bearingarms--2020-10-08--AP Redefines "Riot" Just Days Before Wauwatosa Riot

Rioting in Wauwatosa , WI wasn ’ t exactly on anyone ’ s radar last week .
I mean , Wauwatosa probably wasn ’ t on many people ’ s radar in and of itself , much less the idea of rioting there .
Yet , it happened .
Stores and businesses were destroyed , apparently hours after peaceful protesting had already ended .
However , this happened at an odd time for journalism .
See , in the world of journalism , the accepted standards for how things are handled come from the Associated Press Stylebook .
They tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what terms to use when , at what point you capitalize someone ’ s job or title , things like that .
Over the weekend , the AP decided to issue some guidance on just how to report on riots .
The New York Post had less than flattering things to say about the guidance .
America ’ s most influential media stylebook is discouraging the nation ’ s newspapers from reporting on mass urban violence , on the grounds that writing about what ’ s happening is “ stigmatizing.
” That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose standards are followed by countless outlets , last week announced new guidelines around reporting on riots .
After a “ D ’ oh ” definition of “ riot , ” the guidance preached : “ Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching , police brutality or for racial justice , going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.
” AP suggests replacing “ riots ” with “ milder ” terms such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This , of course , went over like a fart in church on Sunday morning with a lot of people .
Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards had a great alternative that we may want to consider , however .
Sounds like a plan to me .
Unfortunately , a quick look at the headlines suggests that many media outlets have adopted the guidance quite readily .
That ’ s bad , in part because it shows that the AP ’ s attempt to redefine riots is working .
Of course , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer trust the media .
See , this is about trying to reshape the narrative , to reframe what actually transpires in a way that those who only get their news from the mainstream media will get a distorted image of events .
The reasons why people burn down entire neighborhoods are irrelevant .
It doesn ’ t really matter anymore .
Sure , there ’ s some curiosity as to what people are angry about , but no one really cares all that much once rocks are being thrown and buildings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all becomes irrelevant .
Yet the AP wants that to be played up first and foremost , as if the destruction is a mere afterthought that should hardly be mentioned .
Wauwatosa is merely the first example of that .
A black officer shoots a black man and , of course , it ’ s not just racial but grounds for trying to burn the city to the ground .
It absolutely baffles my mind , but then we have the new AP guidance telling journalists not to call the riot a riot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , and anyone with a brain can see it for themselves .

Rioting in Wauwatosa, WI wasn’t exactly on anyone’s radar last week. I mean, Wauwatosa probably wasn’t on many people’s radar in and of itself, much less the idea of rioting there.
Yet, it happened. Stores and businesses were destroyed, apparently hours after peaceful protesting had already ended.
However, this happened at an odd time for journalism.
See, in the world of journalism, the accepted standards for how things are handled come from the Associated Press Stylebook. They tell us how we should abbreviate things, what terms to use when, at what point you capitalize someone’s job or title, things like that.
Over the weekend, the AP decided to issue some guidance on just how to report on riots.
The New York Post had less than flattering things to say about the guidance.
America’s most influential media stylebook is discouraging the nation’s newspapers from reporting on mass urban violence, on the grounds that writing about what’s happening is “stigmatizing.” That’s right: The Associated Press Stylebook, whose standards are followed by countless outlets, last week announced new guidelines around reporting on riots. After a “D’oh” definition of “riot,” the guidance preached: “Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.” … AP suggests replacing “riots” with “milder” terms such as “unrest.” Give us a break.
This, of course, went over like a fart in church on Sunday morning with a lot of people.
Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards had a great alternative that we may want to consider, however.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Unfortunately, a quick look at the headlines suggests that many media outlets have adopted the guidance quite readily. That’s bad, in part because it shows that the AP’s attempt to redefine riots is working.
Of course, this is also why millions of Americans no longer trust the media.
See, this is about trying to reshape the narrative, to reframe what actually transpires in a way that those who only get their news from the mainstream media will get a distorted image of events.
The reasons why people burn down entire neighborhoods are irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter anymore. Sure, there’s some curiosity as to what people are angry about, but no one really cares all that much once rocks are being thrown and buildings are destroyed. At that point, it all becomes irrelevant.
Yet the AP wants that to be played up first and foremost, as if the destruction is a mere afterthought that should hardly be mentioned.
Wauwatosa is merely the first example of that. A black officer shoots a black man and, of course, it’s not just racial but grounds for trying to burn the city to the ground. It absolutely baffles my mind, but then we have the new AP guidance telling journalists not to call the riot a riot.
It is what it is, though, and anyone with a brain can see it for themselves.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--With Every Riot, Support For The Second Amendment Grows

That ’ s the thesis of a new paper by George Mason University professor David Bernstein entitled “ The Right to Armed Self Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication ” , which argues that , as cities burn and many rioters and looters escape prosecutions and even arrests for their criminal actions , more Americans are embracing their own right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves , their families , and their homes and businesses .
At USA Today law professor and blogfather Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit takes a closer look at Bernstein ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many cases where law enforcement have failed to keep the peace in recent months , starting with Seattle , where Mayor Jenny Durkan sat on her hands and gave people space to riot and even form their own “ autonomous zone , ” which resulted in a huge spike in “ person-related crime ” across the city .
Likewise , in Chicago , Mayor Lori Lightfoot and prosecutor Kim Foxx established an early policy of tolerating and even implicitly encouraging street violence through their lackadaisical response .
Bernstein notes , “ Even other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform have criticized Foxx ’ s reluctance to pursue felony charges against those arrested for rioting or looting.
” Meanwhile , “ On a particularly violent weekend in early June , Lightfoot refused to deploy the National Guard beyond Chicago ’ s central business district , drawing condemnations from officials representing districts on the south and west side of the city , which were left unprotected during Chicago ’ s deadliest weekend in sixty years .
Over that weekend , twenty-four people were killed and at least sixty-one injured by gun violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received 65,000 calls in a single day — 50,000 more than normal .
As chaos unfolded , one Democratic city councilwoman told the mayor on the phone , ‘ My ward is a shit show … .
[ Rioters ] are shooting at the police .
I have never seen the likes of this .
I ’ m scared.
’ ” As we all know , the sh*t show hasn ’ t been relegated to a single ward in Chicago .
From large cities like Seattle and Chicago to smaller towns like Kenosha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the riots and the understated response from local officials and law enforcement is having a national impact .
Even in normal times , gun owners joke that “ when seconds count , the police are only minutes away.
” But , sometimes , they ’ re not coming at all .
Sometimes they ’ re not even allowed to show up .
( And , historically , political leaders have sometimes used the denial of police protection to opponents as a means of opening those opponents up to violent attacks . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts should take into account when Second Amendment cases are argued .
But it ’ s also something that the rest of us should keep in mind .
In 2020 , “ the police will protect you ” seems particularly hollow .
Now this is likely completely unsurprising to gun owners , but keep in mind that Bernstein is writing for an academic audience , and one that isn ’ t comprised of a lot of Second Amendment supporters .
While many in the academy may view these riots and violent protests as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police reform or abolition , the fact of the matter is that for most of us , the scenes of destruction don ’ t give us warm fuzzy feelings .
Instead , most of us greet news of another riot with a sinking feeling and an understanding that the tumult and turmoil could take place in our neighborhoods , and millions of Americans have responded to the increased unrest by exercising their Second Amendment rights for the very first time .

That’s the thesis of a new paper by George Mason University professor David Bernstein entitled “The Right to Armed Self Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication”, which argues that, as cities burn and many rioters and looters escape prosecutions and even arrests for their criminal actions, more Americans are embracing their own right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, and their homes and businesses.
At USA Today law professor and blogfather Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit takes a closer look at Bernstein’s new academic paper and notes the many cases where law enforcement have failed to keep the peace in recent months, starting with Seattle, where Mayor Jenny Durkan sat on her hands and gave people space to riot and even form their own “autonomous zone,” which resulted in a huge spike in “person-related crime” across the city.
Likewise, in Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot and prosecutor Kim Foxx established an early policy of tolerating and even implicitly encouraging street violence through their lackadaisical response. Bernstein notes, “Even other Chicago officials who generally support criminal justice reform have criticized Foxx’s reluctance to pursue felony charges against those arrested for rioting or looting.” Meanwhile, “On a particularly violent weekend in early June, Lightfoot refused to deploy the National Guard beyond Chicago’s central business district, drawing condemnations from officials representing districts on the south and west side of the city, which were left unprotected during Chicago’s deadliest weekend in sixty years. Over that weekend, twenty-four people were killed and at least sixty-one injured by gun violence, and the city’s 911 dispatchers received 65,000 calls in a single day — 50,000 more than normal. As chaos unfolded, one Democratic city councilwoman told the mayor on the phone, ‘My ward is a shit show …. [Rioters] are shooting at the police. I have never seen the likes of this. I’m scared.’”
As we all know, the sh*t show hasn’t been relegated to a single ward in Chicago. From large cities like Seattle and Chicago to smaller towns like Kenosha, Wisconsin and Rochester, New York, the riots and the understated response from local officials and law enforcement is having a national impact.
Even in normal times, gun owners joke that“when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” But, sometimes, they’re not coming at all. Sometimes they’re not even allowed to show up. (And, historically, political leaders have sometimes used the denial of police protection to opponents as a means of opening those opponents up to violent attacks.) Bernstein notes that this is something that courts should take into account when Second Amendment cases are argued. But it’s also something that the rest of us should keep in mind. In 2020, “the police will protect you” seems particularly hollow.
Now this is likely completely unsurprising to gun owners, but keep in mind that Bernstein is writing for an academic audience, and one that isn’t comprised of a lot of Second Amendment supporters. While many in the academy may view these riots and violent protests as a positive development that can lead to police reform or abolition, the fact of the matter is that for most of us, the scenes of destruction don’t give us warm fuzzy feelings.
Instead, most of us greet news of another riot with a sinking feeling and an understanding that the tumult and turmoil could take place in our neighborhoods, and millions of Americans have responded to the increased unrest by exercising their Second Amendment rights for the very first time.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--Philly Sues To Set Its Own Gun Laws

Philly Sues To Set Its Own Gun Laws

When it comes to the Pennsylvania battle over preemption , much of the attention lately has been focused on Pittsburg .
After all , that ’ s the city that offered a middle finger to the state and passed their own assault weapon ban despite the state ’ s preemption .
However , Pittsburgh isn ’ t the only major city in the state that is chaffing at their inability to pass useless gun control laws that wouldn ’ t do a damn thing but restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens .
Oh no .
It seems Philadelphia isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control laws themselves .
Now , they ’ re suing to try and change the situation .
Wow .
Just one sentence in and the bias is crystal clear .
In the lawsuit , Philadelphia is asking a judge to invalidate a set of regulations under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act , so it and other municipalities are free to pass their own measures aimed at curbing gun violence .
Brought on behalf of Philly and Pittsburgh residents who have been directly impacted by gun violence , the suit was filed Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Germantown ’ s Happy Hollow Recreation Center to announce the action , a location chosen “ due to historical rates of gun violence in the area , ” said Patricia Gillett , spokesperson for Council President Darrell Clarke .
“ The simple reality is what we ’ re asking for from the commonwealth is completely reasonable , ” Clarke said on Wednesday .
Preemption puts every community at the same standard so citizens traveling throughout the state don ’ t run afoul of a local gun control law that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia ’ s problems don ’ t stem from a lack of gun control .
If anything , they stem from an incompetent government that can ’ t seem to handle their business .
At least , that ’ s what it looks like based on other factors .
Seriously , violence is a complex problem , but as we ’ ve seen elsewhere , gun control isn ’ t required to solve the issue .
New York , for example , had the toughest gun control laws in the nation when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacting any additional gun laws , they became one of the safest big cities in the nation .
Instead , Philadelphia would do better by looking at how they police the city and placing reform efforts there .
It ’ s not the street-level officers who are the problem , nor the next couple or three levels above them , but how the top brass view policing .
That ’ s who needs to rethink their efforts and start making moves that will have a longer lasting impact on the city and reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not likely to go anywhere .
Preemption has survived legal challenges before and I suspect they ’ ll survive yet again .
This is really more about being seen to do something than actually doing something .
After all , the political theater is easy .
Actually doing something , though ?
That ’ s hard .

When it comes to the Pennsylvania battle over preemption, much of the attention lately has been focused on Pittsburg. After all, that’s the city that offered a middle finger to the state and passed their own assault weapon ban despite the state’s preemption.
However, Pittsburgh isn’t the only major city in the state that is chaffing at their inability to pass useless gun control laws that wouldn’t do a damn thing but restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. Oh no. It seems Philadelphia isn’t happy with their inability to pass gun control laws themselves.
Now, they’re suing to try and change the situation.
The City of Philadelphia is suing Pennsylvania so it can enact stronger gun safety laws and curb the epidemic of violence roiling the city.
Wow. Just one sentence in and the bias is crystal clear.
Anyway, moving on…
In the lawsuit, Philadelphia is asking a judge to invalidate a set of regulations under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, so it and other municipalities are free to pass their own measures aimed at curbing gun violence. Brought on behalf of Philly and Pittsburgh residents who have been directly impacted by gun violence, the suit was filed Wednesday in Commonwealth Court. City officials gathered at Germantown’s Happy Hollow Recreation Center to announce the action, a location chosen “due to historical rates of gun violence in the area,” said Patricia Gillett, spokesperson for Council President Darrell Clarke. “The simple reality is what we’re asking for from the commonwealth is completely reasonable,” Clarke said on Wednesday.
Except, it’s not.
Preemption puts every community at the same standard so citizens traveling throughout the state don’t run afoul of a local gun control law that doesn’t exist five feet away.
Further, Philadelphia’s problems don’t stem from a lack of gun control. If anything, they stem from an incompetent government that can’t seem to handle their business. At least, that’s what it looks like based on other factors.
Seriously, violence is a complex problem, but as we’ve seen elsewhere, gun control isn’t required to solve the issue. New York, for example, had the toughest gun control laws in the nation when it because a violent hellhole, yet without enacting any additional gun laws, they became one of the safest big cities in the nation.
Guns aren’t the problem.
Instead, Philadelphia would do better by looking at how they police the city and placing reform efforts there. It’s not the street-level officers who are the problem, nor the next couple or three levels above them, but how the top brass view policing. That’s who needs to rethink their efforts and start making moves that will have a longer lasting impact on the city and reduce crime.
As for the lawsuit, that’s not likely to go anywhere. Preemption has survived legal challenges before and I suspect they’ll survive yet again. This is really more about being seen to do something than actually doing something.
After all, the political theater is easy. Actually doing something, though? That’s hard.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--Another Misleading Fact-Check On Biden And The Second Amendment

I ’ ve noticed a definite trend among the so-called fact-checkers deployed to combat misinformation regarding the Biden/Harris campaign , particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment ; they ’ re leaving out a few salient facts of their own , and often are basing their fact check on a dubious premise to begin with .
The latest example of this comes from Snopes , which answers a question that no one is asking ; Does Biden Want To Abolish The Second Amendment ?
No one is claiming that Biden is going to try to pass a constitutional amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself , but that ’ s exactly the angle that Snopes pursues , allowing them to proclaim that the Democratic presidential candidate just wants to pass a few gun safety measures which will still “ respect the Second Amendment , which is limited.
” Our search did not reveal a specific point in time when Biden said that he wanted to abolish the Second Amendment .
In fact , we found several incidents where Biden denied wanting to abolish the amendment in its entirety .
As part of his 2020 campaign , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end the “ gun violence epidemic , ” which included several policies aimed at reducing the accessibility of firearms such as implementing universal background checks on those who intend to purchase a gun , as well as instituting buy-back programs for assault weapons and high-capacity magazines , among other measures .
“ It ’ s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment , which is limited .
As president , Biden will pursue constitutional , common-sense gun safety policies , ” noted the plan , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m not aware of anyone claiming that Biden has declared he ’ s going to abolish the Second Amendment via a constitutional amendment .
The argument is that Biden ’ s gun control agenda would destroy the protections offered by the Second Amendment , which as Snopes itself points out , is “ limited ” anyway according to the Biden campaign .
In their fact check , Snopes ignores the fact that Joe Biden himself said during a 2019 televised town hall in New Hampshire that he believes the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that if he were on the bench he would have ruled differently .
Of course Heller is the case in which the Court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in a militia , and if Biden believes that SCOTUS erred in its opinion , it ’ s fair to assume that he doesn ’ t believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right .
Snopes , however , presents the issue as undecided and up for interpretation , even as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Second Amendment is one of 10 within the U.S. Constitution that comprises the Bill of Rights .
It reads that “ a well-regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed.
” Interpretation of its scope has come under fire in the last century , with gun advocates arguing for what is known as “ individual right theory , ” which means that the language in the Second Amendment restricts legislative bodies from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or prohibition unconstitutional , according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School .
Those in favor of stricter gun legislation , on the other hand , abide under the “ collective rights theory , ” which argues that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual the right to possess guns and that legislative bodies have the authority to regulate firearms without infringing on a constitutional right .
Snopes ’ description of the “ individual right theory ” is wrong as well .
While some gun owners and Second Amendment advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are unconstitutional , in the Heller case the Supreme Court declared that some long-standing gun control laws could indeed withstand judicial scrutiny and survive a Second Amendment challenge .
Why though did Snopes lay out the “ collective rights theory ” without pointing out that Joe Biden has alluded to that being his own position ?
Since the issue isn ’ t whether Biden would use the process of amending the Constitution to officially abolish the Second Amendment , but whether his gun control plans would amount to the destruction of the individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d think that a real fact-check would take a look at how Biden ’ s gun control proposals would impact the individual right to keep and bear arms .
Of course Snopes doesn ’ t even attempt to address that question , because if they did , they ’ d have to acknowledge that under Biden ’ s plan , tens of millions of gun owners would be turned into criminals if they didn ’ t hand over their banned firearms and magazines to the federal government or pay a hefty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they currently legally own .
They would also have to acknowledge that under Biden ’ s gun control laws , possession of any so-called assault weapon or large capacity magazine not registered with the government under the National Firearms Act could result in a federal felony charge punishable by up to ten years in prison .
Instead they simply conclude that “ Biden has never called for abolishing the Second Amendment .
Moreover , under the U.S. Constitution , abolishing an amendment requires two-thirds approval in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could push for an overhaul of the Second Amendment , that power is not vested in the president alone.
” An “ overhaul ” of the Second Amendment that guts the individual right to keep and bear arms and turns it into a privilege to be doled out by the government is just abolition by another name .
Once again the so-called fact checkers seem to be more interested in providing cover to the Biden campaign than providing real facts to voters .

I’ve noticed a definite trend among the so-called fact-checkers deployed to combat misinformation regarding the Biden/Harris campaign, particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment; they’re leaving out a few salient facts of their own, and often are basing their fact check on a dubious premise to begin with.
The latest example of this comes from Snopes, which answers a question that no one is asking; Does Biden Want To Abolish The Second Amendment?
No one is claiming that Biden is going to try to pass a constitutional amendment wiping the Second Amendment from the constitution itself, but that’s exactly the angle that Snopes pursues, allowing them to proclaim that the Democratic presidential candidate just wants to pass a few gun safety measures which will still “respect the Second Amendment, which is limited.”
Our search did not reveal a specific point in time when Biden said that he wanted to abolish the Second Amendment. In fact, we found several incidents where Biden denied wanting to abolish the amendment in its entirety. As part of his 2020 campaign, the presidential hopeful did outline a plan to end the “gun violence epidemic,” which included several policies aimed at reducing the accessibility of firearms such as implementing universal background checks on those who intend to purchase a gun, as well as instituting buy-back programs for assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, among other measures. “It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies,” noted the plan, which can be viewed in its entirety here.
I’m not aware of anyone claiming that Biden has declared he’s going to abolish the Second Amendment via a constitutional amendment. The argument is that Biden’s gun control agenda would destroy the protections offered by the Second Amendment, which as Snopes itself points out, is “limited” anyway according to the Biden campaign.
In their fact check, Snopes ignores the fact that Joe Biden himself said during a 2019 televised town hall in New Hampshire that he believes the Supreme Court wrongly decided the Heller case, and that if he were on the bench he would have ruled differently. Of course Heller is the case in which the Court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in a militia, and if Biden believes that SCOTUS erred in its opinion, it’s fair to assume that he doesn’t believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Snopes, however, presents the issue as undecided and up for interpretation, even as they ignore Biden’s own remarks.
The Second Amendment is one of 10 within the U.S. Constitution that comprises the Bill of Rights. It reads that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Interpretation of its scope has come under fire in the last century, with gun advocates arguing for what is known as “individual right theory,” which means that the language in the Second Amendment restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession and renders any regulation or prohibition unconstitutional, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Those in favor of stricter gun legislation, on the other hand, abide under the “collective rights theory,” which argues that the Second Amendment does not grant an individual the right to possess guns and that legislative bodies have the authority to regulate firearms without infringing on a constitutional right.
Snopes’ description of the “individual right theory” is wrong as well. While some gun owners and Second Amendment advocates believe that any and all gun laws are unconstitutional, in the Heller case the Supreme Court declared that some long-standing gun control laws could indeed withstand judicial scrutiny and survive a Second Amendment challenge. Why though did Snopes lay out the “collective rights theory” without pointing out that Joe Biden has alluded to that being his own position?
Since the issue isn’t whether Biden would use the process of amending the Constitution to officially abolish the Second Amendment, but whether his gun control plans would amount to the destruction of the individual right to keep and bear arms, you’d think that a real fact-check would take a look at how Biden’s gun control proposals would impact the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Of course Snopes doesn’t even attempt to address that question, because if they did, they’d have to acknowledge that under Biden’s plan, tens of millions of gun owners would be turned into criminals if they didn’t hand over their banned firearms and magazines to the federal government or pay a hefty tax to maintain possession of the arms they currently legally own.
They would also have to acknowledge that under Biden’s gun control laws, possession of any so-called assault weapon or large capacity magazine not registered with the government under the National Firearms Act could result in a federal felony charge punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Instead they simply conclude that “Biden has never called for abolishing the Second Amendment. Moreover, under the U.S. Constitution, abolishing an amendment requires two-thirds approval in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of states. Though Biden’s proposed administration could push for an overhaul of the Second Amendment, that power is not vested in the president alone.”
An “overhaul” of the Second Amendment that guts the individual right to keep and bear arms and turns it into a privilege to be doled out by the government is just abolition by another name. Once again the so-called fact checkers seem to be more interested in providing cover to the Biden campaign than providing real facts to voters.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--Kaepernick's Latest Project Wants Policeless, Prisonless "Utopia"

Colin Kaepernick has a bright run in the NFL for about 15 minutes .
Then other teams figured him out and his stats dropped .
They weren ’ t awful , but his team wasn ’ t winning , so he got benched .
Then he started showing his ass and became a huge distraction and no team in the league actually wanted him .
His actions since then indicate that he figures he benefits more from being out of the league than actually playing football .
Now , though , the quarterback turned activist has a new project with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional NFL quarterback turned social justice activist Colin Kaepernick has launched a new project aimed at building a utopian police-less and prison-less future .
In “ Abolition for the People , ” Kaepernick teamed up with Medium publication , LEVEL , to publish “ 30 stories from organizers , political prisoners , scholars , and advocates ” over the next month with the goal of furthering the pursuit of “ abolition ” for minority individuals .
Reforms such as “ use-of-force policies , body cameras , more training , and police accountability ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kaepernick argues in an essay introducing the project .
In fact , he says , reforming the white supremacist institutions of police and prisons ultimately only serves to commend them .
Instead , project creators say : “ The only answer is abolition , a full dismantling of the carceral state and the institutions that support it.
” ABOLITION FOR THE PEOPLE : The Movement For a Future Without Policing & Prisons The collection of 30 essays will be posted below over the course of the next 4 weeks .
# AbolitionForThePeople https @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The central intent of policing is to surveil , terrorize , capture , and kill marginalized populations , specifically Black folks.
” As for prisons , they only exist to “ isolate , regulate , and surveil ” black and brown people .
I don ’ t know , that last bit sounds kind of racist .
I mean , I ’ ll grant that African-Americans are disproportionally represented in prisons in comparison to their representation in the general population of the country , but there are a lot of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that prisons and policing exist solely to hurt black and brown people makes no sense in light of the fact that around 30 percent of the prison population is white .
Frankly , though , I don ’ t think Kaepernick really wants what he says he wants .
A world without police would be a world where the people Kaepernick says have issued him death threats would be free to act without fear of punishment .
Further , there would be no law enforcement available to help protect the former quarterback from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Honestly , I don ’ t think the man has done the math on this one .
Oh , I ’ m quite sure that he figures he ’ s immune to all of it .
After all , he ’ s got the money to hire private security .
But what about the rest of the black community ?
After all , if the nation is so populated with racists , who is going to protect the average black man or woman from these white nationalists that pop up everywhere ?
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford private security and many in the black community can ’ t even afford a handgun .
What about them ?
Who is going to protect them ?
Yeah , yeah , I know .
Kaepernick thinks they have more to fear from the police than anyone else , though if that were true , why are there any left alive more than a century and a half after emancipation ?
What Kaepernick ’ s project , if successful , would actually bring about is a dystopian nightmare where it would really become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a grocery run .
I hate to break it to him , but if he thinks that world would work out better for black Americans , he ’ d be very wrong .
That world wouldn ’ t be good for anyone .
I ’ d make cracks about has been quarterbacks , but there are too many I actually like that fall into that category , so I won ’ t taint them with association with Kaepernick .

Colin Kaepernick has a bright run in the NFL for about 15 minutes. Then other teams figured him out and his stats dropped. They weren’t awful, but his team wasn’t winning, so he got benched. Then he started showing his ass and became a huge distraction and no team in the league actually wanted him.
His actions since then indicate that he figures he benefits more from being out of the league than actually playing football.
Now, though, the quarterback turned activist has a new project with a vision for the future.
Former professional NFL quarterback turned social justice activist Colin Kaepernick has launched a new project aimed at building a utopian police-less and prison-less future. In “Abolition for the People,” Kaepernick teamed up with Medium publication, LEVEL, to publish “30 stories from organizers, political prisoners, scholars, and advocates” over the next month with the goal of furthering the pursuit of “abolition” for minority individuals. Reforms such as “use-of-force policies, body cameras, more training, and police accountability” simply won’t cut it, Kaepernick argues in an essay introducing the project. In fact, he says, reforming the white supremacist institutions of police and prisons ultimately only serves to commend them. Instead, project creators say: “The only answer is abolition, a full dismantling of the carceral state and the institutions that support it.” Thread/ ABOLITION FOR THE PEOPLE: The Movement For a Future Without Policing & Prisons The collection of 30 essays will be posted below over the course of the next 4 weeks. #AbolitionForThePeople https://t.co/jccRsxqLhT — Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) October 6, 2020 After all, Kaepernick writes, “The central intent of policing is to surveil, terrorize, capture, and kill marginalized populations, specifically Black folks.” As for prisons, they only exist to “isolate, regulate, and surveil” black and brown people.
I don’t know, that last bit sounds kind of racist. I mean, I’ll grant that African-Americans are disproportionally represented in prisons in comparison to their representation in the general population of the country, but there are a lot of white people locked up too. To say that prisons and policing exist solely to hurt black and brown people makes no sense in light of the fact that around 30 percent of the prison population is white.
Frankly, though, I don’t think Kaepernick really wants what he says he wants.
A world without police would be a world where the people Kaepernick says have issued him death threats would be free to act without fear of punishment. Further, there would be no law enforcement available to help protect the former quarterback from those who supposedly want him dead.
Honestly, I don’t think the man has done the math on this one.
Oh, I’m quite sure that he figures he’s immune to all of it. After all, he’s got the money to hire private security. But what about the rest of the black community?
After all, if the nation is so populated with racists, who is going to protect the average black man or woman from these white nationalists that pop up everywhere? Most folks of any ethnicity can’t afford private security and many in the black community can’t even afford a handgun. What about them? Who is going to protect them?
Yeah, yeah, I know. Kaepernick thinks they have more to fear from the police than anyone else, though if that were true, why are there any left alive more than a century and a half after emancipation?
What Kaepernick’s project, if successful, would actually bring about is a dystopian nightmare where it would really become kill or be killed just to potentially make a grocery run. I hate to break it to him, but if he thinks that world would work out better for black Americans, he’d be very wrong. That world wouldn’t be good for anyone.
I’d make cracks about has been quarterbacks, but there are too many I actually like that fall into that category, so I won’t taint them with association with Kaepernick.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--"Mostly Peaceful Protests" Result In Another Damaged Downtown

Police in Wauwatosa , Wisconsin declared an unlawful assembly and deployed teargas on Wednesday night as hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets and refused to leave after a citywide curfew took effect .
Instead , dozens of individuals began to damage buildings in the downtown as well as attack police officers , according to Fox 6 in Milwaukee .
Wauwatosa police said gas was deployed by law enforcement Wednesday night , Oct. 7 after “ an unlawful assembly ” was declared near North Avenue and Swan Boulevard .
More gas was deployed shortly before 11 p.m. near 102nd Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ in an effort to disperse the crowd.
” Police said individuals were “ throwing large rocks at law enforcement and buildings ” near North and Swan , advising residents to shelter in their homes .
Shortly after 8:30 p.m. , outside Wauwatosa City Hall , protesters were met by police , deputies and National Guard members in riot gear , where the protest was deemed “ an unlawful assembly.
” After a summer in which many Democratic mayors and governors gave people space to riot and loot during protests over the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve gotten closer to the election many of those same politicians are now taking a tougher tack with those intent on destruction .
Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers , for example , failed to call out the National Guard for days after riots rocked the town of Kenosha in the wake of the shooting of Jacob Blake by local police , but the Guard was already on hand in Wauwatosa before the sun set on Wednesday .
The violent demonstrations in Wauwatosa were expected , sadly , after Milwaukee County District Attorney John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed in the death of 17-year old Alvin Cole , who was shot and killed by Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah back in February .
“ In this case , there is sufficient evidence that Officer Mensah had an actual subjective belief that deadly force was necessary , and that belief was objectively reasonable .
I do not believe that the State could disprove self-defense or defense of others in this case , and therefore , could not meet the burden required to charge Officer Mensah.
” “ We have a very strong policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t believe we can prove it , ” Chisholm told FOX6 News .
According to Chisholm , in order for police officers to use deadly force , they must be trying to stop a suspect who is armed with a weapon , has a means of delivering lethal force , and displaying intent to use that force .
The D.A .
says in the case of Alvin Cole , all three factors came into play .
“ Mr .
Cole went to Mayfair Mall armed with a 9mm , ” said Chisholm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a patron .
While he was running from them , he discharged the firearm , and from that point on , he was ordered to surrender the firearm and never did so.
” According to Chisholm , police were called to Mayfair Mall Feb. 2 because of an incident involving a person who had a gun .
That person , later identified as Cole , was seen leaving the mall and ran from police when they tried to arrest him .
While running , an investigation by the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun and went to the ground .
He was told by police officers to “ disarm ” and was eventually shot by Mensah .
Within hours of the D.A.
’ s announcement hundreds of protesters had gathered in both Milwaukee and Wauwatosa to voice their anger over the lack of charges against Mensah , but the peaceable assembly soon devolved into random acts of violence and property damage , as Townhall.com ’ s Julio Rosas reported from the scene .
Early Thursday morning business owners and volunteers were busy downtown trying to clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The good people of Wauwatosa far outnumber those in the city intent on destruction , but it doesn ’ t take a large crowd to inflict a lot of harm to business and property owners , as we ’ ve seen in city after city over the past few months .
Sadly , the damage and destruction from the “ mostly peaceful ” protests will linger long after many of the agitators have moved on to their next stop .

Police in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin declared an unlawful assembly and deployed teargas on Wednesday night as hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets and refused to leave after a citywide curfew took effect. Instead, dozens of individuals began to damage buildings in the downtown as well as attack police officers, according to Fox 6 in Milwaukee.
Wauwatosa police said gas was deployed by law enforcement Wednesday night, Oct. 7 after “an unlawful assembly” was declared near North Avenue and Swan Boulevard. More gas was deployed shortly before 11 p.m. near 102nd Street and Melvina Avenue, police said, “in an effort to disperse the crowd.” Police said individuals were “throwing large rocks at law enforcement and buildings” near North and Swan, advising residents to shelter in their homes. Shortly after 8:30 p.m., outside Wauwatosa City Hall, protesters were met by police, deputies and National Guard members in riot gear, where the protest was deemed “an unlawful assembly.”
BREAKING: Damage reported along Swan and North. Glass left behind as business owners repair. The sting of tear gas still lingers in the air. @tmj4 pic.twitter.com/K0kc0BNKFU — Tom Durian (@TMJ4Tom) October 8, 2020
After a summer in which many Democratic mayors and governors gave people space to riot and loot during protests over the death of George Floyd, as we’ve gotten closer to the election many of those same politicians are now taking a tougher tack with those intent on destruction. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, for example, failed to call out the National Guard for days after riots rocked the town of Kenosha in the wake of the shooting of Jacob Blake by local police, but the Guard was already on hand in Wauwatosa before the sun set on Wednesday.
The violent demonstrations in Wauwatosa were expected, sadly, after Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm announced that no charges would be filed in the death of 17-year old Alvin Cole, who was shot and killed by Wauwatosa officer Joseph Mensah back in February.
“In this case, there is sufficient evidence that Officer Mensah had an actual subjective belief that deadly force was necessary, and that belief was objectively reasonable. I do not believe that the State could disprove self-defense or defense of others in this case, and therefore, could not meet the burden required to charge Officer Mensah.” “We have a very strong policy of not charging anybody if we don’t believe we can prove it,” Chisholm told FOX6 News.
According to Chisholm, in order for police officers to use deadly force, they must be trying to stop a suspect who is armed with a weapon, has a means of delivering lethal force, and displaying intent to use that force. The D.A. says in the case of Alvin Cole, all three factors came into play.
“Mr. Cole went to Mayfair Mall armed with a 9mm,” said Chisholm. “He had a confrontation with a patron. While he was running from them, he discharged the firearm, and from that point on, he was ordered to surrender the firearm and never did so.” According to Chisholm, police were called to Mayfair Mall Feb. 2 because of an incident involving a person who had a gun. That person, later identified as Cole, was seen leaving the mall and ran from police when they tried to arrest him. While running, an investigation by the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team led by Milwaukee police revealed Cole fired the gun and went to the ground. He was told by police officers to “disarm” and was eventually shot by Mensah.
Within hours of the D.A.’s announcement hundreds of protesters had gathered in both Milwaukee and Wauwatosa to voice their anger over the lack of charges against Mensah, but the peaceable assembly soon devolved into random acts of violence and property damage, as Townhall.com’s Julio Rosas reported from the scene.
On the ground in Wauwatosa for @townhallcom and some in the BLM crowd are smashing storefront windows. pic.twitter.com/rYwNrlmtMq — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) October 8, 2020
Early Thursday morning business owners and volunteers were busy downtown trying to clean up the damage from the night before.
The minute the curfew lifted, volunteers showed up to begin the cleanup process. Several volunteers tell me they want people to see the good that’s in Wauwatosa. pic.twitter.com/1owfsCuSCx — Cassidy Williams (@CassidyWtv) October 8, 2020
The good people of Wauwatosa far outnumber those in the city intent on destruction, but it doesn’t take a large crowd to inflict a lot of harm to business and property owners, as we’ve seen in city after city over the past few months. Sadly, the damage and destruction from the “mostly peaceful” protests will linger long after many of the agitators have moved on to their next stop.


bearingarms--2020-10-08--Another Debate, Nary A Mention Of Guns Again

On Wednesday night , Vice President Mike Pence squared off Sen. Kamala Harris in the vice presidential candidate debate .
As per usual , Cam and I prepared to have at least part of the day reacting to the Second Amendment aspects of that debate .
The problem is , just like the first presidential debate , there doesn ’ t seem to be a single thing about guns mentioned .
Now , this is curious .
Two of the four scheduled debates are in the can , and yet one of the Democrats biggest issues during the primary hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s been no discussion of gun control .
This was supposed to be one of their big issues , something most candidates in the primary–including both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris–ran on , each trying to present themselves as the most gun controlling candidate out there .
It was set to be a big issue and it should have provided debate moderators the opportunity to contrast the debaters .
Instead , there ’ s nary a word on the subject .
To be honest , though , I wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more surprised if we see gun debate in the next two debates , truth be told .
See , the moderators for these debates all seem to be left-leaning journalists .
They ’ re not fans of President Trumps and aren ’ t inclined to make his reelection any easier .
As a result , they ’ re not likely to bring up topics that might hurt Biden if they can avoid it .
Meanwhile , since the primary season when guns were such a key topic , millions of Americans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve found that they had to undergo background checks at gun shows and couldn ’ t order guns off the internet and have them delivered to your home .
They ’ ve learned that waiting periods have consequences .
In short , they learned a whole lot about how messed up these gun control laws are .
As a result , these new gun owners are likely to speak out when Biden or Harris talk about how it ’ s just too easy to get a gun or to prattle on endlessly about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re likely to call them out over the nonsense .
So , moderators steer the discussion away from this topic .
They know this won ’ t work out well .
After all , the popular vote that Democrats have talked about for the last four years ?
Hillary won that with fewer votes than the total number of gun buyers in just June and July .
In other words , it ’ s entirely possible their perceived edge would disappear in an instant if they started talking about gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember that four years ago , a moderator was discovered to leaked questions to the Clinton camp and received no censure from the industry .
There ’ s zero reason to believe they ’ re less biased this time around .
As such , they ’ re not going to lob fastballs at Biden .
If they did , he might just think they ’ re literal fastballs and swing a bat at them or something .
While we will continue to monitor the debates this time around , it ’ s imperative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the chance since the moderators sure as hell won ’ t .

On Wednesday night, Vice President Mike Pence squared off Sen. Kamala Harris in the vice presidential candidate debate.
As per usual, Cam and I prepared to have at least part of the day reacting to the Second Amendment aspects of that debate. The problem is, just like the first presidential debate, there doesn’t seem to be a single thing about guns mentioned.
Now, this is curious. Two of the four scheduled debates are in the can, and yet one of the Democrats biggest issues during the primary hasn’t come up a single time. There’s been no discussion of gun control.
This was supposed to be one of their big issues, something most candidates in the primary–including both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris–ran on, each trying to present themselves as the most gun controlling candidate out there. It was set to be a big issue and it should have provided debate moderators the opportunity to contrast the debaters.
Instead, there’s nary a word on the subject.
To be honest, though, I wasn’t particularly surprised. I’ll be more surprised if we see gun debate in the next two debates, truth be told.
See, the moderators for these debates all seem to be left-leaning journalists. They’re not fans of President Trumps and aren’t inclined to make his reelection any easier. As a result, they’re not likely to bring up topics that might hurt Biden if they can avoid it.
Meanwhile, since the primary season when guns were such a key topic, millions of Americans have become first-time gun owners. They’ve found that they had to undergo background checks at gun shows and couldn’t order guns off the internet and have them delivered to your home. They’ve learned that waiting periods have consequences. In short, they learned a whole lot about how messed up these gun control laws are.
As a result, these new gun owners are likely to speak out when Biden or Harris talk about how it’s just too easy to get a gun or to prattle on endlessly about how we clearly need tougher gun laws. They’re likely to call them out over the nonsense.
So, moderators steer the discussion away from this topic. They know this won’t work out well.
After all, the popular vote that Democrats have talked about for the last four years? Hillary won that with fewer votes than the total number of gun buyers in just June and July. In other words, it’s entirely possible their perceived edge would disappear in an instant if they started talking about gun control.
The moderators know this. Remember that four years ago, a moderator was discovered to leaked questions to the Clinton camp and received no censure from the industry. There’s zero reason to believe they’re less biased this time around. As such, they’re not going to lob fastballs at Biden. If they did, he might just think they’re literal fastballs and swing a bat at them or something.
While we will continue to monitor the debates this time around, it’s imperative that we bring up guns whenever we get the chance since the moderators sure as hell won’t.


bearingarms--2020-10-09--No, Sacha Baron Cohen Wasn't Afraid At Gun Rally

“ Comedian ” Sacha Baron Cohen isn ’ t exactly my cup of tea .
His brand of what passes for comedy has never struck a cord with me , though plenty of people disagree .
However , it ’ s important to remember that much of his antics revolve around him manipulating his look at lying to people in order to film a reaction .
In other words , more so than most entertainers , his job is to lie to people .
As such , I seen no reason to believe his claim that he was afraid for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sacha Baron Cohen has revealed that he feared for his life while filming Borat 2 at a pro-gun rally .
The famed comedian has made a career out of risking life and limb for the sake of laughs , but he seems to have genuinely upped the ante while filming his latest project In a new op-ed for Time , Cohen reveals about some of the times he genuinely felt his life was at risk throughout his career .
At one point in particular during the article , Cohen said that while filming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Subsequent Moviefilm , he turned up at a pro-gun rally in Washington State as a country music singer only to have the crowd turn on him eventually .
Though Cohen was wearing a bulletproof vest beneath his costume , he stated that it felt “ inadequate ” because many in the angry crowd were carrying semi-automatic weapons : While filming my latest Borat film , I showed up as a right-wing singer at a gun-rights rally in Washington State .
When organizers finally stormed the stage , I rushed to a nearby get-away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way and started pounding on the vehicle with their fists .
Under my overalls , I was wearing a bulletproof vest , but it felt inadequate with some people outside toting semiautomatic weapons .
When someone ripped open the door to drag me out , I used my entire body weight to pull the door back shut until our vehicle maneuvered free .
Yeah , sorry , I ’ m not buying any of that crap .
First , if he were really anyone was that concerned about his safety , the studio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in the first place , body armor or not .
Let ’ s also remember over the summer when Cohen pulled his little stunt .
We wrote about it here .
Neither in my original piece or the source I linked to suggest that there was any angry mob surrounding his car or trying to rip the door open .
As for how this happened , that actually seems to be an interesting story : As the organizers explain it , they received a surprise donation at the last minute so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone now agrees was Sacha Baron Cohen ) , set up sound equipment , and pay for security .
The security was actually there to keep people away from Baron Cohen and to facilitate a secret getaway , though there are photos going around of him returning in a different disguise after the performance so he could listen in on interviews with the press trying to figure out what happened .
He was so terrified for his life that he came back ?
Yeah , right .
Pull the other one .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the gun community look bad , either .
Again , he presented himself as someone else and lied to people ’ s faces in order to facilitate a reaction .
Further , it seems clear he ’ s developed an ax to grind with the Second Amendment crowd .
When coupled with his ability to lie straight to people ’ s faces , there ’ s absolutely no reason anyone should take his claims of fearing for his life seriously .
Instead , it looks like he ’ s trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making himself look fearless in the pursuit of his “ art ” for whatever reason .
With the amount of bull he slings , Cohen would have been better served pursuing a career in politics .

“Comedian” Sacha Baron Cohen isn’t exactly my cup of tea. His brand of what passes for comedy has never struck a cord with me, though plenty of people disagree.
However, it’s important to remember that much of his antics revolve around him manipulating his look at lying to people in order to film a reaction. In other words, more so than most entertainers, his job is to lie to people.
As such, I seen no reason to believe his claim that he was afraid for his life at a gun rally.
Sacha Baron Cohen has revealed that he feared for his life while filming Borat 2 at a pro-gun rally. The famed comedian has made a career out of risking life and limb for the sake of laughs, but he seems to have genuinely upped the ante while filming his latest project … In a new op-ed for Time, Cohen reveals about some of the times he genuinely felt his life was at risk throughout his career. At one point in particular during the article, Cohen said that while filming his upcoming Borat sequel, Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm, he turned up at a pro-gun rally in Washington State as a country music singer only to have the crowd turn on him eventually. Though Cohen was wearing a bulletproof vest beneath his costume, he stated that it felt “inadequate” because many in the angry crowd were carrying semi-automatic weapons: While filming my latest Borat film, I showed up as a right-wing singer at a gun-rights rally in Washington State. When organizers finally stormed the stage, I rushed to a nearby get-away vehicle. An angry crowd blocked our way and started pounding on the vehicle with their fists. Under my overalls, I was wearing a bulletproof vest, but it felt inadequate with some people outside toting semiautomatic weapons. When someone ripped open the door to drag me out, I used my entire body weight to pull the door back shut until our vehicle maneuvered free.
Yeah, sorry, I’m not buying any of that crap. First, if he were really anyone was that concerned about his safety, the studio wouldn’t have let him do it in the first place, body armor or not.
Let’s also remember over the summer when Cohen pulled his little stunt. We wrote about it here. Neither in my original piece or the source I linked to suggest that there was any angry mob surrounding his car or trying to rip the door open.
On the contrary:
As for how this happened, that actually seems to be an interesting story: As the organizers explain it, they received a surprise donation at the last minute so the event could hire this singer (who everyone now agrees was Sacha Baron Cohen), set up sound equipment, and pay for security. The security was actually there to keep people away from Baron Cohen and to facilitate a secret getaway, though there are photos going around of him returning in a different disguise after the performance so he could listen in on interviews with the press trying to figure out what happened.
He was so terrified for his life that he came back?
Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
And this wasn’t his only attempt to make the gun community look bad, either. Again, he presented himself as someone else and lied to people’s faces in order to facilitate a reaction.
Further, it seems clear he’s developed an ax to grind with the Second Amendment crowd. When coupled with his ability to lie straight to people’s faces, there’s absolutely no reason anyone should take his claims of fearing for his life seriously. Instead, it looks like he’s trying to serve as his own hype man, making himself look fearless in the pursuit of his “art” for whatever reason.
With the amount of bull he slings, Cohen would have been better served pursuing a career in politics.


bearingarms--2020-10-09--Is The ATF Trying To Undermine The Trump Campaign With Honey Badger Decision?

My colleague Tom Knighton has already outlined some of the problems with the ATF ’ s decision to classify the Honey Badger AR-15 pistol from gunmaker Q , LLC , as a “ short-barreled rifle ” subject to the National Firearms Act , and on today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co we delve deeper into the issue with Alex Bosco , the founder and CEO of SB Tactical .
Bosco ’ s been dealing with the ATF over their vague and arbitrary determinations regarding pistol braces since 2015 , when the ATF issued a ruling declaring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could illegally turn their firearms into short-barreled rifles by shouldering the brace .
In 2017 , the ATF reversed course and issued an advisory letter stating that “ attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not “ make ” a short-barreled rifle ” by itself , but if the owner of the handgun “ takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock , ” then that gun owner has “ objectively ‘ redesigned ’ the firearm for purposes of the National Firearms Act.
” Bosco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfect , but at least it was workable .
Over the next few years he met multiple times with the agency in an attempt to get the agency to publicly release standards that gunmakers could follow to ensure that they stay within the law , to no avail .
Now , just weeks before the election , the ATF has sent a letter to Q , LLC declaring that its Honey Badger pistol , which comes equipped with an SB Tactical forearm brace , is a short-barreled rifle because its “ objective design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indicate the firearm is designed an intended to be fired from the shoulder.
” Because the Honey Badger has a rifled barrel of less than 16 inches , the ATF concluded that the Honey Badger is actually a short-barreled rifle subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act .
In other words , while the regulations regarding pistol braces haven ’ t change , the ATF ’ s interpretation of those regulations has taken a sudden reversal , which has not only halted sales of the AR-15 pistol by Q , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status of millions of these firearms that are already in the hands of private owners into question .
As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon reported on Friday : The decision appears to conflict with several similar determinations made by the ATF dating back to 2012 , when the agency told Sig Sauer that the braces , designed to strap to a shooter ’ s forearm instead of being pressed against their shoulder , could be legally combined with guns that have barrels shorter than the 16-inch federal limit for rifles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic legality of the devices and leaves gun owners in flux just three weeks before the presidential election .
Carolyn Gwathmey , the public affairs officer for the ATF , said the letter only directly applies to the New Hampshire gun company ’ s pistol , but neither she nor the letter offered an explanation for why that model differs from other weapons equipped with the braces .
She said the agency would not offer a standard of review of the devices as a whole , but only on a case-by-case basis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Cam & Co , the fact that the agency refuses to offer a standard of review for manufacturers to follow means that they can basically make up their determinations as they go along .
Bosco also believes that the move against the Honey Badger is an attempt by ATF higher ups to cause problems for the Trump administration in the final weeks of the presidential election .
Gun owners make up an important part of Trump ’ s base of support and the adverse and arbitrary ruling by the agency could cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they view the cease-and-desist letter as coming from the administration itself , though Bosco says he believes the ATF ’ s recent ruling was made by career bureaucrats within the agency who are opposed to Trump ’ s re-election .
The NRA ’ s Jason Ouimet has been quick to respond to the new ruling , according to Bosco , and the organization is alerting members to contact the Department of Justice and demand that they reverse the ATF ’ s ruling .
Additionally , Bosco says a new organization called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a part of has set up an online portal where gun owners can contact the DOJ and their representatives in Congress to urge them to rescind the ATF ’ s decision and reign in the abuses by the ATF .
Be sure to check out the entire interview with SB Tactical ’ s Alex Bosco above , and if you ’ re a gun owner or Second Amendment supporter , make sure that you add your voice to the growing number of people who are sounding off and demanding that the DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designation of the Honey Badger pistol as an NFA item .

My colleague Tom Knighton has already outlined some of the problems with the ATF’s decision to classify the Honey Badger AR-15 pistol from gunmaker Q, LLC, as a “short-barreled rifle” subject to the National Firearms Act, and on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co we delve deeper into the issue with Alex Bosco, the founder and CEO of SB Tactical.
Bosco’s been dealing with the ATF over their vague and arbitrary determinations regarding pistol braces since 2015, when the ATF issued a ruling declaring that owners of pistols equipped with forearm braces could illegally turn their firearms into short-barreled rifles by shouldering the brace.
In 2017, the ATF reversed course and issued an advisory letter stating that “attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not “make” a short-barreled rifle” by itself, but if the owner of the handgun “takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock,” then that gun owner has “objectively ‘redesigned’ the firearm for purposes of the National Firearms Act.”
Bosco says that new standard wasn’t perfect, but at least it was workable. Over the next few years he met multiple times with the agency in an attempt to get the agency to publicly release standards that gunmakers could follow to ensure that they stay within the law, to no avail.
Now, just weeks before the election, the ATF has sent a letter to Q, LLC declaring that its Honey Badger pistol, which comes equipped with an SB Tactical forearm brace, is a short-barreled rifle because its “objective design features.. configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed an intended to be fired from the shoulder.” Because the Honey Badger has a rifled barrel of less than 16 inches, the ATF concluded that the Honey Badger is actually a short-barreled rifle subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.
In other words, while the regulations regarding pistol braces haven’t change, the ATF’s interpretation of those regulations has taken a sudden reversal, which has not only halted sales of the AR-15 pistol by Q, LLC, but has put the legal status of millions of these firearms that are already in the hands of private owners into question. As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon reported on Friday:
The decision appears to conflict with several similar determinations made by the ATF dating back to 2012, when the agency told Sig Sauer that the braces, designed to strap to a shooter’s forearm instead of being pressed against their shoulder, could be legally combined with guns that have barrels shorter than the 16-inch federal limit for rifles. The new letter calls into question the basic legality of the devices and leaves gun owners in flux just three weeks before the presidential election. Carolyn Gwathmey, the public affairs officer for the ATF, said the letter only directly applies to the New Hampshire gun company’s pistol, but neither she nor the letter offered an explanation for why that model differs from other weapons equipped with the braces. She said the agency would not offer a standard of review of the devices as a whole, but only on a case-by-case basis.
As Bosco tells me on today’s Cam & Co, the fact that the agency refuses to offer a standard of review for manufacturers to follow means that they can basically make up their determinations as they go along.
Bosco also believes that the move against the Honey Badger is an attempt by ATF higher ups to cause problems for the Trump administration in the final weeks of the presidential election. Gun owners make up an important part of Trump’s base of support and the adverse and arbitrary ruling by the agency could cause some gun owners to stay at home because they view the cease-and-desist letter as coming from the administration itself, though Bosco says he believes the ATF’s recent ruling was made by career bureaucrats within the agency who are opposed to Trump’s re-election.
The NRA’s Jason Ouimet has been quick to respond to the new ruling, according to Bosco, and the organization is alerting members to contact the Department of Justice and demand that they reverse the ATF’s ruling. Additionally, Bosco says a new organization called the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition that he’s a part of has set up an online portal where gun owners can contact the DOJ and their representatives in Congress to urge them to rescind the ATF’s decision and reign in the abuses by the ATF.
Be sure to check out the entire interview with SB Tactical’s Alex Bosco above, and if you’re a gun owner or Second Amendment supporter, make sure that you add your voice to the growing number of people who are sounding off and demanding that the DOJ reverse course on the ATF’s designation of the Honey Badger pistol as an NFA item.


bearingarms--2020-10-09--The Trace Reports Study On Violence Surge Without Gun Control

Anyone who claims there isn ’ t a surge in violence is deluding themselves .
I say that regardless of their political affiliation .
Anyone with eyes can look at the headlines coming out of cities large and small and see that violent crime has surged in ways no one could have foreseen just six months ago .
As per usual , crime will be a political issue in upcoming state and local elections as communities struggle to deal with what ’ s going on .
However , solutions can ’ t really come until we have a grasp on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , politicians can make a few moves and maybe reduce the problem a bit , but that may or may not have any long-term benefit .
Over at The Trace , I kind of knew what they were going to say the problem was .
In truth , they surprised me by reporting this one .
A theory for this year ’ s rise in violent crime : The pandemic disrupted some of the most promising community-led models .
As numerous data analyses have shown , homicide and shootings are up sharply in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crime are down .
Some city officials have linked the spike to changes in the criminal justice system or policing , including prisoner releases to avoid virus outbreaks in detention facilities or law enforcement slowdowns amid protests .
An article in The New York Times considers a different explanation , focusing on proven and promising community models for reducing violence that have faced setbacks this year — either because of budget cuts or social distancing requirements that have derailed work that ’ s most effective when it involves “ a pat on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand.
” • Summer or transitional jobs programs were canceled or curtailed • Hospital-based intervention programs were barred from bedside because of restrictions on patient visitors • Mentorship for students has also gone virtual with the closure of classrooms Anti-violence leaders lauded the analysis ’ emphasis on interventions that don ’ t rely on arrest and incarceration .
For what it ’ s worth , I ’ m lauding this for not screaming about guns .
See , that would be the easy place to point fingers .
After all , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales , which we all know by now .
Guns are still flying off the shelves and with the typical anti-gun position of more guns equals more crime , I truly expected them to level the blame there .
With this , though , they didn ’ t .
Instead , it looks at real-world potential causes , some of which make sense on some level .
I ’ m not sure that would account for all of the violence , but potentially at least some of it .
Plus , let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people were basically shut-in for months on end and were likely getting testy as it was .
Once they could get out , all that build-up frustration and anger was just looking for a place to go , and that means minor altercations escalate because it ’ s an opportunity to vent it .
Unfortunately , in some places in this country , venting that much anger means deadly violence .
Couple that with people figuring they can get away with it due to mask mandates , and it really shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re at .

Anyone who claims there isn’t a surge in violence is deluding themselves. I say that regardless of their political affiliation. Anyone with eyes can look at the headlines coming out of cities large and small and see that violent crime has surged in ways no one could have foreseen just six months ago.
As per usual, crime will be a political issue in upcoming state and local elections as communities struggle to deal with what’s going on.
However, solutions can’t really come until we have a grasp on the causes. Not really. Sure, politicians can make a few moves and maybe reduce the problem a bit, but that may or may not have any long-term benefit.
Over at The Trace, I kind of knew what they were going to say the problem was. In truth, they surprised me by reporting this one.
A theory for this year’s rise in violent crime: The pandemic disrupted some of the most promising community-led models. As numerous data analyses have shown, homicide and shootings are up sharply in 2020, even as most other types of crime are down. Some city officials have linked the spike to changes in the criminal justice system or policing, including prisoner releases to avoid virus outbreaks in detention facilities or law enforcement slowdowns amid protests. An article in The New York Times considers a different explanation, focusing on proven and promising community models for reducing violence that have faced setbacks this year — either because of budget cuts or social distancing requirements that have derailed work that’s most effective when it involves “a pat on the shoulder, a touch on the hand.” Summer or transitional jobs programs were canceled or curtailed
Hospital-based intervention programs were barred from bedside because of restrictions on patient visitors
Mentorship for students has also gone virtual with the closure of classrooms Anti-violence leaders lauded the analysis’ emphasis on interventions that don’t rely on arrest and incarceration.
For what it’s worth, I’m lauding this for not screaming about guns.
See, that would be the easy place to point fingers. After all, there’s been a huge surge in firearms sales, which we all know by now. Guns are still flying off the shelves and with the typical anti-gun position of more guns equals more crime, I truly expected them to level the blame there.
With this, though, they didn’t. Instead, it looks at real-world potential causes, some of which make sense on some level. I’m not sure that would account for all of the violence, but potentially at least some of it.
Plus, let’s not forget that with the lockdown, people were basically shut-in for months on end and were likely getting testy as it was. Once they could get out, all that build-up frustration and anger was just looking for a place to go, and that means minor altercations escalate because it’s an opportunity to vent it.
Unfortunately, in some places in this country, venting that much anger means deadly violence.
Couple that with people figuring they can get away with it due to mask mandates, and it really shouldn’t be surprising that this is where we’re at.


bearingarms--2020-10-09--Constitutional Carry Emerges As Issue In MT Governor's Race

The state of Montana already allows for legal gun owners to carry concealed without a license outside of city and town limits across the state , but full-scale permitless carry has become a hot-button issue in the waning days of the gubernatorial campaign .
The two candidates squaring off to become the state ’ s next governor have very different views on the issue , with Republican Greg Gianforte backing the idea while Democrat Mike Cooney is opposed .
The two candidates met for a televised debate this week , and both of them made their positions clear to voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation that allows for concealed carry without a permit , saying it would let people carry guns in banks and schools .
He said the largest union for law enforcement doesn ’ t support such a bill either .
“ It just isn ’ t the way we keep our communities safe.
” Cooney said he respects the right to bear arms and supports people owning guns to hunt and for personal protection .
Gianforte said there ’ s a clear delineation between himself and Cooney on this issue .
“ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m a life member .
I ’ m endorsed by the NRA , I ’ m endorsed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and Gun Owners of America .
My opponent has a D rating.
” Gianforte said he would sign a bill allowing for concealed carry without a permit as governor .
Cooney , the state ’ s current Lt .
Governor , has largely avoided talking about Second Amendment issues in his campaign .
In fact , his official campaign website doesn ’ t even list gun policies among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll address if elected .
Still , the Democrat ’ s vocal opposition to permitless carry echoes the stance taken by current governor Steve Bullock , who ’ s running for U.S. Senate in the state against incumbent Republican senator Steve Daines .
Back in 2017 , Bullock vetoed a permitless carry bill that passed the legislature , marking the third time that the governor rejected a constitutional carry measure , and Cooney ’ s vowed to continue that same opposition if he ’ s elected in November .
Gianforte , on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporter of the Second Amendment while in Congress , voting against gun control measures like HB9 , a so-called universal background check bill .
In fact , Gianforte attempted to amend the bill to allow for farmers and ranchers to be able to legally transfer firearms to their employees or neighbors for “ the purposes of ranch activities.
, including pest and predator control , hunting , target practice , or firearm safety , ” but the amendment was rejected by House Democrats .
If Cooney is elected , not only can Montana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure that would strengthen or secure the Second Amendment rights of residents , but to push for gun control measures as well .
During the Democratic primary , Cooney not only embraced the idea of universal background checks , but also expressed his support for a “ red flag ” firearm seizure law that would allow police to seize lawfully owned firearms from people who ’ ve been deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others , even if they ’ ve not been accused of a crime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters have a clear choice on Election Day when it comes to their Second Amendment rights .
Greg Gianforte will work to protect them , while Mike Cooney will work to erode them .

The state of Montana already allows for legal gun owners to carry concealed without a license outside of city and town limits across the state, but full-scale permitless carry has become a hot-button issue in the waning days of the gubernatorial campaign.
The two candidates squaring off to become the state’s next governor have very different views on the issue, with Republican Greg Gianforte backing the idea while Democrat Mike Cooney is opposed. The two candidates met for a televised debate this week, and both of them made their positions clear to voters.
Cooney said he would not support legislation that allows for concealed carry without a permit, saying it would let people carry guns in banks and schools. He said the largest union for law enforcement doesn’t support such a bill either. “It just isn’t the way we keep our communities safe.” Cooney said he respects the right to bear arms and supports people owning guns to hunt and for personal protection. Gianforte said there’s a clear delineation between himself and Cooney on this issue. “I have an A rating from the NRA, I’m a life member. I’m endorsed by the NRA, I’m endorsed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and Gun Owners of America. My opponent has a D rating.” Gianforte said he would sign a bill allowing for concealed carry without a permit as governor.
Cooney, the state’s current Lt. Governor, has largely avoided talking about Second Amendment issues in his campaign. In fact, his official campaign website doesn’t even list gun policies among the issues that Cooney says he’ll address if elected. Still, the Democrat’s vocal opposition to permitless carry echoes the stance taken by current governor Steve Bullock, who’s running for U.S. Senate in the state against incumbent Republican senator Steve Daines.
Back in 2017, Bullock vetoed a permitless carry bill that passed the legislature, marking the third time that the governor rejected a constitutional carry measure, and Cooney’s vowed to continue that same opposition if he’s elected in November.
Gianforte, on the other hand, has been a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment while in Congress, voting against gun control measures like HB9, a so-called universal background check bill. In fact, Gianforte attempted to amend the bill to allow for farmers and ranchers to be able to legally transfer firearms to their employees or neighbors for “the purposes of ranch activities., including pest and predator control, hunting, target practice, or firearm safety,” but the amendment was rejected by House Democrats.
If Cooney is elected, not only can Montana gun owners expect him to veto any measure that would strengthen or secure the Second Amendment rights of residents, but to push for gun control measures as well. During the Democratic primary, Cooney not only embraced the idea of universal background checks, but also expressed his support for a “red flag” firearm seizure law that would allow police to seize lawfully owned firearms from people who’ve been deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others, even if they’ve not been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one.
Montana voters have a clear choice on Election Day when it comes to their Second Amendment rights. Greg Gianforte will work to protect them, while Mike Cooney will work to erode them.


bearingarms--2020-10-09--The Outright Stupidity Of "Wolverine Watchmen"

Let me start this by saying that I actually have no issues with private militias .
To be sure , there are those who would destroy me just for saying that , but the truth is that I don ’ t .
The idea of militias goes back beyond the founding of this great nation .
While militias should probably answer to the governor of their state , the truth is that sometimes the governor is as much an enemy of the people as any foreign power , so independent militias make sense .
But as we learned again yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that anyone with half a brain know they shouldn ’ t be crossing .
It ’ s worth noting that while these self-proclaimed patriots were allegedly plotting to overthrow the state government in Michigan over Whitmer ’ s COVID-19 executive orders , a lawsuit challenging those same orders was making its way through the court system , and the state ’ s Supreme Court declared her mask mandate unconstitutional just a few days ago .
It may very well be that one day the United States will have to face the real question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , but we certainly haven ’ t reached that point yet , and there are plenty of legal means to address unconstitutional power grabs without trying to kidnap politicians or kick off a civil war , starting with voting in November .
He is , of course , dead on correct .
I fear we ’ re fast approaching the point in the history books where we start seeing maps with the different colored arrows , but we ’ re not there yet .
More importantly , though , is that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well not be our side trying to start this mess .
Honestly , what did they think would happen ?
The leader of this “ operation ” figured he ’ d need 200 people to storm the capitol and take hostages , but then what ?
Trust me , 200 people aren ’ t enough to hold anything indefinitely .
At some point , someone would send in some elite tactical unit–possibly military rather than law enforcement since this would constitute a terrorist act–and kill every last one of those 200 men .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t smart enough to surrender first .
Undoubtedly , some are arguing that it ’ s funny how the FBI can focus on groups like this but not Antifa .
Well , I have some news for you , Antifa is smarter than these knobs .
See , Antifa , for all their ills , focuses on low-level stuff .
They wreck buildings , sure , but they ’ re not talking about a large-scale terrorist operation on American shores .
Guess which one the FBI is going to put their focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eviscerate them if it was learned they had intelligence about such an attack but were focused on a bunch of street punks with Molotov cocktails instead .
Antifa , who I have zero use for , has at least honed their tactics for the battleground they ’ ve chosen .
They know how to mobilize , compartmentalize , and then operate with minimal chance for infiltration .
I know a gentleman with a lot of military experience .
His response to the argument that right-wing actors are more dangerous than left-wing groups by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the right is more likely to act , but that they ’ re more likely to be good at violence .
He may well be right .
However , on the same token , the extreme left is better at keeping their heads down and not getting stupid enough to warrant much attention from the FBI .
Then again , there ’ s reason to suspect one of the the ringleaders of this group wasn ’ t exactly “ right ” politically .
Yes , I know , this is the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
There ’ s plenty of reason to suspect their biases .
On the same token , you really do have to look at the scale of what ’ s at stake .
Look , I get where a lot of people are coming from .
I fear war is coming and it ’ s probably a good idea for people to band together for training purposes because if and when something does kick off , it ’ ll be a bad time to try and find a crew .
So yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vigilant .
Be ready .
But the moment you decide to kidnap anyone , much less a sitting governor , you ’ ve crossed the line and have become just as lawless as the Antifa you claim to hate .

Let me start this by saying that I actually have no issues with private militias.
To be sure, there are those who would destroy me just for saying that, but the truth is that I don’t. The idea of militias goes back beyond the founding of this great nation. While militias should probably answer to the governor of their state, the truth is that sometimes the governor is as much an enemy of the people as any foreign power, so independent militias make sense.
But as we learned again yesterday, sometimes they cross some major lines that anyone with half a brain know they shouldn’t be crossing.
See, as Cam noted yesterday:
It’s worth noting that while these self-proclaimed patriots were allegedly plotting to overthrow the state government in Michigan over Whitmer’s COVID-19 executive orders, a lawsuit challenging those same orders was making its way through the court system, and the state’s Supreme Court declared her mask mandate unconstitutional just a few days ago. It may very well be that one day the United States will have to face the real question of living under tyranny or fighting against it, but we certainly haven’t reached that point yet, and there are plenty of legal means to address unconstitutional power grabs without trying to kidnap politicians or kick off a civil war, starting with voting in November.
He is, of course, dead on correct.
I fear we’re fast approaching the point in the history books where we start seeing maps with the different colored arrows, but we’re not there yet. More importantly, though, is that if we get there, it should damn well not be our side trying to start this mess.
Honestly, what did they think would happen? The leader of this “operation” figured he’d need 200 people to storm the capitol and take hostages, but then what? Trust me, 200 people aren’t enough to hold anything indefinitely. At some point, someone would send in some elite tactical unit–possibly military rather than law enforcement since this would constitute a terrorist act–and kill every last one of those 200 men. At least, those that weren’t smart enough to surrender first.
Undoubtedly, some are arguing that it’s funny how the FBI can focus on groups like this but not Antifa. Well, I have some news for you, Antifa is smarter than these knobs.
See, Antifa, for all their ills, focuses on low-level stuff. They wreck buildings, sure, but they’re not talking about a large-scale terrorist operation on American shores. Guess which one the FBI is going to put their focus on? Believe me, the public would eviscerate them if it was learned they had intelligence about such an attack but were focused on a bunch of street punks with Molotov cocktails instead.
Antifa, who I have zero use for, has at least honed their tactics for the battleground they’ve chosen. They know how to mobilize, compartmentalize, and then operate with minimal chance for infiltration.
I know a gentleman with a lot of military experience. His response to the argument that right-wing actors are more dangerous than left-wing groups by simply arguing that it’s not that the right is more likely to act, but that they’re more likely to be good at violence. He may well be right.
However, on the same token, the extreme left is better at keeping their heads down and not getting stupid enough to warrant much attention from the FBI.
Then again, there’s reason to suspect one of the the ringleaders of this group wasn’t exactly “right” politically.
Yes, I know, this is the same FBI that has actively worked against the president. There’s plenty of reason to suspect their biases. On the same token, you really do have to look at the scale of what’s at stake.
Look, I get where a lot of people are coming from. I fear war is coming and it’s probably a good idea for people to band together for training purposes because if and when something does kick off, it’ll be a bad time to try and find a crew.
So yes, get together and train. Be vigilant. Be ready.
But the moment you decide to kidnap anyone, much less a sitting governor, you’ve crossed the line and have become just as lawless as the Antifa you claim to hate.