to ban guns on certain city property. The measure would prohibit possession, carrying or transportation of guns on city property, including buildings, parks, recreation centers and community centers. It also applies to public places such as streets or sidewalks when used for a permitted event. The proposal calls for the offense to be a class 1 misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to 12 months in jail or $2,500 fine. After 12 people were killed in the May 31, 2019 Virginia Beach mass shooting, Alexandria City Council passed a gun ban for city-owned property contingent on action from the Virginia General Assembly. Because Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, localities are prohibited from enacting local gun control measures unless specifically authorized. Without General Assembly authorization, Alexandria’s July 2019 measure did not become law.
Honestly, this is just stupid.
How does anyone figure that banning the carrying of a firearm in certain places will prevent a mass shooting? These are rarely spontaneous events, so it’s not like someone would follow the law up until they snapped, but couldn’t do anything because they were unarmed. No, these are generally planned out well in advance, which means if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they’re not going to be stopped by some stupid “gun free zone” sign.
Do you know who will be stopped, though? The law-abiding citizen who might have been able to stop such an attack.
We already know that one employee killed in Virginia Beach considered taking her gun to work because she feared a mass shooting that very day, but didn’t because she was worried about losing her job. How many lives might have been spared had she not had to fear job loss?
Look, I’m not going to tell you that gun owners are everywhere at all times and can stop any mass shooting. We’re not. There just aren’t nearly enough of us.
What I will tell you, though, is that if you make it so law-abiding citizens can’t carry in these places, we can never step in and help. Again, it’s not like mass killers are going to be stopped by a simple rule like this. After all, the rules against murder aren’t really much of a deterrent, so why would a misdemeanor charge be what scares them?
Even the more routine criminals will ignore these rules, just like they do everywhere else.
Frankly, no one in Alexandria will be safer after this. The city council just wasted time and money and will accomplish nothing else.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--TX Man Gets 2A Lesson After Kicking Down Ex-Girlfriend's Door

A Houston man received a very painful lesson in the right of self-defense early Wednesday morning when he was shot after kicking in the front door of his ex-girlfriend ’ s apartment .
Houston police were called to the home on the city ’ s southeast side just before 1 a.m. on Wednesday on reports of a shooting , and when officers arrived , they found 48-year old Orrian Anders lying on the ground with several gunshot wounds .
Anders showed up to his ex ’ s apartment in the 2700 block of Oakcliff around 12:30 a.m. and allegedly barged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police Department Lt. Larry Crowson .
His ex-girlfriend ’ s new boyfriend was also inside the apartment when the man broke in , Crowson said .
At some point , Anders started attacking the new boyfriend , who pulled a gun and shot the intruder “ in fear for his safety , ” Crowson said .
We don ’ t know exactly how much time elapsed between Anders kicking in the door of his ex-girlfriend ’ s place and the shots that were fired , but as soon as Anders gained illegal entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life in jeopardy as well as breaking the law .
According to the Houston Chronicle , Anders is expected to recover from his injuries , and he ’ s currently being charged with burglary , though additional charges could be filed .
Less than two weeks ago , another angry ex decided to break into a home in the Houston-area to confront his former lover and her new boyfriend .
That incident also didn ’ t turn out well for the attacker .
A man was shot and killed Sunday morning while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a birthday party at her Missouri City home , according to Houston police .
The party was for the woman ’ s 20-year-old daughter .
Around 1:30 a.m. , the woman ’ s ex-boyfriend got inside the home in the 6500 block of Ridgecreek Drive and found the couple in a bedroom , authorities said .
The ex pulled a gun from his waistband , prompting the current boyfriend to fire at the intruder , striking and killing him .
Police questioned the couple , but no charges have been filed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know if the women in either of these cases had taken out protective orders against their ex-boyfriends , but ultimately those orders are a piece of paper , not a suit of armor , if and when abusers decide to violate the order to stay away .
Thankfully in both of these cases , the intruder was met with an armed response that ended the threat .
It would have been better for everyone had these ex-boyfriends simply stayed away altogether , but thankfully , these stories didn ’ t end as tragically @ @ @ @ @

A Houston man received a very painful lesson in the right of self-defense early Wednesday morning when he was shot after kicking in the front door of his ex-girlfriend’s apartment.
Houston police were called to the home on the city’s southeast side just before 1 a.m. on Wednesday on reports of a shooting, and when officers arrived, they found 48-year old Orrian Anders lying on the ground with several gunshot wounds.
Anders showed up to his ex’s apartment in the 2700 block of Oakcliff around 12:30 a.m. and allegedly barged into the home, according to Houston Police Department Lt. Larry Crowson. His ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend was also inside the apartment when the man broke in, Crowson said. At some point, Anders started attacking the new boyfriend, who pulled a gun and shot the intruder “in fear for his safety,” Crowson said.
We don’t know exactly how much time elapsed between Anders kicking in the door of his ex-girlfriend’s place and the shots that were fired, but as soon as Anders gained illegal entry into the home, he was putting his life in jeopardy as well as breaking the law.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Anders is expected to recover from his injuries, and he’s currently being charged with burglary, though additional charges could be filed.
Less than two weeks ago, another angry ex decided to break into a home in the Houston-area to confront his former lover and her new boyfriend. That incident also didn’t turn out well for the attacker.
A man was shot and killed Sunday morning while confronting his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend during a birthday party at her Missouri City home, according to Houston police. The party was for the woman’s 20-year-old daughter. Around 1:30 a.m., the woman’s ex-boyfriend got inside the home in the 6500 block of Ridgecreek Drive and found the couple in a bedroom, authorities said.
The ex pulled a gun from his waistband, prompting the current boyfriend to fire at the intruder, striking and killing him. Police questioned the couple, but no charges have been filed in that case.
We don’t know if the women in either of these cases had taken out protective orders against their ex-boyfriends, but ultimately those orders are a piece of paper, not a suit of armor, if and when abusers decide to violate the order to stay away. Thankfully in both of these cases, the intruder was met with an armed response that ended the threat. It would have been better for everyone had these ex-boyfriends simply stayed away altogether, but thankfully, these stories didn’t end as tragically as they could have.


bearingarms--2020-06-11--No, Mother Jones, We Gun Owners Won't Come To Save You

There ’ s been a lot going on over the last couple of weeks , to put it mildly .
From protests to riots to even a segment of Seattle supposedly not being part of the United States anymore , let ’ s just say it ’ s been eventful .
In fact , it ’ s been so eventful that it ’ s difficult to keep up .
However , one thing that ’ s been easy to keep up with is how often the line between “ peaceful protestors ” and “ rioters ” kept being missed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not difficult to imagine actual peaceful protestors being treated like potential rioters by law enforcement .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s right , but it is what it is .
Amongst all of this , though , it seems that the people at Mother Jones who have spent years deriding gun owners and gun rights , are now looking at us wondering if we ’ re going to come in and save the poor protestors .
In many ways , the past couple of weeks have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years warned its members about : A mass mobilization of militarized police and unknown federal agents in cities across the country to shut down largely peaceful mass demonstrations of people exercising their constitutional rights—and doing so with force .
In Washington , DC , for example , the President of the United States had law enforcement fire tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters for a photo op .
In Buffalo , police in riot gear shoved an unarmed 75-year-old man to the ground , sending him to the hospital bleeding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the protests started after a white police officer killed 46-year-old George Floyd on May 25 , there have too many instances to count of police violently attacking peaceful protesters—and slashing people ’ s tires .
Surely these actions by law enforcement officers are what NRA head Wayne LaPierre warned about when he wrote in a 1995 fundraising letter that a recently signed assault weapons ban would give “ jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights , break in our doors , destroy our property , and even injure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , that was the NRA ’ s biggest fear during the Obama administration , when the group turned the former president into a liberal bogeyman , incessantly fundraising on the notion that his administration would ban all firearms .
And even before that , the group capitalized off of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina , making misleading claims that the New Orleans mayor had declared martial law and that police were disarming law-abiding gun owners to help crack down on looters .
So surely the nation ’ s oldest gun rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of stoking fear among its base that Big Government is going to come and take away rights , would have a lot to say about these current instances of police crackdowns on peaceful protesters , right ?
You see , those aren ’ t peaceful protests .
Oh , there might have been some overreaction at a couple that were peaceful , but most of those protests were properly categorized as riots .
They destroyed millions in property and inventory from small businesses , many of which were minority-owned .
Innocent people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protestors.
” As such , we ’ re not really inclined to see it as tyranny .
You see , while many of us on this side of the aisle were disgusted by what happened to George Floyd , we also recognize that the protests weren ’ t an issue until Antifa joined in and turned them into looting and pillaging fest that even the Vikings would have been disgusted by .
That ’ s what sparked the police reaction , and while I do believe they went too far in a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it .
So no .
We , the gun owners of this great land , aren ’ t going to swoop in and save you .
You see , we have guns to protect us and ours from tyranny .
That doesn ’ t include anyone else unless I choose to include them .
I damn sure won ’ t include a bunch of rampaging maniacs who burned down the very communities they claimed they were trying to save .
Yes , we have guns to oppose tyranny , but until we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing anything .
Right now , we ’ re not seeing any such thing .
Instead , we ’ re going to point and laugh how the very people who derided us and blamed us for every ill in the world and now seem to think that we should swoop in and save the day for them .
They forget that they ’ ve done everything they could to alienate us .
They fed into the tribalism that made it so difficult to even view them as fellow Americans .
Let me lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you have a right to arm yourself , you do not live in a tyrannical state .
As bad as some of the images of police have been , a number of them are being punished for their actions , which is further proof you don ’ t live in a tyrannical state .
If and when you ’ re barred from buying guns , come and talk to us .
Until then , stop looking at the people you ’ ve tried to vilify to come to your rescue .
@ @ @ @ @ @

There’s been a lot going on over the last couple of weeks, to put it mildly. From protests to riots to even a segment of Seattle supposedly not being part of the United States anymore, let’s just say it’s been eventful. In fact, it’s been so eventful that it’s difficult to keep up.
However, one thing that’s been easy to keep up with is how often the line between “peaceful protestors” and “rioters” kept being missed by the news media. As such, it’s not difficult to imagine actual peaceful protestors being treated like potential rioters by law enforcement. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is what it is.
Amongst all of this, though, it seems that the people at Mother Jones who have spent years deriding gun owners and gun rights, are now looking at us wondering if we’re going to come in and save the poor protestors.
In many ways, the past couple of weeks have been exactly what the National Rifle Association has for years warned its members about: A mass mobilization of militarized police and unknown federal agents in cities across the country to shut down largely peaceful mass demonstrations of people exercising their constitutional rights—and doing so with force. In Washington, DC, for example, the President of the United States had law enforcement fire tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters for a photo op. In Buffalo, police in riot gear shoved an unarmed 75-year-old man to the ground, sending him to the hospital bleeding from the ears. In Minneapolis, where the protests started after a white police officer killed 46-year-old George Floyd on May 25, there have too many instances to count of police violently attacking peaceful protesters—and slashing people’s tires. Surely these actions by law enforcement officers are what NRA head Wayne LaPierre warned about when he wrote in a 1995 fundraising letter that a recently signed assault weapons ban would give “jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us,” right? After all, that was the NRA’s biggest fear during the Obama administration, when the group turned the former president into a liberal bogeyman, incessantly fundraising on the notion that his administration would ban all firearms. And even before that, the group capitalized off of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, making misleading claims that the New Orleans mayor had declared martial law and that police were disarming law-abiding gun owners to help crack down on looters. So surely the nation’s oldest gun rights organization, which has a sordid history of stoking fear among its base that Big Government is going to come and take away rights, would have a lot to say about these current instances of police crackdowns on peaceful protesters, right?
Actually, no.
You see, those aren’t peaceful protests. Oh, there might have been some overreaction at a couple that were peaceful, but most of those protests were properly categorized as riots. They destroyed millions in property and inventory from small businesses, many of which were minority-owned. Innocent people were injured or killed by these “peaceful protestors.”
As such, we’re not really inclined to see it as tyranny.
You see, while many of us on this side of the aisle were disgusted by what happened to George Floyd, we also recognize that the protests weren’t an issue until Antifa joined in and turned them into looting and pillaging fest that even the Vikings would have been disgusted by. That’s what sparked the police reaction, and while I do believe they went too far in a number of instances, I get why they did it.
So no. We, the gun owners of this great land, aren’t going to swoop in and save you.
You see, we have guns to protect us and ours from tyranny. That doesn’t include anyone else unless I choose to include them. I damn sure won’t include a bunch of rampaging maniacs who burned down the very communities they claimed they were trying to save.
Yes, we have guns to oppose tyranny, but until we see it, we’re not doing anything. Right now, we’re not seeing any such thing.
Instead, we’re going to point and laugh how the very people who derided us and blamed us for every ill in the world and now seem to think that we should swoop in and save the day for them. They forget that they’ve done everything they could to alienate us. They fed into the tribalism that made it so difficult to even view them as fellow Americans.
Let me lay it out very clearly for Mother Jones. If you have a right to arm yourself, you do not live in a tyrannical state. As bad as some of the images of police have been, a number of them are being punished for their actions, which is further proof you don’t live in a tyrannical state.
If and when you’re barred from buying guns, come and talk to us.
Until then, stop looking at the people you’ve tried to vilify to come to your rescue. We’re not interested.