bearingarms--2020-09-14--MA Senator: "We Must Disarm" Police Of Their "Weapons Of War"

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey , fresh off a successful primary fight against challenger Joe Kennedy III , isn ’ t tacking to the center as he heads into the general election .
Instead , the Democrat is embracing one of the most far-Left positions when it comes to the calls for police reform .
On Monday , the senator declared his support for disarming police of “ weapons of war ” to tear gas , rubber bullets , and other less-lethal means of defense and crowd control .
“ Peaceful protesters , ” he says .
No mention of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have rocked Portland for more than 100 days .
Markey makes it sound like police in Portland are just randomly attacking people at prayer circles , instead of responding to riots where would-be revolutionaries try to set fire to the mayor ’ s apartment building .
Markey and his Democratic comrade-in-disarmament Bernie Sanders have introduced something called the No Tear Gas or Projectiles Act , which , in their words would “ prohibit federal , state , and local law enforcement officers ’ use of tear gas and rubber bullets by banning federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and kinetic impact projectiles , and by restricting the allocation of federal funding to state and local entities that do not ban riot control agents and kinetic impact projectiles.
” “ Our streets are not meant to be battlefields , and law enforcement shouldn ’ t be using weapons of war against protestors and other Americans , ” said Senator Markey .
“ Law enforcement ’ s use of tear gas also compounds the effects of structural racism , because we know communities of color are already suffering disproportionately during this global respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop using these potentially lethal weapons against our own people .
I thank Senator Sanders for his partnership on this legislation and urge our colleagues to join us in protecting the health and rights of the American people.
” I find it fascinating that some on the Left like Markey are now declaring that less-lethal methods of crowd control are now “ weapons of war ” that should be banned for use by police , even while Markey is apparently okay with law enforcement using the semi-automatic firearms that his fellow Democrats have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets.
” You ’ d think if Markey wanted police to stop using tear gas and rubber bullets he ’ d also be calling for law enforcement to be disarmed of their “ assault weapons ” as well , but the “ Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 , ” which was co-sponsored by Markey , contained an exemption for law enforcement to continue to use the rifles while on the job .
At this point , I ’ m not sure why Markey doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely ; no sidearms , no stun guns , no ASP wands , no tear gas , no pepper spray .
Maybe he ’ s waiting until after Election Day .
In the meantime , don ’ t be surprised if Markey ’ s Republican challenger , attorney Kevin O ’ Conner , hammers Markey on the issue during the pair ’ s upcoming debate .
If Markey doesn ’ t want police using less-lethal means of crowd control , what exactly are his recommendations when officers are facing hundreds of agitators who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Molotov cocktails at law enforcement who are trying to keep the peace and quell riots and unrest ?
Police in Portland say that Mayor Ted Wheeler ’ s decision to ban the use of tear gas is going to lead to officers using impact munitions , as opposed to hugging it out with those trying to burn down the city ’ s center .
“ Banning the lawful use of CS will make it very difficult to address this kind of violence without resorting to much higher levels of physical force , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to members of the public and officers , ” the statement reads .
“ CS , while effective , is a significantly lower level of force than impact weapons , which would very likely be necessary to disperse riotous groups with its prohibition.
” In short , because of Wheeler ’ s decision , police will be forced to shoot members of the public at protests with pepper balls , rubber bullets , flashbang grenades , or other “ impact munitions.
” This is what happens when a politician ’ s desire to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering any real solutions to improve the tenuous situation in too many of our Democrat-controlled cities .
Police have an obligation and a duty to ensure public safety , and as cops in Portland point out , the Left ’ s push to disarm police of less-lethal means of crowd control is likely to only escalate confrontations and lead to more force being used against those “ peaceful ” protesters who are trying to burn down their cities .

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, fresh off a successful primary fight against challenger Joe Kennedy III, isn’t tacking to the center as he heads into the general election. Instead, the Democrat is embracing one of the most far-Left positions when it comes to the calls for police reform. On Monday, the senator declared his support for disarming police of “weapons of war” to tear gas, rubber bullets, and other less-lethal means of defense and crowd control.
Portland police routinely attack peaceful protestors with brute force. We must disarm these officers, and every other police department in America, of weapons of war, and enact a nationwide ban on tear gas, rubber and plastic bullets, and bean bag rounds. https://t.co/PDZcjhmSLB — Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) September 14, 2020
“Peaceful protesters,” he says. No mention of the riots, looting, and unrest that have rocked Portland for more than 100 days. Markey makes it sound like police in Portland are just randomly attacking people at prayer circles, instead of responding to riots where would-be revolutionaries try to set fire to the mayor’s apartment building.
Markey and his Democratic comrade-in-disarmament Bernie Sanders have introduced something called the No Tear Gas or Projectiles Act, which, in their words would “prohibit federal, state, and local law enforcement officers’ use of tear gas and rubber bullets by banning federal officers’ use of riot control agents and kinetic impact projectiles, and by restricting the allocation of federal funding to state and local entities that do not ban riot control agents and kinetic impact projectiles.”
“Our streets are not meant to be battlefields, and law enforcement shouldn’t be using weapons of war against protestors and other Americans,” said Senator Markey. “Law enforcement’s use of tear gas also compounds the effects of structural racism, because we know communities of color are already suffering disproportionately during this global respiratory pandemic. It’s time we stop using these potentially lethal weapons against our own people. I thank Senator Sanders for his partnership on this legislation and urge our colleagues to join us in protecting the health and rights of the American people.”
I find it fascinating that some on the Left like Markey are now declaring that less-lethal methods of crowd control are now “weapons of war” that should be banned for use by police, even while Markey is apparently okay with law enforcement using the semi-automatic firearms that his fellow Democrats have described as “deadly and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets.”
You’d think if Markey wanted police to stop using tear gas and rubber bullets he’d also be calling for law enforcement to be disarmed of their “assault weapons” as well, but the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” which was co-sponsored by Markey, contained an exemption for law enforcement to continue to use the rifles while on the job.
At this point, I’m not sure why Markey doesn’t just embrace the idea of disarming police completely; no sidearms, no stun guns, no ASP wands, no tear gas, no pepper spray. Maybe he’s waiting until after Election Day. In the meantime, don’t be surprised if Markey’s Republican challenger, attorney Kevin O’Conner, hammers Markey on the issue during the pair’s upcoming debate.
If Markey doesn’t want police using less-lethal means of crowd control, what exactly are his recommendations when officers are facing hundreds of agitators who are throwing rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails at law enforcement who are trying to keep the peace and quell riots and unrest? Police in Portland say that Mayor Ted Wheeler’s decision to ban the use of tear gas is going to lead to officers using impact munitions, as opposed to hugging it out with those trying to burn down the city’s center.
“Banning the lawful use of CS will make it very difficult to address this kind of violence without resorting to much higher levels of physical force, with a correspondingly elevated risk of serious injury to members of the public and officers,” the statement reads. “CS, while effective, is a significantly lower level of force than impact weapons, which would very likely be necessary to disperse riotous groups with its prohibition.” In short, because of Wheeler’s decision, police will be forced to shoot members of the public at protests with pepper balls, rubber bullets, flashbang grenades, or other “impact munitions.”
This is what happens when a politician’s desire to pander to their base takes precedence over offering any real solutions to improve the tenuous situation in too many of our Democrat-controlled cities. Police have an obligation and a duty to ensure public safety, and as cops in Portland point out, the Left’s push to disarm police of less-lethal means of crowd control is likely to only escalate confrontations and lead to more force being used against those “peaceful” protesters who are trying to burn down their cities.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--MI Capitol Gun Ban Rejected By Capitol Commission

After armed protestors showed up to take issue with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ’ s draconian lockdown regulations , it wasn ’ t surprising that talk immediately shifted to whether or not guns should be allowed in the capitol .
It wasn ’ t like Whitmer or her cronies in the legislature would actually listen to the people .
Instead , they started talking about changing regulations .
Luckily , those discussions kind of stalled out .
It wasn ’ t indefinite , though .
Instead , debate was set to resume this week , but the Capitol Commission instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of votes on Monday morning .
During a Monday morning hearing in Lansing , which streamed live on house.mi.gov/htv.asp and misenate.viebit.com , commissioners rejected first a measure to ban guns in the Capitol and then one that would have banned specifically long guns .
The question arose after armed protesters who objected to the way Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer has handled the coronavirus pandemic entered the Capitol in late April .
Some entered the gallery above the state Senate chambers , alarming some lawmakers .
Among the obstacles to instituting a ban brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically the lack of metal detectors , X-ray machines and security checkpoint staff .
WLNS , WOOD TV8 ’ s Lansing sister station , previously reported the cost of implementing a ban could run between $ 500,000 to $ 1.3 million .
In other words , they can ’ t just pass a rule , they also have to figure out how to actually enforce it .
That will cost money , which creates other roadblocks .
Frankly , the commission made the right call here .
While I didn ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed–I believe it detracted from their message because the media latched onto the guns and not what they were saying or why they were saying it–I don ’ t believe the rules should be changed for any reason .
Americans have a right to be armed and that right does not and should not end at the doors of the legislature .
Private property owners can decide they don ’ t want guns on their premises , but the state isn ’ t a private property owner .
They answer to the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re trying to regulate .
To be sure , such measures aren ’ t about making anyone safer , either .
It ’ s about trying to punish people they disagreed with .
Today ’ s vote is a victory not only for the Second Amendment , but the First Amendment rights of Michigan residents as well .

After armed protestors showed up to take issue with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s draconian lockdown regulations, it wasn’t surprising that talk immediately shifted to whether or not guns should be allowed in the capitol. It wasn’t like Whitmer or her cronies in the legislature would actually listen to the people.
Instead, they started talking about changing regulations.
Luckily, those discussions kind of stalled out. It wasn’t indefinite, though. Instead, debate was set to resume this week, but the Capitol Commission instead rejected the proposed gun in a series of votes on Monday morning.
During a Monday morning hearing in Lansing, which streamed live on house.mi.gov/htv.asp and misenate.viebit.com, commissioners rejected first a measure to ban guns in the Capitol and then one that would have banned specifically long guns. The question arose after armed protesters who objected to the way Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has handled the coronavirus pandemic entered the Capitol in late April. Some entered the gallery above the state Senate chambers, alarming some lawmakers. Among the obstacles to instituting a ban brought up by commissioners Monday was enforcement, specifically the lack of metal detectors, X-ray machines and security checkpoint staff. WLNS, WOOD TV8’s Lansing sister station, previously reported the cost of implementing a ban could run between $500,000 to $1.3 million.
In other words, they can’t just pass a rule, they also have to figure out how to actually enforce it. That will cost money, which creates other roadblocks.
Frankly, the commission made the right call here.
While I didn’t think those particular protestors should have shown up armed–I believe it detracted from their message because the media latched onto the guns and not what they were saying or why they were saying it–I don’t believe the rules should be changed for any reason. Americans have a right to be armed and that right does not and should not end at the doors of the legislature.
Private property owners can decide they don’t want guns on their premises, but the state isn’t a private property owner. They answer to the people; the very same people they’re trying to regulate.
To be sure, such measures aren’t about making anyone safer, either. It’s about trying to punish people they disagreed with. Today’s vote is a victory not only for the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment rights of Michigan residents as well.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--Uh-Oh: COVID Cases Now Causing More Delays For Gun Buyers

A crowd of people gathered outside of the Wake County Sheriff ’ s Office on Monday morning , not to protest , but to apply for their government-issued permission slip to own a firearm .
The would-be gun owners are responding to a report by Sheriff Gerald Baker over the weekend that checks for pistol purchase permits could be delayed after an employee in the sheriff ’ s gun permit office has tested positive for the coronavirus .
The sheriff said the gun permit department will be working on a modified crew and schedule to process the hundreds of appointments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stressed to the public that the person who tested positive did not have direct contact with the public .
Officials said 24,119 permit applications were received from Jan. 1 to Sept 13 .
2,785 applications were received in the same time frame in 2019 .
According to the sheriff ’ s department , 32,700 purchase permits were approved and delivered from January to Sept. 13 in this year alone — a significant increase from 10,499 from that time period in 2019 .
The office is currently processing permits for the week of Aug. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of processing .
Baker ’ s office has already been sued over the lengthy delays in processing the purchase permits , which according to state statutes are supposed to be completed within 14 days .
As Baker acknowledged , the checks are taking more than a month right now , though he insists there ’ s not much he can do to speed up the process .
I understand that when there are nearly 10 times as many applications as last year , the sheriff ’ s staff may be a little overwhelmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that the law mandates that these applications get processed within 14 days .
If the sheriff ’ s staff can ’ t handle the demand , then the sheriff needs to bring on more employees .
If the sheriff can ’ t afford to do that , then the Wake County government needs to provide the necessary funding .
And if they can ’ t or won ’ t do that , then perhaps it ’ s time for the state ’ s pistol purchase permit law to be repealed .
Actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That requirement is a relic of the Jim Crow-era in North Carolina , where it was used to deprive black residents of their ability to purchase a handgun if the local sheriff deemed them unworthy .
The law should have disappeared along with segregation , but instead it remains on the books as a reminder of the racist roots of gun control .
We ’ ve seen a lot of headlines over the past six months about record-high gun sales , but the flip side to that story is the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to purchase a firearm have been stuck in limbo thanks to ever-increasing delays in the processing of gun permit applications in several states .
This isn ’ t just a problem in Wake County , North Carolina .
Similar stories are already being reported from coast-to-coast .
Just a few days we reported here at Bearing Arms on the massive backlog in Illinois for folks that are applying for their Firearm Owner ID card ( which is required in order to legally possess a firearm in the state ) , which the Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand as well as a shortage of employees able to process the background checks .
These gun permit laws only add another layer of bureaucracy to the exercise of a constitutional right , and we ’ re witnessing their flaws firsthand at the moment .
Violent criminals are illegally obtaining firearms without bothering to apply for a permit , but those would-be legal gun owners are left twiddling their thumbs while the sheriff tries to work through the backlog of thousands of applications .
From Oregon to Michigan to New York City , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply for a gun license in September of 2021 , the massive delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to get far worse in the months ahead , and that means that many Americans who ’ ve embraced their right to keep and bear arms are going to have that right infringed thanks to these nonsensical gun control laws and the bureaucratic nightmare they ’ ve produced .

A crowd of people gathered outside of the Wake County Sheriff’s Office on Monday morning, not to protest, but to apply for their government-issued permission slip to own a firearm.
The would-be gun owners are responding to a report by Sheriff Gerald Baker over the weekend that checks for pistol purchase permits could be delayed after an employee in the sheriff’s gun permit office has tested positive for the coronavirus.
The sheriff said the gun permit department will be working on a modified crew and schedule to process the hundreds of appointments in the next few days. Baker stressed to the public that the person who tested positive did not have direct contact with the public. Officials said 24,119 permit applications were received from Jan. 1 to Sept 13. 2,785 applications were received in the same time frame in 2019. According to the sheriff’s department, 32,700 purchase permits were approved and delivered from January to Sept. 13 in this year alone — a significant increase from 10,499 from that time period in 2019. The office is currently processing permits for the week of Aug. 3 and has 4,045 still in need of processing.
Baker’s office has already been sued over the lengthy delays in processing the purchase permits, which according to state statutes are supposed to be completed within 14 days. As Baker acknowledged, the checks are taking more than a month right now, though he insists there’s not much he can do to speed up the process.
“You can sue me all day but those numbers tell you it’s going to be almost impossible to service that number of applications with the processes in place, the background checks that are required in the 14-day period,” said Sheriff Baker.
I understand that when there are nearly 10 times as many applications as last year, the sheriff’s staff may be a little overwhelmed. That doesn’t change the fact that the law mandates that these applications get processed within 14 days. If the sheriff’s staff can’t handle the demand, then the sheriff needs to bring on more employees. If the sheriff can’t afford to do that, then the Wake County government needs to provide the necessary funding. And if they can’t or won’t do that, then perhaps it’s time for the state’s pistol purchase permit law to be repealed.
Actually, that should have happened long ago. That requirement is a relic of the Jim Crow-era in North Carolina, where it was used to deprive black residents of their ability to purchase a handgun if the local sheriff deemed them unworthy. The law should have disappeared along with segregation, but instead it remains on the books as a reminder of the racist roots of gun control.
We’ve seen a lot of headlines over the past six months about record-high gun sales, but the flip side to that story is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans who want to purchase a firearm have been stuck in limbo thanks to ever-increasing delays in the processing of gun permit applications in several states. This isn’t just a problem in Wake County, North Carolina. Similar stories are already being reported from coast-to-coast.
Just a few days we reported here at Bearing Arms on the massive backlog in Illinois for folks that are applying for their Firearm Owner ID card (which is required in order to legally possess a firearm in the state), which the Illinois State Police blame on the surge in demand as well as a shortage of employees able to process the background checks.
These gun permit laws only add another layer of bureaucracy to the exercise of a constitutional right, and we’re witnessing their flaws firsthand at the moment. Violent criminals are illegally obtaining firearms without bothering to apply for a permit, but those would-be legal gun owners are left twiddling their thumbs while the sheriff tries to work through the backlog of thousands of applications.
From Oregon to Michigan to New York City, where the NYPD is currently scheduling appointments to apply for a gun license in September of 2021, the massive delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to get far worse in the months ahead, and that means that many Americans who’ve embraced their right to keep and bear arms are going to have that right infringed thanks to these nonsensical gun control laws and the bureaucratic nightmare they’ve produced.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--Are Gun Rights Clashing With Free Speech?

Let ’ s be honest , 2020 hasn ’ t been the best year every by any stretch of the imagination .
While some can argue other years were actually worse , the truth of the matter is that it ’ s bad enough that no one wants to go through it again .
We ’ re just trying to suffer through it as best we can .
One of the more “ colorful ” aspects to 2020 have been the seemingly endless riots .
This culminated in two incidents , the shooting in Kenosha and a shooting in Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents , to be sure , but they became much higher profile than anything that happened previously .
So much so that some seem to think that gun rights and free speech are clashing with one another .
The robust American traditions of free speech and gun rights are clashing at anti-racism protests this year in a way rarely seen before in the United States , legal scholars and law enforcement leaders say .
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free speech , and the Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are colliding in new ways , as “ open carry ” of guns to demonstrations becomes more common , officials at six police departments along with six legal scholars said .
Some worry that U.S. democracy will suffer if guns intimidate would-be protesters from voicing their opinion .
The gun culture and the exercise of free speech and assembly are “ all competing in the same space , ” said Timothy Zick , a law professor at the College of William & Mary who studies armed protests .
Mostly peaceful mass protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the May 25 death of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapolis , Minnesota police are sometimes being met by people with weapons .
OK , I ’ m sorry , but anyone who uses the term “ mostly peaceful ” for protests have betrayed their own biases .
These are freaking riots .
Oh , there are plenty of peaceful protests that have taken place , of course , but no one is talking about those .
We ’ ve been talking about the unhinged looting and arson .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come into play .
See , while some like to make a big deal about how open carry is somehow intimidating people from speaking freely , that ’ s BS .
It ’ s not even stopping rioting , for crying out loud .
Hell , Kyle Rittenhouse having a gun didn ’ t stop him from being attacked by “ mostly peaceful ” protestors .
The first one reportedly grabbed his rifle , an act that I ’ d sure interpret as someone wishing me bodily harm , so he fired , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked by a mob , forcing him to shoot two more people .
If an armed individual who had already been forced to shoot one person doesn ’ t intimidate the mob , why would some guy standing around with a gun prevent free speech ?
Let ’ s also remember that we live in an era when saying anything outside of progressive orthodoxy can get the mob riled up enough they try to destroy your entire life .
They really don ’ t get to judge anyone for “ intimidation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens have stood by and done nothing to threaten anyone so long as they weren ’ t threatened themselves yet others are destroying entire neighborhoods .
The idea that this is a clash of rights is ridiculous .
Rioting–which is why armed citizens are heading out to so-called “ protests ” –isn ’ t free speech .
If rioters aren ’ t intimidated by the presence of armed citizens , you can ’ t convince me that much of anyone else is .

Let’s be honest, 2020 hasn’t been the best year every by any stretch of the imagination. While some can argue other years were actually worse, the truth of the matter is that it’s bad enough that no one wants to go through it again. We’re just trying to suffer through it as best we can.
One of the more “colorful” aspects to 2020 have been the seemingly endless riots.
This culminated in two incidents, the shooting in Kenosha and a shooting in Portland. These weren’t the first incidents, to be sure, but they became much higher profile than anything that happened previously.
So much so that some seem to think that gun rights and free speech are clashing with one another.
The robust American traditions of free speech and gun rights are clashing at anti-racism protests this year in a way rarely seen before in the United States, legal scholars and law enforcement leaders say. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free speech, and the Second the right to bear arms. But they are colliding in new ways, as “open carry” of guns to demonstrations becomes more common, officials at six police departments along with six legal scholars said. Some worry that U.S. democracy will suffer if guns intimidate would-be protesters from voicing their opinion. The gun culture and the exercise of free speech and assembly are “all competing in the same space,” said Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William & Mary who studies armed protests. Mostly peaceful mass protests in several U.S. cities for racial equality following the May 25 death of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapolis, Minnesota police are sometimes being met by people with weapons.
OK, I’m sorry, but anyone who uses the term “mostly peaceful” for protests have betrayed their own biases.
These are freaking riots. Oh, there are plenty of peaceful protests that have taken place, of course, but no one is talking about those. We’ve been talking about the unhinged looting and arson.
And that’s where the Second Amendment has come into play.
See, while some like to make a big deal about how open carry is somehow intimidating people from speaking freely, that’s BS. It’s not even stopping rioting, for crying out loud. Hell, Kyle Rittenhouse having a gun didn’t stop him from being attacked by “mostly peaceful” protestors. The first one reportedly grabbed his rifle, an act that I’d sure interpret as someone wishing me bodily harm, so he fired, killing the rioter. He then was attacked by a mob, forcing him to shoot two more people.
If an armed individual who had already been forced to shoot one person doesn’t intimidate the mob, why would some guy standing around with a gun prevent free speech?
Let’s also remember that we live in an era when saying anything outside of progressive orthodoxy can get the mob riled up enough they try to destroy your entire life. They really don’t get to judge anyone for “intimidation,” especially when a large number of armed citizens have stood by and done nothing to threaten anyone so long as they weren’t threatened themselves yet others are destroying entire neighborhoods.
The idea that this is a clash of rights is ridiculous.
Rioting–which is why armed citizens are heading out to so-called “protests”–isn’t free speech. If rioters aren’t intimidated by the presence of armed citizens, you can’t convince me that much of anyone else is.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--53 Shot, 12 Killed In Chicago's Latest Violent Weekend

Chicago ’ s homicides are still on track for one of the deadliest years in recent memory after another bloody weekend in the city left at least 12 people dead and another 39 people wounded .
Already this year Chicago has seen more than 520 homicides , which is about 150 more than the city had experienced this time last year .
Currently , the city ’ s on pace to match the 795 homicides that took place in 2016 , which was one of the highest homicide rates in decades .
The killings are being driven by drug and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of innocents who are being caught in the crossfire .
Two people were killed and four others , including a suspect , were wounded in a shootout Saturday in Austin on the West Side .
People at a gathering started arguing about 2:05 a.m. in the 100-block of North Pine Avenue when a male suspect unleashed gunfire into the crowd , Chicago police said .
Another person returned fire , striking him in the abdomen .
A 47-year-old woman was shot in the face and chest and was pronounced dead at Stroger Hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was shot in the chest and arm and was pronounced dead at the same hospital .
The Cook County medical examiner ’ s office hasn ’ t released details about their deaths .
A 32-year-old woman was shot in the leg and was taken to Stroger Hospital in good condition , police said .
A 38-year-old man was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in good condition with a gunshot wound to the back .
There was at least one other fatal shooting in the Austin neighborhood over the weekend .
A 33-year old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the head on Saturday night just blocks from where the shootout that left two dead had taken place less than 24 hours earlier .
In a Chicago Tribune profile , columnist Dahleen Glanton describes the effects that months of COVID-19 closures , looting , and riots have had on another hard-hit neighborhood known as North Lawndale .
As Glanton points out , the community was already suffering from decades of neglect dating back more than 50 years , but the past six months have made a bad situation even worse for residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get Jeraldine Bowen to run for mayor ?
It sounds like she ’ s got a better head on her shoulders than Lori Lightfoot , who appears to be unable to get a handle on the violence that ’ s taking too many lives and destroying too many neighborhoods in Chicago .
Of course , it ’ s not entirely up to Lightfoot .
Cook County prosecutor Kim Foxx has been called out by the mayor for her light-on-crime approach that ’ s led to the dismissal of more than 25,000 felony cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican challenging Foxx in this year ’ s election for State ’ s Attorney is criticizing the recent decision to let 18-year old Sincere Williams , a suspect in a gun store burglary , off of electronic monitoring just days before he allegedly fatally stabbed Walgreens employee Olga Calderon as she was working in the store .
At an event on Sunday , Judge Pat O ’ Brien said Williams ’ criminal history should have prevented him from being out on the streets .
O ’ Brien referenced a report from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was charged last May with a violent break-in and theft of guns from a suburban gun shop , but was released from electronic monitoring in that case just days before Calderon ’ s murder .
O ’ Brien said that decision to remove the monitoring device came with no objection from Foxx .
“ They apparently thought it was a good idea to release this man into the community unsupervised .
And this is not the only time that Ms. Foxx has failed to protect the community , the victims , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” O ’ Brien said .
Electing a Republican in Chicago may be an even tougher task than bringing down the city ’ s homicide rate , but voters will have a choice to make come November ; stick with Foxx and her light-on-crime approach , or get serious about cracking down on the city ’ s most violent offenders .
It ’ s literally a life-and-death decision , but something tells me party politics may still hold sway over public safety in the Windy City .

Chicago’s homicides are still on track for one of the deadliest years in recent memory after another bloody weekend in the city left at least 12 people dead and another 39 people wounded. Already this year Chicago has seen more than 520 homicides, which is about 150 more than the city had experienced this time last year. Currently, the city’s on pace to match the 795 homicides that took place in 2016, which was one of the highest homicide rates in decades.
The killings are being driven by drug and gang-related violence, but there are plenty of innocents who are being caught in the crossfire.
Two people were killed and four others, including a suspect, were wounded in a shootout Saturday in Austin on the West Side. People at a gathering started arguing about 2:05 a.m. in the 100-block of North Pine Avenue when a male suspect unleashed gunfire into the crowd, Chicago police said. Another person returned fire, striking him in the abdomen. A 47-year-old woman was shot in the face and chest and was pronounced dead at Stroger Hospital, police said. A 35-year-old man was shot in the chest and arm and was pronounced dead at the same hospital. The Cook County medical examiner’s office hasn’t released details about their deaths. A 32-year-old woman was shot in the leg and was taken to Stroger Hospital in good condition, police said. A 38-year-old man was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in good condition with a gunshot wound to the back.
There was at least one other fatal shooting in the Austin neighborhood over the weekend. A 33-year old woman was found with a gunshot wound to the head on Saturday night just blocks from where the shootout that left two dead had taken place less than 24 hours earlier.
In a Chicago Tribune profile, columnist Dahleen Glanton describes the effects that months of COVID-19 closures, looting, and riots have had on another hard-hit neighborhood known as North Lawndale. As Glanton points out, the community was already suffering from decades of neglect dating back more than 50 years, but the past six months have made a bad situation even worse for residents.
The riots that broke out on the West Side after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination transformed North Lawndale from a thriving epicenter of African American life to a barren wasteland. Residents watched the exodus of the mostly Jewish-owned businesses after rioters destroyed their property along Roosevelt Road. And the community’s dream of prosperity left with them. Over the course of a few days, Jeraldine Bowen, 93, saw the landscape of her vibrant neighborhood turn into an expansive stretch of burned-out buildings that eventually became vacant lots. Bowen, who worked as a presser at a neighborhood dry cleaner, said she doesn’t understand the recent looting any more than she understood the riots 52 years ago. “It’s stupid to destroy where you’re living,” said Bowen, who now lives in Austin. “I said to myself at the time, ‘They’re not rioting because of King getting killed. They don’t even know what the man stood for. He never would have approved of this type of behavior.’ “That’s the same way I look at it now. You looted the stores and cleaned everything out … and you don’t have one penny to build anything back.”
Is there any way we could get Jeraldine Bowen to run for mayor? It sounds like she’s got a better head on her shoulders than Lori Lightfoot, who appears to be unable to get a handle on the violence that’s taking too many lives and destroying too many neighborhoods in Chicago.
Of course, it’s not entirely up to Lightfoot. Cook County prosecutor Kim Foxx has been called out by the mayor for her light-on-crime approach that’s led to the dismissal of more than 25,000 felony cases since she took office, and now the Republican challenging Foxx in this year’s election for State’s Attorney is criticizing the recent decision to let 18-year old Sincere Williams, a suspect in a gun store burglary, off of electronic monitoring just days before he allegedly fatally stabbed Walgreens employee Olga Calderon as she was working in the store.
At an event on Sunday, Judge Pat O’Brien said Williams’ criminal history should have prevented him from being out on the streets. O’Brien referenced a report from the Chicago Tribune, claiming that Williams’ was charged last May with a violent break-in and theft of guns from a suburban gun shop, but was released from electronic monitoring in that case just days before Calderon’s murder. O’Brien said that decision to remove the monitoring device came with no objection from Foxx. “They apparently thought it was a good idea to release this man into the community unsupervised. And this is not the only time that Ms. Foxx has failed to protect the community, the victims, and a victim like Ms. Calderon in specific,” O’Brien said.
Electing a Republican in Chicago may be an even tougher task than bringing down the city’s homicide rate, but voters will have a choice to make come November; stick with Foxx and her light-on-crime approach, or get serious about cracking down on the city’s most violent offenders. It’s literally a life-and-death decision, but something tells me party politics may still hold sway over public safety in the Windy City.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--Unrest Follows Clearly Justified Police Shooting In Lancaster

The world has lost its ever-loving mind .
That ’ s the only takeaway I ’ ve got dealing with some of the stuff we ’ ve seen so far in 2020 .
See , I get why people were upset after the death of George Floyd .
Nothing about that situation looked right and it clearly shouldn ’ t have gone down that way .
For a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle , it was a bad thing and it was a fine time to unite and try to make sure it would never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insane .
Violent riots and looting broke out in Lancaster , Pennsylvania , on Sunday night after a black man died in an officer-involved shooting .
Local authorities quickly released footage from the incident that showed the man running out of house and charging at the police officer with a knife .
Police responded to the home after a woman called them to report that her brother was allegedly becoming aggressive with their mother and trying to break into the home .
“ The first officer on the scene walked to the front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman , who was identified as a family member , ” The Lancaster Bureau of Police said in a statement .
“ A male subject then exited the front door of the residence and began chasing the officer .
Preliminary information and body worn camera footage indicates that the male subject had a knife in his right hand as he was chasing the officer .
The officer fired several shots from his firearm , striking the subject .
The subject , identified as 27 year old Lancaster man , did not survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scene .
The officer was the only police officer on the scene at the time of the shooting and his body worn camera was activated and recorded the encounter.
” Now , that looks pretty damn clear to me .
The man charges officers with a knife , the officers fired .
There was no opportunity to try to deescalate the situation .
The suspect came after police with a deadly weapon and officers responded .
( The official response is that it ’ s under investigation , which is to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officer to be charged . )
However , we now live in a world where that doesn ’ t matter .
On Sunday night , Lancaster police were forced to use tear gas to disperse violent rioters that gathered in front of the Lancaster Bureau of Police Station and attacked the building .
The Blaze Media journalist and videographer Elijah Schaffer posted video of the alleged looting that broke out in the city following the incident .
“ Looting has started in Lancaster at Villa athletic store approximately 1 hour 50 minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Schaffer wrote .
“ Groups of rioters are roaming the city breaking windows and stealing merchandise .
It was too dangerous to follow them since there are no police.
” In other words , they were rioting because officers protected themselves from a violent attack , the same kind of attack anyone else would be justified using a firearm to defend themselves from .
Further , it ’ s not the first time we ’ ve seen rioting and lawlessness result from what sure looks like a justifiable shoot .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long ago when we saw a similar situation take place in Chicago .
In that incident , the suspect opened fire on police and they returned fire .
Arguably , an even more justified use of force , and yet people still gathered to protect and ended up looting several stores .
This follows “ protestors ” trying to storm the emergency room where two LA County Sheriff ’ s deputies were fighting for their life after being ambushed .
At this point , it ’ s clear that these “ protests ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are instead about the police using any degree of force ever against a black man or woman .
Especially if an officer ’ s life hangs in the balance .

The world has lost its ever-loving mind.
That’s the only takeaway I’ve got dealing with some of the stuff we’ve seen so far in 2020.
See, I get why people were upset after the death of George Floyd. Nothing about that situation looked right and it clearly shouldn’t have gone down that way. For a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle, it was a bad thing and it was a fine time to unite and try to make sure it would never happen again.
Then everything went downright insane.
Now, a night of unrest hit Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Violent riots and looting broke out in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Sunday night after a black man died in an officer-involved shooting. Local authorities quickly released footage from the incident that showed the man running out of house and charging at the police officer with a knife. Police responded to the home after a woman called them to report that her brother was allegedly becoming aggressive with their mother and trying to break into the home. “The first officer on the scene walked to the front of the residence and made contact with a woman, who was identified as a family member,” The Lancaster Bureau of Police said in a statement. “A male subject then exited the front door of the residence and began chasing the officer. Preliminary information and body worn camera footage indicates that the male subject had a knife in his right hand as he was chasing the officer. The officer fired several shots from his firearm, striking the subject. The subject, identified as 27 year old Lancaster man, did not survive his injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene. The officer was the only police officer on the scene at the time of the shooting and his body worn camera was activated and recorded the encounter.”
Here’s video of the incident
This is the bodycam footage of the officer-involved shooting in Lancaster, PA that Black Lives Matter is rioting over. The perpetrator charged at the police officer with a knife over his head with clear intent to strike. pic.twitter.com/xD72TweQK4 — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020
Now, that looks pretty damn clear to me. The man charges officers with a knife, the officers fired. There was no opportunity to try to deescalate the situation. The suspect came after police with a deadly weapon and officers responded. (The official response is that it’s under investigation, which is to be expected, but don’t expect the officer to be charged.)
However, we now live in a world where that doesn’t matter.
On Sunday night, Lancaster police were forced to use tear gas to disperse violent rioters that gathered in front of the Lancaster Bureau of Police Station and attacked the building. The Blaze Media journalist and videographer Elijah Schaffer posted video of the alleged looting that broke out in the city following the incident. “Looting has started in Lancaster at Villa athletic store approximately 1 hour 50 minutes ago according to the shop owner,” Schaffer wrote. “Groups of rioters are roaming the city breaking windows and stealing merchandise. It was too dangerous to follow them since there are no police.”
In other words, they were rioting because officers protected themselves from a violent attack, the same kind of attack anyone else would be justified using a firearm to defend themselves from.
Further, it’s not the first time we’ve seen rioting and lawlessness result from what sure looks like a justifiable shoot. After all, it wasn’t all that long ago when we saw a similar situation take place in Chicago. In that incident, the suspect opened fire on police and they returned fire. Arguably, an even more justified use of force, and yet people still gathered to protect and ended up looting several stores.
This follows “protestors” trying to storm the emergency room where two LA County Sheriff’s deputies were fighting for their life after being ambushed.
At this point, it’s clear that these “protests” aren’t about any police brutality and are instead about the police using any degree of force ever against a black man or woman. Especially if an officer’s life hangs in the balance.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--Biden Demands Gun Ban After LA Deputies Shot

The two Los Angeles County sheriff ’ s deputies shot in an ambush attack over the weekend are out of surgery and are thankfully expected to recover , according to Sheriff Alex Villanueva , and while the manhunt for the man who shot them at point blank range continues , Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is using the attack to push his plan to ban so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines across the country .
According to surveillance footage released by the LA County Sheriff , the assailant in the attack used a handgun and only fired a few shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s call to ban “ weapons of war ” wouldn ’ t have prevented this attack .
In fact , California has already banned so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds .
Those laws had absolutely no impact on the ability of the shooter in Los Angeles to target deputies .
Just like California ’ s laws , Biden ’ s own gun control plan cracks down on legal gun ownership in the hope that there ’ ll be some sort of trickle-down effect on criminals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons of war ” comment also ignores the fact that he ’ s actually calling for a ban on the most commonly sold rifles and magazines in the country , and doing so at a time when millions of Americans are purchasing firearms for the very first time .
Biden ’ s plan to ban semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines would turn many of those new gun owners into criminals overnight if they didn ’ t hand over their firearms or pay a hefty fee to register them with the government .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden ’ s gun control agenda through misleading “ fact checks ” like this one responding to an ad by the NRA that says Biden will take away our Second Amendment rights .
The voiceover says , “ She ’ s got two kids and two jobs , but tonight she may not make it home .
Every woman has a right to self-defense , a gun for protection.But Joe Biden would take her rights away.
” Biden has not said he wants to take away anyone ’ s Second Amendment right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim is false .
The ad also states , “ For decades , Joe Biden has opposed your gun rights.
” This statement is misleading because Biden is not opposed to gun ownership .
He claims he owns several weapons .
What nonsense .
According to these fact-checkers , Joe Biden would actually have to announce “ I ’ m taking away your Second Amendment rights ” in order for it to be true that Biden would take our rights away .
No candidate is stupid enough to do that , not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own website declares that he believes the Second Amendment is “ limited , ” though he doesn ’ t go so far as to say what he thinks those limits are .
It ’ s also true and uncontroversial that Biden has opposed pro-Second Amendment legislation for decades .
He was the primary author of the 1994 semi-auto ban and hasn ’ t backed any significant piece of pro-2A legislation since his vote in favor of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act .
Even then , Biden only voted for the bill after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worth noting what he said back then , as reported by NBC News .
To say that the 2020 version of Joe Biden doesn ’ t agree with 1986 ’ s Joe Biden is putting it mildly .
Today ’ s Joe Biden has embraced gun control ; from his ban on commonly-owned rifles and magazines to his push for red-flag laws , state-level gun licensing laws , an end to online sales of ammunition , universal background checks , and more .
Now that Biden has brought up his gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone in the press would ask a critical question or two to the candidate on the issue .
Instead , I suspect his supporters in the media will continue to argue that “ there is no evidence , and subsequently no truth… that he wants to take away gun ownership rights , ” even as some on the Left acknowledge that Biden ’ s agenda , if enacted , would reduce our Second Amendment rights into a privilege .
The media is happy to provide cover for Biden on this issue .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point out the truth about what Biden ’ s plans mean for our right to keep and bear arms .

The two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies shot in an ambush attack over the weekend are out of surgery and are thankfully expected to recover, according to Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and while the manhunt for the man who shot them at point blank range continues, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is using the attack to push his plan to ban so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines across the country.
Weapons of war have no place in our communities. We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 14, 2020
According to surveillance footage released by the LA County Sheriff, the assailant in the attack used a handgun and only fired a few shots at the officer, so Biden’s call to ban “weapons of war” wouldn’t have prevented this attack. In fact, California has already banned so-called assault weapons and ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Those laws had absolutely no impact on the ability of the shooter in Los Angeles to target deputies. Just like California’s laws, Biden’s own gun control plan cracks down on legal gun ownership in the hope that there’ll be some sort of trickle-down effect on criminals.
Of course, Biden’s “weapons of war” comment also ignores the fact that he’s actually calling for a ban on the most commonly sold rifles and magazines in the country, and doing so at a time when millions of Americans are purchasing firearms for the very first time. Biden’s plan to ban semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines would turn many of those new gun owners into criminals overnight if they didn’t hand over their firearms or pay a hefty fee to register them with the government.
Meanwhile, the media continues to provide cover for Biden’s gun control agenda through misleading “fact checks” like this one responding to an ad by the NRA that says Biden will take away our Second Amendment rights.
The voiceover says, “She’s got two kids and two jobs, but tonight she may not make it home. Every woman has a right to self-defense, a gun for protection.But Joe Biden would take her rights away.” Biden has not said he wants to take away anyone’s Second Amendment right to own a gun, so this claim is false. The ad also states, “For decades, Joe Biden has opposed your gun rights.” This statement is misleading because Biden is not opposed to gun ownership. He claims he owns several weapons.
What nonsense. According to these fact-checkers, Joe Biden would actually have to announce “I’m taking away your Second Amendment rights” in order for it to be true that Biden would take our rights away. No candidate is stupid enough to do that, not even Biden. Instead, Biden’s own website declares that he believes the Second Amendment is “limited,” though he doesn’t go so far as to say what he thinks those limits are.
It’s also true and uncontroversial that Biden has opposed pro-Second Amendment legislation for decades. He was the primary author of the 1994 semi-auto ban and hasn’t backed any significant piece of pro-2A legislation since his vote in favor of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Even then, Biden only voted for the bill after helping to water it down. It’s worth noting what he said back then, as reported by NBC News.
“During my 12 and a half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control,” he continued.
To say that the 2020 version of Joe Biden doesn’t agree with 1986’s Joe Biden is putting it mildly. Today’s Joe Biden has embraced gun control; from his ban on commonly-owned rifles and magazines to his push for red-flag laws, state-level gun licensing laws, an end to online sales of ammunition, universal background checks, and more.
Now that Biden has brought up his gun ban, it would be great if someone in the press would ask a critical question or two to the candidate on the issue. Instead, I suspect his supporters in the media will continue to argue that “there is no evidence, and subsequently no truth… that he wants to take away gun ownership rights,” even as some on the Left acknowledge that Biden’s agenda, if enacted, would reduce our Second Amendment rights into a privilege. The media is happy to provide cover for Biden on this issue. It’s up to gun owners to point out the truth about what Biden’s plans mean for our right to keep and bear arms.


bearingarms--2020-09-14--When Anti-Cop Sentiment Goes Way Too Far

Over the weekend , two LA County Sheriff ’ s where attacked in what can only be described as an ambush .
It was a targeted attack that appears to have been motivated simply because these two wore a badge .
The whole attack was an ugly reminder of just what happens when law enforcement gets demonized .
However , that wasn ’ t the end of it .
See , the deputies lived , thankfully .
They made it to the hospital and were undergoing treatment , treatment meant to save their lives .
For some , that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s deputies are fighting for their lives after they were shot multiple times at point-blank range in an ambush , authorities said .
Crowds of protesters blocked the entrance to St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood , where the wounded officers were in a critical condition , police said .
Some protesters chanted “ we hope they die , ” the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Office said on Twitter .
A witness told ABC7 that some had tried to break into the hospital ’ s emergency room .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t help but wonder precisely why they ’ d try to go into the emergency room while lifesaving treatment is underway unless it is to disrupt that treatment and cause the death of the two deputies .
This whole mess has gotten way out of hand .
There will always be those who hate the police .
That ’ s a given because of what the police ’ s job is .
They arrest criminals , thus stopping them from preying on society .
As a result , criminals have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that issue has spread beyond the criminals where a large segment of the American population also shares that hatred .
And yes , this is hatred .
This isn ’ t about police reform or even defunding or disarming police .
These people want folks they ’ ve never met dead because they wear the uniform .
If you can ’ t see the problem here , then you ’ re likely the problem here .
I won ’ t say that there isn ’ t room for improvement in how the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always room for improvement , after all , and no agency gets it all right .
That ’ s not the issue any longer .
In fact , it ’ s now such a non-issue that many who were backing it after the death of George Floyd are not refusing to even entertain the discussion .
People don ’ t want to be seen as capitulating to violent thugs .
And that was when it was just riots .
Now , with people trying to actually kill police officers through their protests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen .
I mean , as bad as the Dallas police shootings were several years ago , everyone was shocked by that .
Even the protestors there .
They watched these officers putting their lives on the line to protect them .
There was no effort to try and cause their deaths by disrupting treatment of injured officers .
But now ?
Now there is , and you don ’ t need me to explain that ’ s a big problem .
The question is , do these people think these antics will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they think trying to cause the death of their colleagues will suddenly make police officers decide to cross lines or something ?
It won ’ t .
No one likes a bully , and that ’ s all these protestors actually are .

Over the weekend, two LA County Sheriff’s where attacked in what can only be described as an ambush. It was a targeted attack that appears to have been motivated simply because these two wore a badge.
The whole attack was an ugly reminder of just what happens when law enforcement gets demonized.
However, that wasn’t the end of it. See, the deputies lived, thankfully. They made it to the hospital and were undergoing treatment, treatment meant to save their lives. For some, that was objectionable.
Two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies are fighting for their lives after they were shot multiple times at point-blank range in an ambush, authorities said. Crowds of protesters blocked the entrance to St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, where the wounded officers were in a critical condition, police said. Some protesters chanted “we hope they die,” the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office said on Twitter. A witness told ABC7 that some had tried to break into the hospital’s emergency room.
Now, I’m sorry, but I can’t help but wonder precisely why they’d try to go into the emergency room while lifesaving treatment is underway unless it is to disrupt that treatment and cause the death of the two deputies.
This whole mess has gotten way out of hand.
There will always be those who hate the police. That’s a given because of what the police’s job is. They arrest criminals, thus stopping them from preying on society. As a result, criminals have an issue with the police.
But now that issue has spread beyond the criminals where a large segment of the American population also shares that hatred.
And yes, this is hatred. This isn’t about police reform or even defunding or disarming police. These people want folks they’ve never met dead because they wear the uniform. If you can’t see the problem here, then you’re likely the problem here.
I won’t say that there isn’t room for improvement in how the police perform their duties. There’s always room for improvement, after all, and no agency gets it all right.
That’s not the issue any longer. In fact, it’s now such a non-issue that many who were backing it after the death of George Floyd are not refusing to even entertain the discussion. People don’t want to be seen as capitulating to violent thugs.
And that was when it was just riots.
Now, with people trying to actually kill police officers through their protests, it’s even less likely to happen.
I mean, as bad as the Dallas police shootings were several years ago, everyone was shocked by that. Even the protestors there. They watched these officers putting their lives on the line to protect them. There was no effort to try and cause their deaths by disrupting treatment of injured officers. But now? Now there is, and you don’t need me to explain that’s a big problem.
The question is, do these people think these antics will endear them to the police? Do they think trying to cause the death of their colleagues will suddenly make police officers decide to cross lines or something? It won’t. No one likes a bully, and that’s all these protestors actually are.
Potentially lethal bullies at that.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Man Charged With Lying On Gun Forms For Chicagoans

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loves to blame the violence in her city on pretty much everyone but herself or anyone actually in Chicago .
Oh no , the fault for that violence comes from states that don ’ t share similar gun laws to Illinois but also have far less in the way of violence .
Her belief , one shared by many , is that these states lack of gun laws are the problem .
There ’ s even a study trying to claim the same thing .
However , that ’ s not the issue .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , actually .
See , what happens is that criminals will break whatever laws they have to in order to secure firearms .
That includes lying on the gun purchase paperwork .
In other words , Ivery broke the laws there in Illinois to provide guns for others .
Despite every gun control law on the books , he still reportedly provided a number of guns to people who couldn ’ t lawfully buy guns on their own .
In other words , those laws all failed at what they were supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep guns out of certain hands , but all it did was provide an opportunity for people with no criminal records to engage in illegal activities for monetary gain .
That ’ s literally all it managed to do .
Meanwhile , Lightfoot and biased researchers will continue to claim that their issues really revolve around the lack of gun control in other states , states that don ’ t have nearly the same problem with violence that Chicago has .
Frankly , it ’ s past time for people to wake up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of problems , then we ’ d see increased violence in any place with a high rate of gun ownership .
We don ’ t .
Instead , we see illegal activity leading to gun violence .
The violence is already there , it ’ s just a matter of criminals trying to make sure they ’ re not overpowered by their rivals .
That means using whatever means they can to secure firearms for their illegal vocations .
The fact that some people can ’ t see that is downright baffling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who think Joe Biden is sane and intelligent , so there you go .

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot loves to blame the violence in her city on pretty much everyone but herself or anyone actually in Chicago. Oh no, the fault for that violence comes from states that don’t share similar gun laws to Illinois but also have far less in the way of violence. Her belief, one shared by many, is that these states lack of gun laws are the problem.
There’s even a study trying to claim the same thing.
However, that’s not the issue. They have no trouble getting them in their own states, actually.
See, what happens is that criminals will break whatever laws they have to in order to secure firearms. That includes lying on the gun purchase paperwork.
A 23-year-old Hammond man was charged with making false statements in the purchase of 26 firearms for Chicago residents, officials announced Wednesday. Darryl Ivery Jr. was charged on Aug. 26 following an Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation into “straw purchasers” or those who lie on ATF Form 4473 about their status as legal purchasers of firearms, according to a statement from the United States Department of Justice. Ivery became a person of interest based on a large number of firearms he had purchased, some of which had been recovered by law enforcement, according to the statement. Court records allege that between Jan. 7, 2019, and Aug. 10, 2020, Ivery purchased a minimum of 26 firearms – 9mm, .380, .45, 40 and Glocks – seven of which were taken by various law enforcement agencies, according to the statement. Specifically, six guns were found in Chicago, one of which was recovered at the scene of a shooting, according to the statement. One gun was found by officers in Midlothian, Illinois, according to the criminal complaint.
In other words, Ivery broke the laws there in Illinois to provide guns for others. Despite every gun control law on the books, he still reportedly provided a number of guns to people who couldn’t lawfully buy guns on their own.
In other words, those laws all failed at what they were supposed to do.
They were meant to keep guns out of certain hands, but all it did was provide an opportunity for people with no criminal records to engage in illegal activities for monetary gain. That’s literally all it managed to do.
Meanwhile, Lightfoot and biased researchers will continue to claim that their issues really revolve around the lack of gun control in other states, states that don’t have nearly the same problem with violence that Chicago has.
Frankly, it’s past time for people to wake up and recognize that if guns are the cause of problems, then we’d see increased violence in any place with a high rate of gun ownership. We don’t.
Instead, we see illegal activity leading to gun violence. The violence is already there, it’s just a matter of criminals trying to make sure they’re not overpowered by their rivals.
That means using whatever means they can to secure firearms for their illegal vocations. The fact that some people can’t see that is downright baffling. Then again, there are people who think Joe Biden is sane and intelligent, so there you go.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--A Constitution Day Primer On The Second Amendment

Happy Constitution Day !
It was September 17th , 1787 when delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia put pen to paper and signed the Constitution , and we ’ ve been arguing about its meaning ever since .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , we take a closer look at how the debate over the Constitution helped to create the Second Amendment ( though not the right to keep and bear arms itself ) .
Almost as soon as the text of the Constitution became public , there were fierce debates between those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those who opposed it ( the Anti-Federalists ) , primarily on the grounds that it gave far too much power to the federal government .
Leading intellectuals on both sides took to the pages of our nation ’ s newspapers to argue and debate the merits and drawbacks of the new framework of government , and in January of 1788 , James Madison , writing under the pseudonym “ Publius ” , published what became known as Federalist 46 , in which he wrote approvingly of the right of the people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on any tyranny that might be imposed by the federal government .
Madison ’ s take was that the Constitution itself provided enough checks and balances that tyranny shouldn ’ t be a huge concern for American citizens , but he was willing to game plan what might happen in a worst case scenario .
The fact that Americans possessed the right to bear arms was the final and best guarantee that a tyrannical government would be opposed by the People .
Besides the advantage of being armed , which the Americans possess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation , the existence of subordinate governments , to which the people are attached , and by which the militia officers are appointed , forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition , more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of .
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe , which are carried as far as the public resources will bear , the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms .
And it is not certain , that with this aid alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off their yokes .
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves , who could collect the national will and direct the national force , and of officers appointed out of the militia , by these governments , and attached both to them and to the militia , it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance , that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it .
Many Americans weren ’ t convinced , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights was necessary to secure enough votes to ratify the Constitution .
While it ’ s largely ignored today , the Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes its purpose clear : In other words , We the People maintain a healthy skepticism when it comes to governmental power , and despite the assurances of Federalists , we think it ’ s best that we have a Bill of Rights that restricts the power of the federal government to infringe on our rights .
Note that the Bill of Rights didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It protected pre-existing rights that Americans were concerned about losing , including the right to keep and bear arms .
As for the idea that the Second Amendment only protects some sort of collective right to join a militia , all you have to do is look at some of the state constitutions that were adopted contemporaneously with the U.S. Constitution to see that isn ’ t the case .
Here ’ s what Pennsylvania ’ s 1790 constitution had to say about the bearing arms : James Madison and other Federalists may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ultimately unnecessary , but they didn ’ t dispute the rights that are protected by that document , including our right to keep and bear arms protected ( but not created ) by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .
No matter how much gun control advocates may object , it ’ s clear that that our individual right to keep and bear arms was seen as a fundamental right by the Founding Fathers .
Now it ’ s up to our generation to keep it that way .

Happy Constitution Day! It was September 17th, 1787 when delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia put pen to paper and signed the Constitution, and we’ve been arguing about its meaning ever since. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, we take a closer look at how the debate over the Constitution helped to create the Second Amendment (though not the right to keep and bear arms itself).
Almost as soon as the text of the Constitution became public, there were fierce debates between those that supported ratification (known as Federalists) and those who opposed it (the Anti-Federalists), primarily on the grounds that it gave far too much power to the federal government. Leading intellectuals on both sides took to the pages of our nation’s newspapers to argue and debate the merits and drawbacks of the new framework of government, and in January of 1788, James Madison, writing under the pseudonym “Publius”, published what became known as Federalist 46, in which he wrote approvingly of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check on any tyranny that might be imposed by the federal government.
Madison’s take was that the Constitution itself provided enough checks and balances that tyranny shouldn’t be a huge concern for American citizens, but he was willing to game plan what might happen in a worst case scenario. The fact that Americans possessed the right to bear arms was the final and best guarantee that a tyrannical government would be opposed by the People.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Many Americans weren’t convinced, and ultimately the guarantee of a Bill of Rights was necessary to secure enough votes to ratify the Constitution. While it’s largely ignored today, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes its purpose clear:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
In other words, We the People maintain a healthy skepticism when it comes to governmental power, and despite the assurances of Federalists, we think it’s best that we have a Bill of Rights that restricts the power of the federal government to infringe on our rights.
Note that the Bill of Rights didn’t actually create any rights at all. It protected pre-existing rights that Americans were concerned about losing, including the right to keep and bear arms.
As for the idea that the Second Amendment only protects some sort of collective right to join a militia, all you have to do is look at some of the state constitutions that were adopted contemporaneously with the U.S. Constitution to see that isn’t the case.
Here’s what Pennsylvania’s 1790 constitution had to say about the bearing arms:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Kentucky’s 1792 constitution contained almost identical language:
That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
James Madison and other Federalists may have thought that a Bill of Rights was ultimately unnecessary, but they didn’t dispute the rights that are protected by that document, including our right to keep and bear arms protected (but not created) by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No matter how much gun control advocates may object, it’s clear that that our individual right to keep and bear arms was seen as a fundamental right by the Founding Fathers. Now it’s up to our generation to keep it that way.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--LAPD Academy Gun Store Manager Charged With Stealing Guns

California has the most restrictive set of guns laws in the country .
For the average citizen , certain guns are forbidden , firearms that you or I can just walk into a store and buy .
However , some guns are restricted only for police .
The idea is that police officers are a special class of people and that the laws that apply to we lesser beings shouldn ’ t apply to them .
After all , they ’ re police officers .
Surely they would never break the laws they were sworn to uphold .
We see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , that in Los Angeles–a city that really likes them some gun control–the police academy has its own gun store .
You ’ d think that under those conditions , the LAPD would take special care to make sure the people running that gun store are of the utmost moral fiber , right ?
Well , if they did , it looks like they botched the job .
A former manager of the gun store at the Los Angeles Police Academy has been charged with stealing more than 20 guns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Archi Duenas , 34 , pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges including grand theft of a firearm , grand theft by embezzlement and illegal possession of an assault weapon , according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney ’ s Office .
Duenas also pleaded not guilty to 22 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully selling or transferring a firearm without a license and one misdemeanor count of carrying a loaded and concealed firearm in a vehicle .
None of the police officers and a deputy sheriff who bought guns from him have been charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorized to discuss the investigation , one of the buyers was an LAPD captain .
In February , the LAPD commercial crimes division began investigating the disappearance of at least 35 firearms from the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club gun store , a private organization whose members are law enforcement , after a discrepancy was found in the inventory .
Investigators a month later arrested Duenas .
In the charges , Duenas is accused of taking at least 21 guns during a two-year period beginning in early 2018 , then selling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney ’ s Office .
You ’ d think with all those gun control laws–assuming they worked , of course–there ’ d be something about not stealing guns or selling them illegally .
Oh , wait , there are .
Duenas is alleged to basically have not cared about any of those so long as he could fatten his pockets .
His customers were , apparently , police officers as well .
It seems that the very people charged with enforcing gun laws can ’ t even be bothered to follow them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ private citizens , we all know they ’ d have been hauled in and charged by now .
The truth is that some people will always figure that gun control policies shouldn ’ t apply to them .
From police officers to street-level gangbangers , there will always be those who want a gun and don ’ t really care what the law has to say about it .
It ’ s why gun control is always doomed to fail .
While some might point out that Duenas was arrested , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole lot more people doing the same thing who haven ’ t been caught .
Gun control doesn ’ t work and it never will .
It ’ s past time to give up the delusion .

California has the most restrictive set of guns laws in the country. For the average citizen, certain guns are forbidden, firearms that you or I can just walk into a store and buy.
However, some guns are restricted only for police. The idea is that police officers are a special class of people and that the laws that apply to we lesser beings shouldn’t apply to them. After all, they’re police officers. Surely they would never break the laws they were sworn to uphold.
We see how that worked out.
It seems, though, that in Los Angeles–a city that really likes them some gun control–the police academy has its own gun store. You’d think that under those conditions, the LAPD would take special care to make sure the people running that gun store are of the utmost moral fiber, right?
Well, if they did, it looks like they botched the job.
A former manager of the gun store at the Los Angeles Police Academy has been charged with stealing more than 20 guns and illegally selling them to several officers. Archi Duenas, 34, pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges including grand theft of a firearm, grand theft by embezzlement and illegal possession of an assault weapon, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Duenas also pleaded not guilty to 22 misdemeanor counts of unlawfully selling or transferring a firearm without a license and one misdemeanor count of carrying a loaded and concealed firearm in a vehicle. None of the police officers and a deputy sheriff who bought guns from him have been charged. According to law enforcement sources not authorized to discuss the investigation, one of the buyers was an LAPD captain. In February, the LAPD commercial crimes division began investigating the disappearance of at least 35 firearms from the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club gun store, a private organization whose members are law enforcement, after a discrepancy was found in the inventory. Investigators a month later arrested Duenas. In the charges, Duenas is accused of taking at least 21 guns during a two-year period beginning in early 2018, then selling the guns, according to the District Attorney’s Office.
You’d think with all those gun control laws–assuming they worked, of course–there’d be something about not stealing guns or selling them illegally.
Oh, wait, there are. Duenas is alleged to basically have not cared about any of those so long as he could fatten his pockets.
His customers were, apparently, police officers as well. It seems that the very people charged with enforcing gun laws can’t even be bothered to follow them. Meanwhile, had Duenas sold guns to private citizens, we all know they’d have been hauled in and charged by now.
The truth is that some people will always figure that gun control policies shouldn’t apply to them. From police officers to street-level gangbangers, there will always be those who want a gun and don’t really care what the law has to say about it. It’s why gun control is always doomed to fail.
While some might point out that Duenas was arrested, I have to point out that there are a whole lot more people doing the same thing who haven’t been caught.
Gun control doesn’t work and it never will. It’s past time to give up the delusion.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Teacher Under Fire For Assignment Featuring Kyle Rittenhouse

In a perfect microcosm of today ’ s outrage culture , a Dallas , Texas high school is apologizing after a teacher listed Kyle Rittenhouse as an option for students to write about in an assignment that focused on the concept of a “ hero for the modern age.
” Rittenhouse is , of course , facing murder charges in the deaths of two men in Kenosha , Wisconsin last month during violent protests , but the 17-year old ’ s attorneys have said that he was acting in self-defense .
In fact , Rittenhouse wasn ’ t the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was listed by the teacher as a possible “ hero.
” Joseph Rosenbaum , who was killed by Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum began chasing him , was another option for students to choose from .
Actually , going through the list of possible heroes , virtually all of them are controversial to one degree or another .
Mahatma Gandhi was on the list , even though statues of the leader of Indian independence from the United Kingdom have been vandalized in recent months and critics have issued calls for other statutes be removed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Malcolm X , George Floyd were the other potential “ heroes ” that students could choose to write about , and it ’ s not difficult to find critics of any of them , including George Floyd .
In other words , it sounds like the teacher was intentionally trying to make students choose between controversial figures as they wrote about their concept of a hero .
Rather than viewing the assignment as an exercise in critical thinking , however , some students and parents have simply deemed the whole thing unacceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relative of one of the students who complained .
Concerned about retaliation , she only wanted her first name — “ Kristian ” used .
She said there is just so much wrong with the assignment and believes that the teacher can not be trusted in a position of authority over students .
“ From the spelling , to the grammar , no women on the list… and then a white supremacist murderer , ” she said , questioning the teacher ’ s character .
I ’ ve yet to see any evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but to folks like Kristian facts apparently aren ’ t nearly as important as the narrative that the Left has created surrounding the shootings in Kenosha .
Yes , the spelling errors and the grammatical mistakes on the part of the teacher are embarrassing , but they ’ re not nearly as mortifying as the reaction from those who took offense , including the Dallas Independent School District itself , which issued this statement .
“ An unapproved assignment posted in Google Classroom yesterday has been brought to our attention .
Understandably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted students , and we apologize .
Campus administration immediately removed the unapproved content and students are not required to complete that assignment .
Due to personnel policies , we are not able to comment further , however , the appropriate steps are being followed pending investigation .
Racial equity is a top priority in Dallas ISD , and we remain committed to providing a robust teaching environment where all students can learn .
It is important that we continue to be culturally sensitive to our diverse populations and provide a space of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect , the job of the Dallas ISD and every educator employed by the district is to ensure that students graduate with not only the basic foundations of a good education , but also the critical thinking skills necessary to help them throughout their lives .
As much as some parents and students may be loath to acknowledge the fact , some people do see Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero .
Others see Joseph Rosenbaum as a hero .
There ’ s also a fairly large contingent of Americans who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but see them as two sides of the same coin .
The Dallas ISD appears more interested in ensuring a sanitized education devoid of any controversy rather than challenging students to explain and support their ideas .
Was this the greatest assignment any teacher ’ s ever come up with ?
No .
Should the teacher be punished or disciplined for it ?
Once again , no .
The freak out on the part of grown adults , including professional educators , is the most disheartening part of this entire story .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t any to be found in the district ’ s decision-makers .

In a perfect microcosm of today’s outrage culture, a Dallas, Texas high school is apologizing after a teacher listed Kyle Rittenhouse as an option for students to write about in an assignment that focused on the concept of a “hero for the modern age.”
Rittenhouse is, of course, facing murder charges in the deaths of two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin last month during violent protests, but the 17-year old’s attorneys have said that he was acting in self-defense. In fact, Rittenhouse wasn’t the only person connected to the Kenosha shootings who was listed by the teacher as a possible “hero.” Joseph Rosenbaum, who was killed by Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum began chasing him, was another option for students to choose from.
Actually, going through the list of possible heroes, virtually all of them are controversial to one degree or another. Mahatma Gandhi was on the list, even though statues of the leader of Indian independence from the United Kingdom have been vandalized in recent months and critics have issued calls for other statutes be removed from campuses and public squares. César Chávez, Malcolm X, George Floyd were the other potential “heroes” that students could choose to write about, and it’s not difficult to find critics of any of them, including George Floyd.
In other words, it sounds like the teacher was intentionally trying to make students choose between controversial figures as they wrote about their concept of a hero. Rather than viewing the assignment as an exercise in critical thinking, however, some students and parents have simply deemed the whole thing unacceptable.
CBS 11 News spoke to a relative of one of the students who complained. Concerned about retaliation, she only wanted her first name — “Kristian” used. She said there is just so much wrong with the assignment and believes that the teacher cannot be trusted in a position of authority over students. “From the spelling, to the grammar, no women on the list… and then a white supremacist murderer,” she said, questioning the teacher’s character.
I’ve yet to see any evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, but to folks like Kristian facts apparently aren’t nearly as important as the narrative that the Left has created surrounding the shootings in Kenosha.
Yes, the spelling errors and the grammatical mistakes on the part of the teacher are embarrassing, but they’re not nearly as mortifying as the reaction from those who took offense, including the Dallas Independent School District itself, which issued this statement.
“An unapproved assignment posted in Google Classroom yesterday has been brought to our attention. Understandably, this caused some concern for the impacted students, and we apologize. Campus administration immediately removed the unapproved content and students are not required to complete that assignment. Due to personnel policies, we are not able to comment further, however, the appropriate steps are being followed pending investigation. Racial equity is a top priority in Dallas ISD, and we remain committed to providing a robust teaching environment where all students can learn. It is important that we continue to be culturally sensitive to our diverse populations and provide a space of respect and value.”
With all due respect, the job of the Dallas ISD and every educator employed by the district is to ensure that students graduate with not only the basic foundations of a good education, but also the critical thinking skills necessary to help them throughout their lives. As much as some parents and students may be loath to acknowledge the fact, some people do see Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero. Others see Joseph Rosenbaum as a hero. There’s also a fairly large contingent of Americans who don’t view either one in heroic terms, but see them as two sides of the same coin.
The Dallas ISD appears more interested in ensuring a sanitized education devoid of any controversy rather than challenging students to explain and support their ideas. Was this the greatest assignment any teacher’s ever come up with? No. Should the teacher be punished or disciplined for it? Once again, no. The freak out on the part of grown adults, including professional educators, is the most disheartening part of this entire story. In a story about heroes, there aren’t any to be found in the district’s decision-makers.


bearingarms--2020-09-17--Bloomberg's Insane Bid To Shape Florida's Elections

We all know that Michael Bloomberg may have held office as a Republican , but his claimed party affiliation had absolutely no bearing on how he governed New York .
Further , since leaving office , he ’ s routinely been knee-deep in trying to cram New York-style gun control down the rest of the country ’ s throat .
That desire is behind his latest move , where he ’ s hoping to shift Florida ’ s political landscape completely .
When billionaire Mike Bloomberg ended his presidential campaign in March , he pledged to spend “ whatever it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
Less than two months before the election , he ’ s finally coming through .
Facing questions about whether he would fulfill his promise , Bloomberg over the weekend moved to direct $ 100 million to Florida alone in support of Joe Biden .
It ’ s a massive sum on par with the resources he poured into helping Democrats retake the House in 2018 and could put Trump on defense in a state that is critical to his reelection .
Billionaire donors have long played a central role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has proposed pumping in so much cash to support a presidential campaign in a single state .
Bloomberg ’ s allies say the investment is in line with his longtime strategy in business and politics : to make the most impactful investment , based on the best data , at the right time .
“ Mike Bloomberg is an impact player , ” said former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter , who served as a co-chair of Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign .
“ He ’ s looking across the field .
He takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evidence , does the analysis and then determines where to best have his impact to change the course of an election .
That ’ s why he decided to invest so heavily in Florida.
” Of course , I would be .
See , the problem as I see it is that his push in 2018 was targeted to particular House races .
Those deal with more local politics , so even a very red state can have a few districts that flip blue with enough money pumped into the area .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state or nation that way ?
It ’ s not particularly likely .
After all , vast resources were dropped in Florida in 2018 , particularly from anti-gun folks like Bloomberg .
After all , Parkland shook the state deeply .
Many believed it was the time to turn the state blue .
Nikki Fried was the only Democrat to win state-wide office and she only won because her opponent was somewhat scandal-ridden .
There just wasn ’ t any kind of support for Democrats despite the recent horrors of a high-profile school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it , I ’ m not sure even a $ 100 million effort is going to do all that much .
Especially not in light of the Democrats failure to deal with rioting in numerous cities and Biden ’ s refusal to condemn it until polling told him the riots weren ’ t playing well with people .
Of course , that doesn ’ t mean anyone should be cocky about it .
That ’ s how Virginia fell to the anti-gunners , after all .
Everyone just assumed all would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
Instead , it ’ s time to rally the troops , so to speak and make it clear that Florida isn ’ t interested in New York meddling .
Then again , I ’ d really like to know at what point it counts as buying Joe Biden .
If the NRA is buying lawmakers for a few thousand in donations , this has got to be an attempt to buy a presidential candidate .

We all know that Michael Bloomberg may have held office as a Republican, but his claimed party affiliation had absolutely no bearing on how he governed New York. Further, since leaving office, he’s routinely been knee-deep in trying to cram New York-style gun control down the rest of the country’s throat.
That desire is behind his latest move, where he’s hoping to shift Florida’s political landscape completely.
When billionaire Mike Bloomberg ended his presidential campaign in March, he pledged to spend “whatever it takes” to help Democrats defeat President Donald Trump. Less than two months before the election, he’s finally coming through. Facing questions about whether he would fulfill his promise, Bloomberg over the weekend moved to direct $100 million to Florida alone in support of Joe Biden. It’s a massive sum on par with the resources he poured into helping Democrats retake the House in 2018 and could put Trump on defense in a state that is critical to his reelection. Billionaire donors have long played a central role in supporting both parties. Yet no one has proposed pumping in so much cash to support a presidential campaign in a single state. Bloomberg’s allies say the investment is in line with his longtime strategy in business and politics: to make the most impactful investment, based on the best data, at the right time. “Mike Bloomberg is an impact player,” said former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who served as a co-chair of Bloomberg’s presidential campaign. “He’s looking across the field. He takes in the data. He looks at the evidence, does the analysis and then determines where to best have his impact to change the course of an election. That’s why he decided to invest so heavily in Florida.”
I’m unconvinced.
Of course, I would be.
See, the problem as I see it is that his push in 2018 was targeted to particular House races. Those deal with more local politics, so even a very red state can have a few districts that flip blue with enough money pumped into the area.
But to try and influence an entire state or nation that way? It’s not particularly likely.
After all, vast resources were dropped in Florida in 2018, particularly from anti-gun folks like Bloomberg. After all, Parkland shook the state deeply. Many believed it was the time to turn the state blue.
It didn’t.
Nikki Fried was the only Democrat to win state-wide office and she only won because her opponent was somewhat scandal-ridden. There just wasn’t any kind of support for Democrats despite the recent horrors of a high-profile school shooting.
If that didn’t do it, I’m not sure even a $100 million effort is going to do all that much. Especially not in light of the Democrats failure to deal with rioting in numerous cities and Biden’s refusal to condemn it until polling told him the riots weren’t playing well with people.
Of course, that doesn’t mean anyone should be cocky about it. That’s how Virginia fell to the anti-gunners, after all. Everyone just assumed all would be well and we see how that worked out. Instead, it’s time to rally the troops, so to speak and make it clear that Florida isn’t interested in New York meddling.
Then again, I’d really like to know at what point it counts as buying Joe Biden. If the NRA is buying lawmakers for a few thousand in donations, this has got to be an attempt to buy a presidential candidate.