Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Charlie T Waite

Super Moderators
  • Posts

    7,536
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Everything posted by Charlie T Waite

  1. I went Line Dancin' last nite.Well, actually it was a roadside sobriety test...Bout the same thing though...
  2. If you want a hot take on guns and gun rights that probably has no resemblance to reality, you should follow David Hogg’s Twitter feed sometime. Of course, it’s also a place with a lot of stupid that’ll probably cause you to give yourself a concussion with the constant overwhelming need to smack your forehead. The failed state-college applicant turned Harvard man–if that phrase doesn’t tell you all you need to know about Harvard, I don’t know what will–has said some pretty dumb things, including recently claiming he thinks he’s the target of Russian bots. But on Wednesday, he went down a rabbit hole of stupid with just one single tweet. Pretty impressive, until you see the tweet. Now, Hogg isn’t a thought originator. He’s a parrot, repeating what others have told him and making himself sound important so the media will keep fawning all over him. This ain’t original either. A lot of people claim that the Second Amendment was never meant to be an individual right. Yet people like Hogg can never answer one simple question in response. If it’s wasn’t intended to be an individual right, then why did the writers use the phrase “the right of the people” in the first place? In the First Amendment, it makes reference to “the right of the people” to assemble peacefully and to petition the government. The Fourth Amendment highlight “the right of the people” to be secure in their homes and their property from unreasonable search and seizure. The Ninth and Tenth Amendment both also reference “the people’s” rights. How is it, in 50 percent of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the writers refer to “the people” but it was only in the Second Amendment that they really meant the people collectively and not an individual right? In truth, any deflection from this fact is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters, to make it seem less clear that our right to keep and bear arms wasn’t so the state could have guns or formally recognized militias could, but for you and me to have them. This bizarre claim that the Second Amendment isn’t an individual right keeps cropping up, and a number of people share it. It’s almost a litmus test for where someone stands on gun control. Regardless, though, it’s a tired argument that’s been trotted out over and over again. I find it amusing that people who think Roe v. Wade is definitive and should be the final say on a topic like abortion are so ready to completely dismiss Heller which specifically found that the Second Amendment was an individual right and not a collective one. The question was answered, and it’s highly unlikely to be overturned on the merits of anything. If it is, it’ll be an activist court pushing a leftist agenda. It won’t be because of anything else, as I’ve clearly shown. But people like David Hogg will persist, no doubt, to try and insist it’s a collective right, as if that term has any actual meaning in the first place, and consider themselves smart because they believe that. However, if David Hogg is the caliber of person who can get into Harvard and manage to stay, then we as a nation need to seriously rethink how much gravitas we give Ivy League graduates
  3. We hear an awful lot about anti-Asian hate crimes. Asian-Americans are being targeted for violent crime, and it often appears to be because they’re Asian. This is a significant problem. Anytime anyone is targeted because of their ethnicity, it’s a problem. As such, many of us have recommended these folks look at getting firearms. After all, if you’re concerned about being attacked, having a gun is probably a good idea unless you actually like being injured or possibly killed. Apparently, for some people, that’s a problem. Gun control advocates from Connecticut and across the country say the firearms industry is exploiting fear of hate crimes to sell more guns to Asian Americans, according to a study led by the Violence Policy Center. “Historically, Asian-Americans have owned very few guns, which is precisely the reason why we have experienced comparatively low rates of gun violence. That the gun industry is now targeting our community as a lucrative new market is incredibly troubling, because more guns means more gun-related injury and death,” said Gloria Pan with advocacy group Moms Rising, another contributor to the study. Advocates said groups like the NRA and the Newtown, Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation have targeted people of color since 2015. But since the pandemic, they have started groups and social media campaigns to reach Asian-Americans. In other words, the gun industry is looking at a series of high-profile crimes, then are trying to leverage it to make money by telling people this will make things better? Yeah, that’s absolutely awful…wait, isn’t that literally what gun control groups do? Why yes it is. Look, I don’t care if someone with Moms Rising, Moms Falling, Moms Tripping Over My Socks, or any other “moms” group finds it troubling. The truth of the matter is that if law-abiding citizens are armed, they can respond to violent attacks with something besides begging or harsh language. Will it result in more gun-related injuries and death? Yeah. For the bad guys, you simple-minded twit! That’s kind of the point of carrying a gun, for crying out loud. Law-abiding Asian-Americans aren’t going to result in more criminal activity. Why would they? Unless Ms. Pan is suggesting that Asian-Americans are somehow incapable of controlling themselves, which sounds like a pretty racist thing to suggest. I’m sure she didn’t mean that, now did she? Yes, many of us are suggesting these folks get guns. Law-abiding citizens acting responsibly for their own safety has never been an issue and will never be an issue for anyone except for shrieking violets (yes, this is phrased this way intentionally) who think that the entire universe really revolves around their preferences. I, for one, welcome our Asian-American gun-owning brethren to our ranks. I’d love to invite each and every one of you to the range. I just don’t think my local range would hold everyone. And if it infuriates the gun control crowd because yet another minority group seems to be leaving the reservation for the land of milk and freedom, so much the better.
  4. WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- A leak provided to AmmoLand News by our inside sources shows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is starting to investigate COVID relief fraud. The ATF Financial Investigative Services Division (FISD) is looking at financial crimes centering around the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Congress passed the CARES Act, and President Trump signed the law into effect in March of 2020. The economic stimulus package cost the American taxpayer $2.2 trillion. The CARES Act consists of several different programs. These programs include unemployment insurance (UI), pandemic unemployment assistance, economic impact payments (EIP), payment protection program (PPP), and the economic injury disaster loan (EIDL) program. These government programs have been wrought with fraud and cost taxpayers millions and maybe billions of dollars in schemes to defraud the government. Local special agents (SA) and industry operations investigators (IOI) are now expected to investigate for signs of COVID relief fraud. For example, IOIs are now expected to look for signs of fraud during their visits to gun dealers. If an IOI finds what they believe to be COVID relief fraud, the ATF employee will contact FISD, which will assign a forensic auditor to investigate the tip. IOIs do not have experience in investigating or detecting financial crimes. The ATF is not offering IOIs any type of training classes. By the same token, special agents also do not have any skills in detecting financial fraud. The ATF has not informed any branch offices if they plan on holding any future training classes dealing with CARES Act fraud. If the tip turns out to be legitimate, the ATF FISD forensic auditor will gather evidence of fraud before contacting the corresponding agency. The ATF has begun to circulate a “cheat sheet” of what agencies are responsible for investigating what CARES Act program. It is unknown if other agencies are investigating CARES Act crime that falls outside their mission. Some inside and outside of the ATF worry about the Bureau’s investigations into the CARES Act. They believe that these investigations show “mission creep.” Mission Creep in the federal government is when an agency strays from its core mission and starts to veer into areas that they have not been tasked with by the government. A few people within the gun world who spoke to AmmoLand News believe that the ATF is trying to justify its massive budget. By using resources to investigate COVID relief fraud, the Bureau can show that it is using all its funding and needs more to be effective. Others see these moves as just another example of an out-of-control federal government agency. The ATF, in recent years, has been expanding its power by using things like Chevron deference to develop de facto laws. The ATF used deference to ban bump stocks and now using the same power to change laws surrounding pistol braces and unfinished receivers and frames. The ATF has also used IOIs to retroactively run background checks on gun owners that are exempt from the required background checks. The ATF also tasked untrained IOIs to look for gun-running to Mexico. There are many examples of the ATF overstepping its boundaries. The ATF did not respond to AmmoLand’s request for comment.
  5. Gun rights advocates have their aim focused on the Senate to advance legislation that would free up government restrictions on their right to carry a firearm. About 50 members of Gun Owners of America gathered on the steps of the state Capitol on Monday for a lobby day to pressure senators to pass three separate bills that are awaiting action in that chamber. Dr. Val Finnell, the organization’s Pennsylvania director, said despite knowing the bills would likely draw a veto from Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, the push for a vote in the Senate on the three pro-gun bills is necessary to see where each senator stands on these gun rights issues. “We want to get a recorded vote,” Finnell said. “We want to put everyone on record on where they stand.” A pro-gun bill that has advanced the farthest in the Senate is Senate Bill 565, which would eliminate the state’s longstanding requirement of the need to obtain a separate permit to carry a concealed firearm. It also would allow Pennsylvanians’ right to carry a weapon in the 32 other states that have recognized Pennsylvanians’ right to carry or with which a reciprocity agreement exists. Sen. Cris Dush, R-Jefferson County, who sponsored that so-called “constitutional carry” bill, said citizens have to pass a criminal background check to buy a new firearm and he maintains they are the least likely to commit a criminal act with a firearm. “It is patently unjust and constitutionally questionable to add layers of bureaucratic regulations on these law-abiding citizens just because they prefer to carry their firearms concealed,” Dush said. “They don’t want to make themselves a target for the bad guy.” Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland County, said on Monday that bill is under discussion for possible action this fall but has not yet been positioned for a vote. Another bill the gun owners group wants to see passed is sponsored by Sen. Doug Mastriano, R-Franklin County. It would forbid state and local government officials from enforcing any new federal restriction, prohibition or registration requirement on the purchase or ownership of firearms, and firearm accessories, which are currently legal in Pennsylvania. A third piece of legislation is the House-passed bill, sponsored by Rep. Matt Dowling, R-Fayette County. It would bar local jurisdictions from imposing local firearms and ammunition ordinances, as well as allow anyone who succeeds in a court challenge over a local firearm restriction to be reimbursed their attorney’s fees and the cost of bringing the lawsuit. “It seems almost silly to me today that we’re talking about here very common sense pieces of legislation that if you’ve read the constitution like I have you wouldn’t even think that they’re necessary but understand that people are trying to strip you of those rights,” Dowling said, of the three bills. But gun control advocates who oppose all of these bills feel that relaxing gun regulations at this time when gun violence is on the rise is wrongheaded. Adam Garber, executive director of CeaseFirePA, said the pro-gun lobby day that was smaller than one held in June, which also drew fewer people than previous ones. Garber said it is a “reflection that Pennsylvanians desire their communities to be safer from gun violence and the current efforts in the Legislature have been shown again and again to endanger the lives of people.” Garber said he believes that the two sides can find common ground that allows people to own firearms while saving lives of community members, which he said, “is the ultimate goal of government.” Jan Murphy may be reached at jmurphy@pennlive.com. Follow her on Twitter at @JanMurphy. https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/09/gun-rights-advocates-call-on-pa-senate-to-act-on-bills-to-advance-second-amendment-rights.html
  6. The Mayor of Richmond rejected a plan to reduce violence by focusing on gangs, instead prioritizing a costly “public health” approach that conflicts with the reality on the ground. Pastor Ralph Hodge and an organization called “Richmonders Involved to Strengthen Communities” (RISC) asked Mayor Levar Stoney to fund a focused deterrence program that aims to defuse conflict and intervene before violence occurs. Gangs, even loosely organized gangs, and their members are often known to community leaders and law enforcement. When violence occurs, the local community often knows the likely perpetrators as well as those most likely to retaliate and can intervene to put an end to the cycle of violence. The Mayor’s Office rejected RISC’s program because the Mayor’s office disagrees with “their advocacy for a law-enforcement based approach to gun violence prevention.” This comes after Mayor Stoney signed a letter requesting federal funds be used for “evidence-informed programs that intentionally work with the people at the highest risk of involvement in gun violence.” That letter, readers will note, can be found on Everytown’s website. There are two issues with this statement. First is the concept that law enforcement is an inappropriate “approach” to crime. Published research has found that hiring additional police officers reduces crime, and real world statistics from across the country – including Chicago and New Orleans – show that targeted policing works. Even The Trace, Bloomberg’s anti-gun “news” outfit, has examined the success of these programs. But the pastors are not emphasizing police efforts; they’d like to implement interventions, not “over policing.” Pastor Hodge said, "You need police in any kind of crime situation, but this is not about funding more police activity. This is about funding more community organizations, local groups, social services, to provide intervention." Focused deterrence programs like this have worked in all manner of American cities. Many of the most anti-gun cities – including Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia, have benefitted from focused deterrence programs – which both suggests criminals don’t follow the law and that gun control doesn’t work. Mayor Stoney has instead green lit a “community-focused” program that uses a “human services and public health approach” to target middle school students. The program costs half a million dollars. Pastor Hodge’s program would cost around a tenth of that and would actually focus on those most likely to be either perpetrator or victim of violence. Hodge noted, “When you look at the ages of the shooters, most of the victims, they're not in middle school and high school. They're above age, they're adults.” The Mayor is spending more money targeting the wrong population despite being presented with a more cost-effective and proven method of curbing violence among those most likely to suffer or perpetrate the harm. Perhaps the difference is that Pastor Hodge’s plan does not claim to be a “public health” approach since buzz words seem to be all that matter to the anti-gun crowd. Stoney’s chosen program will offer mentorship and a stipend to forty (40) middle schoolers. With a program limited to 40 kids and an acknowledged violent crime problem, can Richmond really afford to reject any program targeting those likely to engage in violence? Forty kids will be involved with or benefit from Stoney’s chosen program. Known gang members and potential criminals, the adults totally excluded from the Mayor’s chosen plan, will be unaffected and will be likely left to perpetrate harm without intervention. Unless they cross paths with Pastor Hodge. Then, maybe there is a chance for intervention – though Hodge’s path is much less expansive than it could be with support from the Mayor. If not, law enforcement will respond to the crime and do what it can to put the perpetrators behind bars. If only there was a better way – a way to break the cycle of violence. But maybe mentoring a handful of middle schoolers will have an effect, too. Just not on the adults actually perpetrating the violence in Richmond.
  7. Long a slogan of defiance and independence, it is little wonder that the phrase “Come and take it” now finds itself falling into disfavor with a new generation of busybodies and penny-ante authoritarians. The latest is Taylor Eighmy, president of the University of Texas, San Antonio (UTSA). Eighmy announced to the campus community on Sept. 7 that UTSA would no longer support use of the phrase as an official rallying cry for the school’s football team or athletic department. “[W]e will identify the use of this phrase in our digital environment, in licensed merchandise, and in our buildings and playing fields, and will systematically and appropriately remove it,” Eighmy wrote. Eighmy’s statement noted that USTA Athletics’ history with the phrase dates back to the adoption of its Division 1 football program in 2011. A department staff member suggested the slogan’s unique ties to the history of the local area would make it, as Eighmy explained, “an inspirational call for our fans and a direct challenge to our opponents.” The slogan then gained a following among UTSA fans and was formally adopted by the Athletic Department in 2016. Home football games at UTSA featured the unfurling of a huge “Come and take it” banner in the student section during the 4th Quarter, accompanied by the firing of a cannon. The origins of the phrase “Come and take it” date back to at least 480 B.C. and the Battle of Thermopylae, when a Greek force led by King Leonidas I of Sparta used it as a retort to the demand of an exponentially larger force of invading Persians for surrender. It also saw use in the American Revolutionary War, when Col. John McIntosh, commander of Fort Morris in Sundbury, Ga., used it in response to the demand of a larger British force to surrender the fort. As concerns the UTSA situation, however, the phrase’s most significant tie is to the Texas Revolution. In 1831, the Texas colony of Gonzales had received a cannon from Mexican authorities to use for defending the colony against hostile Indians. Later, however, as sentiment in Gonzales began to turn against the Mexican government, the authorities demanded the return of the cannon and eventually sent a detachment of soldiers to retrieve it. The colonists refused and displayed a flag with an image of a canon and the phrase “Come and take it.” A skirmish ensued, during which the canon was fired at a Mexican military encampment. The Mexican troops would go on to withdraw, handing the Texians a victory in the first battle of the Texas Revolution. Images of the “Come and take it” flag have since become synonymous with standing up to overbearing authority in a variety of contexts. It is, of course, especially popular among defenders of the Second Amendment. But its use is not limited to any particular political outlook or cause, and Eighmy admitted as much in his statement. But, wrote Eighmy, because some of the organizations that have used it “have values and agendas that differ significantly from ours,” its use “has increasingly become incongruent with UTSA Athletics and our institution’s mission and core values.” This is a ridiculous and unconvincing copout, as similar things could be said about virtually any common symbol, image, or phrase, including the American flag itself (which, granted, has seen plenty of disfavor of its own on college campuses). Local media reports mentioned as an impetus for the new policy a Change.org petition started by a former UTSA professor who claimed the phrase is “steeped in racist ideology and racist history.” That petition, which garnered some 960 supporters, suggested that the phrase’s reference to the Battle of Gonzales “embodies both anti-Mexican and pro-slavery sentiments.” Given that, it’s difficult to see how the professor wouldn’t also object to the battle’s outcome or to Texas’s success in gaining independence from Mexico. This is rather ironic, to say the least, for an employee of a university that owes its existence to the State of Texas. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of petitions on Change.org demanding the removal of symbolism associated with American history, including statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt. These petitions, like the one filed against the UTSA slogan, typically mention purported associations with slavery, racism, and other forms of oppression. As the New York Times reported this year (in connection with Independence Day, no less) even the U.S. flag itself, “once a unifying symbol — there is a star on it for each state, after all — is now alienating to some, its stripes now fault lines between people … .” All-too-predictable is the apparently anti-democratic nature of the UTSA decision, with another petition on Change.org to keep the flag and rallying cry officially recognized by the university garnering nearly 4,000 supporters as of last week. This naturally raises the question of how much deference government institutions owe to those few who resent certain aspects of U.S. or state history so much that they are unable to recognize the larger picture of how the United States of America has been a driver of human freedom and progress. Indeed, the very ability to so openly and vehemently voice these aggrieved views is itself largely a product of the historical events and individuals they now condemn. It should go without saying that if the source of dissatisfaction with a state-adopted symbol is the formation of the state itself, then officials on the state payroll shouldn’t feel the need to be especially accommodating to the complaint. We suspect, at any rate, that the now retired professor who started the petition is not so outraged with the history of Texas as to be unwilling to accept a generous pension from the state treasury. Whether the follow-up petition, as well as the expressed unhappiness of the UT Board of Regents over the decision, will have any effect on the UTSA policy remains to be seen. In the meantime, students at UTSA should remember that even if the university officially abandons the “Come and take it” slogan, its use by private parties – including on campus and at school-sponsored events – is still First Amendment protected speech. Because whether petty tyrants like it or not, the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. And while the powers that be would undoubtedly come for it if they could, your NRA and the patriots who cherish our fundamental rights are ever vigilant to see that they can’t.
  8. In a blow to the tired stereotypes perpetuated by gun control supporters, a recent academic survey found broad diversity among recent first time gun buyers. The findings bolstered what many observers had anecdotally discovered, the last year-and-a-half’s pandemic and civil unrest-fueled record-breaking gun sales. Provided with the preliminary survey results, the Wall Street Journal reported, the 2021 National Firearms Survey, designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University, show an estimated 3.5 million women became new gun owners from January 2019 through April of this year. About 4 million men became new gun owners over that period, they found. Therefore, the study suggests that 46.6% of new gun owners since January 2019 were women. The news is of particular interest to those who understand the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. Pew Research Center data suggests that women are more likely than men to cite self-defense as their reason for purchasing a firearm. In 2017, Pew reported, Male and female gun owners are about equally likely to cite protection as a reason why they own guns: About nine-in-ten in each group say this is a reason, and 65% and 71%, respectively, say it is a major reason. But far larger shares of women than men who own guns say protection is the only reason they own a gun: About a quarter of women who own guns (27%) are in this category, compared with just 8% of men. The 2021 survey also found that new gun owners were more diverse than the general population. The Wall Street Journal noted, “Among new gun buyers, 55% were white, 21% were Black and 19% were Hispanic. Among new women gun owners, 28% were Black.” For context, Census data places the U.S. demographic breakdown at 13.4% Black and 18.5% Hispanic. The survey findings won’t come as a surprise to those who have been paying attention. Starting in the earliest days of the pandemic, there were media reports throughout the country noting a diverse deluge of first-time gun buyers showing up at gun dealers. Moreover, surveys of these dealers showed a similar situation unfolding. In February, NSSF noted, “sales among women accounted for 40 percent of all sales, and purchases by African Americans increased by 56 percent compared to 2019.” Azrael and Miller’s findings are even more notable given the anti-gun movement’s recent attempts to leverage the current identity politics mood in pursuit of their civilian disarmament agenda. The recent survey data is strong evidence that the public is ignoring these political opportunists, understanding that the Second Amendment right is for all Americans.
  9. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is set to revamp the crime data it gathers for its reporting system—effective January 1, 2021. This might sound like an obtuse story, but it actually is a big deal. The data the FBI takes from police departments all over the nation affects a lot of legislation—and a lot of academic studies that then make it into the media. First, it must be said that collecting crime data is no easy business. It is easy to think it should be. The number of murders that occur in a year, in theory, should be easy to calculate, as should the means used by the vast majority of the criminals. But many murders go unsolved. It can be difficult to differentiate an accident or self-inflicted injury from an act by a person committing a crime. It can be hard to say what weapon was used. Often, many crimes have taken place, not just the possible murder. And these unfortunate statistics come from so many sources that it can be hard to verify or collate the data. This is why it is very hard—often impossible—to compare such data from country to country, as it is gathered and aggregated so differently. So now the FBI is trying to revamp how it reports this complex data. Though a mandate that this be done by January 1, 2021, was passed in 2015, early reports indicate it is not going well. As this was being written, only 57% of law-enforcement agencies nationwide were actually ready to report via the new National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This new NIBRS might be better once it is fully implemented, as it will allow up to 10 crimes from the same incident to be reported. Currently, only the most egregious crime within each incident is reported. One worry is that this change will appear to show increases in crime, as more will be reported; as a result, the FBI says it will mitigate this to some degree by reporting via both the new and old methods. They have not, however, indicated how long they will make this data available in both formats. There is some concern about the additional complexities beyond just the lack of full participation. Unfortunately, crime data is often used in politically and ideologically driven ways by both gun-control and government organizations, so the additional complexity could allow for more obfuscation of the facts. “The CDC annually published absurd estimates on non-fatal gunshot injuries up until they were called out publicly by The Trace,” noted an NRA-ILA post on this topic. “The CDC has since ceased providing that estimate entirely, though anti-gun researchers continued to cite the ridiculous number long after the hopelessly flawed methodology was exposed.” The CDC had previously also buried data that showed that guns are highly effective self-defense tools. As the Biden/Harris administration pursues its radical anti-gun agenda, including re-weaponizing the openly anti-gun CDC, will they adhere to their own call for scientific findings to “never be distorted or influenced by political considerations”? The FBI has been responsible for crime data since 1930. Every year in September, they release the previous year’s data. This information is useful to many, including policy makers, law enforcement, social workers, academics, activists, journalists and, of course, citizens considering where to live and work. America’s 1st Freedom has frequently reported on this data. We will keep you informed with how this big change impacts you and your rights. (Note: While the FBI system is transitioning, you can still rely on the NRA-ILA crime data tool, which allows for state-to-state comparisons in an easily comprehensible format.)
  10. With the renewed push by the federal government for an assault weapons ban, we couldn’t help but wonder, just how often are assault rifles really to blame for crimes? More specifically, how often are they used as murder weapons when compared to all of the other types of weapons available? Using FBI homicide statistics from the 2019 Crime in the United States report, the insights team at the Joslyn Law Firm charted out how often different types of weapons were used in homicides in the U.S.. Of the 16,425 homicides that occurred in 2019, the FBI was able to collect supplemental data for 13,922 of them, which is what our data is based on. The weapon types are broken down into the different types of firearms: handguns, rifles, shotguns, and a category for homicides in which the type of firearm was unknown. It also compares the number of homicides that were committed by non-firearm weapons such as knives or cutting instruments as well as bodily weapons, which include people’s hands, fists, and feet. Non-firearm weapons were used for one-quarter of all homicides in the United States. Would a ban on assault rifles actually help to curb the violence? With rifles being a relatively uncommon type of weapon used in homicides in the United States, an assault rifle ban may not make much difference when it comes to the number of murders that occur. Homicides are overwhelmingly committed using handguns; they were found to be the most common murder weapon for nearly half of all homicides in the United States in 2019. Even hands, fists, and feet are used to commit homicide almost twice as often as a rifle is. An NIH study that investigated the levels of criminal activity committed with assault weapons or other high-capacity semiautomatics also found that these types of weapons are only being used in a small percentage of crimes: “Assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%).” Wouldn’t all of the time, money, and resources being used to push for an assault rifle ban be better used elsewhere, such as creating a better mental health-care system that is accessible to those that need it most? Which Type of Weapon Is Most Commonly Used for Homicides? Handguns were found to be the most common weapon used for homicides, used in 45.7% of homicides committed nationwide. Since nearly a quarter of homicides used an unknown type of firearm, this percentage is likely to be even higher in actuality. The next category on the list is non-firearms that fall under the “other weapons” category, including things like blunt objects, poison, explosives, fire, and narcotics, used in 11.4% of homicides. This was followed by knives and other cutting instruments, used in 10.6% of all homicides. So how often are firearms actually used for murder overall? In total, they were used in three-quarters of all homicides, a very low percentage of which were committed with assault-style rifles. The Weapons Most Commonly Used for Homicides in the United States Handguns: 45.7% Firearms (Type Unknown): 23.9% Other Weapons: 11.4% Knives or Cutting Instruments: 10.6% Hands, Fists, Feet, Etc.: 4.3% Rifles: 2.6% Shotguns: 1.4% How Often Are Assault Rifles Used in Homicides? For how dangerous they are made out to be, assault rifles were not found to be used in homicides very often. Rifles were the weapon of choice in only 2.6% of the homicides that occurred in the United States in 2019, far lower than the 45.7% of homicides that were committed using a handgun. And even though nearly a quarter of homicides were committed using an unknown type of firearm, it’s safe to assume that handguns probably made up a large majority of that number as well. Even if a ban on assault weapons was enacted, it wouldn’t lower the number of assault rifles that are already in the United States, which is currently around the 20 million mark. In Which State Is Each Type of Weapon Most Commonly Used in Homicides? Using the 2019 Crime in the United States data, we also created a state-by-state breakdown of the percentage of murders using each weapon. For each type of weapon, we also tallied the ten states where it was used in the highest percentage of homicides. Which states were found to use each type of weapon the most in homicides? Maryland was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using handguns at 75.1%. Vermont was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using rifles at 18.18%. Maine was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using shotguns at 15%. Delaware was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using unknown types of firearms at 56.3%. Rhode Island was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using knives or cutting instruments at 28%. Idaho was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using other weapons at 37.1%. Vermont was found to have the highest percentage of homicides using hands, fists, feet, etc. at 18.2%. Where Are Rifles Used the Most Often in Homicides? When comparing the gun crime statistics between states, we found that Vermont has the highest percentage of homicides committed using a rifle at 18.18%, although the state’s murder statistics showed that the number of homicides using hands, fists, feet, etc. was nearly equal to the number of those committed using a rifle. Vermont has the third lowest murder rate in the country, with just 1.8 homicides per 100,000 people, so these seemingly large percentages only make up a small number of homicides. What other initiatives do you believe the government should take to curb gun violence, aside from an assault weapons ban that may not make much difference in the long run? https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
  11. I want to talk a little bit about Biden pulling the nomination of David Chipman for the Director of the ATF. I don’t want to talk so much about the actual pulling of the nomination. I want to speak on the media’s response to it being pulled, and I want to pull the curtain back a little bit and show you how anti-gun advocacy groups and the mainstream media cross paths. You can’t help but noticed the narrative about the Chipman nomination being pulled that is being peddled in the mainstream media’s talking points all looks the same. If you caught that you would not be wrong. It does look the same. The narrative isn’t that Chipman was a terrible nominee. Or he was a partisan hack. It wasn’t that Chipman has a history of making racist comments about other special agents. And it wasn’t that Chipman was so incompetent at his job that he might have lost his duty gun. According to the mainstream media, the gun lobby’s power forced Senators not to support the Chipman nomination. It was that somehow the gun lobby got Democrats to pull their support for Chipman? According to these reports, Chipman was a dedicated and exceptional former ATF Special agent that only cared about stopping violence. These mainstream media pendants report that Chipman would have been a perfect ATF Director. Now don’t get me wrong. The gun lobby (you and me) did have a lot to do with getting Biden to pull the Chipman nomination once it became clear he didn’t have the votes to be confirmed. But it was not because the gun lobby (you and me) made up some false narrative about Chipman. The gun lobby (you and me) just shined a light on all the issues of the Chipman nomination. My grandmother used to say that sunlight was the best disinfectant, and the Chipman nomination process showed why that statement still rings true. So how do these so-called journalists all get fed the same wrong conclusion? What happens is anti-gun groups send out talking points and press releases to friendly media sources. A Lot of times, anti-gun groups make phone calls to reporters, they send out emails. These anti-gun groups help the mainstream media shape the narrative. Let’s be honest. Groups like Everytown and Moms Demand Action are run more like a corporate PR agency rather than an advocacy group made up of real Americans. Their bankrolls put ours to shame. They can hire ad agencies and consultants to get their message out. Plus, most in the mainstream media fall on their side of the fence of the gun debate. The biggest reason is that mainstream journalists are under immense pressure to hit deadlines, and here comes someone willing to hand over something that would complete 90% of their work. There is no need to look up stats or facts. Even the quotes are right there. All they have to do is rephrase the release or talking points here or there. The anti-gun gun groups aren’t going to publicize that these reporters plagiarized them. In fact, they want the media to plagiarize them. That is how they can control the narrative. We live in a 24-hour media cycle. Media outlets want to be first or as close to first as possible to break a story. Instead of these journalists doing their own research, they just take what is given to them at face value. The gun lobby to them is the boogeyman. Let’s give them what they want. Since you and I are in the gun lobby, let’s be the boogeyman. We can’t compete solely by providing money to gun rights groups, although that does help. Our side doesn’t have billionaires funding our efforts to defend gun rights. But we have something they don’t have. We have a true grassroots community of passionate gun owners. What scares a politician is a pissed-off constituency. Their grassroots efforts are AstroTurf. All they have is smoke and mirrors. Our power is in our grassroots efforts. They want to hold onto power, and that is where we come in to push them in the right direction. This is a Digital War & We Are Winning! The meme is a powerful weapon. We need to keep hitting back on social media with forceful comments, your hardest-hitting memes, and citizen journalism to expose their lies and inform our friends and family of the truth. All to counteract the anti-gun groups’ lies and spin that infects the mainstream fake-news media. We need to engage with people one on one and explain the stance of the gun-rights community. We have the power to shape the narrative in the minds of those around us, and we need to use that power. Thease paid simballs are trying to control the narrative, and we won’t let them do that. https://www.ammoland.com/2021/09/anti-gun-slimeballs-control-biased-mainstream-media/#axzz76aAFXuSM
  12. “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” ~Attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher, and Orator, in a speech he gave to the Roman Senate in 58 BC as ‘Recorded by Sallust’ in the fictional novel ‘A Pillar of Iron,’ by Taylor Caldwell (1983), ch. 5. ~The quotation bears resemblance to Cicero’s Second Oration in the Cataline war (circa 40 b.c.) Under Biden’s reign, Americans are quickly losing their fundamental rights and liberties. They have already lost any vestige of a fundamental right of privacy as protected under the Unreasonable Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. And the Right of free speech under the First Amendment is, as well, under tremendous assault today. And let us not forget the assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. For without the citizenry’s exercise of the Fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, the exercise of all other Rights is tenuous at best or becomes altogether illusory, leading inevitably, inexorably to subjugation. Americans already see that Biden, and his fellow Progressive and Neo-Marxist Democrats in Congress, and legions of unelected bureaucrats of the Administrative Deep State have made substantial inroads curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But the question is: Do these assaults on sacred Rights truly rise to the level of treason, well beyond the federal crimes of sedition, insurrection, and rebellion, awful as they are? How can the public know? And, if treason does exist, and if the polity shows Republicans in Congress that Biden and/or several of his senior advisors have committed treason, how can Americans persuade their Representatives in the House and their Senators in the U.S. Senate to hold those high-level elected officials and high level unelected military people accountable beyond merely requesting they simply and humbly resign, as some have averred. How can Americans make a cogent argument to legislators so that they will undertake or at least attempt to undertake impeachment of Biden and/or his senior advisors? And for senior officers in the military, how can the public urge that these military advisors be subject to a General Court Martial. The words, ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ are often cavalierly bandied about. The American public has heard it all before, many times, mostly directed to Donald Trump and, by association, directed to all Americans who voted for him or who supported and who continue to support his “Make America Great Again” agenda. Few people in American history, though, have been charged with “treason” and fewer are ever convicted of it. That fact underscores the deadly seriousness of the import of the words despite the oft offhanded use of them and says much of the true and dire purpose of and hidden motives of those forces that have used the word, ‘treason,’ incessantly against Trump. And many are those who leveled the charge of treason against the 45th President, Donald Trump. Upon taking the Oath of Office, well-placed operators in the Department of Justice and FBI and in the military and in the intelligence apparatuses of Government, and in Congress, in academia and in the media, and even some individuals closest to Trump in his own Administration went immediately to work to undermine and sabotage and destroy his Presidency from its very inception to the final days. See, e.g., New York Times article. and an article in The Atlantic. Government, academia, the Press, social media, all operated, in concert—components of an extraordinarily elaborate, well-organized, well-executed series of false flag operations—all designed to bring about Trump’s downfall. And, considering the extent to which these operators plotted to bring about Trump’s downfall, one is led to conclude either that Trump did indeed pose the greatest internal threat ever to befall our Nation, or, like Horatius at the Bridge, protected our Nation, standing alone against the hordes both within the Government and outside it who themselves truly pose the greatest and gravest threat ever to befall our free Constitutional Republic. Calling a person a “traitor” serves as a handy propagandist tool and it is one that is employed for the emotional reaction it is expected to elicit in the American public for the purpose of creating animus toward a person, but often, as well, as a distraction to direct public attention to the innocent person and thereby draw attention away from the real “traitor.” “The crime of treason carries an emotional response unlike any other. Its severity is second to none because one who commits treason aims to support the enemies his government, betray his own nation, and wage war against his own people. Infamous traitors such as Benedict Arnold conjure a near-unanimous feeling of disdain and anger amongst Americans, while others like John Brown do not so easily create the same uniform negative perception. Such is the nature of treason: those convicted of betraying their nation receive the designation of ‘traitor,’ arguably the most severe, polarizing, and stigmatic title law can provide, which may partially explain why the last case of treason occurred in 1952.” ~ from the law review article, “Treason In The Age Of Terrorism: Do Americans Who Join Isis ‘Levy War’ Against The United States?” 9 Am. U. Nat’l Sec. L. Brief 155 (2019) by Stephen Jackson, J.D., Senior Policy Analyst with SAIC. But, when do the words ‘traitor’ and ‘treason’ merely function as expletives and when do they function as true descriptors, indicative of the worst sort of criminal behavior of an American? It is one thing for a person to employ the words ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ merely as a pejorative. In that case, “You Traitor, You!” is akin to the words, “Damn You, Go to Hell!” or “You Bastard, You!” But it is another thing entirely when the phrase, “You Traitor, You!” is to mean that the targeted person is truly a “Traitor,” i.e., a person who commits the crime of ‘Treason.’ For ‘Treason’ is a crime. Treason is the most serious of crimes, for Treason is nothing less than Betrayal of one’s Country and of one’s people. It is essentially the MURDER of one’s Country and of one’s Countrymen. Betrayal of one’s Nation and one’s Countrymen was considered one of the most heinous crimes going back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Dante Alighieri, in his monumental epic, “The Divine Comedy,” placed those guilty of treachery to nation in the deepest circle of hell. To apply the term, ‘traitor’ to anyone is no small matter and should not be a matter of casual conversation. It is defamatory if untrue. As applied especially to an elected official, no less a personage than the President of the United States, one should practice circumspection before employing it, in the absence of evidence to support the declaration of it. Unfortunately, we do not see this at all. And, it is all quite remarkable, as the denizens of “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS,”—today’s “THOUGHT POLICE”—so keen are they on remaking the English language so as not to offend, do not apply that prime directive across the board, utilizing the worst invective against anyone, everyone, who happens to hold to a different political and philosophical persuasion than that of the “WOKE” crowd to use of their own neologisms. To our Nation’s founders, treason is the most serious crime imaginable. It is not by accident that it is referenced in the U.S. Constitution. Treason is the only crime BOTH MENTIONED AND DEFINED in the U.S. Constitution. But, through overuse and deliberate misuse of the words, ‘treason’ and ‘traitor,’ by various members of Congress and by Government Officials and by the Press, Americans are unable to gain a clear view of and true perspective of actual instances of treason and of the those who commit it when evidence for it abounds. A person needs to cut through the chatter and chaff of those who cavalierly bandy the term about, misapplying it hither and yon to Donald Trump—and, now misapplying it to Trump’s supporters who number one-third to likely much more than one-half of the population of the Country. The term, ‘treason’ is a legal term of art that has a clear meaning. One need only go to a readily available source, the U.S. Constitution, to determine its import and purport, and from the definition for it, look for instances of it. Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1, sets forth: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Further, ‘treason,’ as with ‘sedition,’ ‘insurrection,’ and ‘rebellion’, is a statutory offense, Congress reiterates the definition of ‘treason,’ of it. “18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason,” sets forth: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” Given the seriousness of the crime, the framers of the Constitution severely limited its application to the commission of either one of two, and only two, kinds of acts. The U.S. Constitution leaves no room for constructive treason and Congress could not and has not undertaken to restrict or enlarge constitutional. The Constitutional, as well as Statutory definition for Treason, involves: Levying war against the United States; OR Giving the Nation’s enemies aid or comfort. But what does “levying war against the United States” really mean, and what does the phrase “giving the Nation’s enemies aid or comfort” mean?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.