bearingarms--2020-02-20--Bloomberg's Bad Night Is Good News For Gun Owners

Wednesday evening ’ s debate in Las Vegas , Nevada was the first time that many Americans were introduced to Michael Bloomberg in person .
They ’ ve undoubtably been exposed to his campaign ads , on both their TV and computer screens , but most of those commercials don ’ t actually feature Bloomberg himself .
Instead , surrogates and soundbites are used to create the narrative that Bloomberg is a pragmatic , practical politician who just wants to get things accomplished .
That carefully crafted narrative lasted all of about ten seconds during the debate before Sen. Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made to female employees over the years , and after that every candidate on stage took their turns piling on to Bloomberg for his past support for stop-and-frisk , his attempts to buy the Democratic nomination , and more .
The Washingon Free Beacon ‘ s Stephen Gutowski joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co to break down where it all went wrong for Bloomberg , as well as why gun owners should be cautiously optimistic about the damage the anti-gun billionaire may have done to his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the somewhat odd fact that gun control wasn ’ t brought up as a topic in Wednesday evening ’ s debate , despite the founder and funder of the modern gun control movement being on the debate stage for the first time , and the fact that the debate took place on the Las Vegas Strip , not far from where the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting took place in 2017 .
I figured both the setting and the addition of Bloomberg to the debate field almost guaranteed we ’ d see some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t happen .
In fact , not only did moderators not bring up the topic , Bloomberg himself didn ’ t really mention his lavish spending in support of his anti-gun agenda .
Bloomberg was far more interested in bashing Bernie Sanders for his three homes than he was in going after Americans for owning 400-million firearms or for daring to treat keeping and bearing arms as if it ’ s some kind of right or something .
I can almost understand the moderates leaving the issue aside , since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semi-automatic “ assault weapons ” and “ high capacity ” magazines , and most are promoting either a federal gun licensing regime or incentivizing states to establish gun licensing programs .
If you ’ re a moderator hoping to spark a debate between two Democrats , gun control isn ’ t going to be the topic you bring up .
If you ’ re Mike Bloomberg , on the other hand , it is something you want to bring up .
Bloomberg ’ s seems awfully proud of the moment he asked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started their own business .
Bloomberg could have similarly asked what , beyond merely voting for gun control bills , any of the candidates had really done to “ prevent gun violence.
” He could have been ready to go with statistics and a pithy anecdote about how he ’ s not just interested in changing the laws , but the culture when it comes to gun ownership .
He could have brought up the Everytown Creative Council , which is harnessing the power of celebrity to promote his idea of “ gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun .
He didn ’ t do either of those things .
He spent more time bragging about shutting down coal-fueled power plants than his anti-gun activities .
I don ’ t know why that is , but I do find it curious that he didn ’ t remember or choose to really tout his success in advancing his gun control agenda during the debate .
Also on today ’ s show we have a truly terrible story of a a repeat felon charged with brutally murdering his step-grandmother when he should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman who held a burglar at gunpoint until her local police arrived , and a Good Samaritan who stepped in and stopped an attempted rape of a woman at a California gym .
Don ’ t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts or by subscribing to Townhall Media on YouTube .
On tomorrow ’ s show it ’ ll be an all email edition , so send any questions or comments you have to and we ’ ll try to get to them on Friday ’ s program .
Thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and spreading the word !

Wednesday evening’s debate in Las Vegas, Nevada was the first time that many Americans were introduced to Michael Bloomberg in person. They’ve undoubtably been exposed to his campaign ads, on both their TV and computer screens, but most of those commercials don’t actually feature Bloomberg himself. Instead, surrogates and soundbites are used to create the narrative that Bloomberg is a pragmatic, practical politician who just wants to get things accomplished.
That carefully crafted narrative lasted all of about ten seconds during the debate before Sen. Elizabeth Warren tore into Bloomberg for demeaning comments made to female employees over the years, and after that every candidate on stage took their turns piling on to Bloomberg for his past support for stop-and-frisk, his attempts to buy the Democratic nomination, and more.
The Washingon Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co to break down where it all went wrong for Bloomberg, as well as why gun owners should be cautiously optimistic about the damage the anti-gun billionaire may have done to his own campaign.
Gutowski and I also discuss the somewhat odd fact that gun control wasn’t brought up as a topic in Wednesday evening’s debate, despite the founder and funder of the modern gun control movement being on the debate stage for the first time, and the fact that the debate took place on the Las Vegas Strip, not far from where the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting took place in 2017. I figured both the setting and the addition of Bloomberg to the debate field almost guaranteed we’d see some discussion about gun control, but it didn’t happen.
In fact, not only did moderators not bring up the topic, Bloomberg himself didn’t really mention his lavish spending in support of his anti-gun agenda. Bloomberg was far more interested in bashing Bernie Sanders for his three homes than he was in going after Americans for owning 400-million firearms or for daring to treat keeping and bearing arms as if it’s some kind of right or something.
I can almost understand the moderates leaving the issue aside, since the candidates all agree on a ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, and most are promoting either a federal gun licensing regime or incentivizing states to establish gun licensing programs. If you’re a moderator hoping to spark a debate between two Democrats, gun control isn’t going to be the topic you bring up.
If you’re Mike Bloomberg, on the other hand, it is something you want to bring up. Bloomberg’s seems awfully proud of the moment he asked the other candidates if they’d ever started their own business.
Bloomberg could have similarly asked what, beyond merely voting for gun control bills, any of the candidates had really done to “prevent gun violence.” He could have been ready to go with statistics and a pithy anecdote about how he’s not just interested in changing the laws, but the culture when it comes to gun ownership. He could have brought up the Everytown Creative Council, which is harnessing the power of celebrity to promote his idea of “gun safety”: don’t own a gun. He didn’t do either of those things. He spent more time bragging about shutting down coal-fueled power plants than his anti-gun activities. I don’t know why that is, but I do find it curious that he didn’t remember or choose to really tout his success in advancing his gun control agenda during the debate.
Also on today’s show we have a truly terrible story of a a repeat felon charged with brutally murdering his step-grandmother when he should have been behind bars, an Alabama woman who held a burglar at gunpoint until her local police arrived, and a Good Samaritan who stepped in and stopped an attempted rape of a woman at a California gym.
Don’t forget to subscribe to the show at Apple Podcasts or by subscribing to Townhall Media on YouTube. On tomorrow’s show it’ll be an all email edition, so send any questions or comments you have to [email protected] and we’ll try to get to them on Friday’s program. Thanks as always for watching, listening, and spreading the word!


bearingarms--2020-02-20--Bloomberg’s Money Can Buy Influence, But Can't Guarantee Success

Laura Carno is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women ’ s Forum , and is the author of Government Ruins Nearly Everything .
Not to be lost in the rhetorical bloodbath that was Bloomberg ’ s first Presidential primary debate appearance , the former Mayor of New York City mentioned that among his philanthropic gifts were donations to the Democratic party .
It ’ s sad that he had to defend his wealth by saying that he gives it away , but the idea that he gave money to the Democratic party infrastructure deserves further examination .
Luckily , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just looking at the money Bloomberg has personally donated to federally reported organizations in 2019 and 2020 , it certainly looks like he wanted Democratic organizations to think of him fondly .
Among the donations : • None , which then gives to State party organizations • None Three donations on November 19th to the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) , totaling $ 319,500 In addition , Bloomberg has donated $ 70 million to cities he ’ s campaigning in .
He ’ s a businessman , so what did Bloomberg expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC tweaked the rules candidates must abide by to get on the debate stage , including eliminating the requirement for individual donors , which typically demonstrates the level of grassroots support a candidate has .
But Bloomberg doesn ’ t have grassroots support .
He ’ s self-funding his campaign .
With a reported net worth of $ 62 billion , Bloomberg is likely used to having money solve all problems .
His spending is eclipsing typical campaigns this early in the primary including nearly $ 400 million in ads so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , Even with all that money , Bloomberg was unprepared , and he underperformed in his first debate .
Significantly .
Even CNN panned his appearance .
Maybe this is a problem that his significant money can ’ t solve .

Laura Carno is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, and is the author of Government Ruins Nearly Everything.
Not to be lost in the rhetorical bloodbath that was Bloomberg’s first Presidential primary debate appearance, the former Mayor of New York City mentioned that among his philanthropic gifts were donations to the Democratic party. It’s sad that he had to defend his wealth by saying that he gives it away, but the idea that he gave money to the Democratic party infrastructure deserves further examination.
Luckily, all of those transactions are tracked. Just looking at the money Bloomberg has personally donated to federally reported organizations in 2019 and 2020, it certainly looks like he wanted Democratic organizations to think of him fondly. Among the donations:
$5 million to Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight
$10 million to the House Majority PAC
Donations to 49 state Democratic Party organizations totaling over $6 million
$800,000 to the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund , which then gives to State party organizations
Three donations on November 19th to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), totaling $319,500
In addition, Bloomberg has donated $70 million to cities he’s campaigning in. He’s a businessman, so what did Bloomberg expect for his investment?
In January, the DNC tweaked the rules candidates must abide by to get on the debate stage, including eliminating the requirement for individual donors, which typically demonstrates the level of grassroots support a candidate has. But Bloomberg doesn’t have grassroots support. He’s self-funding his campaign.
With a reported net worth of $62 billion, Bloomberg is likely used to having money solve all problems. His spending is eclipsing typical campaigns this early in the primary including nearly $400 million in ads so far and over 2,400 campaign staff hired across the country,
Even with all that money, Bloomberg was unprepared, and he underperformed in his first debate. Significantly. Even CNN panned his appearance.
Maybe this is a problem that his significant money can’t solve.


bearingarms--2020-02-20--GA One Step Closer To Universal Recognition Of Right To Carry

Lawmakers on a Georgia legislative subcommittee unanimously approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow any concealed carry licensee in the country to legally carry their firearms in the state , sending the bill on to a full House committee for a vote and expected approval .
HB787 would establish a system of universal reciprocity in the state , replacing the individual reciprocity agreements Georgia already has with 32 other states across the country .
The bill ’ s sponsor says the legislation will make Georgia a more attractive destination for gun owners .
House Bill 787 , sponsored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the purpose of the legislation is to make it easier for travelers to bring their guns into the state .
“ It would be good for hunting and fishing , as well as some other , kind of , pro-Second Amendment folks , ” she said .
“ It doesn ’ t it doesn ’ t expand our licensing here in the state of Georgia.
” It ’ s unclear if anyone who has brought a gun from a state that Georgia does not have an agreement with has been prosecuted unless he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes .
Gun control advocates warned that allowing people from states that may have loose licensing laws could endanger Georgians .
It shouldn ’ t come as a big surprise that Moms Demand Action is opposed to expanding reciprocity , though Rast is wrong when she says passage of the bill would make it harder for law enforcement to protect their communities .
Concealed carry holders are more law-abiding than the general population , so if Rast is really concerned about people coming in from out-of-state to commit acts of violence , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s borders be closed to everyone but concealed carry licensees .
HB787 now heads to a vote in the full House Public Safety Committee , and must be sent to the state Senate by March 12th to remain viable this session .
At the moment , it looks like HB787 is in pretty good shape , but if you ’ re a Georgia gun owner now would be a good time to contact your state representative and urge them to support the measure .
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
https : //bearingarms.com/author/camedwards/

Lawmakers on a Georgia legislative subcommittee unanimously approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow any concealed carry licensee in the country to legally carry their firearms in the state, sending the bill on to a full House committee for a vote and expected approval.
HB787 would establish a system of universal reciprocity in the state, replacing the individual reciprocity agreements Georgia already has with 32 other states across the country. The bill’s sponsor says the legislation will make Georgia a more attractive destination for gun owners.
House Bill 787, sponsored by Canton Republican Rep. Mandi Ballinger, said the purpose of the legislation is to make it easier for travelers to bring their guns into the state. “It would be good for hunting and fishing, as well as some other, kind of, pro-Second Amendment folks,” she said. “It doesn’t it doesn’t expand our licensing here in the state of Georgia.” It’s unclear if anyone who has brought a gun from a state that Georgia does not have an agreement with has been prosecuted unless he or she already was charged with other crimes. Gun control advocates warned that allowing people from states that may have loose licensing laws could endanger Georgians.
Page Rast, a Smyrna resident and volunteer with gun control group Moms Demand Action, told lawmakers she worried allowing gun permit holders from all states to carry their weapons in Georgia.
“Weakening reciprocity laws is just not a good practice,” Rast said. “This will only make it more difficult for local Georgia law enforcement to help keep our communities safe.”
It shouldn’t come as a big surprise that Moms Demand Action is opposed to expanding reciprocity, though Rast is wrong when she says passage of the bill would make it harder for law enforcement to protect their communities. Concealed carry holders are more law-abiding than the general population, so if Rast is really concerned about people coming in from out-of-state to commit acts of violence, she should probably be demanding the state’s borders be closed to everyone but concealed carry licensees.
HB787 now heads to a vote in the full House Public Safety Committee, and must be sent to the state Senate by March 12th to remain viable this session. At the moment, it looks like HB787 is in pretty good shape, but if you’re a Georgia gun owner now would be a good time to contact your state representative and urge them to support the measure.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--Mustering Militias And Redrawing Borders

It ’ s an all email edition of Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. today , and we ’ re taking on everything from the recent muster of the unorganized militia in several Virginia counties to the push by some residents of eastern Oregon to leave the state and become a part of the state of Idaho , as well as a little rant from yours truly about the latest attempt by Democrats in the Virginia legislature to punish those opposed to their gun control agenda .
Several hundred Virginians recently turned out in Bedford County after a call to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook and in locations throughout the county .
“ This is the next natural progression from sanctuary status , ” said organizer Wes Gardner .
“ We ’ ve been lobbying .
We ’ ve been making phone calls .
We ’ ve been sending emails.
” They said the purpose of the muster is to preserve tranquility , peace , and civil order by organizing volunteers in the event that a militia is required to defend the “ rights and liberties of the citizens ” of Bedford County and Campbell County .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ help protect the counties and the citizens in that county because what we ’ re seeing right now is a violation of the basic of civil rights , ” said Gardner .
Gardner says the militia will work with the Sheriff ’ s office and the Board of Supervisors to protect Bedford County citizens .
“ So if there were any kind of natural disasters , the militia would be another organized body that they can call at a moment ’ s notice to actually help serve and benefit the community , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement will grow and mature in Virginia and around the country , I wouldn ’ t be shocked to see more activity like this .
Go check out the entire story from WSET-TV in Virginia and you ’ ll see that the organizers and attendees don ’ t come across as an unhinged mob , but concerned citizens looking to protect their rights and their local communities .
It ’ s a pretty fair and evenhanded report , and they even publicized an upcoming militia muster in Campbell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for the push in eastern Oregon to become a part of Idaho , it does remind me a little bit of the offer by West Virginia legislators to annex counties in Virginia that vote to leave the state .
Basically , rural residents of eastern Oregon feel they have much more in common with the state of Idaho than residents of Portland , and they want to redraw the borders so that they feel like they have representation in their state government .
The group known as “ Greater Idaho ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oregon that would secede 19 counties located in the east and merge them with its neighbors .
Mike McCarter , one of the petitioners , said in a post that he and his neighbors are unhappy with the state legislature ’ s work that threatens “ our industries , our wallet , our gun rights , and our values.
” “ We tried voting those legislators out but rural Oregon is outnumbered and our voices are now ignored .
This is our last resort , ” he said .
Greater Idaho says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have so far accepted the ballot proposal .
The group is also seeking to add rural areas in California to the new state boundaries .
Over the last couple of years , there have been campaigns by some Californians and Oregon residents to secede and form the State of Jefferson , but those efforts failed .
Priscilla Southwell , a professor of political science at the University of Oregon , said Greater Idaho ’ s measure , will likely end up as a symbolic move .
“ I think seceding will be unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone pass , ” she said .
I suspect Southwell is right , but you know , I ’ m willing to consider the idea that we could alleviate at least some of our current political tensions by redrawing state borders .
If it were to happen , however , I think we ’ d really need to look at redrawing all of the current state borders to better reflect current political and cultural sentiment .
Of course , even if you redraw every state ’ s borders , we ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided 50-50 on any number of important and fundamental questions , so I don ’ t know how much it would truly help in the long run .
Still , if I could live in West Virginia without having to sell my house and pack up my family , just by being annexed , I probably would .
Since it ’ s a long shot , my plan for now is to stay in Virginia and fight like hell to retake the state in 2021 , as well as working as hard as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible elected this November in the state .

It’s an all email edition of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. today, and we’re taking on everything from the recent muster of the unorganized militia in several Virginia counties to the push by some residents of eastern Oregon to leave the state and become a part of the state of Idaho, as well as a little rant from yours truly about the latest attempt by Democrats in the Virginia legislature to punish those opposed to their gun control agenda.
Several hundred Virginians recently turned out in Bedford County after a call to muster the unorganized militia was posted on Facebook and in locations throughout the county.
“This is the next natural progression from sanctuary status,” said organizer Wes Gardner. “We’ve been lobbying. We’ve been making phone calls. We’ve been sending emails.” They said the purpose of the muster is to preserve tranquility, peace, and civil order by organizing volunteers in the event that a militia is required to defend the “rights and liberties of the citizens” of and . “The militia is another avenue to help protect the counties and the citizens in that county because what we’re seeing right now is a violation of the basic of civil rights,” said Gardner. Gardner says the militia will work with the Sheriff’s office and the Board of Supervisors to protect Bedford County citizens. “So if there were any kind of natural disasters, the militia would be another organized body that they can call at a moment’s notice to actually help serve and benefit the community,” said Gardner.
As we look at how the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement will grow and mature in Virginia and around the country, I wouldn’t be shocked to see more activity like this. Go check out the entire story from WSET-TV in Virginia and you’ll see that the organizers and attendees don’t come across as an unhinged mob, but concerned citizens looking to protect their rights and their local communities. It’s a pretty fair and evenhanded report, and they even publicized an upcoming militia muster in Campbell County, Virginia on the 29th.
As for the push in eastern Oregon to become a part of Idaho, it does remind me a little bit of the offer by West Virginia legislators to annex counties in Virginia that vote to leave the state. Basically, rural residents of eastern Oregon feel they have much more in common with the state of Idaho than residents of Portland, and they want to redraw the borders so that they feel like they have representation in their state government.
The group known as “Greater Idaho” is seeking to create a ballot proposal in Oregon that would secede 19 counties located in the east and merge them with its neighbors. Mike McCarter, one of the petitioners, said in a post that he and his neighbors are unhappy with the state legislature’s work that threatens “our industries, our wallet, our gun rights, and our values.” “We tried voting those legislators out but rural Oregon is outnumbered and our voices are now ignored. This is our last resort,” he said. Greater Idaho says that two counties, Josephine and Douglas, have so far accepted the ballot proposal. The group is also seeking to add rural areas in California to the new state boundaries. Over the last couple of years, there have been campaigns by some Californians and Oregon residents to secede and form the State of Jefferson, but those efforts failed. Priscilla Southwell, a professor of political science at the University of Oregon, said Greater Idaho’s measure, will likely end up as a symbolic move. “I think seceding will be unlikely that it will get enough signatures let alone pass,” she said.
I suspect Southwell is right, but you know, I’m willing to consider the idea that we could alleviate at least some of our current political tensions by redrawing state borders. If it were to happen, however, I think we’d really need to look at redrawing all of the current state borders to better reflect current political and cultural sentiment. Of course, even if you redraw every state’s borders, we’re still living in a nation that is roughly divided 50-50 on any number of important and fundamental questions, so I don’t know how much it would truly help in the long run. Still, if I could live in West Virginia without having to sell my house and pack up my family, just by being annexed, I probably would.
Since it’s a long shot, my plan for now is to stay in Virginia and fight like hell to retake the state in 2021, as well as working as hard as possible to get as many pro-2A Congresscritters as possible elected this November in the state.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--NH Dems Continue Push On Previously Vetoed Bills

Last year , anti-gun Democrats in New Hampshire tried to push a whole slate of gun control legislation onto the people of the Granite State .
Unfortunately for them , it passed only to get shot down by the governor .
They didn ’ t have the votes to override the veto , which meant they didn ’ t get their gun control .
Now , though , it seems they want to go for round two with pretty much the same slate of bills .
Democrats in Concord are moving forward with a revived set of gun control bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Lawmakers are calling the bills top priorities , even though they are likely to be vetoed again .
They said they want to give Gov .
Chris Sununu a chance to change his mind .
The third piece of high-profile gun control legislation was passed Thursday .
It would expand background checks to close the gun show loophole .
“ Nineteen other states have taken steps to close this loophole , some of them on the heels of a tragedy and the loss of innocent lives , ” said Rep. David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time for New Hampshire to join them.
” House Democrats passed a hotly debated red flag law in January , and a three-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm was passed this week .
In other words , they lost last year and somehow thing Governor Chris Sununu will change his mind because…reasons ?
Holy crap , how deluded can these people possibly be ?
Sununu kind of brought this on himself , though .
He did invite them to pass the bills again so he could consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them too much last year that he can ’ t wait to do it again ?
That ’ s a reason I can respect .
Then again , though , this might be pretty brilliant .
While they ’ re continuing to push the same bills year after year , they ’ re not making headway on literally anything else .
They ’ re not subtly tweaking bills until they ’ re able to pass even with a gubernatorial veto .
They ’ re just doing the same thing over and over again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s doing , more power to him .
What Democrats are doing , though , is falling into that same trap by continuing to push the exact same bills .
I ’ m more than willing to let them do so , of course , but I can ’ t help but shake my head at the stupidity .
What I have to remind myself is that one should never interrupt their opponent when they ’ re making a mistake .
The question becomes , how long until the voters of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting nimrods out of office for beating the same dead horse over and over again ?
There comes a point where everyone kind of gets sick of this kind of thing and just wants it to end .
The problem is , the people who are pushing this will be the very last to reach that point .
That ’ s when hilarity ensues .
Hilarity for all of us watching this , anyway .
Regardless , it ’ s clear they ’ ll keep pushing failed policies until they ’ re no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Last year, anti-gun Democrats in New Hampshire tried to push a whole slate of gun control legislation onto the people of the Granite State. Unfortunately for them, it passed only to get shot down by the governor. They didn’t have the votes to override the veto, which meant they didn’t get their gun control.
Now, though, it seems they want to go for round two with pretty much the same slate of bills.
Democrats in Concord are moving forward with a revived set of gun control bills that were vetoed by the governor last year. Lawmakers are calling the bills top priorities, even though they are likely to be vetoed again. They said they want to give Gov. Chris Sununu a chance to change his mind. The third piece of high-profile gun control legislation was passed Thursday. It would expand background checks to close the gun show loophole. “Nineteen other states have taken steps to close this loophole, some of them on the heels of a tragedy and the loss of innocent lives,” said Rep. David Meuse, D-Portsmouth. “It’s time for New Hampshire to join them.” House Democrats passed a hotly debated red flag law in January, and a three-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a firearm was passed this week.
In other words, they lost last year and somehow thing Governor Chris Sununu will change his mind because…reasons?
Holy crap, how deluded can these people possibly be?
Sununu kind of brought this on himself, though. He did invite them to pass the bills again so he could consider them again. Maybe he enjoyed vetoing them too much last year that he can’t wait to do it again? That’s a reason I can respect.
Then again, though, this might be pretty brilliant. While they’re continuing to push the same bills year after year, they’re not making headway on literally anything else. They’re not subtly tweaking bills until they’re able to pass even with a gubernatorial veto. They’re just doing the same thing over and over again.
If that’s what he’s doing, more power to him.
What Democrats are doing, though, is falling into that same trap by continuing to push the exact same bills. I’m more than willing to let them do so, of course, but I can’t help but shake my head at the stupidity.
What I have to remind myself is that one should never interrupt their opponent when they’re making a mistake.
The question becomes, how long until the voters of New Hampshire get sick of this and start voting nimrods out of office for beating the same dead horse over and over again? There comes a point where everyone kind of gets sick of this kind of thing and just wants it to end. The problem is, the people who are pushing this will be the very last to reach that point.
That’s when hilarity ensues. Hilarity for all of us watching this, anyway.
Regardless, it’s clear they’ll keep pushing failed policies until they’re no longer in a position to push them.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--NM Counties Oppose "Red Flag" Bill On Governor's Desk

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham made passage of a “ red flag ” firearms seizure bill her top priority for the 30-day legislative session this year , and after several close votes , a bill has made it to her desk over the objections of most of the state ’ s sheriffs and the rank-and-file of the state ’ s largest police force .
Several counties in the state are also formally opposing the measure , including Chaves County in the eastern part of the state , where commissioners voted Thursday to approve a resolution in opposition to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chaves County Commission chambers as the commission made clear their opposition to the law .
“ This just violates too many constitutional rights for us to even enforce , ” said Chaves County Sheriff Mike Herrington .
Herrington has been very vocal about his objection to the ‘ red flag ’ gun bill which would allow law enforcement to petition a court to take away a person ’ s guns if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others .
Herrington presented a petition to the commissioners signed by hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag bill , and many of them were in attendance at the meeting , eager to see their local officials send a message to the governor .
The Sheriff says he can ’ t uphold a law he feels is unconstitutional and residents are backing him up .
“ I was extremely concerned about this particular law because it worries me that there is no due process , ” said Stacy Wolkwitz .
“ This is something that affects all New Mexicans , the Second Amendment is a way of life for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everyone that showed up to support us , ” said Claire Chase .
While Chaves County may the latest to oppose the bill , it ’ s not the first in the state to pass a formal resolution urging the governor to reject the gun control legislation .
Otero County commissioners approved a resolution of their own last week .
Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday voicing opposition to a proposed law they said “ will make criminals of innocent citizens.
” “ I ’ m very much in support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting happens around here .
This is why I brought it : mainly to show our opposition to it and to show support for our sheriff , ” Otero County Commission Vice Chairwoman Lori Bies said Torrance County commissioners also approved a resolution opposing the red flag bill last week , while commissioners in Dona Ana County rejected a resolution in support of the red flag bill at a meeting in late January attended by hundreds of residents .
The opposition may not matter to Gov .
Grisham , who is still expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sign that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in the state aren ’ t going to back down .
Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace has already said that he and other sheriffs will challenge the red flag law in court if necessary , and Mace even told Bearing Arms that he ’ s willing to face a contempt charge rather than enforce a red flag order in his county .

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham made passage of a “red flag” firearms seizure bill her top priority for the 30-day legislative session this year, and after several close votes, a bill has made it to her desk over the objections of most of the state’s sheriffs and the rank-and-file of the state’s largest police force. Several counties in the state are also formally opposing the measure, including Chaves County in the eastern part of the state, where commissioners voted Thursday to approve a resolution in opposition to the bill.
hundreds of residents poured into the Chaves County Commission chambers as the commission made clear their opposition to the law. “This just violates too many constitutional rights for us to even enforce,” said Chaves County Sheriff Mike Herrington. Herrington has been very vocal about his objection to the ‘red flag’ gun bill which would allow law enforcement to petition a court to take away a person’s guns if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others.
Herrington presented a petition to the commissioners signed by hundreds of residents who stand opposed to the red flag bill, and many of them were in attendance at the meeting, eager to see their local officials send a message to the governor.
The Sheriff says he can’t uphold a law he feels is unconstitutional and residents are backing him up. “I was extremely concerned about this particular law because it worries me that there is no due process,” said Stacy Wolkwitz. “This is something that affects all New Mexicans, the Second Amendment is a way of life for us, and we appreciate all the coverage and everyone that showed up to support us,” said Claire Chase.
While Chaves County may the latest to oppose the bill, it’s not the first in the state to pass a formal resolution urging the governor to reject the gun control legislation. Otero County commissioners approved a resolution of their own last week.
Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday voicing opposition to a proposed law they said “will make criminals of innocent citizens.” “I’m very much in support of the Second Amendment and a lot of shooting happens around here. This is why I brought it: mainly to show our opposition to it and to show support for our sheriff,” Otero County Commission Vice Chairwoman Lori Bies said
Torrance County commissioners also approved a resolution opposing the red flag bill last week, while commissioners in Dona Ana County rejected a resolution in support of the red flag bill at a meeting in late January attended by hundreds of residents.
The opposition may not matter to Gov. Grisham, who is still expected to sign the bill, but its a sign that gun owners and Second Amendment supporters in the state aren’t going to back down. Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace has already said that he and other sheriffs will challenge the red flag law in court if necessary, and Mace even told Bearing Arms that he’s willing to face a contempt charge rather than enforce a red flag order in his county.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--Schumer Continues Anti-Gun Fear-Mongering On "Ghost Guns"

The vast majority of people who build firearms at home are law-abiding citizens who just like to tinker with guns .
Some are law-abiding citizens who prefer to not have a paper trail for their firearms but have no reason they couldn ’ t obtain one from a gun store .
These probably represent something like 99 percent of homebuilt firearms in the United States .
However , anti-gunners like Sen. Charles Schumer continue to argue that these weapons represent some kind of a threat to the public and , as such , should be outright banned .
U.S. senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday to warn of the danger posed by untraceable “ ghost guns ” and to call for immediate federal action to mandate background checks on all large firearms components .
Schumer ’ s visit coincides with a recent spike in gun violence in the city .
“ Ghost guns ” refers to firearms assembled from parts which can be easily purchased online without a background check .
Unlike fully assembled guns purchased legally , ghost guns do not have serial numbers , making them nearly impossible for police to trace .
Speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Noble , County Executive Pat Ryan and law-enforcement officials from Orange and Ulster counties , Schumer said ghost guns made it frighteningly easy for convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms to obtain deadly weapons .
Of course , Schumer also tried to say he believed in the Second Amendment .
Sure , and I believe he ’ s a complete and total idiot .
Guess which one of us is right , though .
Schumer and his anti-gun buddies have continued to present so-called “ ghost guns ” as a growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but notice how there ’ s always an absence of numbers ?
They don ’ t tell us how many or what percent of guns recovered from criminals are these “ ghost guns ” in the first place .
Why is that ?
The only reason I ’ ve been able to discern is that the numbers are actually pretty damn small .
If it represented 20,000 guns a year , you ’ d better believe they ’ d tell us that .
After all , 20,000 guns is a lot , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s enough of a number to scare people .
Yet as Schumer continues this jihad to try and kill “ ghost guns ” –a jihad he ’ s trying to pressure the Trump administration ATF to implement instead of trying to pass legislation–he has yet to present a single statistic so the American people can determine if this is a real problem or not .
Time and time again , news articles lamenting these guns talk about a “ growing ” problem , but there ’ s no context by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Had police found one gun in a given year , then two guns the next year , followed by three the year after , that ’ s a growing trend , but not a statistically significant one , especially in larger cities .
Without something more in place , we have no reason to take Schumer ’ s claim seriously , and that ’ s the line of attack we all need to take .
Give me numbers .
Show me how big of an issue it really is .
They won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t done so because they know the problem isn ’ t that big , but they don ’ t want you to realize that .
They want people to be afraid , to be terrified that criminals will just build whatever guns they want and bypass the regulations meant to keep them disarmed ; that it will happen all because we didn ’ t regulate a handful of parts .
Meanwhile , who really gets hurt ?
The law-abiding citizen , particularly those who are building their own guns as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy a couple of parts along the way than to buy a completed firearm .
In other words , Schumer ’ s proposing something that ’ ll hurt the poor worse than anyone else .
Shocking , right ?
( Don ’ t answer that , it was rhetorical and sarcastic . )
At the end of the day , though , without hard numbers with which to judge any “ threat ” ourselves , all Schumer is doing is fear-mongering , as is his way .

The vast majority of people who build firearms at home are law-abiding citizens who just like to tinker with guns. Some are law-abiding citizens who prefer to not have a paper trail for their firearms but have no reason they couldn’t obtain one from a gun store. These probably represent something like 99 percent of homebuilt firearms in the United States.
However, anti-gunners like Sen. Charles Schumer continue to argue that these weapons represent some kind of a threat to the public and, as such, should be outright banned.
U.S. senate minority leader Chuck Schumer was in Kingston on Monday to warn of the danger posed by untraceable “ghost guns” and to call for immediate federal action to mandate background checks on all large firearms components. Schumer’s visit coincides with a recent spike in gun violence in the city. “Ghost guns” refers to firearms assembled from parts which can be easily purchased online without a background check. Unlike fully assembled guns purchased legally, ghost guns do not have serial numbers, making them nearly impossible for police to trace. Speaking at Kingston police headquarters alongside Mayor Steve Noble, County Executive Pat Ryan and law-enforcement officials from Orange and Ulster counties, Schumer said ghost guns made it frighteningly easy for convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms to obtain deadly weapons.
Of course, Schumer also tried to say he believed in the Second Amendment.
Sure, and I believe he’s a complete and total idiot. Guess which one of us is right, though.
Schumer and his anti-gun buddies have continued to present so-called “ghost guns” as a growing threat that needs to be addressed, but notice how there’s always an absence of numbers? They don’t tell us how many or what percent of guns recovered from criminals are these “ghost guns” in the first place.
Why is that?
The only reason I’ve been able to discern is that the numbers are actually pretty damn small. If it represented 20,000 guns a year, you’d better believe they’d tell us that. After all, 20,000 guns is a lot, more than the total number of homicides annually. It’s enough of a number to scare people.
Yet as Schumer continues this jihad to try and kill “ghost guns”–a jihad he’s trying to pressure the Trump administration ATF to implement instead of trying to pass legislation–he has yet to present a single statistic so the American people can determine if this is a real problem or not.
Time and time again, news articles lamenting these guns talk about a “growing” problem, but there’s no context by which we can judge for ourselves. Had police found one gun in a given year, then two guns the next year, followed by three the year after, that’s a growing trend, but not a statistically significant one, especially in larger cities.
Without something more in place, we have no reason to take Schumer’s claim seriously, and that’s the line of attack we all need to take. Give me numbers. Show me how big of an issue it really is.
They won’t though. Schumer and his ilk haven’t done so because they know the problem isn’t that big, but they don’t want you to realize that. They want people to be afraid, to be terrified that criminals will just build whatever guns they want and bypass the regulations meant to keep them disarmed; that it will happen all because we didn’t regulate a handful of parts.
Meanwhile, who really gets hurt? The law-abiding citizen, particularly those who are building their own guns as they go because it’s cheaper to buy a couple of parts along the way than to buy a completed firearm.
In other words, Schumer’s proposing something that’ll hurt the poor worse than anyone else. Shocking, right? (Don’t answer that, it was rhetorical and sarcastic.)
At the end of the day, though, without hard numbers with which to judge any “threat” ourselves, all Schumer is doing is fear-mongering, as is his way.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--Did VA Dems Kill A Pay Raise For Sheriffs Deputies Over Gun Control?

That ’ s the allegation from Virginia state Senator Bill Stanley , a Republican lawmaker who says he tried to amend the state ’ s budget to allow for a 3-percent raise for sheriffs and their deputies .
Unfortunately , the measure died on the floor of the Senate , and Stanley says shortly after the vote , the Senate Majority Leader , Dick Saslaw , told him why .
According to Stanley , the Democrat senator from northern Virginia made it clear that the rejection of the small pay increase was due to the opposition of Ralph Northam ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many sheriffs around the state .
When I asked him which law was he talking about , he said “ gun control ” .
I was shocked that the Democrats are now punishing our local Sheriff ’ s Departments ( by eliminating a pay raise for them ) , for the their choice to protect and defend our citizens ’ Second Amendment rights .
Democrats want to restrict a citizen ’ s right to protect themselves , but won ’ t pay our sheriffs ’ deputies to protect Virginians .
Hypocrisy has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t just hit deputies and sheriffs in Second Amendment Sanctuary counties , but will also apply in those four counties that haven ’ t signed on to any pro-Second Amendment resolutions .
The political move will also impact rural Virginians and the safety of their communities .
Many rural sheriffs are already facing staffing and retention problems , in part because of the relatively low pay , as the Martinsville Bulletin in southern Virginia reported back in 2016 .
The sheriff ’ s association paper includes a chart with a pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputies who are state supported , using Patrick County sheriff ’ s employees as an example .
To clarify , the state pay doesn ’ t change with different counties .
The only difference is the amount of the supplement , meaning that if a deputy wants to make more at a certain level , then they ’ re forced to go to counties that can afford to give more locally .
As of Sept. 1 , 2015 , state pay for a starting deputy sheriff was $ 31,009 , increased to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County .
That ’ s compared to $ 36,207 for a state trooper and $ 35,700 as a starting salary for a game warden .
After one year , state pay increases to $ 32,423 for a deputy sheriff .
With a shrinking local supplement , the final salary remained the same at $ 34,299 .
A state trooper after the first year , by comparison , gets an increase to $ 40,482 .
After five years , a deputy sheriff makes $ 32,712 in state pay , for a total of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
A state trooper with five years of experience makes $ 43,268 .
After the five year mark , the pay for a deputy sheriff doesn ’ t change for more than seven years .
A deputy with 10 years on the job in Patrick County makes the same as a fifth-year .
A deputy with 12 years of experience also makes the same as someone with just five years on the job .
By comparison , a state trooper with 12 years in makes $ 53,300 .
The only increase for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they make $ 37,260 in state pay and $ 40,224 with the local supplement .
At this same point , a trooper with 20 years of experience brings home $ 60,100 in Virginia .
In that report , Patrick County Sheriff Dan Smith said that the state is simply underpaying sheriffs deputies , especially compared to surrounding states .
Two Patrick County deputies have resigned in the last two months , one being an eight-year veteran sergeant who left for better pay at a local manufacturing facility , Smith said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A 12-year veteran deputy who makes $ 36,000 per year loses hope after a while , ” Smith said .
He noted that deputies received a total of 5 percent in state pay increases since 2007 , with no compression pay increases like other state employees have received .
According to Smith , even though deputies are constitutional officers and are classified as state-supported local employees , the state does not offer equal support for them .
“ Virginia is the ninth richest state in America , according to Forbes , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 percent less than the national average for patrol officers , ” according to Smith .
The fact that the starting pay for some deputies qualifies them for government assistance “ should be embarrassing to the General Assembly and to the governor ’ s office , ” according to Smith .
A 3-percent raise wasn ’ t going to fix every issue with staffing , but it would have at least provided a cost-of-living increase for deputies across the state .
Now , thanks to anti-gun Democrats in the legislature , the earning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall behind their counterparts in the state police and other sheriffs departments around the country .
It ’ s also worth noting that back in December , Gov .
Ralph Northam claimed that Second Amendment Sanctuaries in the state wouldn ’ t face retribution from lawmakers in his party .
Governor Ralph Northam says there will be no retaliation for becoming one but says there could be consequences if laws aren ’ t followed .
The decision to start declaring localities a ‘ Second Amendment Sanctuary ’ comes after Virginia Democrats took control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Northam said he plans to pass stricter gun laws that include universal background checks .
“ If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books then there are going to be some consequences but I ’ ll cross that bridge if and when we get to it , ” Northam said while speaking at Virginia Beach Wednesday , Dec. 11 .
So far , neither the governor nor Sen. Saslaw have publicly responded to Sen. Stanley ’ s allegations .

That’s the allegation from Virginia state Senator Bill Stanley, a Republican lawmaker who says he tried to amend the state’s budget to allow for a 3-percent raise for sheriffs and their deputies. Unfortunately, the measure died on the floor of the Senate, and Stanley says shortly after the vote, the Senate Majority Leader, Dick Saslaw, told him why.
According to Stanley, the Democrat senator from northern Virginia made it clear that the rejection of the small pay increase was due to the opposition of Ralph Northam’s anti-gun agenda on the part of many sheriffs around the state.
When I asked him which law was he talking about, he said “gun control”. I was shocked that the Democrats are now punishing our local Sheriff’s Departments (by eliminating a pay raise for them), for the their choice to protect and defend our citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Democrats want to restrict a citizen’s right to protect themselves, but won’t pay our sheriffs’ deputies to protect Virginians. Hypocrisy has a name.
This move by Senate Democrats won’t just hit deputies and sheriffs in Second Amendment Sanctuary counties, but will also apply in those four counties that haven’t signed on to any pro-Second Amendment resolutions. The political move will also impact rural Virginians and the safety of their communities. Many rural sheriffs are already facing staffing and retention problems, in part because of the relatively low pay, as the Martinsville Bulletin in southern Virginia reported back in 2016.
The sheriff’s association paper includes a chart with a pay comparison for state law enforcement versus county deputies who are state supported, using Patrick County sheriff’s employees as an example. To clarify, the state pay doesn’t change with different counties. The only difference is the amount of the supplement, meaning that if a deputy wants to make more at a certain level, then they’re forced to go to counties that can afford to give more locally. As of Sept. 1, 2015, state pay for a starting deputy sheriff was $31,009, increased to $34,299 with the local supplement in Patrick County. That’s compared to $36,207 for a state trooper and $35,700 as a starting salary for a game warden. After one year, state pay increases to $32,423 for a deputy sheriff. With a shrinking local supplement, the final salary remained the same at $34,299. A state trooper after the first year, by comparison, gets an increase to $40,482. After five years, a deputy sheriff makes $32,712 in state pay, for a total of $35,331 after the local supplement is added in. A state trooper with five years of experience makes $43,268. After the five year mark, the pay for a deputy sheriff doesn’t change for more than seven years. A deputy with 10 years on the job in Patrick County makes the same as a fifth-year. A deputy with 12 years of experience also makes the same as someone with just five years on the job. By comparison, a state trooper with 12 years in makes $53,300. The only increase for deputies comes at the 20-year mark, where they make $37,260 in state pay and $40,224 with the local supplement. At this same point, a trooper with 20 years of experience brings home $60,100 in Virginia.
In that report, Patrick County Sheriff Dan Smith said that the state is simply underpaying sheriffs deputies, especially compared to surrounding states.
Two Patrick County deputies have resigned in the last two months, one being an eight-year veteran sergeant who left for better pay at a local manufacturing facility, Smith said. “Pay is the main reason people leave. A 12-year veteran deputy who makes $36,000 per year loses hope after a while,” Smith said. He noted that deputies received a total of 5 percent in state pay increases since 2007, with no compression pay increases like other state employees have received. According to Smith, even though deputies are constitutional officers and are classified as state-supported local employees, the state does not offer equal support for them. “Virginia is the ninth richest state in America, according to Forbes, however, they are paying their deputy sheriffs 25 percent less than the national average for patrol officers,” according to Smith. The fact that the starting pay for some deputies qualifies them for government assistance “should be embarrassing to the General Assembly and to the governor’s office,” according to Smith.
A 3-percent raise wasn’t going to fix every issue with staffing, but it would have at least provided a cost-of-living increase for deputies across the state. Now, thanks to anti-gun Democrats in the legislature, the earning power of these deputies will continue to fall behind their counterparts in the state police and other sheriffs departments around the country.
It’s also worth noting that back in December, Gov. Ralph Northam claimed that Second Amendment Sanctuaries in the state wouldn’t face retribution from lawmakers in his party.
Governor Ralph Northam says there will be no retaliation for becoming one but says there could be consequences if laws aren’t followed. The decision to start declaring localities a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary’ comes after Virginia Democrats took control of the General Assembly in the latest election. Northam said he that include universal background checks. “If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books then there are going to be some consequences but I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get to it,” Northam said while speaking at Virginia Beach Wednesday, Dec. 11.
So far, neither the governor nor Sen. Saslaw have publicly responded to Sen. Stanley’s allegations.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--Media Sees "Boogaloo" Jokes As Serious Calls For Violence

All around the nation , a lot of gun owners are getting ready to defend their right to keep and bear arms .
Democrats in the House have already tried , only being halted by a recalcitrant Senate thus far .
If November ’ s elections go the wrong way , it seems that gun control will be coming down the pipe whether we want it or not .
So , a lot of people are digging in .
After all , how many candidates are talking about bans of certain commonly-owned firearms ?
All of them , to some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jokes about the Boogaloo .
While there ’ s a hint of warning intended , mostly it ’ s people trying to make light of a tense situation .
For some in the media , though , that can ’ t be the reason .
An anti-government movement that advocates for a violent uprising targeting liberal political opponents and law enforcement has moved from the fringes of the internet into the mainstream and surged on social media in recent months , according to a group of researchers that tracks hate groups .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second Civil War organized around the term “ boogaloo , ” includes groups on mainstream internet platforms such as Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and Reddit , as well as fringe websites including 4chan , according to a report released Tuesday night by the Network Contagion Research Institute ( NCRI ) , an independent nonprofit of scientists and engineers that tracks and reports on misinformation and hate speech across social media .
While calls for organized and targeted violence in the form of a new Civil War have previously circulated among some hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ boogaloo ” appeared to be a new and discrete movement .
NCRI researchers who analyzed more than 100 million social media posts and comments found that through the use of memes — inside jokes commonly in the form of images — extremists have pushed anti-government and anti-law enforcement messages across social media platforms .
They have also organized online communities with tens of thousands of members , some of whom have assembled at real-world events .
In other words , the other side of this issue takes our memes seriously .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a communist is to toss them from a helicopter or that many of us adhere to the fanatical religion found in Warhammer 40K as well .
Memes are jokes .
That ’ s all they mean .
What neither the reporter who wrote this story nor the experts who collated all this data bothered to do was actually speak to anyone who shared these memes .
Though , in all fairness , the reporter does manage to note that not everyone who shares them is a violent extremist .
However , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end in the story .
You see , some people really are itching for a fight .
Granted , my experience is that most of them aren ’ t going to be the ones doing most of the fighting–they ’ d die of a heart attack or a lack of a cheeseburger before the first shot is even fired–but still want to see the fight happen .
Others are simply accepting that such a fight is inevitable .
For most , though , it ’ s just a joke .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality , though .
Many of us do figure this fight is coming sooner or later .
The Democratic Primary rhetoric has been more than enough to convince some people that a world they don ’ t want to live in is coming unless they resist it with more than just words .
But until that time gets here , references to the “ boogaloo ” are just jokes .
So why would they really take issue with memes they admit most of which are attempts at humor ?
The answer is simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want to force it underground .
They don ’ t want people talking about a boogaloo because then those concerned about a fight coming will feel isolated and be unable to organize for such a fight .
They want us disorganized and alone .
By labeling anything and everything we do as evidence of extremism , they hope to keep people from doing anything .
Anything at all .
Meanwhile , we ’ re going to keep sharing boogaloo memes and laughing about them .
Not because we want a war , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want it or not .
Should they take them seriously , though ?
Well , if they want to prevent it , then they probably should .
Edited to add : These people can look at this and think we ’ re serious ?

All around the nation, a lot of gun owners are getting ready to defend their right to keep and bear arms. Democrats in the House have already tried, only being halted by a recalcitrant Senate thus far. If November’s elections go the wrong way, it seems that gun control will be coming down the pipe whether we want it or not.
So, a lot of people are digging in. After all, how many candidates are talking about bans of certain commonly-owned firearms? All of them, to some degree?
However, most are cracking jokes about the Boogaloo. While there’s a hint of warning intended, mostly it’s people trying to make light of a tense situation.
For some in the media, though, that can’t be the reason.
An anti-government movement that advocates for a violent uprising targeting liberal political opponents and law enforcement has moved from the fringes of the internet into the mainstream and surged on social media in recent months, according to a group of researchers that tracks hate groups. The movement, which says it wants a second Civil War organized around the term “boogaloo,” includes groups on mainstream internet platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Reddit, as well as fringe websites including 4chan, according to a report released Tuesday night by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), an independent nonprofit of scientists and engineers that tracks and reports on misinformation and hate speech across social media. While calls for organized and targeted violence in the form of a new Civil War have previously circulated among some hate groups, the emergence of the term “boogaloo” appeared to be a new and discrete movement. NCRI researchers who analyzed more than 100 million social media posts and comments found that through the use of memes — inside jokes commonly in the form of images — extremists have pushed anti-government and anti-law enforcement messages across social media platforms. They have also organized online communities with tens of thousands of members, some of whom have assembled at real-world events.
In other words, the other side of this issue takes our memes seriously.
I suppose they also think our initial reaction to a communist is to toss them from a helicopter or that many of us adhere to the fanatical religion found in Warhammer 40K as well.
Memes are jokes. That’s all they mean.
What neither the reporter who wrote this story nor the experts who collated all this data bothered to do was actually speak to anyone who shared these memes.
Though, in all fairness, the reporter does manage to note that not everyone who shares them is a violent extremist.
The term is used to describe an uprising against a seemingly tyrannical or left-wing government, often in response to a perceived threat of widespread gun confiscation. For many, the word “boogaloo” — silly on its face — is used jokingly or ironically, but for others, the boogaloo memes are shared alongside violent text and images, seemingly to inflame an eventual confrontation.
However, that’s where the good sense seems to end in the story.
You see, some people really are itching for a fight. Granted, my experience is that most of them aren’t going to be the ones doing most of the fighting–they’d die of a heart attack or a lack of a cheeseburger before the first shot is even fired–but still want to see the fight happen. Others are simply accepting that such a fight is inevitable.
For most, though, it’s just a joke. It’s a joke with a sting of reality, though. Many of us do figure this fight is coming sooner or later. The Democratic Primary rhetoric has been more than enough to convince some people that a world they don’t want to live in is coming unless they resist it with more than just words. But until that time gets here, references to the “boogaloo” are just jokes.
So why would they really take issue with memes they admit most of which are attempts at humor?
The answer is simple. By labeling something as extremism, they want to force it underground. They don’t want people talking about a boogaloo because then those concerned about a fight coming will feel isolated and be unable to organize for such a fight. They want us disorganized and alone.
By labeling anything and everything we do as evidence of extremism, they hope to keep people from doing anything. Anything at all.
Meanwhile, we’re going to keep sharing boogaloo memes and laughing about them. Not because we want a war, but because we see it coming whether we want it or not.
Should they take them seriously, though? Well, if they want to prevent it, then they probably should.
Edited to add: These people can look at this and think we’re serious?


bearingarms--2020-02-21--OH Church Offers Concealed Carry Training To Nearly 200 Women

One of the largest black churches in Cincinnati is doing its part to ensure that the human right of self-defense is alive and well by recently hosting a concealed carry course for women that was attended by nearly 200 women .
The class , held back on February 8th , was spearheaded by New Prospect Baptist Church pastor Rev .
Damon Lynch III and Cincinnati city councilman Jeff Pastor , and quickly filled up after Pastor announced the class on Facebook .
Two hundred women signed up .
Despite an early morning snowfall that made driving treacherous , 179 women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with varying comfort levels with guns .
Some had never touched one .
Others owned a gun , but wanted the license needed to carry it with them .
Some came because their moms or sisters or friends suggested it .
The class was taught by certified CCW licensing firm Arm the Populace .
It was an intense , nine-hour class , complete with a built-just-for-the class shooting range in an empty storage area above the church ’ s community center .
Women paid $ 25 each to cover the cost of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 65 class fee .
Arm the Populace , a Cincinnati-based company that offers firearms and personal defense training , donated its time .
It billed the class as the largest CCW class of all women ever in Ohio .
Gun control advocates like Shannon Watts constantly try to portray gun ownership and support for the Second Amendment as something that only older , white guys are interested in , but classes like the one recently hosted by New Prospect Baptist Church tell a different story .
I ’ m also very impressed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so involved in helping to host the event , despite the fact that he ’ s not a gun owner himself .
New Prospect Baptist Church is more than a church , ” Lynch said .
“ It ’ s the heart of the community.
” Without a recreation center , like many Cincinnati neighborhoods have , the church serves that need .
On the morning of the CCW permitting class , the church opened its doors for a financial freedom class , a Jewish culture class , an AA meeting and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun lover ; I don ’ t own any guns , but people have Second Amendment rights to own a gun , ” Lynch said .
“ In the African American community , the conversation is usually about buying guns back .
But , if people are lawfully trained and learn how to be responsible , they will probably never use one .
It sets them on a different course .
As opposed to person who gets a gun and thinks I have to go shoot.
” And that , Lynch said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the modern gun control movement , “ gun safety ” is defined as “ don ’ t own a gun , ” but Lynch clearly understands that real training and education beats ignorance and fear .
That desire for education and training is what drove many of the women to attend the concealed carry class , including 35-year old Kai Brown , a single mom of two who told the Cincinnati Inquirer that she was afraid of guns when she walked through the door .
When it came time to practice shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apprehensive and flinched as others fired .
She dipped her head into her hands .
She took a deep breath .
She fanned herself with her hands .
But the instructors were kind .
Encouraging .
Helpful .
“ It ’ s evident that that fear is still there , ” Brown said .
“ I am hoping that just because of the times we live in and now , you know , you have to be prepared , ” Brown said .
“ And so I don ’ t want my fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , get with the times.
” She praised Pastor for giving her the opportunity .
And she echoed his opening sentiments to the class .
“ It ’ s my right to carry…so I want to be able to , ” Brown said .
“ It ’ s wonderful to be surrounded by many different women from many different walks of life .
And we ’ re all , you know , here to protect ourselves.
” Amen to that .
Self defense is a human right , and these @ @ @ @ @ @

One of the largest black churches in Cincinnati is doing its part to ensure that the human right of self-defense is alive and well by recently hosting a concealed carry course for women that was attended by nearly 200 women. The class, held back on February 8th, was spearheaded by New Prospect Baptist Church pastor Rev. Damon Lynch III and Cincinnati city councilman Jeff Pastor, and quickly filled up after Pastor announced the class on Facebook.
Two hundred women signed up. Despite an early morning snowfall that made driving treacherous, 179 women turned out for the class, all with varying comfort levels with guns. Some had never touched one. Others owned a gun, but wanted the license needed to carry it with them. Some came because their moms or sisters or friends suggested it. The class was taught by certified CCW licensing firm Arm the Populace. It was an intense, nine-hour class, complete with a built-just-for-the class shooting range in an empty storage area above the church’s community center. Women paid $25 each to cover the cost of the space, cheaper than the typical $65 class fee. Arm the Populace, a Cincinnati-based company that offers firearms and personal defense training, donated its time. It billed the class as the largest CCW class of all women ever in Ohio.
Gun control advocates like Shannon Watts constantly try to portray gun ownership and support for the Second Amendment as something that only older, white guys are interested in, but classes like the one recently hosted by New Prospect Baptist Church tell a different story. I’m also very impressed by the fact that Rev. Lynch was so involved in helping to host the event, despite the fact that he’s not a gun owner himself.
New Prospect Baptist Church is more than a church,” Lynch said. “It’s the heart of the community.” Without a recreation center, like many Cincinnati neighborhoods have, the church serves that need. On the morning of the CCW permitting class, the church opened its doors for a financial freedom class, a Jewish culture class, an AA meeting and a funeral. “I’m not a gun lover; I don’t own any guns, but people have Second Amendment rights to own a gun,” Lynch said. “In the African American community, the conversation is usually about buying guns back. But, if people are lawfully trained and learn how to be responsible, they will probably never use one. It sets them on a different course. As opposed to person who gets a gun and thinks I have to go shoot.” And that, Lynch said, “is a good thing.”
In the modern gun control movement, “gun safety” is defined as “don’t own a gun,” but Lynch clearly understands that real training and education beats ignorance and fear. That desire for education and training is what drove many of the women to attend the concealed carry class, including 35-year old Kai Brown, a single mom of two who told the Cincinnati Inquirer that she was afraid of guns when she walked through the door.
When it came time to practice shooting, that fear emerged. She was apprehensive and flinched as others fired. She dipped her head into her hands. She took a deep breath. She fanned herself with her hands. But the instructors were kind. Encouraging. Helpful. Brown took another breath. And she fired. “It’s evident that that fear is still there,” Brown said. “I am hoping that just because of the times we live in and now, you know, you have to be prepared,” Brown said. “And so I don’t want my fear to keep me from being unable to, you know, get with the times.” She praised Pastor for giving her the opportunity. And she echoed his opening sentiments to the class. “It’s my right to carry…so I want to be able to,” Brown said. “It’s wonderful to be surrounded by many different women from many different walks of life. And we’re all, you know, here to protect ourselves.”
Amen to that. Self defense is a human right, and these women aim to prove it.


bearingarms--2020-02-21--Citibank's Anti-Gun Policies May Hurt It With Louisiana State Government

In the wake of Parkland , one of the many pushes out there was for banks to step in and force certain anti-gun policies on their own .
As private entities , they could do things without the legislature .
Several did , including Citibank .
Since then , we ’ ve seen multiple instances of the financial industry dropping the hammer on lawful businesses because they simply happen to be part of the firearm industry .
However , Citibank may have now found the downside of their anti-gun policies .
In an continuation of last year ’ s battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have gun control policies , the Bond Commission Thursday effectively kept Citigroup out of consideration for handling the loans needed over the next few years for highways projects .
“ I ’ m interested in making sure taxpayers get the best rate , they ’ re concerned about making a political statement , ” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said after the meeting about the grading of bids that excluded Citigroup Inc. , one of the nation ’ s Big Four banks .
State Treasurer John Schroder denied any politics , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You keep making the comments that it was politics , ” Schroder told Dardenne , adding that the grading of bids was done without trickery .
“ You just don ’ t agree with how they scored certain scores.
” The State Bond Commission was voting on which financiers to allow into a pool of underwriters who would be at the ready to handle the financing of upcoming highway projects .
A pool allows the state to move quickly by allowing the hiring of bond managers as soon as the need arises and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going through the sometimes eight-week process to gather bids .
Schroder wanted to limit the pool to eight underwriters .
Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne sought 10 .
Now , let ’ s not be coy and pretend there ’ s absolutely no way this could have been political .
The pool ’ s limit is arbitrary in the first place , so whether it ’ s eight or 10 , it doesn ’ t really matter in the grand scheme of things .
Plus , Louisiana has been very upfront with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial institutions .
For me , I ’ m a little torn on this .
Citibank has a right to have whatever policies it wants , even regarding firearms .
However , that right doesn ’ t mean anyone else has to do business with them in spite of them having those policies .
That includes the state of Louisiana , a state that very pro-gun .
So yeah , it might be politically motivated after all .
But so what ?
Unlike the city of Los Angeles demanding contractors reveal any ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s policies are there for the world to see .
There ’ s no need to demand they disclose how they feel about a political issue because , well , they told the whole damn world .
Regardless , though , even if it really wasn ’ t politically motivated in any way , if Citigroup believes it is , it ’ s a point they ’ ll have to consider going forward .
If they lose enough business over these policies , they ’ ll change them .
Sure , NY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and other financial industry giants to interfere with the firearm industry , there ’ s only so much he can do and if they ’ re losing enough money , it might even make more sense to cross him and face the state regulators .
So good on Louisiana either way .

In the wake of Parkland, one of the many pushes out there was for banks to step in and force certain anti-gun policies on their own. As private entities, they could do things without the legislature. Several did, including Citibank.
Since then, we’ve seen multiple instances of the financial industry dropping the hammer on lawful businesses because they simply happen to be part of the firearm industry.
However, Citibank may have now found the downside of their anti-gun policies.
In an continuation of last year’s battle over the state doing business with banks that have gun control policies, the Bond Commission Thursday effectively kept Citigroup out of consideration for handling the loans needed over the next few years for highways projects. “I’m interested in making sure taxpayers get the best rate, they’re concerned about making a political statement,” Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said after the meeting about the grading of bids that excluded Citigroup Inc., one of the nation’s Big Four banks. State Treasurer John Schroder denied any politics, saying the grades told the story. “You keep making the comments that it was politics,” Schroder told Dardenne, adding that the grading of bids was done without trickery. “You just don’t agree with how they scored certain scores.” The State Bond Commission was voting on which financiers to allow into a pool of underwriters who would be at the ready to handle the financing of upcoming highway projects. A pool allows the state to move quickly by allowing the hiring of bond managers as soon as the need arises and the market is good, rather than going through the sometimes eight-week process to gather bids. Schroder wanted to limit the pool to eight underwriters. Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne sought 10.
Now, let’s not be coy and pretend there’s absolutely no way this could have been political. The pool’s limit is arbitrary in the first place, so whether it’s eight or 10, it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.
Plus, Louisiana has been very upfront with their desire to limit doing business with anti-gun financial institutions.
For me, I’m a little torn on this. Citibank has a right to have whatever policies it wants, even regarding firearms. However, that right doesn’t mean anyone else has to do business with them in spite of them having those policies. That includes the state of Louisiana, a state that very pro-gun.
So yeah, it might be politically motivated after all.
But so what?
Unlike the city of Los Angeles demanding contractors reveal any ties they have with the NRA, Citibank’s policies are there for the world to see. There’s no need to demand they disclose how they feel about a political issue because, well, they told the whole damn world.
Regardless, though, even if it really wasn’t politically motivated in any way, if Citigroup believes it is, it’s a point they’ll have to consider going forward. If they lose enough business over these policies, they’ll change them. Sure, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo has put pressure on them and other financial industry giants to interfere with the firearm industry, there’s only so much he can do and if they’re losing enough money, it might even make more sense to cross him and face the state regulators.
So good on Louisiana either way.


bearingarms--2020-02-22--Young Gun Control Activists Back Bernie Over Bloomberg

Several of the founders of March For Our Lives , the anti-gun group founded by students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida , have officially come out in favor of a 78-year old Democrat running for president .
It ’ s not 78-year old Michael Bloomberg , who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and years pushing for gun control laws in Congress and around the country , but 78-year old Bernie Sanders , who ’ s actually backed some pro-2A legislation over the years ( though not recently ) .
The Sun-Sentinel newspaper reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his anti-gun agenda , the young gun control activists are definitely feeling the Bern .
“ I ’ m so , so excited to endorse Bernie because I know he ’ s created a movement , ” March for Our Lives co-founder Delaney Tarr said in the video .
“ A movement in the way that the march has , that so many other youth activists have , one that ’ s not focused on a person , or a candidate , or even just an election , but on change.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Grady also announced their support for Sanders in the video , along with other gun-violence activists that have associated with the March for Our Lives organization since its inception .
One gun control activist in particular has taken to bashing Bloomberg online .
Cameron Kasky , who was backing Andrew Yang , I ’ m not sure if Kasky ’ s objections to Bloomberg buying elections is only limited those in which the anti-gun billionaire is actually on the ballot , or if he also has a problem with , say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least $ 8-million to try to turn Texas blue .
I suspect that Kasky would claim there ’ s some loophole in his sense of ethics that says buying the presidency is one thing , and buying a state legislature is another , but I could be wrong .
It ’ s not just March For Our Lives , by the way .
There are several members of Moms Demand Action who ’ ve been pretty vocal about their non-support for Bloomberg the candidate , as Buzzfeed reported in December .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person in office , ” said Rhonda Hart , 38 , a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Texas and an Everytown Survivor Fellow , which means she went through a sort of leadership training program .
Hart ’ s daughter , Kimberly Vaughan , died in the Santa Fe High School shooting in May 2018 , after a student opened fire in her art class and killed 10 people .
“ While he ’ s our largest donor , it doesn ’ t mean he is the organization himself , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demand Action volunteer leader at Duke University and a member of the organization ’ s national advisory board .
“ He ’ s just like any other candidate.
” Many volunteers who spoke with BuzzFeed News pointed out that Moms Demand Action encourages its volunteers to support all “ gun sense ” candidates .
Currently , all 17 of the declared Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls applied for and received the Mom ’ s Demand “ gun sense candidate accreditation.
” You can explain away the March For Our Lives activists ’ support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily the top choice for Democrats under the age of 35 , while Bloomberg scores most of his support from voters over the age of 50 .
I think it ’ s very telling that many Moms Demand Action activists , especially those who are a little higher up the organization ’ s food chain and have met Bloomberg , are standoffish at best about his candidacy .
Bloomberg ’ s throwing money at micro-influencers and public officials to get their support , yet he ’ s the biggest funder of Moms Demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of them on his side ?
What gives ?

Several of the founders of March For Our Lives, the anti-gun group founded by students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, have officially come out in favor of a 78-year old Democrat running for president. It’s not 78-year old Michael Bloomberg, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and years pushing for gun control laws in Congress and around the country, but 78-year old Bernie Sanders, who’s actually backed some pro-2A legislation over the years (though not recently).
The Sun-Sentinel newspaper reports that, despite being aligned with Bloomberg on his anti-gun agenda, the young gun control activists are definitely feeling the Bern.
“I’m so, so excited to endorse Bernie because I know he’s created a movement,” March for Our Lives co-founder Delaney Tarr said in the video. “A movement in the way that the march has, that so many other youth activists have, one that’s not focused on a person, or a candidate, or even just an election, but on change.” Other Stoneman Douglas alums Ryan Deitsch and Chris Grady also announced their support for Sanders in the video, along with other gun-violence activists that have associated with the March for Our Lives organization since its inception.
One gun control activist in particular has taken to bashing Bloomberg online. Cameron Kasky, who was backing Andrew Yang,
“I am very proud of the Democratic Party for making it clear last night that Mike Bloomberg cannot buy our votes,” Kasky tweeted Thursday, less than 24 hours after Bloomberg’s public evisceration in the Democrats’ ninth primary debate. “One racist, sexist Republican in office is enough.”
I’m not sure if Kasky’s objections to Bloomberg buying elections is only limited those in which the anti-gun billionaire is actually on the ballot, or if he also has a problem with, say, Bloomberg’s gun control group spending at least $8-million to try to turn Texas blue. I suspect that Kasky would claim there’s some loophole in his sense of ethics that says buying the presidency is one thing, and buying a state legislature is another, but I could be wrong.
It’s not just March For Our Lives, by the way. There are several members of Moms Demand Action who’ve been pretty vocal about their non-support for Bloomberg the candidate, as Buzzfeed reported in December.
“We don’t need another business person in office,” said Rhonda Hart, 38, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Texas and an Everytown Survivor Fellow, which means she went through a sort of leadership training program. Hart’s daughter, Kimberly Vaughan, died in the Santa Fe High School shooting in May 2018, after a student opened fire in her art class and killed 10 people. “While he’s our largest donor, it doesn’t mean he is the organization himself,” said Alanna Miller, 19, the Students Demand Action volunteer leader at Duke University and a member of the organization’s national advisory board. “He’s just like any other candidate.” Many volunteers who spoke with BuzzFeed News pointed out that Moms Demand Action encourages its volunteers to support all “gun sense” candidates. Currently, all 17 of the declared Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls applied for and received the Mom’s Demand “gun sense candidate accreditation.”
You can explain away the March For Our Lives activists’ support for Bernie Sanders pretty easily. Sanders is easily the top choice for Democrats under the age of 35, while Bloomberg scores most of his support from voters over the age of 50. I think it’s very telling that many Moms Demand Action activists, especially those who are a little higher up the organization’s food chain and have met Bloomberg, are standoffish at best about his candidacy. Bloomberg’s throwing money at micro-influencers and public officials to get their support, yet he’s the biggest funder of Moms Demand Action and he can’t get many of them on his side? What gives?


bearingarms--2020-02-22--Alabama Teen Charged With Armed Robberies

The legal age to buy a handgun in the United States is 21 .
You can buy a rifle in most places at 18 , but to buy a handgun legally , you have to be at least 21 .
This is the law .
For better or worse , that ’ s what ’ s on the books .
This is , at its core , a gun control law .
It ’ s a law meant to restrict gun ownership to some degree .
However , a 13-year-old in Opelika , Alabama just provided a crushing example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teen is facing a slew of felony charges after Opelika police believe at just 13-years-old he was armed with a gun when he allegedly committed several robberies .
The teen was arrested Tuesday , February 18th after investigators identified him as an accomplice in several criminal incidents from December , January , and February .
The teen is facing Robbery , First Degree , of the Murf-Mart located at 1001 Frederick Avenue on December 15th .
He ’ s also charged with Receiving Stolen Property , First Degree , in reference to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 3rd Avenue on January 6th .
He ’ s also facing several other charges and may be facing still others .
However , what ’ s not in the story was just how a 13-year-old got his hands on a firearm .
That ’ s the question a lot of people may be asking , and I ’ ll admit that I ’ m curious as well .
After all , aren ’ t gun control laws like age limits expressly created to prevent people like this kid from getting guns ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he got it , though , because any potential scenario you care to name is evidence that gun control doesn ’ t freaking work .
This is a child .
No 13-year-old boy is going to look man enough to buy a gun from a lawful seller and we all know it .
This isn ’ t a case of someone who thought he looked 21 .
Oh no , this is likely a case of him having either stolen the gun–after all , it seems clear he has no issue with taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from someone selling black market guns .
Those folks aren ’ t known to carry out background checks or ask for ID , after all .
They wouldn ’ t care about selling a gun to a child .
Most 13-year-old kids are sitting around playing X-Box or something .
They ’ re goofing off on the internet or watching YouTube videos of questionable comedic value .
They ’ re not interested in committing armed robbery .
Anti-gunners would say that even if they were , they couldn ’ t because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 13-year-old who was interested in such a thing and guess what ?
He got a gun just fine .
There is one thing to be thankful to this kid for , though .
He ’ s provided an important example of just how gun control doesn ’ t work the way it ’ s intended and it never , ever will .
The bad will get guns while the good obey the laws that turn them into victims .
That ’ s just an inviolable rule that isn ’ t going away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people .
After all , if a 13-year-old kid can get a gun , just who the hell else can get one ?

The legal age to buy a handgun in the United States is 21. You can buy a rifle in most places at 18, but to buy a handgun legally, you have to be at least 21. This is the law. For better or worse, that’s what’s on the books.
This is, at its core, a gun control law. It’s a law meant to restrict gun ownership to some degree.
However, a 13-year-old in Opelika, Alabama just provided a crushing example of how gun control fails.
A young teen is facing a slew of felony charges after Opelika police believe at just 13-years-old he was armed with a gun when he allegedly committed several robberies. The teen was arrested Tuesday, February 18th after investigators identified him as an accomplice in several criminal incidents from December, January, and February. The teen is facing Robbery, First Degree, of the Murf-Mart located at 1001 Frederick Avenue on December 15th. He’s also charged with Receiving Stolen Property, First Degree, in reference to a stolen car taken from the 3300 block of 3rd Avenue on January 6th.
He’s also facing several other charges and may be facing still others.
However, what’s not in the story was just how a 13-year-old got his hands on a firearm. That’s the question a lot of people may be asking, and I’ll admit that I’m curious as well. After all, aren’t gun control laws like age limits expressly created to prevent people like this kid from getting guns?
It doesn’t really matter how he got it, though, because any potential scenario you care to name is evidence that gun control doesn’t freaking work. This is a child. No 13-year-old boy is going to look man enough to buy a gun from a lawful seller and we all know it. This isn’t a case of someone who thought he looked 21.
Oh no, this is likely a case of him having either stolen the gun–after all, it seems clear he has no issue with taking other people’s things–or buying it from someone selling black market guns. Those folks aren’t known to carry out background checks or ask for ID, after all. They wouldn’t care about selling a gun to a child.
Most 13-year-old kids are sitting around playing X-Box or something. They’re goofing off on the internet or watching YouTube videos of questionable comedic value. They’re not interested in committing armed robbery. Anti-gunners would say that even if they were, they couldn’t because of the gun control laws.
Yet here is a 13-year-old who was interested in such a thing and guess what? He got a gun just fine.
There is one thing to be thankful to this kid for, though. He’s provided an important example of just how gun control doesn’t work the way it’s intended and it never, ever will. The bad will get guns while the good obey the laws that turn them into victims. That’s just an inviolable rule that isn’t going away just because it’s inconvenient to some people.
After all, if a 13-year-old kid can get a gun, just who the hell else can get one?