bearingarms--2020-10-29--MI Attorney General: Guns At Capitol "A Stain Upon Our State"

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel isn ’ t having a great week .
Days after she declared that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson could impose a ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling places , a judge overruled her decision , finding that Benson doesn ’ t have the authority to implement such a ban .
Nessel has appealed the decision , but given the fact that neither she nor Benson have actually been able to point to anything in state law that empowers the Secretary of State to unilaterally impose a ban , she ’ s facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process of trying to ban guns , she ’ s ended up creating a situation where some folks are going to carry just because they ’ ve been told they can ’ t .
This isn ’ t the first professional embarrassment for Nessel when it comes to the Second Amendment .
The Attorney General has been arguing for months that the Michigan State Capitol Commission should ban firearms from the capitol grounds and buildings , but so far the commission itself says it ’ s actually the legislature that should take that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over in a recent interview with the Michigan Advance , where she lashed out at the “ cowards ” who are keeping the gun ban at bay .
You know , I am a lifelong Michigander .
I love the state of Michigan .
I love its people .
I am proud of this state .
But some of these policies , they are just a stain upon our state .
We are a national embarrassment when it comes to these types of policies .
People are likely being deterred from running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] because their safety can not be protected in any way , shape or form the way any other worker in the state [ is ] .
You can sue your employer otherwise .
If you worked in an office , if you worked at a factory , if you worked at a plant and your employer refused to protect you from armed gunmen and refused to protect you from COVID , you could sue them .
And you might come away with a really substantial judgment in your favor .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming that any office or factory that didn ’ t bar the legal carrying of firearms could be successfully sued as a result .
Obviously that ’ s a novel legal theory , and one that would hold up as well in court as Nessel ’ s claims that Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer didn ’ t violate the state constitution with her coronavirus-related executive orders ( the state Supreme Court rejected Whitmer and Nessel ’ s arguments in a 4-3 decision earlier this month ) .
I think it ’ s time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actually a problem creator , not a problem solver .
Her legal philosophy of empowering state officials at the expense of the rights of residents have been repeatedly rejected over the past few weeks by courts and commissions alike .
In each case , Nessel has insisted that she ’ s in the right and judges , legislators , police chiefs , sheriffs , and Capitol Commission members are in the wrong .
When I hear the ridiculous statements of , ‘ Oh , well , they could still potentially do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if you had security stopping them from coming in ’ — well , we don ’ t use that rationale at courthouses .
I ’ ve been working in courthouses my entire career .
We very , very , very rarely have an incident where somebody is able to get a gun into a courthouse .
It almost never happens .
And I can tell you right now , the reason for that is because you have metal detectors and because you have security for it .
And could people potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen .
Does it happen ?
Almost never .
Nessel ’ s argument for a gun ban in the state capitol is that without it , it ’ s “ only a matter of time ” before armed insurgents “ take out an entire chamber of legislators in a minute.
” Declaring the capitol complex a gun-free zone , however , would thwart those would-be terrorists , who apparently wouldn ’ t dare to violate a rule prohibiting firearms in the capitol even though in her scenario they would be prepared to commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crazy to me too .
I ’ d probably be frustrated too if my novel legal theories kept getting rejected by judges , law enforcement , and lawmakers , but at some point I ’ d like to think I ’ d be self-aware enough to acknowledge that maybe I ’ m part of the problem instead of being part of the solution .
I ’ ve seen no evidence that Nessel ’ s ready to take that step , even though it would be the right move for herself and the state @

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel isn’t having a great week. Days after she declared that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson could impose a ban on openly carried firearms at or near polling places, a judge overruled her decision, finding that Benson doesn’t have the authority to implement such a ban.
Nessel has appealed the decision, but given the fact that neither she nor Benson have actually been able to point to anything in state law that empowers the Secretary of State to unilaterally impose a ban, she’s facing long odds of success. In the process of trying to ban guns, she’s ended up creating a situation where some folks are going to carry just because they’ve been told they can’t.
This isn’t the first professional embarrassment for Nessel when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Attorney General has been arguing for months that the Michigan State Capitol Commission should ban firearms from the capitol grounds and buildings, but so far the commission itself says it’s actually the legislature that should take that step. Nessel’s frustration boiled over in a recent interview with the Michigan Advance, where she lashed out at the “cowards” who are keeping the gun ban at bay.
You know, I am a lifelong Michigander. I love the state of Michigan. I love its people. I am proud of this state. But some of these policies, they are just a stain upon our state. We are a national embarrassment when it comes to these types of policies. People are likely being deterred from running for these seats [in the state Legislature] because their safety cannot be protected in any way, shape or form the way any other worker in the state [is]. You can sue your employer otherwise. If you worked in an office, if you worked at a factory, if you worked at a plant and your employer refused to protect you from armed gunmen and refused to protect you from COVID, you could sue them. And you might come away with a really substantial judgment in your favor.
This is an absolutely absurd argument. Nessel is claiming that any office or factory that didn’t bar the legal carrying of firearms could be successfully sued as a result. Obviously that’s a novel legal theory, and one that would hold up as well in court as Nessel’s claims that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer didn’t violate the state constitution with her coronavirus-related executive orders (the state Supreme Court rejected Whitmer and Nessel’s arguments in a 4-3 decision earlier this month).
I think it’s time for Nessel to consider the possibility that she’s actually a problem creator, not a problem solver. Her legal philosophy of empowering state officials at the expense of the rights of residents have been repeatedly rejected over the past few weeks by courts and commissions alike. In each case, Nessel has insisted that she’s in the right and judges, legislators, police chiefs, sheriffs, and Capitol Commission members are in the wrong.
When I hear the ridiculous statements of, ‘Oh, well, they could still potentially do something even if you had metal detectors, even if you had security stopping them from coming in’ — well, we don’t use that rationale at courthouses. I’ve been working in courthouses my entire career. We very, very, very rarely have an incident where somebody is able to get a gun into a courthouse. It almost never happens. And I can tell you right now, the reason for that is because you have metal detectors and because you have security for it. And could people potentially barge in? I guess it could happen. Does it happen? Almost never.
Nessel’s argument for a gun ban in the state capitol is that without it, it’s “only a matter of time” before armed insurgents “take out an entire chamber of legislators in a minute.” Declaring the capitol complex a gun-free zone, however, would thwart those would-be terrorists, who apparently wouldn’t dare to violate a rule prohibiting firearms in the capitol even though in her scenario they would be prepared to commit mass murder.
Yeah, that sounds crazy to me too.
I’d probably be frustrated too if my novel legal theories kept getting rejected by judges, law enforcement, and lawmakers, but at some point I’d like to think I’d be self-aware enough to acknowledge that maybe I’m part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. I’ve seen no evidence that Nessel’s ready to take that step, even though it would be the right move for herself and the state.


bearingarms--2020-10-29--Heroes Who Took On Church Shooters Now Take On Biden

While there are still people who are trying to claim that Joe Biden won ’ t take away our guns , they ’ re generally people who don ’ t know what the hell they ’ re talking about .
Biden is part of a large number of Americans who live in the deluded belief that firearms don ’ t make us any safer , that gun control is the only thing that can stop something like a mass shooting .
Meanwhile , two actual individuals who have stopped mass shootings have decided to step up and offer their take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we get too deep on this , though , I should mention that Stephen Williford will be on Cam & Company this Friday , so be sure to check that out .
Both of these men have stopped church shootings in Texas .
Jack Wilson engaged the Sutherland Springs shooter after he exited the church , eventually pursuing the killer .
Williford is known for putting down the attempted mass shooter at a church in White Settlement , TX .
These are the “ good guys with guns ” we tell you about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this simply don ’ t exist .
To that , Willeford asks , “ If it was Hunter Biden and your wife and family sitting in those pews at that church , would you still not want me to have this gun to protect them with ?
” Of course , we all know the answer , though I doubt Biden will provide it .
“ I put a terrorist down in a matter of seconds with this gun , and it ’ s not even a weapon of war or whatever that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know what Joe told me ?
That I shouldn ’ t have been armed in that church.
” And it ’ s not just Biden .
There are a lot of people who are pushing policies that would have seen Willeford disarmed .
Their policies would have resulted in a lot of people dying .
Oh , some would argue that he wouldn ’ t need that gun if people couldn ’ t bring firearms into a church , but that ’ s just insane thinking .
Unless a church is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to taking a seat in the pews , there ’ s literally no way to stop it .
Laws against guns in church will stop a mass shooter about as well as laws against murder have .
Wilson noted , “ I am very sad in the loss of two dear friends and brothers in Christ , but evil does exist in this world and I and other members are not going to allow evil to succeed.
” Frankly , that ’ s how a lot of us feel .
Evil exists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
There ’ s no pie-in-the-sky policy that will make it go away , either .
All you can do is prepare yourself should you be unfortunate enough to come face to face with it .
Jack Wilson and Stephen Williford did .
They looked evil right in the eye and went to war with it .
As Edmund Burke noted , “ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
” These two men didn ’ t stand by and let evil triumph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden wants to make it so they can ’ t do anything ever again .

While there are still people who are trying to claim that Joe Biden won’t take away our guns, they’re generally people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Biden is part of a large number of Americans who live in the deluded belief that firearms don’t make us any safer, that gun control is the only thing that can stop something like a mass shooting.
Meanwhile, two actual individuals who have stopped mass shootings have decided to step up and offer their take on Biden’s policies.
Jack Wilson and Stephen Willeford both stopped church shootings in Texas with their guns. That’s right, they’re those good guys with guns they talk about. Now they’re back with an important message: to blow your mind with how INSANE Joe Biden’s gun control plan is. pic.twitter.com/8ILoId3GBt — NRA (@NRA) October 27, 2020
Before we get too deep on this, though, I should mention that Stephen Williford will be on Cam & Company this Friday, so be sure to check that out.
Both of these men have stopped church shootings in Texas. Jack Wilson engaged the Sutherland Springs shooter after he exited the church, eventually pursuing the killer. Williford is known for putting down the attempted mass shooter at a church in White Settlement, TX.
These are the “good guys with guns” we tell you about, yet Joe Biden says guys like this simply don’t exist.
To that, Willeford asks, “If it was Hunter Biden and your wife and family sitting in those pews at that church, would you still not want me to have this gun to protect them with?”
Of course, we all know the answer, though I doubt Biden will provide it.
“I put a terrorist down in a matter of seconds with this gun, and it’s not even a weapon of war or whatever that means,” Williford added. “You know what Joe told me? That I shouldn’t have been armed in that church.”
And it’s not just Biden. There are a lot of people who are pushing policies that would have seen Willeford disarmed. Their policies would have resulted in a lot of people dying.
Oh, some would argue that he wouldn’t need that gun if people couldn’t bring firearms into a church, but that’s just insane thinking. Unless a church is going to make everyone walk through metal detectors prior to taking a seat in the pews, there’s literally no way to stop it. Laws against guns in church will stop a mass shooter about as well as laws against murder have.
Wilson noted, “I am very sad in the loss of two dear friends and brothers in Christ, but evil does exist in this world and I and other members are not going to allow evil to succeed.”
Frankly, that’s how a lot of us feel. Evil exists. There’s no way around that. There’s no pie-in-the-sky policy that will make it go away, either. All you can do is prepare yourself should you be unfortunate enough to come face to face with it.
Jack Wilson and Stephen Williford did. They looked evil right in the eye and went to war with it.
As Edmund Burke noted, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” These two men didn’t stand by and let evil triumph. They did something.
Now, Joe Biden wants to make it so they can’t do anything ever again.


bearingarms--2020-10-30--This Texas Hero Has An Election Message For Gun Owners

Stephen Willeford faced down evil when he used his AR-15 rifle to help stop the attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs , TX in 2017 .
Now he ’ s using his voice and his vote to defend the Second Amendment against the threat posed by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
Willeford is my guest on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , and he was fired up from the moment we began our conversation with a question about Joe Biden ’ s proposed gun and magazine ban .
As Willeford rightly pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand the AR-15 and magazines that he used to to stop a mass murderer over to the federal government , or else pay $ 200 per gun and magazine to Uncle Sam with a politician ’ s promise that Willeford will get to keep his guns just as long as he registers them with the government .
Every four years we hear that “ this is the most important election , ” acknowledged Willeford , but that ’ s because it ’ s generally true .
Maybe at some point in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely aligned and elections matter less , but that ’ s certainly not the case when it comes to the Second Amendment this election year .
There ’ s a clear contrast between the platforms of Donald Trump and Joe Biden when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms .
Trump ’ s vowing to protect it , while Biden ’ s promising to limit it .
Willeford told me that back in 2016 , he cast his vote as more of a protest against Hillary Clinton than a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was skeptical of Trump ’ s campaign promises , but Willeford says he believes that Trump has delivered ; from increased border security to appointing judges and ( three ! )
Supreme Court justices who acknowledge that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and shouldn ’ t be treated as such by lawmakers .
Donald Trump has earned Stephen Willeford ’ s vote in 2020 , and he says it ’ s critically important for gun owners to join him .
Willeford just returned from stumping for Trump in Pennsylvania , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state told him that in 2016 , some 600,000 gun owners in Pennsylvania didn ’ t vote .
Trump won the state by less than 45,000 votes out of more than 6,000,000 cast .
Now , not every one of those gun owners would have voted for Trump , but if Trump had gotten 60 % of those votes , he would have added another 140,000 votes to his lead in the state .
And if those 600,000 voters were to go to the polls next Tuesday , they could easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Pennsylvania this year .
As we began to wrap up the conversation , Willeford brought up Ronald Reagan ’ s famous “ A Time for Choosing ” speech from 1964 , in which Reagan said : “ Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction .
We didn ’ t pass it to our children in the bloodstream .
It must be fought for , protected and handed on for them to do the same , or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once like in the United States where men were free.
” As Willeford told me , he doesn ’ t want to be the generation that loses freedom for his children and his children ’ s children .
It ’ s why he ’ s traveling around the country instead of hunkering down at home with his family , why he ’ s speaking out about the stark choices and deep divides of this election , and why he ’ s casting his vote for Donald Trump .

Stephen Willeford faced down evil when he used his AR-15 rifle to help stop the attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX in 2017. Now he’s using his voice and his vote to defend the Second Amendment against the threat posed by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Willeford is my guest on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, and he was fired up from the moment we began our conversation with a question about Joe Biden’s proposed gun and magazine ban. As Willeford rightly pointed out, Biden would require him to hand the AR-15 and magazines that he used to to stop a mass murderer over to the federal government, or else pay $200 per gun and magazine to Uncle Sam with a politician’s promise that Willeford will get to keep his guns just as long as he registers them with the government.
Every four years we hear that “this is the most important election,” acknowledged Willeford, but that’s because it’s generally true. Maybe at some point in the future our two political parties will be more closely aligned and elections matter less, but that’s certainly not the case when it comes to the Second Amendment this election year. There’s a clear contrast between the platforms of Donald Trump and Joe Biden when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Trump’s vowing to protect it, while Biden’s promising to limit it.
Willeford told me that back in 2016, he cast his vote as more of a protest against Hillary Clinton than a vote in favor of Donald Trump. He was skeptical of Trump’s campaign promises, but Willeford says he believes that Trump has delivered; from increased border security to appointing judges and (three!) Supreme Court justices who acknowledge that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and shouldn’t be treated as such by lawmakers.
Donald Trump has earned Stephen Willeford’s vote in 2020, and he says it’s critically important for gun owners to join him. Willeford just returned from stumping for Trump in Pennsylvania, and he says a Republican campaign operative in the state told him that in 2016, some 600,000 gun owners in Pennsylvania didn’t vote. Trump won the state by less than 45,000 votes out of more than 6,000,000 cast.
Now, not every one of those gun owners would have voted for Trump, but if Trump had gotten 60% of those votes, he would have added another 140,000 votes to his lead in the state. And if those 600,000 voters were to go to the polls next Tuesday, they could easily provide the margin of victory for Trump in Pennsylvania this year.
As we began to wrap up the conversation, Willeford brought up Ronald Reagan’s famous “A Time for Choosing” speech from 1964, in which Reagan said:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
As Willeford told me, he doesn’t want to be the generation that loses freedom for his children and his children’s children. It’s why he’s traveling around the country instead of hunkering down at home with his family, why he’s speaking out about the stark choices and deep divides of this election, and why he’s casting his vote for Donald Trump.


bearingarms--2020-10-30--This is Why Many On The Right Are Down With Colleges

A while back on our sister site , Townhall , I noted that I ’ d really rather my son not attend college .
I ’ d actually prefer him to go to trade school or something of that sort .
Of course , he went to college .
For what he ended up majoring in , accounting , there really isn ’ t a viable option for him unless he went to college .
However , some people have wondered just what the hell was wrong with me and why so many others on the right are down on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand that colleges have a deep progressive bias .
They ’ re anti-gun and anti-freedom .
Don ’ t believe me ?
Well , explain this one , then .
On the school ’ s website , Brandeis University in Massachusetts highlighted a song inspired by the gun debate .
Written by Professor of Music Eric Chasalow and titled “ Ghost of John William , Chasalow explained on the website that he “ wrote the song out of a deep sense of frustration and exhaustion.
” “ It is crystal clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” claimed Chasalow in the description on the school ’ s website .
“ The deeply entrenched , well-financed gun-rights movement is , at its core , a fear-driven , reactionary institution for maintaining our racist and classist power-structure.
” Now , understand that Chasalow has a right to believe anything he wants .
His academic freedom means that making a song like this shouldn ’ t impact his job .
I ’ m fine with all that .
My problem is that Brandeis University went beyond permitting this and entered into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a blatantly political message that many of their students and alumni vehemently disagree with , but Brandeis simply doesn ’ t care .
Many , if not most , pro-gun students find themselves in a hostile environment .
A study released earlier this month notes that 72 percent of conservative college students self-censor themselves out of fear .
One of the issues people censor themselves on is their support for gun rights .
Colleges and universities are hostile toward even the idea of pro-gun students .
In fact , even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearm has been enough to trigger meltdowns .
Yet they don ’ t even blink about promoting the opposite side , glorifying it with every fiber of their being .
Now , if you can ’ t see the hypocritical nature of what ’ s going on , then your head is completely stuck in the sand .
The average American university isn ’ t nearly as interested in educating our young people on how to think , but what to think .
When my son can come home and tell me which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no classes in politics , there ’ s a problem .
When students can be punished for their lawful actions with firearms away from campus and yet the colleges will celebrate anti-gun efforts , it ’ s kind of hard to think they ’ re anything but pushing an agenda .
Remember that David Hogg was turned down at every college he applied to before his activism kicked into gear .
Afterward , he got into Harvard .
The Ivy League schools pretend they ’ re the elite , that they only take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chance to take a state-college reject because he held the right opinions about guns .
Yeah , the reason so many pro-gun folks are down on colleges is an absolute and total mystery , ain ’ t it ?

A while back on our sister site, Townhall, I noted that I’d really rather my son not attend college. I’d actually prefer him to go to trade school or something of that sort. Of course, he went to college. For what he ended up majoring in, accounting, there really isn’t a viable option for him unless he went to college.
However, some people have wondered just what the hell was wrong with me and why so many others on the right are down on colleges.
They don’t seem to understand that colleges have a deep progressive bias. They’re anti-gun and anti-freedom.
Don’t believe me? Well, explain this one, then.
On the school’s website, Brandeis University in Massachusetts highlighted a song inspired by the gun debate. Written by Professor of Music Eric Chasalow and titled “Ghost of John William, Chasalow explained on the website that he “wrote the song out of a deep sense of frustration and exhaustion.” “It is crystal clear that gun rights and white supremacy are intertwined,” claimed Chasalow in the description on the school’s website. “The deeply entrenched, well-financed gun-rights movement is, at its core, a fear-driven, reactionary institution for maintaining our racist and classist power-structure.”
Now, understand that Chasalow has a right to believe anything he wants. His academic freedom means that making a song like this shouldn’t impact his job. I’m fine with all that.
My problem is that Brandeis University went beyond permitting this and entered into the realm of glorifying it. It’s a blatantly political message that many of their students and alumni vehemently disagree with, but Brandeis simply doesn’t care.
This, however, isn’t unusual. It’s typical.
Many, if not most, pro-gun students find themselves in a hostile environment. A study released earlier this month notes that 72 percent of conservative college students self-censor themselves out of fear. One of the issues people censor themselves on is their support for gun rights. Colleges and universities are hostile toward even the idea of pro-gun students.
In fact, even the mere photograph of a student holding a firearm has been enough to trigger meltdowns.
Yet they don’t even blink about promoting the opposite side, glorifying it with every fiber of their being. Now, if you can’t see the hypocritical nature of what’s going on, then your head is completely stuck in the sand.
The average American university isn’t nearly as interested in educating our young people on how to think, but what to think. When my son can come home and tell me which teachers are commies or SJWs while taking no classes in politics, there’s a problem. When students can be punished for their lawful actions with firearms away from campus and yet the colleges will celebrate anti-gun efforts, it’s kind of hard to think they’re anything but pushing an agenda.
Remember that David Hogg was turned down at every college he applied to before his activism kicked into gear. Afterward, he got into Harvard. The Ivy League schools pretend they’re the elite, that they only take the best, yet they jumped at the chance to take a state-college reject because he held the right opinions about guns.
Yeah, the reason so many pro-gun folks are down on colleges is an absolute and total mystery, ain’t it?


bearingarms--2020-10-30--MI Gun Sales Suggest Good News For Trump

In Tuesday ’ s election , one group that ’ s been deemed critical are so-called suburban moms .
Basically , white , middle-class women with families who live outside but near larger cities .
These women tend to vote Democrat much of the time .
They don ’ t always , though , and that makes them a critical swing demographic .
If you can get them to side with your guy over the other guys , you ’ ve got a good chance of taking a state , especially a state where the city and rural numbers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speculation surrounding a Trump defeat has hinged on many of these suburban moms simply not liking the president .
In fairness , the guy is loud and brash and it ’ s easy to dislike him .
My favorite part about the man is that he pisses off the people I want to see get pissed off , so it ’ s not hard to understand that he ’ s also pushing other people ’ s buttons as well .
However , recent developments may have pushed those voters past any inherent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make them vote Republican .
That would be the riots .
Lisa Mayo owns Flashpoint Firearms in Comstock Park , Michigan , just a few miles north of Grand Rapids .
She said her biggest sales day occurred after rioting in downtown Grand Rapids the night after a George Floyd protest took place .
WOOD TV reported that the Grand Rapids Police Department headquarters was tagged with expletives .
Storefront windows were smashed .
Properties were destroyed .
Police cruisers were torched .
An estimated $ 2.4 million in damage was done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her new customers “ were scared ” after the riots in May .
“ There was a lot of single mothers that were coming in , never would have believed in their whole entire life that they would own a firearm , and they came to my store and said they need to protect themselves , but more importantly , their children.
” Mayo said a “ significant portion ” of her customers are from the city of Grand Rapids and poor .
“ They ’ re fearing for their lives , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 350 price range , ” she said .
Now , take that fear and pass it up the chain .
Suburban housewives may already live in homes with firearms present , so they wouldn ’ t need to buy them .
Yeah , it ’ s speculation , but let ’ s also remember that poorer single mothers tend to vote Democrat as well , and they ’ re now buying guns .
In fact , they ’ re typically a more solid Democrat voting block than suburban housewives who are just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth of the matter is that while President Trump has been trying to address the riots , Democrats throughout the nation have been siding with the rioters .
It wasn ’ t until polling data showed the riots weren ’ t popular that we saw former Vice President Joe Biden speak out against them .
Don ’ t think for a moment that doesn ’ t play a factor .
Now , in fairness , the above quote is anecdote , not data .
It may well not translate throughout the nation by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I can ’ t help but wonder just how universal this might be .
After all , we saw riots in pretty much every state .
Riots were everywhere on the news and the media covering for them as “ mostly peaceful ” protests didn ’ t likely play well with a lot of folks .
It should be interesting to see how this all plays out on Tuesday .

In Tuesday’s election, one group that’s been deemed critical are so-called suburban moms. Basically, white, middle-class women with families who live outside but near larger cities. These women tend to vote Democrat much of the time. They don’t always, though, and that makes them a critical swing demographic. If you can get them to side with your guy over the other guys, you’ve got a good chance of taking a state, especially a state where the city and rural numbers have some measure of parity.
Much of the speculation surrounding a Trump defeat has hinged on many of these suburban moms simply not liking the president. In fairness, the guy is loud and brash and it’s easy to dislike him. My favorite part about the man is that he pisses off the people I want to see get pissed off, so it’s not hard to understand that he’s also pushing other people’s buttons as well.
That would include suburban moms.
However, recent developments may have pushed those voters past any inherent dislike of President Trump as a person and make them vote Republican. That would be the riots.
Lisa Mayo owns Flashpoint Firearms in Comstock Park, Michigan, just a few miles north of Grand Rapids. She said her biggest sales day occurred after rioting in downtown Grand Rapids the night after a George Floyd protest took place. WOOD TV reported that the Grand Rapids Police Department headquarters was tagged with expletives. Storefront windows were smashed. Properties were destroyed. Police cruisers were torched. An estimated $2.4 million in damage was done, according to Mlive. Mayo said her new customers “were scared” after the riots in May. “There was a lot of single mothers that were coming in, never would have believed in their whole entire life that they would own a firearm, and they came to my store and said they need to protect themselves, but more importantly, their children.” Mayo said a “significant portion” of her customers are from the city of Grand Rapids and poor. “They’re fearing for their lives, and their budget is around that $200-$350 price range,” she said.
Now, take that fear and pass it up the chain. Suburban housewives may already live in homes with firearms present, so they wouldn’t need to buy them.
Yeah, it’s speculation, but let’s also remember that poorer single mothers tend to vote Democrat as well, and they’re now buying guns. In fact, they’re typically a more solid Democrat voting block than suburban housewives who are just as freaked by the riots.
The truth of the matter is that while President Trump has been trying to address the riots, Democrats throughout the nation have been siding with the rioters. It wasn’t until polling data showed the riots weren’t popular that we saw former Vice President Joe Biden speak out against them.
Don’t think for a moment that doesn’t play a factor.
Now, in fairness, the above quote is anecdote, not data. It may well not translate throughout the nation by any stretch of the imagination. However, I can’t help but wonder just how universal this might be. After all, we saw riots in pretty much every state. Riots were everywhere on the news and the media covering for them as “mostly peaceful” protests didn’t likely play well with a lot of folks.
It should be interesting to see how this all plays out on Tuesday.


bearingarms--2020-10-30--NSSF Vows To Fight CAs Microstamping 2.0 Law

California ’ s microstamping law was first put on the books in 2012 , and since then virtually no new models of handguns have been available for sale in the state .
The law required that all new semi-automatic handguns imprint a unique code in two places on every ammunition cartridge that ’ s fired , and despite objections from gun makers , who argue that the mandate was impossible for them to meet , the Ninth Circuit upheld the state law and the Supreme Court turned away a challenge earlier this year .
Just a few weeks ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major overhaul to the microstamping law , supposedly with the intent of making it easier for manufacturers to comply .
Starting in 2022 , handguns will “ only ” have to stamp a unique code in one location on the spent cartridge , which could be accomplished by placing the microstamp on the firing pin of the pistol .
The National Shooting Sports Foundation ’ s Larry Keane argues in a new op-ed that the revised law is still bad news for legal gun owners , and won ’ t do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
… firing pin microstamping technology has been found to be unreliable and inconsistent by technical experts in several peer reviewed studies .
A study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “ the durability and survivability of markings on the bullet are still major concerns .
Bullets would also be likely to suffer the corrosive effects of blood and other substances.
” A study by researchers at the University of California , Davis , also concluded that “ more testing in a wider range of firearms is needed ” before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for law enforcement .
Lastly , an Iowa State University study stated that “ legitimate questions exist related to the technical aspects , production costs and database management associated with microstamping that should be addressed before wide scale implementation is legislatively mandated.
” To this day , such questions have not been adequately answered .
Firing pins can always be swapped out , and a simple file and a few minutes work can obliterate or deface the microstamp itself .
Many criminals also use guns that are acquired through theft or the black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the microstamping mandate .
As Keane points out , the biggest impact that microstamping 2.0 is likely to have is on the number of handguns available for sale in California .
Despite the lack of a way to reliably incorporate microstamping technology into firearms , AB 2847 will further automate gun control because it requires that for any new model added to the roster , three models of handguns that state has certified as safe for consumers to purchase must be removed from the state ’ s handgun roster .
Which three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decides that ?
By imposing mandates on firearm manufacturers , the law is simply a pathway to a gradual ban on handguns in California .
The evidence shows that this is not just hyperbole .
After the initial microstamping law took effect in 2013 , pistols began to drop off the list as manufacturers were not able to get new models or models with improvements onto the roster .
On May 17 , 2013 , there were 953 pistols on the roster .
By January 2014 , when the National Shooting Sports Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Institute filed a lawsuit against the state ’ s Department of Justice challenging the microstamping law , the number had already dropped to 867 .
As of Oct. 6 , 2020 , there were only 496 semiautomatic pistols listed on the roster , representing a decrease of almost half of the handguns Californians can purchase since the initial law took effect .
There have been no new models added to the roster since 2013 , thanks to this mandate and the state ’ s interpretation that even minor cosmetic changes constitute a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the industry will continue to fight the new law .
One small silver lining to the latest gun control measure is that the revisions to the state ’ s microstamping mandate allows for a brand new lawsuit to be filed .
Thanks to the Trump administration ’ s work on filling judicial vacancies , any new legal challenge is likely to face better odds than the first round of litigation , and when the issue eventually comes back before the Supreme Court , there ’ s a good chance that SCOTUS would agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett is on the bench ( at least if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don ’ t have the chance to pack the Court with anti-gun justices ) .

California’s microstamping law was first put on the books in 2012, and since then virtually no new models of handguns have been available for sale in the state. The law required that all new semi-automatic handguns imprint a unique code in two places on every ammunition cartridge that’s fired, and despite objections from gun makers, who argue that the mandate was impossible for them to meet, the Ninth Circuit upheld the state law and the Supreme Court turned away a challenge earlier this year.
Just a few weeks ago, however, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a major overhaul to the microstamping law, supposedly with the intent of making it easier for manufacturers to comply. Starting in 2022, handguns will “only” have to stamp a unique code in one location on the spent cartridge, which could be accomplished by placing the microstamp on the firing pin of the pistol.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane argues in a new op-ed that the revised law is still bad news for legal gun owners, and won’t do anything at all to prevent or help solve crimes.
… firing pin microstamping technology has been found to be unreliable and inconsistent by technical experts in several peer reviewed studies. A study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “the durability and survivability of markings on the bullet are still major concerns. Bullets would also be likely to suffer the corrosive effects of blood and other substances.” A study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, also concluded that “more testing in a wider range of firearms is needed” before the technology could be a proven resource for law enforcement. Lastly, an Iowa State University study stated that “legitimate questions exist related to the technical aspects, production costs and database management associated with microstamping that should be addressed before wide scale implementation is legislatively mandated.” To this day, such questions have not been adequately answered.
Firing pins can always be swapped out, and a simple file and a few minutes work can obliterate or deface the microstamp itself. Many criminals also use guns that are acquired through theft or the black market, which further reduces the usefulness of the microstamping mandate.
As Keane points out, the biggest impact that microstamping 2.0 is likely to have is on the number of handguns available for sale in California.
Despite the lack of a way to reliably incorporate microstamping technology into firearms, AB 2847 will further automate gun control because it requires that for any new model added to the roster, three models of handguns that state has certified as safe for consumers to purchase must be removed from the state’s handgun roster. Which three models will be removed, and who decides that? By imposing mandates on firearm manufacturers, the law is simply a pathway to a gradual ban on handguns in California. The evidence shows that this is not just hyperbole. After the initial microstamping law took effect in 2013, pistols began to drop off the list as manufacturers were not able to get new models or models with improvements onto the roster. On May 17, 2013, there were 953 pistols on the roster. By January 2014, when the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute filed a lawsuit against the state’s Department of Justice challenging the microstamping law, the number had already dropped to 867. As of Oct. 6, 2020, there were only 496 semiautomatic pistols listed on the roster, representing a decrease of almost half of the handguns Californians can purchase since the initial law took effect. There have been no new models added to the roster since 2013, thanks to this mandate and the state’s interpretation that even minor cosmetic changes constitute a new model requiring microstamping.
Keane says the industry will continue to fight the new law. One small silver lining to the latest gun control measure is that the revisions to the state’s microstamping mandate allows for a brand new lawsuit to be filed. Thanks to the Trump administration’s work on filling judicial vacancies, any new legal challenge is likely to face better odds than the first round of litigation, and when the issue eventually comes back before the Supreme Court, there’s a good chance that SCOTUS would agree to hear the case now that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is on the bench (at least if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t have the chance to pack the Court with anti-gun justices).


bearingarms--2020-10-30--Brady Bunch's Ads Prove Their Foundational Lies

Brady , the anti-gun organization , has been around for quite some time .
Founding in the wake of Jim Brady being shot at the same time President Ronald Reagan was , the family figured they simply had to do something to stop that from ever happening again .
While gun laws were changed in that same aftermath , it wasn ’ t enough .
As a result , Brady is now one of the bigger names in the gun control crowd .
It also seems that this election cycle , they ’ re branching out from gun control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of Virginia omits any mention of gun control in general , or specifically “ assault weapons ” bans and magazine prohibitions .
The ad , a collaboration between the Brady PAC and the House Majority PAC , is a radio spot being run against Nick Freitas , the Republican challenging Rep. Abigail Spanberger ( D-VA ) .
The ad comes just months after Virginia Democrats pushed through numerous gun controls and Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) used emergency declarations to prohibit the carry of guns on state capitol grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the passage of those controls or of the Democrats ’ continued efforts for more such laws in the state .
Instead , the Brady/House Majority PAC ad talks about healthcare : Note the absolute lack of any mention of guns or gun control in that ad ?
Instead , it ’ s simply talking about healthcare , which is outside of Brady ’ s wheelhouse , supposedly .
Yet this is Brady , the supposedly bipartisan “ gun safety ” group .
Here ’ s their About Us page : Jim and Sarah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisan Brady Law passed in 1993 .
But there ’ s more work to be done .
We know that ending America ’ s gun violence epidemic means accepting these truths : 1 ) Gun ownership demands responsibility ; 2 ) Laws in existence must be upheld by those empowered to do that job ; and 3 ) Gun violence is a uniquely American problem .
Only when Americans unite and work together will it be solved .
A problem with so many causes at its roots , must be addressed from all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education , litigation , and legislation will ensure that every community is safe , not only from mass shootings , but from the daily urban gun violence that plagues so many American cities .
It ’ s time we unite people from coast to coast , liberal and conservative , young and old , fed up and fired up , to work with us and end what is taking so many American lives .
It ’ s in our hands .
Note the mention of bipartisanship ?
How liberals and conservatives should work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , toeing the progressive line on healthcare to attack a Republican candidate on something that has absolutely nothing to do with guns or gun control .
Nothing at all .
After all , Nick Freitas is apparently pro-gun .
Where was that in all that advertising ?
Brady claims bipartisanship is part of its essential nature , part of its founding and its mission .
Yet there ’ s nothing bipartisan about attacking a Republican candidate on a topic that has nothing to do with their mission .
At the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven that despite claims to desire bipartisanship , all they really are is an arm of the Democratic Party , just as we always knew them to be .

Brady, the anti-gun organization, has been around for quite some time. Founding in the wake of Jim Brady being shot at the same time President Ronald Reagan was, the family figured they simply had to do something to stop that from ever happening again. While gun laws were changed in that same aftermath, it wasn’t enough.
As a result, Brady is now one of the bigger names in the gun control crowd.
It also seems that this election cycle, they’re branching out from gun control.
The latest Brady Campaign ad airing in the state of Virginia omits any mention of gun control in general, or specifically “assault weapons” bans and magazine prohibitions. The ad, a collaboration between the Brady PAC and the House Majority PAC, is a radio spot being run against Nick Freitas, the Republican challenging Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). The ad comes just months after Virginia Democrats pushed through numerous gun controls and Gov. Ralph Northam (D) used emergency declarations to prohibit the carry of guns on state capitol grounds, yet no mention is made of the passage of those controls or of the Democrats’ continued efforts for more such laws in the state. Instead, the Brady/House Majority PAC ad talks about healthcare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SQuzFNOJxw&feature=emb_logo
Note the absolute lack of any mention of guns or gun control in that ad? Instead, it’s simply talking about healthcare, which is outside of Brady’s wheelhouse, supposedly.
Yet this is Brady, the supposedly bipartisan “gun safety” group.
Here’s their About Us page:
Jim and Sarah Brady accomplished the inconceivable by getting the bipartisan Brady Law passed in 1993. But there’s more work to be done. We know that ending America’s gun violence epidemic means accepting these truths: 1) Gun ownership demands responsibility; 2) Laws in existence must be upheld by those empowered to do that job; and 3) Gun violence is a uniquely American problem. Only when Americans unite and work together will it be solved. A problem with so many causes at its roots, must be addressed from all angles. Brady’s emphasis on education, litigation, and legislation will ensure that every community is safe, not only from mass shootings, but from the daily urban gun violence that plagues so many American cities. It’s time we unite people from coast to coast, liberal and conservative, young and old, fed up and fired up, to work with us and end what is taking so many American lives. It’s in our hands.
Note the mention of bipartisanship? How liberals and conservatives should work together?
And yet, here they are, toeing the progressive line on healthcare to attack a Republican candidate on something that has absolutely nothing to do with guns or gun control. Nothing at all.
After all, Nick Freitas is apparently pro-gun. Where was that in all that advertising?
Brady claims bipartisanship is part of its essential nature, part of its founding and its mission. Yet there’s nothing bipartisan about attacking a Republican candidate on a topic that has nothing to do with their mission.
At the end of the day, they’ve not proven that despite claims to desire bipartisanship, all they really are is an arm of the Democratic Party, just as we always knew them to be.


bearingarms--2020-10-30--Cleveland Program Aims To Arm Hundreds Of Area Women

A Cleveland city council member is teaming up with local firearms instructors in an attempt to provide training for 1,000 women in order for them to receive their concealed carry license .
Basheer Jones says the effort is a way to increase personal safety in a city that ’ s struggled with violent crime , including domestic violence .
Many local firearms instructors are offering discounts as part of the “ Secure Our Women ” program , and Basheer Jones says so far more than 800 women have reached out to express an interest in getting their concealed carry license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones take the initiative here , and the response appears to be fantastic .
For too long , Cleveland politicians like Mayor Frank Jackson have targeted legal gun owners with their attempts to tackle violent crime , including an attempt a few years ago to strike down Ohio ’ s firearm preemption laws .
Jackson ’ s law department in 2006 challenged a state law that stripped cities of the authority to pass and enforce their own gun legislation .
Jackson ’ s then-law director , Robert Troizzi , fought the case to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Cleveland .
Thirty-eight city gun laws were wiped off the books in order to conform with state law .
“ Even though we ’ ve made progress in Cleveland , gun violence is a very real threat that we face , particularly our young people , ” he said in statement issued after the Supreme Court ruling .
Jackson in 2014 , the first of five consecutive years of 100 or more homicides in the city , embarked on a mission to implement a gun-crime registry , along with more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed the legislation , but the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals shot them down , using the precedent set in the 2006 ruling .
The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on the city ’ s appeal .
Rather than trying to impose more gun control laws on legal gun owners , Basheer Jones wants those legal gun owners to get the training they need to be able to protect themselves in their homes and on the city ’ s streets .
That ’ s a much better approach , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like hundreds of women in Cleveland agree .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist , as well as the co-author of `` Heavy Lifting : Grow Up , Get a Job , Start a Family , and Other Manly Advice '' with Jim Geraghty .
He lives outside of Farmville , Virginia with his family .

A Cleveland city council member is teaming up with local firearms instructors in an attempt to provide training for 1,000 women in order for them to receive their concealed carry license. Basheer Jones says the effort is a way to increase personal safety in a city that’s struggled with violent crime, including domestic violence.
Councilman Jones says, “We know that in the past 25 years Cleveland has been ranked one of the most dangerous cities in the nation for women.” Ebony Canion says crime has come knocking at her door more than once, and the widow and mother who is also handicapped, says she refuses to bury another child. “I was run over and left for dead in 2012 by a female. And like I said my son was murdered in 2018. I never liked guns and didn’t want them around me or anything but sometimes you’ve got to put your fears to the side and protect your family.”
Many local firearms instructors are offering discounts as part of the “Secure Our Women” program, and Basheer Jones says so far more than 800 women have reached out to express an interest in getting their concealed carry license.
CCW Instructor Isa Abdul Matin of Stephens Sporting Life in Cleveland says this effort is not about putting more guns on the street, it’s about law-abiding citizens who want to put their safety and security in their own hands. “The woman is being the husband, she’s being the mother, the babysitter, the educator. She’s got all of this stuff on her plate – who’s going to protect her.” Councilman Jones says things have to change, “If we don’t stand up for our women, our children will continue to be doomed and we will continue to be doomed.”
I’m thrilled to see Jones take the initiative here, and the response appears to be fantastic. For too long, Cleveland politicians like Mayor Frank Jackson have targeted legal gun owners with their attempts to tackle violent crime, including an attempt a few years ago to strike down Ohio’s firearm preemption laws.
Jackson’s law department in 2006 challenged a state law that stripped cities of the authority to pass and enforce their own gun legislation. Jackson’s then-law director, Robert Troizzi, fought the case to the Ohio Supreme Court, which ruled against Cleveland. Thirty-eight city gun laws were wiped off the books in order to conform with state law. “Even though we’ve made progress in Cleveland, gun violence is a very real threat that we face, particularly our young people,” he said in statement issued after the Supreme Court ruling. Jackson in 2014, the first of five consecutive years of 100 or more homicides in the city, embarked on a mission to implement a gun-crime registry, along with more than a dozen other gun-control laws. City council passed the legislation, but the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals shot them down, using the precedent set in the 2006 ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on the city’s appeal.


bearingarms--2020-10-30--Joe Not Only Biden You Can't Trust With Firearm

Through the years , former Vice President Joe Biden has given some…*ahem* questionable advice regarding handling a firearm .
From telling police they should shoot suspects in the leg to telling folks to use a shotgun and just shoot through the door , listening to Joe Biden on gun handling is a recipe for disaster .
Of course , some people have done it anyway and it never worked out well for any of them , but that should probably be expected .
Well , it seems poor firearm handling kind of runs in the family .
A source with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TheBlaze that in October 2018 , Hunter Biden ’ s handgun was taken from his vehicle without his knowledge by Hallie Biden — the widow of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s son Beau — and she placed it in a garbage can outside a Delaware supermarket .
But after a subsequent search , the gun couldn ’ t be found , the source said .
And after law enforcement was contacted and both Hunter Biden and Hallie Biden were questioned , the source said no arrests were made and no charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday told TheBlaze the case was referred for a decision on prosecution to the Delaware Department of Justice , which has not yet returned TheBlaze ’ s request for comment on this case .
In addition , the source also said agents from the United States Secret Service as well as the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives visited the shop where Hunter Biden purchased the gun prior to any report being filed .
What are the details ?
In 2018 , Hallie Biden and Hunter Biden were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it a year before .
They ended their relationship in 2019 .
On the date of the incident in question — Oct. 23 , 2018 — the source with knowledge told TheBlaze that Hallie Biden searched through Hunter Biden ’ s vehicle , found a handgun , removed it , and then later threw it in a garbage can outside a supermarket .
The source added that later Hallie Biden contacted Hunter Biden , told him what she did , and that Hunter Biden told her to go back and get the gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t find the gun .
Hunter claimed he ’ d purchased the gun earlier that month and only used it for target practice .
He told police that he left it in the car instead of taking it inside so as to keep it away from Hallie ’ s children .
Apparently , actually locking it away never entered Hunter ’ s mind .
Then again , that ’ s just one of many questions .
Honestly , neither Hallie nor Hunter showed a lick of sense in this one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be fair .
I mean , what kind of a brain-dead moron decides to toss a gun in a trash can for disposal ?
Think , for a minute , about the kinds of people who may go through garbage cans .
Putting a firearm in there may well arm some rather mentally disturbed people .
Plus , since Delaware has universal background checks , Hallie probably broke the law there .
But don ’ t worry .
With a last name like Biden , no one seems to be prosecuted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why a lot of anti-gun Democrats seem to think gun owners are so irresponsible .
It ’ s because so many of them are irresponsible with their firearms they just assume the rest of us are as well .

Through the years, former Vice President Joe Biden has given some…*ahem* questionable advice regarding handling a firearm. From telling police they should shoot suspects in the leg to telling folks to use a shotgun and just shoot through the door, listening to Joe Biden on gun handling is a recipe for disaster.
Of course, some people have done it anyway and it never worked out well for any of them, but that should probably be expected.
Well, it seems poor firearm handling kind of runs in the family.
A source with knowledge of the situation has revealed to TheBlaze that in October 2018, Hunter Biden’s handgun was taken from his vehicle without his knowledge by Hallie Biden — the widow of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Beau — and she placed it in a garbage can outside a Delaware supermarket. But after a subsequent search, the gun couldn’t be found, the source said. And after law enforcement was contacted and both Hunter Biden and Hallie Biden were questioned, the source said no arrests were made and no charges were filed. Delaware State Police on Thursday told TheBlaze the case was referred for a decision on prosecution to the Delaware Department of Justice, which has not yet returned TheBlaze’s request for comment on this case. In addition, the source also said agents from the United States Secret Service as well as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives visited the shop where Hunter Biden purchased the gun prior to any report being filed. What are the details? In 2018, Hallie Biden and Hunter Biden were in a relationship and had gone public with it a year before. They ended their relationship in 2019. On the date of the incident in question — Oct. 23, 2018 — the source with knowledge told TheBlaze that Hallie Biden searched through Hunter Biden’s vehicle, found a handgun, removed it, and then later threw it in a garbage can outside a supermarket. The source added that later Hallie Biden contacted Hunter Biden, told him what she did, and that Hunter Biden told her to go back and get the gun — but upon attempting that, she couldn’t find the gun.
Hunter claimed he’d purchased the gun earlier that month and only used it for target practice. He told police that he left it in the car instead of taking it inside so as to keep it away from Hallie’s children.
Apparently, actually locking it away never entered Hunter’s mind. Then again, that’s just one of many questions.
Honestly, neither Hallie nor Hunter showed a lick of sense in this one, but most of this is on Hallie, to be fair. I mean, what kind of a brain-dead moron decides to toss a gun in a trash can for disposal? Think, for a minute, about the kinds of people who may go through garbage cans. Putting a firearm in there may well arm some rather mentally disturbed people.
Plus, since Delaware has universal background checks, Hallie probably broke the law there.
But don’t worry. With a last name like Biden, no one seems to be prosecuted.
Of course, this does explain why a lot of anti-gun Democrats seem to think gun owners are so irresponsible. It’s because so many of them are irresponsible with their firearms they just assume the rest of us are as well.


bearingarms--2020-10-31--San Francisco Man Turns Tables On Armed Robbers

Many criminals prey more on fear than anything else .
They present a firearm not necessarily because they intend to shoot you but because they want you afraid that they ’ ll shoot you .
If you ’ re terrified , you ’ ll do anything they tell you to do .
You ’ ll give up your money and anything else you have of value .
It ’ s when you ’ re not afraid that things go sideways for the bad guys .
That ’ s why many times , just presenting a firearm ends a confrontation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even need to fire a round .
The fact that you ’ re not afraid and able to fight back means you ’ re the wrong sort of prey .
However , even if you ’ re not armed , there ’ s something to be said for fighting back .
Take this man in San Francisco .
A San Francisco man was the victim of an attempted armed robbery as he left a Neiman Marcus store earlier this month .
A group of men approached him as he exited the store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was wearing .
The victim struggled with one of the suspects and managed to take his gun from him , turn it on him and shoot him multiple times .
The rest of the group then fled in a getaway car .
Officers nearby heard the shots and were able to respond immediately .
The suspect was treated at the scene and transported to a hospital but died from his injuries .
Police recovered three firearms at the scene .
The deceased attacker was identified as having a long arrest record and had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts .
Now , we can talk about California ’ s gun control failures all we want–and trust me , this is a prime example of them if ever I saw one–but that ’ s not really what I want to focus on right now .
Instead , this is a victim who fought back and turned the table on his attackers .
He put one in the morgue and scared the rest off .
Police recovered three other guns at the scene , but we don ’ t know how many additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have a good guy who had no firearm and at least four armed bad guys .
The good guy took the gun from one of the bad guys , shot him , and scared the rest off .
No , his name was apparently not Chuck Norris .
Look , I ’ m not going to tell you to try this should you be in a similar situation .
I don ’ t , in good conscience , believe I can do that .
Trying to fight back when facing an overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty risky .
If one of those guys really does want to hurt someone , you might not be as fortunate as this gentleman and I don ’ t know that I can really live with myself if someone took my advice and was injured or killed .
That said , there is something to be said about simply refusing to be afraid .
Criminals often look for people who look fearful .
They want people who are signaling their fear with their body language .
Simply not being afraid–or , more precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for preventing robberies .
And , really , if it looks like you ’ re going to get shot anyway , you might as well fight back .
More times than many imagine , it actually works out better for the potential victim .
Of course , the best course of action is to have your own gun so then you won ’ t need to try and take theirs .
In California , though , that ’ s not always possible .

Many criminals prey more on fear than anything else. They present a firearm not necessarily because they intend to shoot you but because they want you afraid that they’ll shoot you. If you’re terrified, you’ll do anything they tell you to do. You’ll give up your money and anything else you have of value.
It’s when you’re not afraid that things go sideways for the bad guys.
That’s why many times, just presenting a firearm ends a confrontation with an armed criminal. You don’t even need to fire a round. The fact that you’re not afraid and able to fight back means you’re the wrong sort of prey.
However, even if you’re not armed, there’s something to be said for fighting back. Take this man in San Francisco.
A San Francisco man was the victim of an attempted armed robbery as he left a Neiman Marcus store earlier this month. A group of men approached him as he exited the store, possibly for the Rolex watch he was wearing. The victim struggled with one of the suspects and managed to take his gun from him, turn it on him and shoot him multiple times. The rest of the group then fled in a getaway car. Officers nearby heard the shots and were able to respond immediately. The suspect was treated at the scene and transported to a hospital but died from his injuries. Police recovered three firearms at the scene. The deceased attacker was identified as having a long arrest record and had six pending cases before the San Francisco courts.
Now, we can talk about California’s gun control failures all we want–and trust me, this is a prime example of them if ever I saw one–but that’s not really what I want to focus on right now.
Instead, this is a victim who fought back and turned the table on his attackers. He put one in the morgue and scared the rest off. Police recovered three other guns at the scene, but we don’t know how many additional firearms might have been involved.
So we have a good guy who had no firearm and at least four armed bad guys. The good guy took the gun from one of the bad guys, shot him, and scared the rest off.
One guy.
No, his name was apparently not Chuck Norris.
Look, I’m not going to tell you to try this should you be in a similar situation. I don’t, in good conscience, believe I can do that. Trying to fight back when facing an overwhelming force disparity is something that is probably pretty risky. If one of those guys really does want to hurt someone, you might not be as fortunate as this gentleman and I don’t know that I can really live with myself if someone took my advice and was injured or killed.
That said, there is something to be said about simply refusing to be afraid.
Criminals often look for people who look fearful. They want people who are signaling their fear with their body language. Simply not being afraid–or, more precisely, not appearing to be afraid–does wonders for preventing robberies.
And, really, if it looks like you’re going to get shot anyway, you might as well fight back. More times than many imagine, it actually works out better for the potential victim.
Of course, the best course of action is to have your own gun so then you won’t need to try and take theirs. In California, though, that’s not always possible.


bearingarms--2020-10-31--University Of Miami Official Demands Removal Of Pro-2A Sign

A University of Miami official demanded that the campus College Republicans club take down a sign that read “ I ’ m Pro-Choice .
Choose A Gun ” from a public display that the group had set up on campus , claiming that the sign violated university policy .
The Miami Hurricane student newspaper reported on the incident on Friday as part of a larger story on the current “ debate ” over free speech on campus , which in actuality seems like less of an actual debate and more demands from the Left that conservatives and Republicans should only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left agrees with .
Too much speech for a college campus ?
This isn ’ t daycare , this is a university for crying out loud .
As for any distinction between “ glorifying ” semi-automatic rifles and “ just being pro-gun , ” as far as the First Amendment is concerned , it ’ s a distinction without a difference .
Hefley said that while tabling , UMCR received a call from the Director of the Student Center Complex saying that their sign violated university policy .
“ I ’ m very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting the Second Amendment , ” he said .
Other students , including junior Nathaly Gonzalez , were adamant that UMCR was intentionally instigating public discord .
“ They are purposefully making the campus an uncomfortable place to exist , ” Gonzalez said .
How exactly are they doing that ?
By sitting at a table with signs that express political points of view that are different than yours ?
Frankly , if that makes you uncomfortable , that ’ s a good thing .
College is supposed to be a place where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoughts .
You don ’ t have to agree with all or any of them , but if you ’ re only hearing things you already agree with , you ’ re doing college ( and life ) wrong .
As a private institution , the University of Miami can establish whatever speech code it wants , but just because they can coddle the minds of students doesn ’ t mean that they should .
Nathaly Gonzalez says , in essence , that College Republicans should shut up because what they say makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think they could say the same thing about her political opinions ?
The controversy over the pro-2A signage is just the latest in a series of recent attempts to target conservative speech on the campus .
A Trump sign was recently vandalized on campus , and some students are demanding a ban on banners or signs for political candidates entirely .
Student Sen. Randy Fitzgerald advocated for the rights of student organizations to display partisan banners on campus during the senate meeting .
“ I don ’ t believe Student Government should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization on major parties ’ nominees to the extent that we should attack the president of the United States , and consequently , our colleagues on this campus who support him as ‘ racist , homophobic , and bigoted ’ , ” Fitzgerald said .
For the moment , Fitzgerald ’ s view seems to have prevailed , and there are both Biden and Trump banners outside of the campus bookstore that put up by the College Democrats and College Republicans .
The attempts to curtail conservative speech continue , however , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” sign , remains tucked away out of sight instead of on display near the university ’ s Student Center .

A University of Miami official demanded that the campus College Republicans club take down a sign that read “I’m Pro-Choice. Choose A Gun” from a public display that the group had set up on campus, claiming that the sign violated university policy.
The Miami Hurricane student newspaper reported on the incident on Friday as part of a larger story on the current “debate” over free speech on campus, which in actuality seems like less of an actual debate and more demands from the Left that conservatives and Republicans should only be able to say things that the Left agrees with.
“I do feel like there is a time and a place,” said UM senior John Cuddihy. “That’s where I think maybe it was too much on a college campus…I think there’s a distinction between glorifying assault rifles and just being pro-gun in general.”
Too much speech for a college campus? This isn’t daycare, this is a university for crying out loud. As for any distinction between “glorifying” semi-automatic rifles and “just being pro-gun,” as far as the First Amendment is concerned, it’s a distinction without a difference.
Hefley said that while tabling, UMCR received a call from the Director of the Student Center Complex saying that their sign violated university policy. “I’m very confused because it’s just pictures promoting the Second Amendment,” he said. Other students, including junior Nathaly Gonzalez, were adamant that UMCR was intentionally instigating public discord. “They are purposefully making the campus an uncomfortable place to exist,” Gonzalez said.
How exactly are they doing that? By sitting at a table with signs that express political points of view that are different than yours? Frankly, if that makes you uncomfortable, that’s a good thing. College is supposed to be a place where you are exposed to new ideas and thoughts. You don’t have to agree with all or any of them, but if you’re only hearing things you already agree with, you’re doing college (and life) wrong.
As a private institution, the University of Miami can establish whatever speech code it wants, but just because they can coddle the minds of students doesn’t mean that they should. Nathaly Gonzalez says, in essence, that College Republicans should shut up because what they say makes her uncomfortable. Don’t you think they could say the same thing about her political opinions?
The controversy over the pro-2A signage is just the latest in a series of recent attempts to target conservative speech on the campus. A Trump sign was recently vandalized on campus, and some students are demanding a ban on banners or signs for political candidates entirely.
Student Sen. Randy Fitzgerald advocated for the rights of student organizations to display partisan banners on campus during the senate meeting. “I don’t believe Student Government should be in the business of commenting as an organization on major parties’ nominees to the extent that we should attack the president of the United States, and consequently, our colleagues on this campus who support him as ‘racist, homophobic, and bigoted’,” Fitzgerald said.
For the moment, Fitzgerald’s view seems to have prevailed, and there are both Biden and Trump banners outside of the campus bookstore that put up by the College Democrats and College Republicans. The attempts to curtail conservative speech continue, however, and the “pro-choice, choose a gun” sign, remains tucked away out of sight instead of on display near the university’s Student Center.


bearingarms--2020-11-01--More Anti-Gun Optics In New Jersey

More Anti-Gun Optics In New Jersey

Take it from a resident ; New Jersey is anti-freedom and it ’ s one of the most anti-Second Amendment states in the Union .
There ’ s a conspiracy of sorts between all branches of government and the media here ; a conspiracy of conformity when it comes to the portrayal of firerarms , ammunition , or accessories .
Any chance they get , they will paint the most grotesque or negative picture they can , in order to push their anti-gun ideology .
A recent case in point ; Paterson , New Jersey , October 28 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported in a headline : Even at first glance , there is no doubt that this is involving criminal behavior , but that behavior does not let the Paterson PD or the Daily Voice off the hook as far as unbiased reporting goes .
With scary descriptions like “ high-powered handguns ” , the paper is going out of its way to vilify the inanimate object , without casting any aspersions at all on the young criminal suspect .
These biases and optics are carefully crafted and it ’ s important to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything in their power to associate firearms with a further , often times erroneous , negative connotation .
Granted , this news article was probably breezed over by many , as its tale is a dog-bites-man kind of story ; just another criminal doing criminal things in New Jersey .
But that begs another question ; why are 15-year old ’ s running around with guns in Paterson , New Jersey ?
What is going on there ?
New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself despite all those gun control laws on the books .
Sounds like the leadership in Paterson ( and the state capitol of Trenton ) need to be approached about what is going wrong .
The negative optics in this piece revolve around considering 9mm handguns to be “ high-powered ” , as the headline tries to hook in uninitiated readers .
No place on the planet are 9mm Taurus handguns in any way “ high-powered ” .
Okay , if you ’ re comparing them to BB guns , also “ firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But to every other freedom loving gun owner in America , no .
This labeling of the arms as “ high-powered ” is patently fake , phony , and false , and it ’ s designed to instill fear rather than disseminate facts .
It ’ s also worth exploring the “ high-capacity ” magazines the paper references .
It ’ s doubtful that a 15-year old that was illegally concealing two pistols was able to do so with true “ high-capacity ” magazines in the guns , because they ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however anything over ten rounds is considered “ high-capacity ” ; another bit of anti-gun wordsmithing that ignores the fact that ten rounds is below the threshold of standard capacity in many pistols in the United States .
Often magazines with a capacity of 15 or 17+ rounds are considered “ standard.
” In this case , we don ’ t even know how large the magazines actually were , only that they were illegal under New Jersey law .
The sad thing is that I doubt the reporter or editor ever even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At this point , anti-gun attitudes are so ingrained in the culture in New Jersey that it probably never even registered with them that , instead of this being just another story about a teenager who had a gun that he shouldn ’ t have , it could have been a story about how and why idiot 15-year olds can still easily thwart New Jersey ’ s gun control laws , and what that says about the effectiveness of those laws in stopping crimes , as opposed to preventing the lawful exercise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer , writer , author of “ Decoding Firearms : An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use ” and NRA certified pistol , rifle and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey ’ s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws .
You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @ johnpetrolino and on instagram @ jpetrolinoiii

Take it from a resident; New Jersey is anti-freedom and it’s one of the most anti-Second Amendment states in the Union. There’s a conspiracy of sorts between all branches of government and the media here; a conspiracy of conformity when it comes to the portrayal of firerarms, ammunition, or accessories. Any chance they get, they will paint the most grotesque or negative picture they can, in order to push their anti-gun ideology.
A recent case in point; Paterson, New Jersey, October 28, 2020, when the local Daily Voice newspaper reported in a headline:
“Paterson PD: Boy, 15, Caught Carrying Pair Of High-Powered Handguns, Magazines, More”
Even at first glance, there is no doubt that this is involving criminal behavior, but that behavior does not let the Paterson PD or the Daily Voice off the hook as far as unbiased reporting goes. With scary descriptions like “high-powered handguns”, the paper is going out of its way to vilify the inanimate object, without casting any aspersions at all on the young criminal suspect.
“A 15-year-old Paterson boy was caught carrying two handguns with large-capacity magazines, authorities said.”
And further:
“Both are 9mm semi-automatic Taurus handguns fitted with fully-loaded high-capacity magazines…”
These biases and optics are carefully crafted and it’s important to take note. The media does everything and anything in their power to associate firearms with a further, often times erroneous, negative connotation.
Granted, this news article was probably breezed over by many, as its tale is a dog-bites-man kind of story; just another criminal doing criminal things in New Jersey. But that begs another question; why are 15-year old’s running around with guns in Paterson, New Jersey? What is going on there? New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but a 15-year old can apparently easily arm himself despite all those gun control laws on the books. Sounds like the leadership in Paterson (and the state capitol of Trenton) need to be approached about what is going wrong.
The negative optics in this piece revolve around considering 9mm handguns to be “high-powered”, as the headline tries to hook in uninitiated readers. No place on the planet are 9mm Taurus handguns in any way “high-powered”. Okay, if you’re comparing them to BB guns, also “firearms” in New Jersey, sure. But to every other freedom loving gun owner in America, no. This labeling of the arms as “high-powered” is patently fake, phony, and false, and it’s designed to instill fear rather than disseminate facts.
It’s also worth exploring the “high-capacity” magazines the paper references. It’s doubtful that a 15-year old that was illegally concealing two pistols was able to do so with true “high-capacity” magazines in the guns, because they’d be too long. In New Jersey, however anything over ten rounds is considered “high-capacity”; another bit of anti-gun wordsmithing that ignores the fact that ten rounds is below the threshold of standard capacity in many pistols in the United States. Often magazines with a capacity of 15 or 17+ rounds are considered“standard.” In this case, we don’t even know how large the magazines actually were, only that they were illegal under New Jersey law.
The sad thing is that I doubt the reporter or editor ever even considered the bias in their story. At this point, anti-gun attitudes are so ingrained in the culture in New Jersey that it probably never even registered with them that, instead of this being just another story about a teenager who had a gun that he shouldn’t have, it could have been a story about how and why idiot 15-year olds can still easily thwart New Jersey’s gun control laws, and what that says about the effectiveness of those laws in stopping crimes, as opposed to preventing the lawful exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.
John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of “Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use” and NRA certified pistol, rifle and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii


bearingarms--2020-11-01--Two Men Arrested In TX Gun Thefts

Two Men Arrested In TX Gun Thefts

One thing everyone should be united against is gun thieves .
People who steal firearms rarely do so for “ sporting ” purposes or because they ’ re concerned so much about self-defense…unless it ’ s from other criminals .
No , they steal guns and either use them for some kind of crime or they sell them to people who , in turn , use them for criminal activities .
In other words , they don ’ t actually do anyone any favors .
Of course , anti-gunners secretly love armed criminals because it ’ s the only thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies on to push for further restrictions , but that ’ s neither here nor there .
Gun thieves are a scourge .
Now , there seem to be a couple fewer on the streets .
Officers from the Marshall Police Department arrested two men involved in a series of car break-ins on Tuesday .
According to police , they arrived to the area of Wingwood Terrace after a report that two men were looking through vehicles in the neighborhood .
Officials later found some men in the area that matched the description @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the men , but they ran away .
When authorities searched their vehicle they found 9 pistols , two crossbows and 50 other items that were stolen from other people ’ s cars , police said .
Apparently , the cars that Washington and Smith targeted had not been locked , so they were easily able to enter the vehicles .
I read that and just shake my head .
It tells me that there were nine folks who were stupid enough to leave a gun in their car without securing it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even be bothered to lock the freaking doors .
Holy crap .
What neighborhood were they in ?
Hunter Biden ’ s ?
People , let me make this perfectly clear .
This isn ’ t unique .
I ’ ve written a lot of stories about unlocked cars and guns being stolen out of them , and I honestly don ’ t fathom how anyone can be so stupid .
On one hand , you understand that while most folks are law-abiding , there are some who aren ’ t and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is why you have a gun in the car .
On the other hand , you ’ re so freaking naive that you honestly think people aren ’ t going to go through your unlocked car ?
How ?
How can someone like that muster enough brainpower to engage in something like breathing , much less operate a motor vehicle ?
Yet it happens .
It happens a lot , and it ’ s a real problem .
This is why some communities are looking to start prosecuting people who do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re ready to prosecute the victims of these crimes .
While I vehemently oppose this idea , I do understand where they ’ re coming from .
It ’ s ridiculous that this keeps happening , after all .
It needs to stop .
We gun owners can stop it , too .
We just have to make sure everyone is using their brains and not being stupid .

One thing everyone should be united against is gun thieves. People who steal firearms rarely do so for “sporting” purposes or because they’re concerned so much about self-defense…unless it’s from other criminals. No, they steal guns and either use them for some kind of crime or they sell them to people who, in turn, use them for criminal activities.
In other words, they don’t actually do anyone any favors.
Of course, anti-gunners secretly love armed criminals because it’s the only thing they can try and hang their failed policies on to push for further restrictions, but that’s neither here nor there.
Gun thieves are a scourge. Now, there seem to be a couple fewer on the streets.
Officers from the Marshall Police Department arrested two men involved in a series of car break-ins on Tuesday. According to police, they arrived to the area of Wingwood Terrace after a report that two men were looking through vehicles in the neighborhood. Officials later found some men in the area that matched the description they had received and tried to approach the men, but they ran away. … When authorities searched their vehicle they found 9 pistols, two crossbows and 50 other items
that were stolen from other people’s cars, police said. Apparently, the cars that Washington and Smith targeted had not been locked, so they were easily able to enter the vehicles.
Nine firearms.
Nine.
I read that and just shake my head. It tells me that there were nine folks who were stupid enough to leave a gun in their car without securing it in some way. They couldn’t even be bothered to lock the freaking doors.
Holy crap. What neighborhood were they in? Hunter Biden’s?
People, let me make this perfectly clear.
Don’t leave guns in your car, but if you must, lock your damned doors before you end up arming have the gangs in your town.
This isn’t unique. I’ve written a lot of stories about unlocked cars and guns being stolen out of them, and I honestly don’t fathom how anyone can be so stupid.
On one hand, you understand that while most folks are law-abiding, there are some who aren’t and you might encounter then going about your business, which is why you have a gun in the car. On the other hand, you’re so freaking naive that you honestly think people aren’t going to go through your unlocked car?
How? How can someone like that muster enough brainpower to engage in something like breathing, much less operate a motor vehicle?
It honestly baffles me.
Yet it happens. It happens a lot, and it’s a real problem. This is why some communities are looking to start prosecuting people who do this and have their guns stolen. They’re ready to prosecute the victims of these crimes. While I vehemently oppose this idea, I do understand where they’re coming from. It’s ridiculous that this keeps happening, after all.
It needs to stop. We gun owners can stop it, too. We just have to make sure everyone is using their brains and not being stupid.


bearingarms--2020-11-02--Greg Gutfeld Knows Who Will Get Violent After Election

Most of the media is very preoccupied with election-related violence .
In 2020 , that ’ s probably for the best .
After all , we ’ ve seen a ton of violence so far this year .
However , despite the mountains of evidence–mountainS , that is .
Plural–of just who is inclined to destroy entire neighborhoods if they don ’ t like something , the media has been portraying it as the real threat comes from the right .
Not everyone who works in media is blind to the truth .
Take Greg Gutfeld , for example .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of boarded-up businesses in every major city .
Well , that one side will riot if they don ’ t get their way on Tuesday .
The one that ’ s been rioting all along .
The fact is , if Trump loses , his voters get on with their lives .
But the left , they don ’ t even take “ yes ” for an answer .
So what if they hear a “ no ?
” A longer , violent tantrum will ensue .
I ’ d love it if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s impossible for people on the right to be violent .
I know definitively that plenty of people on the right are prepared to commit violence…but not in response to a fair and open election that doesn ’ t turn out the way they wanted .
They might not like the results , but they ’ re not going to start destroying city blocks over it .
Yet the left has been .
They ’ ve been rioting for months .
Just about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of riot .
There ’ s absolutely no reason to believe a Trump victory won ’ t spur additional riots .
Hell , I ’ m not convinced a Biden victory would prevent the left from rioting .
Regardless , though , the truth is that any violence from the right is more likely to be in response to something like gun confiscation .
Most on the right aren ’ t remotely interested in starting a war if they don ’ t have to .
But some on the left do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a revolution .
They think they can win a fight and instill their socialist Utopia .
They ’ ve been openly agitating for open warfare for months .
And yet , the media is mostly silent .
They run articles about how armed poll watchers will suppress the vote despite zero evidence except for their own fears .
They talk about how the right is a real threat and right-wing militias are looming everywhere .
What they fail to note are any concerns that groups like Antifa will start riots in the aftermath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go their way .
They don ’ t even think critically about the previous violence we ’ ve seen .
Gutfeld is right to remind people just who has been looting and burning cities over every perceived slight .
They think every officer-involved shooting is police brutality , even if the suspect was clearly armed and a threat to people ’ s lives .
It ’ s not the right who has committed millions of dollars worth of property damage .
It ’ s not the right that has destroyed people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh no , that was the left .
The media would do well to remember that fact .

Most of the media is very preoccupied with election-related violence. In 2020, that’s probably for the best. After all, we’ve seen a ton of violence so far this year.
However, despite the mountains of evidence–mountainS, that is. Plural–of just who is inclined to destroy entire neighborhoods if they don’t like something, the media has been portraying it as the real threat comes from the right.
Not everyone who works in media is blind to the truth. Take Greg Gutfeld, for example.
Look at this. This is video of boarded-up businesses in every major city. What’s that tell you? Well, that one side will riot if they don’t get their way on Tuesday. Which one? The one that’s been rioting all along. The fact is, if Trump loses, his voters get on with their lives. But the left, they don’t even take “yes” for an answer. So what if they hear a “no?” A longer, violent tantrum will ensue.
I’d love it if he were wrong, but he’s not.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for people on the right to be violent. I know definitively that plenty of people on the right are prepared to commit violence…but not in response to a fair and open election that doesn’t turn out the way they wanted. They might not like the results, but they’re not going to start destroying city blocks over it.
Yet the left has been. They’ve been rioting for months. Just about every major American city has seen some sort of riot. There’s absolutely no reason to believe a Trump victory won’t spur additional riots.
Hell, I’m not convinced a Biden victory would prevent the left from rioting.
Regardless, though, the truth is that any violence from the right is more likely to be in response to something like gun confiscation. Most on the right aren’t remotely interested in starting a war if they don’t have to.
But some on the left do. They’ve been actively clamoring for a revolution. They think they can win a fight and instill their socialist Utopia. They’ve been openly agitating for open warfare for months.
And yet, the media is mostly silent.
They run articles about how armed poll watchers will suppress the vote despite zero evidence except for their own fears. They talk about how the right is a real threat and right-wing militias are looming everywhere.
What they fail to note are any concerns that groups like Antifa will start riots in the aftermath of an election that doesn’t go their way. They don’t even think critically about the previous violence we’ve seen.
Gutfeld is right to remind people just who has been looting and burning cities over every perceived slight. They think every officer-involved shooting is police brutality, even if the suspect was clearly armed and a threat to people’s lives. It’s not the right who has committed millions of dollars worth of property damage. It’s not the right that has destroyed people’s livelihoods in a pique of rage.
Oh no, that was the left.
The media would do well to remember that fact.