bearingarms--2020-10-21--Nine Month Wait For Concealed Carry Licenses In Detroit

That ’ s right .
It ’ s actually faster ( not to mention way more fun ) to make a baby than it is to acquire a concealed carry license in Wayne County , Michigan these days .
Fox 2 in Detroit recently highlighted the problem , pointing out that in suburban Macomb and Oakland counties , concealed carry applications are being processed in one to two weeks .
In Wayne County , however , folks applying for their concealed carry license are being told the county will get with them in mid-2021 .
“ I ’ m a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeowner , I ’ m an entrepreneur , ” said Kristal Hunt .
“ ( I am a ) businesswoman who frequents a location constantly late at night , so with those factors – all those together , it ’ s like ok , now it ’ s time to protect myself.
” And that ’ s why Hunt took a Concealed Pistol License class , though it will be months before she ever carries one .
The Wayne County Clerk ’ s office has been slow on the draw in the permits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Applicants can only complete the process by appointment , because of the pandemic .
But getting one is an exercise in patience .
FOX 2 : “ So this is your appointment here ?
” Obviously this issue isn ’ t a problem just in Detroit .
We ’ ve previously reported on similar wait times for FOID cards and concealed carry licenses in Illinois , Philadelphia and Pittsburgh , as well as huge delays in several counties in Washington State , North Carolina , and Washington , D.C. Lisa Williams , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Office says furloughs and displacements as well as an increase in demand for Concealed Pistol Licenses , are driving the long wait times .
She provided a statement which reads in part : “ Wayne County is the largest county in the state of Michigan .
The volume that we service far surpasses that of any other county throughout the state .
Our office has taken the action step to request additional fingerprinting machines which will expedite the processing time.
” The excuses aren ’ t going over well with gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect themselves outside of their home , particularly given the fact that Detroit has the highest violent crime rate of any major U.S. city .
As one local attorney points out , the delays are likely leading to otherwise law-abiding gun owners breaking the law and carrying without a license .
Attorney Terry L. Johnson says the long wait time for CPL appointments in Wayne County may be to blame for another issue .
“ When you look at your larger counties like Oakland and Macomb , they are two to three weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if Wayne County as I said before was two months out , you might be able to say , okay I can make a connection .
They are nine months out .
There is no excuse for this .
“ The problem that we ’ re seeing is that people are getting their certificates after completing the training .
Some of them are saying it is so bad out here , I am going to carry anyway and they can ’ t wait until June or July .
And people are carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at five-year felonies for this.
” “ I ’ m trying to make sure I ’ m safe and I ’ m trying to protect myself , ” Hunt said .
“ Why are they making it hard to protect myself ?
” That ’ s the key question , isn ’ t it ?
I appreciate the fact that Wayne County has had to furlough employees and officials want to safeguard against COVID-19 by limiting the number of applicants appearing in-person , but those factors don ’ t change the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to both keep and bear arms , and at the moment that right is being denied to them through the months-long delays in processing concealed carry applications .
People should not have to choose between their safety and their liberty , but that ’ s exactly what individuals are facing if they want to carry a gun for self-defense ; wait nine months or more to even apply for your concealed carry license , or carry without a license and risk a five-year prison sentence if caught and convicted .

That’s right. It’s actually faster (not to mention way more fun) to make a baby than it is to acquire a concealed carry license in Wayne County, Michigan these days. Fox 2 in Detroit recently highlighted the problem, pointing out that in suburban Macomb and Oakland counties, concealed carry applications are being processed in one to two weeks. In Wayne County, however, folks applying for their concealed carry license are being told the county will get with them in mid-2021.
“I’m a single woman, I’m a homeowner, I’m an entrepreneur,” said Kristal Hunt. “(I am a) businesswoman who frequents a location constantly late at night, so with those factors – all those together, it’s like ok, now it’s time to protect myself.” And that’s why Hunt took a Concealed Pistol License class, though it will be months before she ever carries one. The Wayne County Clerk’s office has been slow on the draw in the permits allowing residents to carry a concealed handgun. Applicants can only complete the process by appointment, because of the pandemic. But getting one is an exercise in patience. FOX 2: “So this is your appointment here?” “Yes, Monday, July 12, 2021,” Hunt said.
Obviously this issue isn’t a problem just in Detroit. We’ve previously reported on similar wait times for FOID cards and concealed carry licenses in Illinois, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as huge delays in several counties in Washington State, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.
Lisa Williams, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County Clerk’s Office says furloughs and displacements as well as an increase in demand for Concealed Pistol Licenses, are driving the long wait times. She provided a statement which reads in part: “Wayne County is the largest county in the state of Michigan. The volume that we service far surpasses that of any other county throughout the state. Our office has taken the action step to request additional fingerprinting machines which will expedite the processing time.”
The excuses aren’t going over well with gun owners who want to be able to protect themselves outside of their home, particularly given the fact that Detroit has the highest violent crime rate of any major U.S. city. As one local attorney points out, the delays are likely leading to otherwise law-abiding gun owners breaking the law and carrying without a license.
Attorney Terry L. Johnson says the long wait time for CPL appointments in Wayne County may be to blame for another issue. “When you look at your larger counties like Oakland and Macomb, they are two to three weeks out,” he said. “Even if Wayne County as I said before was two months out, you might be able to say, okay I can make a connection. They are nine months out. There is no excuse for this. “The problem that we’re seeing is that people are getting their certificates after completing the training. Some of them are saying it is so bad out here, I am going to carry anyway and they can’t wait until June or July. And people are carrying firearms, albeit illegally and they are looking at five-year felonies for this.” “I’m trying to make sure I’m safe and I’m trying to protect myself,” Hunt said. “Why are they making it hard to protect myself?”
That’s the key question, isn’t it? I appreciate the fact that Wayne County has had to furlough employees and officials want to safeguard against COVID-19 by limiting the number of applicants appearing in-person, but those factors don’t change the fact that residents in Wayne County have a right to both keep and bear arms, and at the moment that right is being denied to them through the months-long delays in processing concealed carry applications.
People should not have to choose between their safety and their liberty, but that’s exactly what individuals are facing if they want to carry a gun for self-defense; wait nine months or more to even apply for your concealed carry license, or carry without a license and risk a five-year prison sentence if caught and convicted.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--Why MI Push To Disarm Voters Is Misguided

Michigan isn ’ t someplace I thought we ’ d see at the forefront of an anti-gun push , but Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her cronies have apparently never met an authoritarian measure they didn ’ t like .
The most recent push is to bar firearms in polling places .
Now , there ’ s a lot of reasons why someone might want to carry a firearm on their person when they go vote .
However , while this push is going on , it ’ s important to remember that there are a lot of places where this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity from armed far-right groups and President Trump ’ s calls for his supporters to watch polling places “ very carefully ” have raised concerns of possible disruptions or voter intimidation ahead of the Nov. 3 election .
States will also have to prepare for the prospect of guns being brought into voting sites — legally .
So can voters bring guns into polling places ?
In most states , the answer is : It depends .
Only about a dozen states — including California , Arizona , Florida and Georgia — explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites .
In much of the country , voters may bring firearms into polling places , as long as the buildings being used for voting don ’ t generally ban them — as many schools , government buildings and churches do .
Those rules vary at the state and local level .
It should be noted , though , that in these many states , you know what ’ s largely absent in states where people can carry firearms into polling places ?
That ’ s right .
All this wailing and gnashing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and company ’ s response to what a handful of idiots were planning with regard to the kidnapping plot .
Look , I ’ ve smacked those morons around plenty , so I ’ m not going to do it here .
However , armed voters don ’ t represent anything other than people exercising two rights at once .
That ’ s it .
They ’ re voting and exercising their Second Amendment rights .
In a time when we ’ re seeing more and more political violence , if I didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d probably be carrying to vote as well .
Of course , my polling place is a school , so I ’ d still be barred , but my point remains .
We ’ re living in an uncertain time .
Even without the pandemic , we ’ re seeing more and more people ready to resort to violence .
They ’ ve burned entire neighborhoods in numerous cities .
They ’ ve destroyed property and injured countless folks .
There have even been murders .
Does anyone really believe there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election day ?
In the end , people have carried while voting for years and years , and what we don ’ t see are problems resulting from that .
There aren ’ t mass shootings at polling places–so far , anyway–and there aren ’ t cases of armed citizens trying to intimidate other voters .
Anyone intimidated by a holstered weapon on the hip of someone who isn ’ t threatening you in any way or even necessarily acknowledging your existence needs to toughen the hell up .
Sure , Michigan is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do , but it helps to understand that what is being decried isn ’ t particularly new , nor is it particularly dangerous .

Michigan isn’t someplace I thought we’d see at the forefront of an anti-gun push, but Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her cronies have apparently never met an authoritarian measure they didn’t like.
The most recent push is to bar firearms in polling places.
Now, there’s a lot of reasons why someone might want to carry a firearm on their person when they go vote.
However, while this push is going on, it’s important to remember that there are a lot of places where this has never been an issue.
Growing activity from armed far-right groups and President Trump’s calls for his supporters to watch polling places “very carefully” have raised concerns of possible disruptions or voter intimidation ahead of the Nov. 3 election. States will also have to prepare for the prospect of guns being brought into voting sites — legally. So can voters bring guns into polling places? In most states, the answer is: It depends. Only about a dozen states — including California, Arizona, Florida and Georgia — explicitly ban open and/or concealed carry in voting sites. In much of the country, voters may bring firearms into polling places, as long as the buildings being used for voting don’t generally ban them — as many schools, government buildings and churches do. Those rules vary at the state and local level.
It should be noted, though, that in these many states, you know what’s largely absent in states where people can carry firearms into polling places?
Problems.
That’s right. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth over armed voters is Whitmer and company’s response to what a handful of idiots were planning with regard to the kidnapping plot.
Look, I’ve smacked those morons around plenty, so I’m not going to do it here.
However, armed voters don’t represent anything other than people exercising two rights at once. That’s it. They’re voting and exercising their Second Amendment rights. In a time when we’re seeing more and more political violence, if I didn’t live in Georgia, I’d probably be carrying to vote as well. Of course, my polling place is a school, so I’d still be barred, but my point remains.
We’re living in an uncertain time. Even without the pandemic, we’re seeing more and more people ready to resort to violence. They’ve burned entire neighborhoods in numerous cities. They’ve destroyed property and injured countless folks. There have even been murders.
Does anyone really believe there’s zero chance of that happening on election day?
In the end, people have carried while voting for years and years, and what we don’t see are problems resulting from that. There aren’t mass shootings at polling places–so far, anyway–and there aren’t cases of armed citizens trying to intimidate other voters. Anyone intimidated by a holstered weapon on the hip of someone who isn’t threatening you in any way or even necessarily acknowledging your existence needs to toughen the hell up.
Sure, Michigan is going to do what it’s going to do, but it helps to understand that what is being decried isn’t particularly new, nor is it particularly dangerous.


bearingarms--2020-10-21--There's An Alternative To Violence Against Women Act

When the Violence Against Women act expired , many figured it would soon be renewed .
After all , there weren ’ t exactly a lot of controversial parts to the law .
Most people backed it to some degree .
Those that didn ’ t were , often , people who were people who violated laws covered in the act .
However , House Democrats decided that the law as it stood wasn ’ t good enough .
They wanted to add a bunch of provisions that would create real problems for gun owners .
The measure has stalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many from trying to push for it .
The problem , of course , is that it ’ s really difficult to establish whether someone is currently someone else ’ s “ boyfriend.
” Especially when they don ’ t live together .
At that point , you get into a he said/she said kind of mess that proponents of the law have failed to really address in all their screeching .
Of course , if Democrats were serious about renewing all the good the Violence Against Women Act has supposedly done , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop the controversial position and pass it as is , then try to cram in the “ boyfriend loophole ” provisions afterward , particularly when they control Congress ?
Oh , it ’ s because they don ’ t actually care about violence against women .
However , there ’ s an alternative to much of this , particular laws that bar non-felons from owning firearms .
After all , that ’ s really what the issue with the so-called “ boyfriend loophole ” is , right ?
The answer is to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony .
At that point , they ’ re violent felons and even Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett–someone who argued in her dissent that not all felons should be barred from owning guns–would agree that they should be prevented from owning firearms .
Frankly , this should be non-controversial , at least among the left .
After all , if they ’ re prepared to violate someone ’ s lifetime of civil liberties over these charges , surely they don ’ t mind potentially sending someone to prison for a year because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then the overall claims are absolute male bovine excrement .
Should they believe that the offense isn ’ t sufficient for felony-like penalties , then they simply don ’ t think the crimes are particularly significant and it ’ s nothing more than a power grab to disarm a larger portion of the American public .
I think we all know which it really is .

When the Violence Against Women act expired, many figured it would soon be renewed. After all, there weren’t exactly a lot of controversial parts to the law. Most people backed it to some degree. Those that didn’t were, often, people who were people who violated laws covered in the act.
However, House Democrats decided that the law as it stood wasn’t good enough. They wanted to add a bunch of provisions that would create real problems for gun owners.
The measure has stalled, but that doesn’t stop many from trying to push for it.
The problem, of course, is that it’s really difficult to establish whether someone is currently someone else’s “boyfriend.” Especially when they don’t live together. At that point, you get into a he said/she said kind of mess that proponents of the law have failed to really address in all their screeching.
Of course, if Democrats were serious about renewing all the good the Violence Against Women Act has supposedly done, then why don’t they just drop the controversial position and pass it as is, then try to cram in the “boyfriend loophole” provisions afterward, particularly when they control Congress? Oh, it’s because they don’t actually care about violence against women.
However, there’s an alternative to much of this, particular laws that bar non-felons from owning firearms. After all, that’s really what the issue with the so-called “boyfriend loophole” is, right?
The answer is to raise this laws to the level of a felony.
At that point, they’re violent felons and even Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett–someone who argued in her dissent that not all felons should be barred from owning guns–would agree that they should be prevented from owning firearms.
Frankly, this should be non-controversial, at least among the left. After all, if they’re prepared to violate someone’s lifetime of civil liberties over these charges, surely they don’t mind potentially sending someone to prison for a year because of it. Right?
If not, then the overall claims are absolute male bovine excrement.
Should they believe that the offense isn’t sufficient for felony-like penalties, then they simply don’t think the crimes are particularly significant and it’s nothing more than a power grab to disarm a larger portion of the American public.
I think we all know which it really is.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--Florida Man Allegedly Had Guns, Demons, And A Lot Of Crazy

If someone ever published The Adventures of Florida Man , there ’ s probably nothing they could come up with in fiction that someone either hasn ’ t done or won ’ t do .
Especially in Florida , apparently .
Yet there are times when you see a story and you think you ’ ve seen it all , that Florida Man can no longer surprise you .
Then you read this one : A former deputy with the Orange County Sheriff ’ s Office in Florida is facing child abuse charges after he allegedly conducted an exorcism on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dougherty , 37 , told the children there were demons in their home and gave one girl a rifle and instructed her to shoot anybody who entered .
When police arrived , they found the girl holding the rifle in a shooting position while wearing body armor and a kevlar helmet .
The boy was armed with a taser , and Dougherty was in possession of a handgun .
The girl told officers that Dougherty woke them up and said that there were demons in the house .
He told them that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possessed.
” She said that they went to a nearby parking lot to burn various items .
After that was done , Dougherty performed an exorcism on her brother .
Dougherty was a sheriff ’ s deputy but was fired for a non-related reasons .
However , let ’ s take a look at this case for a moment .
Dougherty apparently served in law enforcement for at least some period of time .
This despite having what sure looks like some profound mental illness issues .
And yet , anti-gunners want us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police to handle all the problems .
See , police are people .
Just like the general population , you have a large portion who are good people , a smaller portion who are bad people , and another portion who are just plain crazy .
Further , law enforcement is better equipped to screen for that last group along the way than the population as a whole .
The fact that Dougherty didn ’ t trip those particular alarm bells despite what sure as hell looks like being bat-guano crazy shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society to detect all the damaged people in our midst .
Because of that , you almost have to expect those damaged people to act out in various ways .
No , you don ’ t have to approve and there ’ s nothing wrong with trying to find better ways to detect those damaged people , but you don ’ t treat the whole world as damaged just because of those small handfuls of people .
You help the damaged and allow the rest to go on with their lives .
Honestly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performing exorcisms after burning some of their possessions–possessedions ?
–are probably pretty damaged and probably need help .
Since ages for the children weren ’ t mentioned , I can ’ t say if handing them a firearm is child endangerment or not ( though I lean toward it not being as a general thing , especially if the child has been taught how to handle a gun ) , but this is a prime example of how law enforcement isn ’ t immune to any of the problems that we have as @ @ @

If someone ever published The Adventures of Florida Man, there’s probably nothing they could come up with in fiction that someone either hasn’t done or won’t do. Especially in Florida, apparently.
Yet there are times when you see a story and you think you’ve seen it all, that Florida Man can no longer surprise you.
Then you read this one:
A former deputy with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office in Florida is facing child abuse charges after he allegedly conducted an exorcism on a child. Police said that Christopher Dougherty, 37, told the children there were demons in their home and gave one girl a rifle and instructed her to shoot anybody who entered. When police arrived, they found the girl holding the rifle in a shooting position while wearing body armor and a kevlar helmet. The boy was armed with a taser, and Dougherty was in possession of a handgun. The girl told officers that Dougherty woke them up and said that there were demons in the house. He told them that “they needed to burn things that were possessed.” She said that they went to a nearby parking lot to burn various items. After that was done, Dougherty performed an exorcism on her brother.
Dougherty was a sheriff’s deputy but was fired for a non-related reasons.
However, let’s take a look at this case for a moment. Dougherty apparently served in law enforcement for at least some period of time. This despite having what sure looks like some profound mental illness issues.
And yet, anti-gunners want us to give up our guns and allow the police to handle all the problems.
Uh…no.
See, police are people. Just like the general population, you have a large portion who are good people, a smaller portion who are bad people, and another portion who are just plain crazy.
Further, law enforcement is better equipped to screen for that last group along the way than the population as a whole. The fact that Dougherty didn’t trip those particular alarm bells despite what sure as hell looks like being bat-guano crazy shows just how difficult it can be for society to detect all the damaged people in our midst.
Because of that, you almost have to expect those damaged people to act out in various ways. No, you don’t have to approve and there’s nothing wrong with trying to find better ways to detect those damaged people, but you don’t treat the whole world as damaged just because of those small handfuls of people. You help the damaged and allow the rest to go on with their lives.
Honestly, people who think they’re performing exorcisms after burning some of their possessions–possessedions?–are probably pretty damaged and probably need help. Since ages for the children weren’t mentioned, I can’t say if handing them a firearm is child endangerment or not (though I lean toward it not being as a general thing, especially if the child has been taught how to handle a gun), but this is a prime example of how law enforcement isn’t immune to any of the problems that we have as a society.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--The Double Standard About Gun Ownership

The Double Standard About Gun Ownership

While looking at gun-related stories earlier , I came across one that asked people of different faiths if the American interest in firearms was idolatry .
Now , as a Christian myself , I was curious to find what people thought .
I had my ideas of what I ’ d find , of course , but one of the responses just outright infuriated me .
See , while most of those they talked to about it recognized that there ’ s no actual worship of firearms , one person both failed to answer the actual question and managed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic itself .
It was kind of impressive , really .
David Gardiner is an associate professor in the Colorado College Religion Department , specializing in Buddhism and religions of China and Japan , and is co-founder and director of BodhiMind Center .
I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological .
Not all gun owners idolize their possession , but those who do suffer from insecurity , paranoia , susceptibility to conspiracy theories , likely racism and other disorders .
Similarly , some idolize the power of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and communities safe .
Missing is a consensus to care for one another just as we care for ourselves .
We have a violence fetish in America that profoundly damages our individual and collective well-being .
As some bible scholars say , perhaps one source is the image of the angry , retributive God of the Hebrew bible that remains strong in our Christianity , despite Jesus ’ teaching to turn the other cheek , to practice forgiveness .
Regardless , we need to grow .
Now , first , I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to lecture Christians in how to Christian correctly .
Usually it ’ s atheists that try to do it , at least in my experience , but a Buddhist doing it doesn ’ t surprise me .
However , what really pisses me off is the first sentence in his response .
“ I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological , ” Gardiner said .
Just how is it pathological ?
Our relationship with firearms , even if you ’ re susceptible to conspiracy theories or what have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe the susceptibility is , but the relationship with guns ?
Hardly .
Unfortunately , there are a lot of people who view gun ownership in general as precisely that .
A pathology .
An illness .
Yet there ’ s no reason ever given why one ’ s “ relationship ” with firearms is , itself , pathological .
I mean , no one says Jay Leno ’ s obsession over vintage cars is pathological .
This despite the fact that automobiles claim more lives every year than firearms and the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different level than most could ever dream .
No one seems to call the Beanie Baby collectors of the world “ pathological.
” The same for those who collect coins or stamps or baseball cards .
They ’ re just collectors .
There ’ s nothing pathological there .
Nor is there anything pathological about owning guns .
Sure , some who are a bit paranoid may wish to own firearms for their own personal safety from whatever it is they ’ re paranoid about , but if that paranoia is dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person help .
On the same token , though , taking your personal safety seriously is hardly pathological .
It ’ s smart .
The police can ’ t be everywhere at any given point , which means the odds of them being right where you need them to be right when you need them there are slim to none .
It ’ s on you to protect yourself and it always has been .
The problem we have in this country can , oddly , be summed up by a different respondent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints ( Mormons , as they ’ re more commonly known ) started off , “ For the criminals it is the ‘ Glock , ’ not ‘ God.
’ ” Or issues are with criminals , not guns .
It would be nice if we would start focusing our attentions there .

While looking at gun-related stories earlier, I came across one that asked people of different faiths if the American interest in firearms was idolatry. Now, as a Christian myself, I was curious to find what people thought.
I had my ideas of what I’d find, of course, but one of the responses just outright infuriated me.
See, while most of those they talked to about it recognized that there’s no actual worship of firearms, one person both failed to answer the actual question and managed to show just how idiotic they were on the topic itself. It was kind of impressive, really.
David Gardiner – Buddhist David Gardiner is an associate professor in the Colorado College Religion Department, specializing in Buddhism and religions of China and Japan, and is co-founder and director of BodhiMind Center. I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological. Not all gun owners idolize their possession, but those who do suffer from insecurity, paranoia, susceptibility to conspiracy theories, likely racism and other disorders. Similarly, some idolize the power of the military and police to keep our world and communities safe. Missing is a consensus to care for one another just as we care for ourselves. We have a violence fetish in America that profoundly damages our individual and collective well-being. As some bible scholars say, perhaps one source is the image of the angry, retributive God of the Hebrew bible that remains strong in our Christianity, despite Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, to practice forgiveness. Regardless, we need to grow.
Now, first, I’m always amused when a non-Christian seems to try to lecture Christians in how to Christian correctly. Usually it’s atheists that try to do it, at least in my experience, but a Buddhist doing it doesn’t surprise me.
However, what really pisses me off is the first sentence in his response. “I believe the relationship many Americans have with guns is pathological,” Gardiner said.
Just how is it pathological? Our relationship with firearms, even if you’re susceptible to conspiracy theories or what have you, is not a pathology. Maybe the susceptibility is, but the relationship with guns? Hardly.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who view gun ownership in general as precisely that. A pathology. An illness.
Yet there’s no reason ever given why one’s “relationship” with firearms is, itself, pathological. I mean, no one says Jay Leno’s obsession over vintage cars is pathological. This despite the fact that automobiles claim more lives every year than firearms and the man seems to have taken car collecting to a different level than most could ever dream.
No one seems to call the Beanie Baby collectors of the world “pathological.” The same for those who collect coins or stamps or baseball cards. They’re just collectors. There’s nothing pathological there.
Nor is there anything pathological about owning guns. Sure, some who are a bit paranoid may wish to own firearms for their own personal safety from whatever it is they’re paranoid about, but if that paranoia is dangerous, there are ways to get that person help.
On the same token, though, taking your personal safety seriously is hardly pathological. It’s smart. The police can’t be everywhere at any given point, which means the odds of them being right where you need them to be right when you need them there are slim to none. It’s on you to protect yourself and it always has been.
The problem we have in this country can, oddly, be summed up by a different respondent to the above-linked article. Arnie Bass, who is a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints (Mormons, as they’re more commonly known) started off, “For the criminals it is the ‘Glock,’ not ‘God.’”
Or issues are with criminals, not guns. It would be nice if we would start focusing our attentions there.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--Detroit Firearms Instructor Calls CCW Delays 'An Abomination'

The nine-month wait to apply for concealed carry licenses in Detroit , Michigan , is “ an abomination ” and “ unconscionable ” in the words of one longtime local firearms instructor and Second Amendment activist .
Rick Ector joins me on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co. to talk about why he believes that Wayne County ’ s lengthy wait times are the result of an anti-gun ideology in the county government and an infringement on the rights of gun owners in the Motor City .
I have to say , Rick ’ s a pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fired up about what ’ s happening in his backyard , and rightfully so .
While Ector ’ s concealed carry classes are still full and demand is high , those hoping to lawfully carry in self-defense are being told they can fill out their application for a carry license in July of 2021 .
“ If it was a priority to them , they would make it happen , ” Ector asserts .
“ They ’ re attributing increased demand , so-called furloughs and displacements from enabling them to process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but neighboring counties like Oakland and Macomb are experiencing increased demand .
They don ’ t have the population base that Detroit does , of course , but they ’ re getting these applications processed in two to three weeks at the most.
” Ector notes that , like it or not , the fact that the largely white suburban counties are processing applications in a timely manner , while Wayne County , which is split almost 50-50 between white and non-white residents , is forcing gun owners to wait for months simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color-blind gun laws seem to be having a disproportionate impact on minorities , unintentionally or not .
What about the idea that some folks are going to start carrying regardless of the fact that they ’ ve been unable to apply for a concealed carry license thanks to Wayne County ’ s COVID restrictions ?
After all , Detroit had the highest violent crime rate of all large cities in the United States last year , and violent crime has only increased in 2020 .
Aren ’ t some people likely to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk of being judged by a jury of your peers than being buried by family and friends ?
“ If you ’ re delaying individuals from being able to lawfully get their concealed pistol license , it does increases the odds that some might be tempted to carry concealed without a license and risk suffering some of the things they could face , ” Ector agrees .
“ For instance , to carry concealed without the concealed pistol license is a five-year felony in this case.
” The firearms instructor says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations file suit in Wayne County over the delays , as we ’ ve seen in cities like Philadelphia , where Gun Owners of America recently sued over a concealed carry backlog that has applicants waiting for more than a year .
Ector says , however , that he also would love to see a full accounting of where the fees paid by concealed carry applicants in Wayne County have gone in the past , arguing that the program is supposed to be self-funding and that there should be no financial reason for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the background checks .
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Rick Ector above , including his efforts to bring real political change to Wayne County in addition to his grassroots work to support and strengthen the Second Amendment rights of all of the people in Michigan .

The nine-month wait to apply for concealed carry licenses in Detroit, Michigan, is “an abomination” and “unconscionable” in the words of one longtime local firearms instructor and Second Amendment activist. Rick Ector joins me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co. to talk about why he believes that Wayne County’s lengthy wait times are the result of an anti-gun ideology in the county government and an infringement on the rights of gun owners in the Motor City.
I have to say, Rick’s a pretty affable and sedate guy, but he’s fired up about what’s happening in his backyard, and rightfully so. While Ector’s concealed carry classes are still full and demand is high, those hoping to lawfully carry in self-defense are being told they can fill out their application for a carry license in July of 2021.
“If it was a priority to them, they would make it happen,” Ector asserts. “They’re attributing increased demand, so-called furloughs and displacements from enabling them to process these applications in an expeditious fashion, but neighboring counties like Oakland and Macomb are experiencing increased demand. They don’t have the population base that Detroit does, of course, but they’re getting these applications processed in two to three weeks at the most.”
Ector notes that, like it or not, the fact that the largely white suburban counties are processing applications in a timely manner, while Wayne County, which is split almost 50-50 between white and non-white residents, is forcing gun owners to wait for months simply to apply. Once again, supposedly color-blind gun laws seem to be having a disproportionate impact on minorities, unintentionally or not.
What about the idea that some folks are going to start carrying regardless of the fact that they’ve been unable to apply for a concealed carry license thanks to Wayne County’s COVID restrictions? After all, Detroit had the highest violent crime rate of all large cities in the United States last year, and violent crime has only increased in 2020. Aren’t some people likely to decide that it’s better to run the risk of being judged by a jury of your peers than being buried by family and friends?
“If you’re delaying individuals from being able to lawfully get their concealed pistol license, it does increases the odds that some might be tempted to carry concealed without a license and risk suffering some of the things they could face,” Ector agrees. “For instance, to carry concealed without the concealed pistol license is a five-year felony in this case.”
The firearms instructor says he’d love to see Second Amendment organizations file suit in Wayne County over the delays, as we’ve seen in cities like Philadelphia, where Gun Owners of America recently sued over a concealed carry backlog that has applicants waiting for more than a year.
Ector says, however, that he also would love to see a full accounting of where the fees paid by concealed carry applicants in Wayne County have gone in the past, arguing that the program is supposed to be self-funding and that there should be no financial reason for any furloughs of county employees tasked with doing the background checks.
Be sure to check out the entire conversation with Rick Ector above, including his efforts to bring real political change to Wayne County in addition to his grassroots work to support and strengthen the Second Amendment rights of all of the people in Michigan.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--Crime Author And Biden Backer Claims #NoOneWantsYourGuns

You may know Don Winslow as the author of some decent crime novels , but he ’ s also a big backer of Joe Biden and a huge fan of gun control .
In fact , he ’ s such an enthusiastic supporter of gun control that it ’ s ridiculous to think of him acting as an unofficial campaign surrogate tasked with convincing gun owners that a Biden/Harris administration would pose no threat to their Second Amendment rights .
Winslow , after all , has said he wouldn ’ t argue with describing the NRA as a “ domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the War on Drugs has been a failure , he believes that a War on Guns would somehow have a more successful outcome .
Yet Winslow is now being hailed by the pro-Biden press for his supposed “ mythbusting ” of the idea that Joe Biden wants your guns .
From the Huffington Post : What are the “ facts ” ?
In his ad , Winslow doesn ’ t even mention any of Joe Biden ’ s gun control plans , which are right there on his campaign website .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Republicans said Barack Obama was going to go after your guns , he didn ’ t , so therefore Biden ’ s not going to go after your guns .
Seriously .
Watch for yourself .
Not a word about Biden ’ s actual plan for so-called assault weapons and “ large capacity magazines.
” It ’ s estimated that there would be more than 20-million firearms that would qualify as “ assault weapons ” , and tens of millions of ammunition magazines that would be considered “ large capacity , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who legally own them would be given a choice : hand them over to Uncle Joe ’ s agents , pay $ 200 per item for the privilege of registering them with the government , or face a ten year federal prison sentence for doing nothing but keep the guns and magazines in your possession .
That sure sounds to me like Joe Biden wants at least some of my guns , and if I ’ m not willing to hand them over then I ’ d better be willing to fork over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead .
Oh , and I have to tell the government that just banned these guns that yes , in fact , I do own a few .
I ’ m also supposed to believe that at no point in the future would the ban be expanded to include those registered “ assault weapons ” that I paid to keep .
Don Winslow ’ s a pretty good fiction writer , but he ’ s a hack when it comes to trying to credibly suggest that with Joe Biden , your guns are @ @

You may know Don Winslow as the author of some decent crime novels, but he’s also a big backer of Joe Biden and a huge fan of gun control. In fact, he’s such an enthusiastic supporter of gun control that it’s ridiculous to think of him acting as an unofficial campaign surrogate tasked with convincing gun owners that a Biden/Harris administration would pose no threat to their Second Amendment rights.
Winslow, after all, has said he wouldn’t argue with describing the NRA as a “domestic terror organization”, and while he says the War on Drugs has been a failure, he believes that a War on Guns would somehow have a more successful outcome.
Yet Winslow is now being hailed by the pro-Biden press for his supposed “mythbusting” of the idea that Joe Biden wants your guns. From the Huffington Post:
Trump has repeatedly ― and falsely ― claimed that Biden will abolish the Second Amendment and take away everyone’s guns due to the former vice president’s support for the basic gun control measures backed by nearly two-thirds of Americans. But as Winslow pointed out, it’s an allegation the right has used against Democrats for years, and one that doesn’t stand up to the facts:
What are the “facts”? In his ad, Winslow doesn’t even mention any of Joe Biden’s gun control plans, which are right there on his campaign website . Instead, the entirety of his argument is that Republicans said Barack Obama was going to go after your guns, he didn’t, so therefore Biden’s not going to go after your guns. Seriously. Watch for yourself.
Not a word about Biden’s actual plan for so-called assault weapons and “large capacity magazines.” It’s estimated that there would be more than 20-million firearms that would qualify as “assault weapons”, and tens of millions of ammunition magazines that would be considered “large capacity,” and the tens of millions of Americans who legally own them would be given a choice: hand them over to Uncle Joe’s agents, pay $200 per item for the privilege of registering them with the government, or face a ten year federal prison sentence for doing nothing but keep the guns and magazines in your possession.
That sure sounds to me like Joe Biden wants at least some of my guns, and if I’m not willing to hand them over then I’d better be willing to fork over some cash in order to keep them instead. Oh, and I have to tell the government that just banned these guns that yes, in fact, I do own a few. I’m also supposed to believe that at no point in the future would the ban be expanded to include those registered “assault weapons” that I paid to keep.
Don Winslow’s a pretty good fiction writer, but he’s a hack when it comes to trying to credibly suggest that with Joe Biden, your guns are safe.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--Dems Efforts Gives Lie To "No One Wants To Take Your Guns"

“ No one wants to take your guns .
We ’ re just looking to enact some ‘ common sense ’ gun reforms.
” How many times have you heard that or some variation there of ?
I can ’ t tell you how many times I ’ ve encountered it .
Over the years , it ’ s been said countless times to countless people , some of whom foolishly believed that no one wanted to take your guns .
However , as David Harsanyi writes at America ’ s 1st Freedom , anyone who really believes that should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy platform first .
They should then take a step back and think about things .
We have reached what should prove to be an infamous moment .
The 2020 Democrat Party presidential ticket will be the first in American history to feature a candidate who openly supports the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens .
During the primary debates , Joe Biden ’ s vice-presidential pick , Kamala Harris , warned that she would give Congress 100 days to pass her gun-control agenda , an agenda that includes a ban on AR-15s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fails to implement her wish list ?
Well , then , Harris explained , “ I will take executive action.
” Harris has also publicly stated her support of a “ mandatory gun buyback program , ” which is simply how anti-gun extremists refer to confiscation without saying confiscation .
Those who believe Harris ’ rhetoric is merely campaign hyperbole should peruse the draft of the 2020 Democrat Party ’ s national platform .
It , too , supports the banning of “ assault weapons , ” which has the possibility of instantaneously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom have undergone criminal background checks and never used firearms for any illicit purpose—into criminals .
Many more Americans , of course , are murdered by fists or knives than AR-15s .
But the DNC document is laden with misleading statistics and the kind of scaremongering intended to allow them to push through authoritarian gun policies .
Take , for instance , the DNC ’ s claim that criminal violence with guns is a “ public health crisis ” that takes “ nearly 40,000 lives.
” By conflating criminal and suicide deaths—around two-thirds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only diminish the importance of mental-health struggles , but also inflate the problem of criminal use of guns .
There is little evidence that tighter firearm restrictions do anything to stop suicides ; for instance , nations with the highest rates of suicide—Russia and South Korea—also have some of the strictest gun laws .
Harsanyi goes on to detail and destroy each of the anti-gun provisions the DNC has laid out , and I highly recommend you go and read it .
It does a great job of it .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of gun confiscation .
Not directly , at least , though it does seem that there ’ s at least support for that kind of thing .
After all , let ’ s just look at that ticket Harsanyi mentioned .
Kamala Harris , as a potential vice president , is bad enough .
However , let ’ s also remember that Joe Biden doesn ’ t seem to be firing on all cylinders .
Whether he has outright dementia or something else , the man hasn ’ t been at his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Also , the man is 77 years old .
That alone is a reason why his vice presidential pick matters .
Should Biden die or leave office for some other reason , that leaves Harris in the driver ’ s seat .
That means all those promises she made while campaigning can be enacted , or she can at least try .
Further , there ’ s nothing at all in the DNC platform that actually opposes Harris ’ proposals .
Then there ’ s the man Biden said would spearhead his gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Beto O ’ Rourke .
The very man who swore during a debate that , “ Hell yeah , we ’ re coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s.
” Oh , he ’ s not elected , but if Biden wants him running point on this issue , then just how far can the two of them actually diverge on things ?
Especially since Biden also chose Harris as his running mate .
So-called “ fact checkers ” love to claim that because Biden hasn ’ t specifically claimed he was supportive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in favor of it .
Oh no , he ’ s clearly in favor of it .
If he wasn ’ t , why would he try to surround himself with people who do ?

“No one wants to take your guns. We’re just looking to enact some ‘common sense’ gun reforms.”
How many times have you heard that or some variation there of? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve encountered it. Over the years, it’s been said countless times to countless people, some of whom foolishly believed that no one wanted to take your guns.
However, as David Harsanyi writes at America’s 1st Freedom, anyone who really believes that should probably read the DNC’s gun policy platform first. They should then take a step back and think about things.
We have reached what should prove to be an infamous moment. The 2020 Democrat Party presidential ticket will be the first in American history to feature a candidate who openly supports the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens. During the primary debates, Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick, Kamala Harris, warned that she would give Congress 100 days to pass her gun-control agenda, an agenda that includes a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. If Congress fails to implement her wish list? Well, then, Harris explained, “I will take executive action.” Harris has also publicly stated her support of a “mandatory gun buyback program,” which is simply how anti-gun extremists refer to confiscation without saying confiscation. Those who believe Harris’ rhetoric is merely campaign hyperbole should peruse the draft of the 2020 Democrat Party’s national platform. It, too, supports the banning of “assault weapons,” which has the possibility of instantaneously transforming millions of gun-owners—the vast majority of whom have undergone criminal background checks and never used firearms for any illicit purpose—into criminals. Many more Americans, of course, are murdered by fists or knives than AR-15s. But the DNC document is laden with misleading statistics and the kind of scaremongering intended to allow them to push through authoritarian gun policies. Take, for instance, the DNC’s claim that criminal violence with guns is a “public health crisis” that takes “nearly 40,000 lives.” By conflating criminal and suicide deaths—around two-thirds of all gun deaths are self-inflicted—these politicians not only diminish the importance of mental-health struggles, but also inflate the problem of criminal use of guns. There is little evidence that tighter firearm restrictions do anything to stop suicides; for instance, nations with the highest rates of suicide—Russia and South Korea—also have some of the strictest gun laws.
Harsanyi goes on to detail and destroy each of the anti-gun provisions the DNC has laid out, and I highly recommend you go and read it. It does a great job of it. However, the official DNC position isn’t one of gun confiscation.
Not directly, at least, though it does seem that there’s at least support for that kind of thing. After all, let’s just look at that ticket Harsanyi mentioned.
Kamala Harris, as a potential vice president, is bad enough. However, let’s also remember that Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be firing on all cylinders. Whether he has outright dementia or something else, the man hasn’t been at his relative best for a while now. Also, the man is 77 years old. That alone is a reason why his vice presidential pick matters.
Should Biden die or leave office for some other reason, that leaves Harris in the driver’s seat. That means all those promises she made while campaigning can be enacted, or she can at least try.
Further, there’s nothing at all in the DNC platform that actually opposes Harris’ proposals.
Then there’s the man Biden said would spearhead his gun control efforts. That’s right, Beto O’Rourke. The very man who swore during a debate that, “Hell yeah, we’re coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s.”
Oh, he’s not elected, but if Biden wants him running point on this issue, then just how far can the two of them actually diverge on things? Especially since Biden also chose Harris as his running mate.
So-called “fact checkers” love to claim that because Biden hasn’t specifically claimed he was supportive of gun confiscation, he’s not in favor of it. Oh no, he’s clearly in favor of it. If he wasn’t, why would he try to surround himself with people who do?


bearingarms--2020-10-22--Cannabis Dispensary Owner Opens Virtual Range In Denver

Wanda James was one of the pioneers of the cannabis industry in Colorado , becoming the first black woman to own an operate a dispensary in the state back in 2009 .
Now James , a Democrat who ’ s ran now-governor Jared Polis ’ first congressional campaign and served on the finance committee for Barack Obama ’ s 2008 presidential campaign , is branching out into the world of the Second Amendment with the opening of 1770 Armory , a virtual range located in Denver ’ s Five Points neighborhood .
James says she hopes that the range will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities to educate themselves on the importance of their right to keep and bear arms , as well as get actual hands-on training .
The website Denverite notes that the city of Denver doesn ’ t allow for live-fire ranges ( which seems constitutionally suspect to me ) , so the instructors and students at 1770 Armory instead use infrared cartridges that fit inside their own handguns .
Last Saturday , 17 Seventy held its first concealed carry class .
A projector glowed in the darkened room as instructors Anubis Heru and Master @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a small class , staying in line with the city ’ s newest COVID-19 rules .
All present were people of color .
Before they turned to ammo , caliber and how to hold a pistol , they stressed the responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon .
How do you even register a threat ?
Know how to hold your body .
Keep your eyes and ears open .
Be aware of what ’ s around you .
Safety starts long before someone might ever need a firearm .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people learn here .
It ’ s relatively easy to buy a gun , but people don ’ t automatically understand the laws or the weight that comes with a purchase .
“ More than anything , I want them to be safe and confident and understand the responsibility , ” she said .
An unlikely Second Amendment advocate in some respects , James says she would “ be happy if American had no guns , but that ’ s not the reality of where we ’ re at , ” which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million new gun owners this year , according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation , Americans aren ’ t going to give up their right to keep and bear arms anytime soon .
James is adamant that 1770 Armory is open to gun owners of all races , but wants the facility to be a place where black gun owners can feel comfortable .
While the Second Amendment should be accessible to everyone , James said Black communities have long had difficult relationships with guns .
“ The murder of Black men , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues that surround poverty make gun ownership in the Black community something that has been a negative for a very long time , ” she said .
“ Black Americans have been taught : Good Black people don ’ t have guns .
Bad Black people do have guns.
” While they may be “ fallacies , ” James said , these ideas have limited African Americans ’ full access to their constitutional rights : “ We want to change that.
” Heru , her instructor , put it bluntly in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s very important for African Americans to own guns , ” he said .
“ Everybody else owns firearms , and I think a people who are not able to defend themselves are subject to enslavement.
” I ’ m pretty sure that Wanda James and I would have plenty of disagreements over many political issues , but I think what she ’ s doing with 1770 Armory is pretty great .
The Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms , and anything we can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise those rights is a step in the right direction .
In fact , the more Democrats who are promoting gun ownership and actual firearms training instead of pushing gun control under the guise of “ gun safety , ” the better .

Wanda James was one of the pioneers of the cannabis industry in Colorado, becoming the first black woman to own an operate a dispensary in the state back in 2009. Now James, a Democrat who’s ran now-governor Jared Polis’ first congressional campaign and served on the finance committee for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, is branching out into the world of the Second Amendment with the opening of 1770 Armory, a virtual range located in Denver’s Five Points neighborhood.
All of our RIGHTS are our right.
Five Points is now home to a Black-owned gun range https://t.co/SUR22MiFXh via @denverite @1770Armory — Wanda L. James (@WandaLJames) October 21, 2020
James says she hopes that the range will give black residents in the city greater opportunities to educate themselves on the importance of their right to keep and bear arms, as well as get actual hands-on training. The website Denverite notes that the city of Denver doesn’t allow for live-fire ranges (which seems constitutionally suspect to me), so the instructors and students at 1770 Armory instead use infrared cartridges that fit inside their own handguns.
Last Saturday, 17 Seventy held its first concealed carry class. A projector glowed in the darkened room as instructors Anubis Heru and Master Young started with the basics. It was a small class, staying in line with the city’s newest COVID-19 rules. All present were people of color. Before they turned to ammo, caliber and how to hold a pistol, they stressed the responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon. How do you even register a threat? Know how to hold your body. Keep your eyes and ears open. Be aware of what’s around you. “Pay attention,” Heru told the group. “Pay attention but don’t panic.” Safety starts long before someone might ever need a firearm. It’s the key thing James hopes people learn here. It’s relatively easy to buy a gun, but people don’t automatically understand the laws or the weight that comes with a purchase. “More than anything, I want them to be safe and confident and understand the responsibility,” she said.
An unlikely Second Amendment advocate in some respects, James says she would “be happy if American had no guns, but that’s not the reality of where we’re at,” which is an understatement. With more than five million new gun owners this year, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Americans aren’t going to give up their right to keep and bear arms anytime soon.
James is adamant that 1770 Armory is open to gun owners of all races, but wants the facility to be a place where black gun owners can feel comfortable.
While the Second Amendment should be accessible to everyone, James said Black communities have long had difficult relationships with guns. “The murder of Black men, gang warfare and, unfortunately, the issues that surround poverty make gun ownership in the Black community something that has been a negative for a very long time,” she said. “Black Americans have been taught: Good Black people don’t have guns. Bad Black people do have guns.” While they may be “fallacies,” James said, these ideas have limited African Americans’ full access to their constitutional rights: “We want to change that.” Heru, her instructor, put it bluntly in terms of freedom. “For me, it’s very important for African Americans to own guns,” he said. “Everybody else owns firearms, and I think a people who are not able to defend themselves are subject to enslavement.”
I’m pretty sure that Wanda James and I would have plenty of disagreements over many political issues, but I think what she’s doing with 1770 Armory is pretty great. The Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and anything we can do to encourage more of us to responsibly exercise those rights is a step in the right direction. In fact, the more Democrats who are promoting gun ownership and actual firearms training instead of pushing gun control under the guise of “gun safety,” the better.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--California BLM Leader: We Need To Be Armed

I ’ ve always been amazed at the people who , on one hand , support gun control–an idea that will place all the lawful guns in the hands of law enforcement–while simultaneously telling us that law enforcement is nothing but jackbooted thugs who are looking for any excuse to gun down innocent citizens .
Honestly , the idea doesn ’ t make any sense to me .
If you really think the police are gunning for innocent people , they ’ re the last folks you should want to have the only legal firearms on America ’ s streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that about police and I still don ’ t want them having the only legal firearms on our streets .
It ’ s always good to see someone who does , though , seem to grasp that fact .
Black Lives Matter Sacramento is taking new aim in their efforts to keep their community safe .
The group is looking for sponsorships to get black community members trained in gun safety .
They are calling it a harsh realization in a world that fails to protect black people .
“ We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong with it , ” said Black Lives Matter Sacramento founder Tanya Faison .
For months , protests , calls for police accountability and concerns over white supremacy have been a top priority for Faison .
Now she is making a new call to the public .
“ Get protection in these times when we know we can not call the police for help and where we know that we need to stay safe because it is a really volatile time right now , ” she explained .
The Founder of BLM Sacramento @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Facebook page asking for sponsors to pay for 10 people to get firearm training .
The money would go towards anyone in the black community that is looking to sign up to learn about gun safety .
The course would cover teaching everything from how to hold , clean , safely store and shoot a gun .
“ I want us to be independent from the system and I want us to be educated and informed on what we are doing , ” she explained .
Now , if a group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent from the system , ” it would cause some kind of a meltdown .
Faison ’ s comments aren ’ t causing that reaction .
Funny , that .
Regardless , she ’ s not wrong that black Americans should be armed .
Everyone should be , but yeah , especially black Americans .
The black community bears a disproportional burden when it comes to violent crime .
They ’ re far more likely to be the victims of a violent crime .
In fact , despite comprising just 13 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all violent crime victims and half of all homicide victims .
Even if there wasn ’ t a distrust of the police , it would just look like simple wisdom for the black community to get guns for their own personal defense .
Now , I ’ m sure there are some who will view this with some degree of discomfort .
The left would blame racism , but it ’ s not that .
It ’ s the idea of your ideological opponents having guns .
It ’ s the reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually .
To those , though , I just want to tell you to get over it .
The more minorities embrace gun ownership , the less likely Democrats will be to take our guns .
They need those demographics in many places to win elections , so they ’ re not going to want to piss them off .
That works out to a win for us .

I’ve always been amazed at the people who, on one hand, support gun control–an idea that will place all the lawful guns in the hands of law enforcement–while simultaneously telling us that law enforcement is nothing but jackbooted thugs who are looking for any excuse to gun down innocent citizens.
Honestly, the idea doesn’t make any sense to me. If you really think the police are gunning for innocent people, they’re the last folks you should want to have the only legal firearms on America’s streets.
Hell, I don’t believe that about police and I still don’t want them having the only legal firearms on our streets.
It’s always good to see someone who does, though, seem to grasp that fact.
Black Lives Matter Sacramento is taking new aim in their efforts to keep their community safe. The group is looking for sponsorships to get black community members trained in gun safety. They are calling it a harsh realization in a world that fails to protect black people. “We need to be armed. There is nothing wrong with it,” said Black Lives Matter Sacramento founder Tanya Faison. For months, protests, calls for police accountability and concerns over white supremacy have been a top priority for Faison. Now she is making a new call to the public. “Get protection in these times when we know we cannot call the police for help and where we know that we need to stay safe because it is a really volatile time right now,” she explained. The Founder of BLM Sacramento put a message out on the group’s Facebook page asking for sponsors to pay for 10 people to get firearm training. The money would go towards anyone in the black community that is looking to sign up to learn about gun safety. The course would cover teaching everything from how to hold, clean, safely store and shoot a gun. “I want us to be independent from the system and I want us to be educated and informed on what we are doing,” she explained.
Now, if a group of right-leaning folks talked about being “independent from the system,” it would cause some kind of a meltdown. Faison’s comments aren’t causing that reaction. Funny, that.
Regardless, she’s not wrong that black Americans should be armed. Everyone should be, but yeah, especially black Americans.
The black community bears a disproportional burden when it comes to violent crime. They’re far more likely to be the victims of a violent crime. In fact, despite comprising just 13 percent of the population, they represent 15 percent of all violent crime victims and half of all homicide victims. Even if there wasn’t a distrust of the police, it would just look like simple wisdom for the black community to get guns for their own personal defense.
Now, I’m sure there are some who will view this with some degree of discomfort. The left would blame racism, but it’s not that. It’s the idea of your ideological opponents having guns. It’s the reason I figure most leftists are anti-gun, actually.
To those, though, I just want to tell you to get over it. The more minorities embrace gun ownership, the less likely Democrats will be to take our guns. They need those demographics in many places to win elections, so they’re not going to want to piss them off. That works out to a win for us.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--The Constitution Doesn't Mean Whatever You Want It To

For the past couple of weeks , the philosophy of judicial originalism has gotten a lot of attention in the press thanks to Judge Amy Coney Barrett , though most of her critics have been intentionally obtuse about what that philosophy actually entails .
Senator Dick Durbin , for example , seems to believe that under an originalist point of view , the Second Amendment only protects your right to own a musket , as opposed to modern day arms .
Durbin and other Democrats aren ’ t only misrepresenting originalism , but they ’ re embracing a view that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and changes based on our own interpretations , even if the text stays the same .
In their view , the Second Amendment is now a dead letter that doesn ’ t actually protect against government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms at all .
This idea of an ever-changing Constitution has been taken to absurd lengths with a new column by Yale University doctoral student Alexander Zhang , who writes at The Atlantic that the Third Amendment is no longer about prohibiting the government from quartering troops in private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a pretext to establish the right to be free from disease .
“ No soldier , ” the amendment reads , “ shall , in time of peace be quartered in any house , without the consent of the owner , nor in time of war , but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
” Federal courts have rarely invoked it , and in 2015 even rejected a Third Amendment claim against police officers ’ occupation of a house .
Now the subject of memes , the amendment , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Horwitz , is an “ interesting study in constitutional obsolescence.
” But surrendering to this senescence is a mistake .
The Third Amendment might actually breathe new , constitutional life into what Ibram X. Kendi has labeled “ freedom from infection.
” Zhang bases his argument on the idea that the Founders weren ’ t just concerned about the invasion of privacy and loss of property rights that would come with troops being quartered in private homes , but also the spread of smallpox .
He doesn ’ t actually have much evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tertiary driver of the ratification of the Third Amendment , but ultimately that doesn ’ t matter .
We should simply interpret the amendment to mean something completely different than what it actually says .
The final text does not mention disease , but the text of the amendment has not been an impediment to expansive ( albeit controversial ) interpretations in other regards .
In 1965 , the Court , in Griswold v. Connecticut , cited the amendment to find an implied constitutional right to privacy , and similar reasoning could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment may have something to do with a right to be free from infection , what exactly is that right ?
Construed most narrowly , the amendment might merely imply a right to be free from having a specific category of people who might carry diseases forcibly pushed into one ’ s house without consent .
But broader interpretations are possible .
The amendment could be interpreted to include other governmental actors , and house could be understood expansively .
The broadest interpretation might recognize a general right to be free from being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases .
Since the Founders ’ world looked tremendously different from our world today , the question is where to draw the line : how much to limit the amendment to a narrow interpretation of its text and how much to prioritize the broader rationales at its foundation .
This is an utterly absurd view of the Constitution , and it renders the original meaning of virtually every one of our Constitutional rights null and void , or at least subject to the whims of a legislative majority .
A judicial philosophy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Third Amendment while placing the most commonly sold rifle in America outside the scope of the Second Amendment isn ’ t a philosophy based on the law at all .
It ’ s simply a power grab at the expense of our individual rights , and it has no place in our nation ’ s courts .

For the past couple of weeks, the philosophy of judicial originalism has gotten a lot of attention in the press thanks to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, though most of her critics have been intentionally obtuse about what that philosophy actually entails. Senator Dick Durbin, for example, seems to believe that under an originalist point of view, the Second Amendment only protects your right to own a musket, as opposed to modern day arms.
Durbin and other Democrats aren’t only misrepresenting originalism, but they’re embracing a view that the Constitution “lives and breathes” and changes based on our own interpretations, even if the text stays the same. In their view, the Second Amendment is now a dead letter that doesn’t actually protect against government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms at all.
This idea of an ever-changing Constitution has been taken to absurd lengths with a new column by Yale University doctoral student Alexander Zhang, who writes at The Atlantic that the Third Amendment is no longer about prohibiting the government from quartering troops in private homes, but could instead be used as a pretext to establish the right to be free from disease.
“No soldier,” the amendment reads, “shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Federal courts have rarely invoked it, and in 2015 even rejected a Third Amendment claim against police officers’ occupation of a house. Now the subject of memes, the amendment, in the words of the legal historian Morton Horwitz, is an “interesting study in constitutional obsolescence.” But surrendering to this senescence is a mistake. The Third Amendment might actually breathe new, constitutional life into what Ibram X. Kendi has labeled “freedom from infection.”
Zhang bases his argument on the idea that the Founders weren’t just concerned about the invasion of privacy and loss of property rights that would come with troops being quartered in private homes, but also the spread of smallpox. He doesn’t actually have much evidence that infection was a primary or even tertiary driver of the ratification of the Third Amendment, but ultimately that doesn’t matter. We should simply interpret the amendment to mean something completely different than what it actually says.
The final text does not mention disease, but the text of the amendment has not been an impediment to expansive (albeit controversial) interpretations in other regards. In 1965, the Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut, cited the amendment to find an implied constitutional right to privacy, and similar reasoning could be used again. Yet if the Third Amendment may have something to do with a right to be free from infection, what exactly is that right? Construed most narrowly, the amendment might merely imply a right to be free from having a specific category of people who might carry diseases forcibly pushed into one’s house without consent. But broader interpretations are possible. The amendment could be interpreted to include other governmental actors, and house could be understood expansively. The broadest interpretation might recognize a general right to be free from being forced to come into close contact with diseases. Since the Founders’ world looked tremendously different from our world today, the question is where to draw the line: how much to limit the amendment to a narrow interpretation of its text and how much to prioritize the broader rationales at its foundation.
This is an utterly absurd view of the Constitution, and it renders the original meaning of virtually every one of our Constitutional rights null and void, or at least subject to the whims of a legislative majority. A judicial philosophy that finds room for mask mandates in the Third Amendment while placing the most commonly sold rifle in America outside the scope of the Second Amendment isn’t a philosophy based on the law at all. It’s simply a power grab at the expense of our individual rights, and it has no place in our nation’s courts.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--Is Gun Control Losing Ground In 2020?

Is Gun Control Losing Ground In 2020?

For a while , gun rights was ascendant in this country .
With a few exceptions , rights were being restored all over the nation .
On the federal level , we appeared to be poised to be able to buy suppressors over the counter and weren ’ t remotely worried about losing any ground there .
Sure , the odd anti-gun bill would be introduced in Congress , but it rarely had enough co-sponsors to rise to the level of toilet paper .
Then Parkland happened .
The media went on the offensive and tried to turn people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , frankly , it worked .
It worked pretty damn well , all things considered .
Anti-gun laws were sprouting up across the nation .
Virginia flipped from red to blue , supposedly in part due to the GOP ’ s opposition to gun control .
Yet now there seem to be some indicators that gun control is losing once again .
While much of our politics in this unusual year have become murkier , this year has produced one clear loser : gun control .
It may seem counterintuitive with Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all time , but gun control groups and activists are falling short across the political landscape .
Even in a political environment favoring Democrats in November , the gun control movement has failed to get any traction .
In the courts , gun control groups have complained that California ’ s ban on high-capacity magazines and background checks for buying ammunition were given to a biased judge , as both were struck down .
Gun control legislation is about to have a much tougher time in the courts with Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , after years of Chief Justice John Roberts refusing to defend the Second Amendment .
Gun control groups are also being outspent during this election cycle .
The National Rifle Association has spent just over half of what it did during the 2016 cycle , yet it has still outspent the top three gun control groups , including the Michael Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety .
Additionally , there are millions upon millions of new gun owners running around .
While they ’ re not all gun voters just now , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially since so many have seen the anti-gun rhetoric turn out to be nothing but lies .
Further , though the above-linked article notes that the Democratic nominees are pretty much the most anti-gun ticket in history , there ’ s one subject they seem to be avoiding as much as possible .
That ’ s gun control .
The 2020 primary season started off with gun control poised to be a top issue for Democrats , yet candidates who focused on that issue fell by the wayside pretty quickly .
Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped out of the race and made almost no impact much of anywhere .
Now in the general election , Biden and Harris aren ’ t exactly hiding their gun policy proposals , but they ’ re not talking about them either .
You can ’ t help but wonder just how much the campaign knows about how Americans are feeling regarding gun control right now .
After all , there ’ s a reason they ’ re not talking about it now , and it ’ s probably because they know damn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play as well right about now .
So yeah , gun control sure looks to be a loser , which is a nice change of pace .

For a while, gun rights was ascendant in this country. With a few exceptions, rights were being restored all over the nation. On the federal level, we appeared to be poised to be able to buy suppressors over the counter and weren’t remotely worried about losing any ground there. Sure, the odd anti-gun bill would be introduced in Congress, but it rarely had enough co-sponsors to rise to the level of toilet paper.
It was a good time.
Then Parkland happened. The media went on the offensive and tried to turn people like David Hogg into anti-gun rock stars.
And, frankly, it worked. It worked pretty damn well, all things considered. Anti-gun laws were sprouting up across the nation. Virginia flipped from red to blue, supposedly in part due to the GOP’s opposition to gun control.
Yet now there seem to be some indicators that gun control is losing once again.
While much of our politics in this unusual year have become murkier, this year has produced one clear loser: gun control. It may seem counterintuitive with Democrats fielding the most anti-Second Amendment presidential ticket of all time, but gun control groups and activists are falling short across the political landscape. Even in a political environment favoring Democrats in November, the gun control movement has failed to get any traction. In the courts, gun control groups have complained that California’s ban on high-capacity magazines and background checks for buying ammunition were given to a biased judge, as both were struck down. Gun control legislation is about to have a much tougher time in the courts with Amy Coney Barrett’s impending confirmation to the Supreme Court, after years of Chief Justice John Roberts refusing to defend the Second Amendment. Gun control groups are also being outspent during this election cycle. The National Rifle Association has spent just over half of what it did during the 2016 cycle, yet it has still outspent the top three gun control groups, including the Michael Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety.
Additionally, there are millions upon millions of new gun owners running around. While they’re not all gun voters just now, they’re not likely to be anti-gunners, especially since so many have seen the anti-gun rhetoric turn out to be nothing but lies.
Further, though the above-linked article notes that the Democratic nominees are pretty much the most anti-gun ticket in history, there’s one subject they seem to be avoiding as much as possible. That’s gun control.
The 2020 primary season started off with gun control poised to be a top issue for Democrats, yet candidates who focused on that issue fell by the wayside pretty quickly. Rep. Eric Swalwell and Beto O’Rourke dropped out of the race and made almost no impact much of anywhere. Now in the general election, Biden and Harris aren’t exactly hiding their gun policy proposals, but they’re not talking about them either.
You can’t help but wonder just how much the campaign knows about how Americans are feeling regarding gun control right now. After all, there’s a reason they’re not talking about it now, and it’s probably because they know damn good and well it won’t play as well right about now.
So yeah, gun control sure looks to be a loser, which is a nice change of pace.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--NJ Man Charged For Illegal Suppressors That He Tried To Turn In To Police

A deputy fire chief from Carlstadt , New Jersey is facing charges of possessing a prohibited weapon after he was arrested with a silencer outside of the borough hall .
While prosecutors in Bergen County and New York City media are portraying the arrest as the culmination of an investigation into international arms trafficking , Matthew Moran ’ s attorney says his client was actually arrested for trying to do the right thing .
Evan Nappen recently detailed the events that led up to Moran ’ s arrest last week , and paints a far different picture than the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel filters ” from an advertisement on Instagram .
When the package arrived from China , it had two items that looked more like silencers to him than fuel filters .
Moran went to a friend at NAPA Auto Parts who explained to him that these items were not actually fuel filters , that he knew others who had mistakenly ordered them , and that he should get rid of them .
The next day , Moran voluntarily surrendered those “ fuel filters ” to the Carlstadt Police Department .
New Jersey law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voluntary surrender of silencers and other regulated items to the police and grants immunity for such voluntary surrender .
While voluntarily surrendering these items , Moran told the Carlstadt detective that he had made two purchases of which he received only one and that he was canceling the second order .
Moran notified the China-based Instagram vendor , PayPal , and his bank to cancel the second order and payment .
He also alerted the US Post Office that he refuses delivery of any package from this seller .
However , despite cancelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service that he wanted to refuse delivery of any future packages , 10 days later another parcel showed up at his home .
According to Nappen , Moran “ immediately put the box in his car ” and drove back to the local police station with the intention of handing the contents of the box over to police .
Before he could enter the building , however , Moran was stopped by federal and state agents who arrested him .
The media quickly ran with Musella ’ s description of the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported Moran ’ s arrest , for example .
Police arrested Moran on Thursday following an international arms-trafficking investigation by the Bergen County Prosecutor ’ s Office , according to a release from prosecutors .
Investigators say Moran purchased silencers from an overseas company that were “ smuggled ” through the mail to his Carlstadt home .
Detectives from the prosecutor ’ s office and Homeland Security officials seized firearms , high capacity magazine , thousands of ammunition rounds and police-issued ballistic vests after a search of his home .
As Nappen points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press release and all the media coverage based off of it fail to mention that ammunition is “ routinely sold by the case containing 500-to-1000 rounds per case , and that it is not unlawful to possess firearms , ammunition , or ballistic vests in New Jersey.
” Musella ’ s press release truly makes it sound like Moran was some sort of international smuggler of silencers , instead of a guy who voluntarily alerted police to the suppressors that arrived on his doorstep .
The fact that Musella ’ s press release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s cooperation with police is disturbing , but not nearly as troubling as Moran ’ s arrest for trying to follow the law in the first place .

A deputy fire chief from Carlstadt, New Jersey is facing charges of possessing a prohibited weapon after he was arrested with a silencer outside of the borough hall. While prosecutors in Bergen County and New York City media are portraying the arrest as the culmination of an investigation into international arms trafficking, Matthew Moran’s attorney says his client was actually arrested for trying to do the right thing.
Evan Nappen recently detailed the events that led up to Moran’s arrest last week, and paints a far different picture than the one portrayed by prosecutors.
Moran ordered “fuel filters” from an advertisement on Instagram. When the package arrived from China, it had two items that looked more like silencers to him than fuel filters. Moran went to a friend at NAPA Auto Parts who explained to him that these items were not actually fuel filters, that he knew others who had mistakenly ordered them, and that he should get rid of them. The next day, Moran voluntarily surrendered those “fuel filters” to the Carlstadt Police Department. New Jersey law,NJS 2C:39-12, specifically encourages the voluntary surrender of silencers and other regulated items to the police and grants immunity for such voluntary surrender. While voluntarily surrendering these items, Moran told the Carlstadt detective that he had made two purchases of which he received only one and that he was canceling the second order. Moran notified the China-based Instagram vendor, PayPal, and his bank to cancel the second order and payment. He also alerted the US Post Office that he refuses delivery of any package from this seller.
However, despite cancelling the order and and telling the postal service that he wanted to refuse delivery of any future packages, 10 days later another parcel showed up at his home. According to Nappen, Moran “immediately put the box in his car” and drove back to the local police station with the intention of handing the contents of the box over to police. Before he could enter the building, however, Moran was stopped by federal and state agents who arrested him.
After the arrest, Bergen County Prosecutor Mark Musella quickly issued a news release painting Moran as an “international arms-trafficker” who “smuggled” contraband into the country. The smear included publication of his personal picture without his permission and claims that he had “numerous firearms, high capacity magazines, thousands of rounds of ammunition and police issued ballistic vests.”
The media quickly ran with Musella’s description of the case. Here’s how NBC New York reported Moran’s arrest, for example.
Police arrested Moran on Thursday following an international arms-trafficking investigation by the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, according to a release from prosecutors. Investigators say Moran purchased silencers from an overseas company that were “smuggled” through the mail to his Carlstadt home. Detectives from the prosecutor’s office and Homeland Security officials seized firearms, high capacity magazine, thousands of ammunition rounds and police-issued ballistic vests after a search of his home.
As Nappen points out, both the prosecutor’s press release and all the media coverage based off of it fail to mention that ammunition is “routinely sold by the case containing 500-to-1000 rounds per case, and that it is not unlawful to possess firearms, ammunition, or ballistic vests in New Jersey.”
Large-capacity magazines are the subject of an ongoing federal constitutional legal challenge in response to Governor Murphy’s recent enactment, and Moran has not been charged with possession of large-capacity magazines. Moran has only been charged with possession of alleged silencers (advertised on Instagram as ‘fuel filters”), which he attempted to voluntarily surrender.
Musella’s press release truly makes it sound like Moran was some sort of international smuggler of silencers, instead of a guy who voluntarily alerted police to the suppressors that arrived on his doorstep. The fact that Musella’s press release doesn’t even mention Moran’s cooperation with police is disturbing, but not nearly as troubling as Moran’s arrest for trying to follow the law in the first place.


bearingarms--2020-10-22--MD Man Charged With Sending Threatening Letter To Voters

Earlier this week , we wrote about a threatening letter to a Trump supporter that went viral on social media .
Unsurprisingly , we weren ’ t fond of this kind of letter and I made my opinions pretty clear about this , though there was some doubt as to the veracity .
At this point , we ’ ve seen too many “ hate crimes ” turn out to be hoaxes not to be skeptical .
However , it seems that letter wasn ’ t the first purportedly sent .
Federal and state charges have been filed against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeting the homes of voters because of their political signs in their yard .
James Dale Reed , 42 , is in custody at the Frederick County Detention Center charged with voter intimidation and threatening candidates .
He ’ s also facing federal charges , and he ’ s no stranger to federal authorities .
Authorities identified Reed as the man in a doorbell surveillance video that was recorded as he allegedly left a threatening letter at the home of Mark Posthuma and his wife earlier this month .
“ I thought it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political climate of today , it ’ s probably not too surprising , ” Posthuma said .
The letter said the Posthumas were being targeted because they support the Biden-Harris ticket and were identified because of the signs in their yard .
It also threatened violence against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris and gun control advocates .
That , of course , triggered the Secret Service to get involved .
Now , let ’ s note this was against a Biden supporter and against Biden himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit from the Secret Service , as it should .
Let me be clear .
This kind of thing isn ’ t appropriate coming for either side .
Yes , this election is rough and it ’ s very easy to see the fate of the nation hinging on the results .
Honestly , I think it does .
Yet despite that , death threats against people for the sin of disagreeing with you is beyond stupid .
It ’ s disgusting .
You don ’ t actually accomplish anything .
No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital forms–and thinks , “ Oh , crap !
Someone says they ’ ll kill me if X happens .
I ’ d best change all my ways immediately .
How could I have been so wrong ?
” No .
Instead , they dig in and take it as a point of pride they stood up to the death threats .
Oh , some people get really quiet , sure , but they don ’ t change what they ’ re doing .
In other words , a death threat has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hell , in this day and age , a death threat is almost a point of pride when you ’ re involved in politics .
It ’ s something you can brag about when you ’ re with others of your particular political persuasion .
It ’ s something you can hammer the other side with when you ’ re calling them unhinged–both sides have people who can claim this and there are unhinged on both sides as well .
But it never changes anything except by making it worse .
Frankly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end .
Now .
Not after the election , but last week .
Doing this crap from either direction isn ’ t going to help anyone ’ s cause .

Earlier this week, we wrote about a threatening letter to a Trump supporter that went viral on social media. Unsurprisingly, we weren’t fond of this kind of letter and I made my opinions pretty clear about this, though there was some doubt as to the veracity. At this point, we’ve seen too many “hate crimes” turn out to be hoaxes not to be skeptical.
However, it seems that letter wasn’t the first purportedly sent.
Federal and state charges have been filed against a Frederick man who’s accused of targeting the homes of voters because of their political signs in their yard. James Dale Reed, 42, is in custody at the Frederick County Detention Center charged with voter intimidation and threatening candidates. He’s also facing federal charges, and he’s no stranger to federal authorities. Authorities identified Reed as the man in a doorbell surveillance video that was recorded as he allegedly left a threatening letter at the home of Mark Posthuma and his wife earlier this month. “I thought it was pretty scary, but in the political climate of today, it’s probably not too surprising,” Posthuma said. The letter said the Posthumas were being targeted because they support the Biden-Harris ticket and were identified because of the signs in their yard. It also threatened violence against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris and gun control advocates.
That, of course, triggered the Secret Service to get involved.
Now, let’s note this was against a Biden supporter and against Biden himself. That’s going to get a visit from the Secret Service, as it should.
Let me be clear. This kind of thing isn’t appropriate coming for either side. Yes, this election is rough and it’s very easy to see the fate of the nation hinging on the results. Honestly, I think it does.
Yet despite that, death threats against people for the sin of disagreeing with you is beyond stupid. It’s disgusting. You don’t actually accomplish anything. No one sees a death threat–either in print or digital forms–and thinks, “Oh, crap! Someone says they’ll kill me if X happens. I’d best change all my ways immediately. How could I have been so wrong?”
No. Instead, they dig in and take it as a point of pride they stood up to the death threats.
Oh, some people get really quiet, sure, but they don’t change what they’re doing. In other words, a death threat has never stopped pretty much anyone from doing anything.
Hell, in this day and age, a death threat is almost a point of pride when you’re involved in politics. It’s something you can brag about when you’re with others of your particular political persuasion. It’s something you can hammer the other side with when you’re calling them unhinged–both sides have people who can claim this and there are unhinged on both sides as well.
But it never changes anything except by making it worse.
Frankly, it’s time for this to end. Now. Not after the election, but last week. Doing this crap from either direction isn’t going to help anyone’s cause.