Just got back, an observation and a note from JFPO

 

I'm baaaack, I will get situated and if possible, will post a rant tomorrow unless I get overcome by events, meaning that the spousal unit has other ideas and I an out too late and an unable to finish the post....You guys know what I am talking about, LOL.

    I have posted stuff from JPFO before, I have been using their stuff since I started blogging over 10 years ago.  JPFO brought up a concern that I have by our unfettered streaming of our southern borders, I have heard that there have been like over 8 million people have crossed our borders since Xiden has thrown open our borders, how much will it take before there is an demographic shift, I heard a phrase, and this was relating to Europe, but it pertains to here, "Demographics is Destiny."  They want to replace us with a malleable population that will kowtow to their rules, and we "locals" will not "Stay in our lane" if you know what I mean.  They mean to create a new neo-feudalistic society where there is a 2 class of people like the days of old before the onset of the renaissance and the formation of the middle class.   That being said, how many terrorists slid over our porous borders and are waiting for the word to strike, especially with the financing in place from Iran.  I have started avoiding soft targets and large groups of people, more than before, and I have started paying more attention to the calendars, because that is when they try to strike for maximum propaganda value.  I know several holidays are coming up..for maximum psyops, to strike "The Great Satan" since they already struck the "Little Satan" using Palestinians as proxies.

NEWS RELEASE 12500 N.E. Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005 • JPFO.org • 800-869-1884 • info@jpfo.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  • October 13, 2023  Contact: James Jones (View on website) Even Israeli Intelligence Didn't Spot Them In Time— IS HAMAS HERE? Are we ready? U.S. Border Patrol has identified and caught 150 foreign watchlist suspects trying to infiltrate the U.S. through the Mexico border last month alone. Now Hamas is calling on sympathizers worldwide to commit jihad this weekend. Our president is virtually complicit—by encouraging immigrants while insisting the wide-open border is closed. Officials don't know how many "gotaways" are terrorists, and more keep arriving, using Mr. Biden's open-door border deception. Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) announced 530,000 gotaways in the past year alone. Border encounters last month hit a record 260,000. Captured known terrorists hit 659 in September. How many are Hamas? JPFO encourages American citizens to be armed, ready to prevent Muslim jihadis from doing to us what they have done to our Israeli allies. All barriers to peaceful possession of personal arms must be suspended or repealed. We can't trust Biden, a known ally of the border invaders, allowing them in, granting them papers and forgoing any serious screening or tracking. We must trust our own armed citizens needed to repel invaders if and when they act. We the people are "necessary to the security of a free state." Remember "sleeper cells"? It's more than a catch phrase. It describes what these vicious murderers do—they hide until ready to strike. 1-Sneak into America. 2-Hide in plain sight. 3-Communicate internally. 4-Wait for the command from their leadership, our hardened enemies. The only question is how deep the Iran–China–Russia–North Korea axis runs. Three have nuclear weapons. Only Iran, backing the Gaza attacks, lacks nukes. Arm yourselves, citizens, our first and possibly last line of defense. If you're untrained or rusty in the use of personal arms, now is the time to take a class or get in some range time. Remember, If innocent life doesn't immediately depend on it—don't shoot. And if it does, don't miss. Join JPFO and stay deeply informed.

Gun Control Groups look to Dry up Legal Talent for Gun Industry

 Sorry for not posting for a few days, was very busy, I like blogging, but I like sleeping more.

     It has been a while since I used material from "JPFO", This is a big deal to me, especially since the donks and other lefties are using Lawfare to achieve their goals, and even if you are doing a constitutionally protected activity, but if you can't find a lawyer, then you have a problem when you go against the system because a good lawyer is worth their weight in gold especially in keeping your a$$ out of prison because the local corrupt Soros supported DA wants to use you as an example to appease the mob.

By Larry Keane. May 23, 2023
Article Source

'Gun control' groups are foisting 'gun control' on the American public by taking to university campuses to convince law students to pledge to never represent the firearm industry, or its interests, in court.

'Gun control' groups are big Shakespeare fans, apparently. They’re taking a page from the famed Elizabethan-era bard’s Henry VI as the next play on foisting 'gun control' on the American public.

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” Shakespeare wrote in the play.

Two 'gun control' groups are putting a 21st Century twist on the line and taking to university campuses to convince law students to pledge to never represent the firearm industry, or its interests, in court.

Call it the long game. 'gun control' isn’t satisfied with attacking Second Amendment rights, or even First Amendment rights. Now, they’re targeting Sixth Amendment rights too. That’s the amendment that guarantees the right to be represented by legal counsel.

Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence and March for Our Lives, 'gun control' groups headed by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, respectively, are canvassing campuses to convince law students to sign a pledge they won’t represent the firearm industry or firearm owners when it comes to protecting and preserving Second Amendment rights. The 'gun control' groups’ pledge peddles verifiably false claims to convince the aspiring lawyers that the firearm industry is responsible for violent crime in America.

Not criminals. Not gang violence. Not the illicit drug trade. They’re blaming the industry for crimes committed by violent offenders and ignoring basic legal foundations to sway law students to deny legal services to companies and individuals that follow the law.

Do You Swear?

David Pucino, Giffords’ deputy chief counsel, makes some dubious claims to convince law students that after they earn their juris doctorate, they should sign the 'gun control' group’s nonbinding pledge to never represent the legal interests of a Constitutionally-protected industry. First among these misleading claims is that firearms are the leading cause of death for American children.

This is a favorite false talking point among 'gun control' groups and antigun politicians, including President Joe Biden. The problem is that it is demonstrably false. The University of Michigan manipulated data sets to include 18 and 19-year-old adults as “children” to boost the figure of childhood deaths to surpass those caused by motor vehicle accidents. When 18 and 19-year-olds are backed out because they’re not children, but in fact adults, that claim falls apart. NSSF demonstrated that here.

Giffords’ pledge website also claims the firearm industry actively opposes “any effort to pass gun safety laws.” Again, this is demonstrably false. NSSF backed the FIX NICS Act, named for the firearm industry’s FixNICS® initiative to get all states to submit disqualifying records into the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NSSF changed the laws in 16 states and in Congress to get the background check system to work as intended. In fact, NSSF helped create the instant point-of-sale background check system that would instantly inform a firearm retailer if a customer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Pucino urges law student to never work for firms that represent the firearm industry because, in his estimation, the firearm industry “represent some really reprehensible companies that have done some horrible things.”

Never mind that the firearm industry administers the Real Solutions. Safer Communities® campaign that includes FixNICS and Project ChildSafe®, which partners with over 15,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states and five U.S. territories to distribute over 40 million free firearm safety kits including locking devices. Real Solutions also includes the partner programs with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to prevent illegal “straw” purchases of firearms through Don’t Lie for the Other Guy™ and Operation Secure Store® to help firearm retailers voluntarily increase security to deter and prevent firearm burglaries and robberies. The firearm industry also partnered with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) to provide firearm retailers and ranges kits to encourage a “brave conversation” to prevent suicide tragedies.

Persona Non Grata

Giffords and March for Our Lives think these programs are “reprehensible” enough to demand the ATF not work with the firearm industry on these campaigns that have been proven to save lives. Giffords was among 43 other 'gun control' groups that demanded the ATF stop working with the industry it regulates.

“Stop funding, partnering, or co-branding programs with the National Sports Shooting Foundation via the Department of Justice and other Federal Agencies,” the letter said, according to The Reload. “No longer should the ATF hold private briefing and training sessions at NSSF’s annual SHOT SHOW without making their remarks available to the public online.”

NSSF pointed out how “unserious” 'gun control' groups are with their demands then. They continue to prove that unseriousness now. These 'gun control' groups put special-interest political agendas ahead of real answers to keep the public safe. Their answer isn’t to “do something” as they demand. It is to “do something” to ban guns. And now, apparently, it is also to ban legal representation.

Giffords and March for Our Lives rolled out their “pledge” drive at the University of California – Berkeley School of Law, Cardozo School of Law, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School and Yale Law School. Pucino said the drive isn’t limited to those schools. Plans are to make it “broad and national.”

The goal is to encourage the aspiring lawyers to flex their legal muscle, putting pressure on law firms that they’ll miss out on talent because these law school graduates will refuse to assist in any cases defending the firearm industry or Second Amendment rights. It’s a tall order.

“There’s certainly the case that the legal system allows for and encourages for everyone to have representation, of course,” Pucino conceded in an interview with The American Independent.

These 'gun control' groups might want to read Shakespeare’s Hamlet and flip forward to the line that reads, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

 

 I clipped this from JPFO,   I remember the Media's rush to crucify the parents before the facts were all in, something that they like to do to support "The Narrative"

Protect Due Process and Innocence Presumption
for Michigan School Shooter Parents

Facebook: Jennifer and James Crumbley

By Dean Weingarten. Dec 23, 2021
Article Source

As this correspondent reads accounts of the latest media inspired school shooting, there was an obvious theme: blame the parents. Convict them before any evidence is presented in court. Indict them with crimes seldom used in such circumstances. Declare they are fugitives in a "manhunt".

This is all depressingly familiar. The media smells gun control blood in the water. They launch a narrative: all is the fault of the parents. The narrative advances their political agenda and masks their own liability. The Constitutional rights of gun owners, especially of white gun owners, are not considered worthy of protecting. The mother, Jennifer Crumbley, even supported President Trump in 2016!

How dare she!

The Trump-support letter, supposedly a blog post written in November of 2016, is claimed by some to be a hoax. Is it? This correspondent does not know. Time will help clear the confusion.

This correspondent does not know all the details of what happened. No one does at this point. A narrative is being formed and pushed with little fact and little due process. The Michigan prosecutor has announced four counts of involuntary manslaughter charges for each parent, with very little investigation, and lots of publicity. The public is inflamed. The sheriff in the county says this is not the way things are usually done.

Calls for harsh punishment of the Crumbley parents is common on the Internet.

Involuntary manslaughter in Michigan appears to be very close to criminally negligent homicide, generally.

The theory appears to be that it was criminally negligent for the parents to have allowed the 15-year-old to have access to the pistol used, and/or perhaps, not to have taken him from school or to have searched his backpack after being shown a disturbing drawing asking for help and depicting guns, a bullet, and a person shot.

There seems to have been ample reasonable suspicion for the school officials to search the 15 -year-old students backpack. This is enhanced by the fact the parents insisted on leaving the 15-year-old in the school, creating more reason to search the backpack.

The parents knew the 15-year-old lived in their home. They knew they had firearms in their home, including the pistol which was used to murder.

They may or may not have believed it to be secured. There is no statistical evidence laws requiring guns to be secured from teenagers reduce crime.

The details are important. Those who want a disarmed public are using the incident to push for more laws. More laws are almost always the wrong response.

In these tragedies, there is an unfortunate tendency to rush to judgement. It is absolutely part of the rights of parents and the accused to not make statements without counsel being present.

I believe more facts will emerge. A wait of a week or a month is reasonable to allow some shakeout of facts. A trial is the ultimate arbiter, as was seen in the Rittenhouse case. We should be working to dampen trial by Media rather than exacerbating it.

A rush to judgement comes with a high risk of injustice.

Much has been made of the mother texting her son to "Don't do it" after the shooting. It could as easily have been a panicked cry to prevent suicide as anything else.

This mass murder is a terrible tragedy which came extremely close to being prevented, making it all the more forceful. If only.. if only..

There are more forces in play than the Constitutionally protected presence of firearms in our homes. Media contagion is real, and a strong, perhaps dominant thread in school mass murder. Teens in crises see a way to escape life in a manner which will immortalize them in the media.

The more people they kill, the more media attention they get. It is a horrible but obvious way to promote mass killing.

Could slightly different decisions by either the parents or the school have stopped this event before it started? It appears so. Does this rise to the level of negligent homicide? It is far too early to know.

We all need to back off, take a deep breath, and allow for due process and a measured investigation which respects the rights of all concerned.

Put yourself in the position of the parents of the child who killed several other students. It is a horrible position to be in, not withstanding the worse condition of the parents whose children were killed and wounded.

There is no evidence the parents of the murderer condoned or encouraged the killing of innocents. It is not illegal or immoral for parents to buy a teen a pistol and teach them to shoot it.

Parents have always been responsible, at least to some extent, for the conduct of minor children. This is a nightmare for the parents of the killer even as we acknowledge the greater loss of the parents of the victims.

When we feel our emotions rising; when we want to take direct and harsh action; it is the time to step back, call for due process and proper procedure, careful investigation, and measured thought.

To do less is to be controlled by those who use any "crises" to accomplish what they otherwise could not do.

Government by crises is bad government.

The narrative being pushed by the prosecutor and the Media may not be close to reality. We have been deceived several times in recent history. Consider Ferguson Missouri and the fake "hands up, don't shoot" narrative. Consider the attack on innocent George Zimmerman by Trayvon Martin. Consider the Media attempt at lynching Kyle Rittenhouse.

We have not heard the parents side of the story.

It is time to call for calm, legal and responsible investigation, and a cooling period to prevent emotional overreactions when careful thought and consideration is required.

 

"Which Weapons Are Most Commonly Used in a Homicide?"

 This is compliments of "JPFO" and the Joslyn Law Firm.  I snagged this from JPFO, they sent it to my email and I thought it was very informative.   I have been super busy, My spologies for not posting something after Monday I have another rant perculating, I will try to get it posted in a few days.

 

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?

 

 I have been really busy and unable to post like I want, This showed up in my email and I really liked the stuff from JPFO.org, I have been posting things from them since I started blogging back in 2011 and they are hard core 2A supporters and their material is first rate.

Gun Laws Don't Stop the Killing

By Thomas E. Gift, MD. January 25, 2021
Article Source

A recent report looks to see if laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms might have effects on homicides and suicides not caused by guns. They found no increase or decrease in non-gun homicides associated with changes in gun related homicides, and the data regarding suicides were too sparse to be useful. Their report was based on examining a series of earlier studies.

To the authors’ credit, they noted that some experts describe a substitution effect, that is, a person not killed by a firearm may instead be killed by some other form of violence. They cite several previous studies finding that those not suiciding by shooting are likely to do so by other means, and that homicides not committed by shooting will probably occur by other means.

There are however a number of problems with the publication. The authors seem to see all homicides as bad, and never mention justifiable homicides. These often involve self-defense, or appropriate actions by police or bystanders to protect the innocent. The researchers seem to assume that any reduction in homicides is desirable, ignoring the injuries, arsons and assaults prevented by the appropriate use of force.

A recent DRGO contributor noted the existence of many dozens of peer-reviewed academic studies conducted by a wide range of authors suggesting that widespread gun ownership deters crime. He pointed as well to a specific instance in which children died needlessly because security officers were unarmed. In this school shooting, in which many children lost their lives, the justifiable homicide of the shooter would have avoided heartbreak for families and prevented the school career of many teenagers from ending in a mournful trip to a cemetery.

Academics have found evidence that Right-to-Carry laws deter violent crime, including rapes and murders, and also lower burglary rates, while restrictions on concealed carry laws may increase the number of people who are murdered. Having a firearm is especially important for women, who are typically smaller and not as strong as those who attack them—being armed can compensate for this difference. Reports of homeowners using guns to defend against intruders are reported daily. Since intruders are often young men, it’s common that the occupant of a household are less physically powerful, and thus a justifiable homicide by a firearm prevents death or injury at the hands of a criminal.

In evaluating the studies they cite, the authors don’t acknowledge that many people without access to a gun who kill themselves by other means are misunderstood as having died accidently. Examples include drug overdoses, single car "accidents" and walking into traffic. Drug overdoses in particular can appear accidental when in fact they are really suicides; motor vehicle accidents involving only one driver are often really suicides.

Failure to recognize these suicides for what they are masks the fact that those who don’t use a gun to kill themselves do so using other methods. This minimizes the impact of reductions in suicides by gun increasing suicides by other means, and erroneously inflates the percentage of suicides involving a firearm. Difficulties distinguishing suicides from other forms of violent death, such as accident or murder, have been described in a number of publications. Interestingly, a recent research endeavor using complex statistical techniques to examine risks for suicide identified problems with depression as the primary predictor, with no mention of access to firearms.

The takeaway message is that relationships between homicide, justifiable homicide, suicide and firearm availability are complex. But the intent of murderers and suicide victims are almost always discernible. It is elementary foolishness to blame inanimate objects for how people choose to act.

Mexico proves that more Gun Control don't work

 I Clipped this from JPFO, I have in the past used articles from JPFO on my blog and they are very good especially because they relate to the 2nd amendment.  I have learned more about the effect of the Mexican Narco gangs from some of the books and other thing that I have read, the effect that they have on the average Mexican who cannot own a gun to defend themselves but the government and the cartel are armed and the Mexican citizens are caught in the middle.  it don't help that the demand here in the states fuel the demand and the violence.  Our hit and miss laws don't help either.

Mexico's attempts at gun-control show just how futile it is. IMG iStock-913549340

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Recently The Washington Post published an article depicting the rampant organized crime crisis in Mexico. There is no question that the crime and violence fueled by drug cartels in our southern neighbor are major problems for Mexico, the United States, and for the global community. However, the authors make a mistake typical of the gun control crowd; they blame the firearm rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for the problems in Mexico.

Cartels are becoming bolder, showcasing weapons and drugs in videos used to not only attract potential recruits but also threaten those who might oppose them. Mexican officials who articulate their frustration in the article are very quick to blame cartel activity on their pro-gun northern neighbor and the authors are more than eager to parrot these inaccurate sentiments in the article.

The misplaced blame is unfortunate because the right solutions cannot be implemented if the problem is not correctly identified. If firearm rights are the problem, why does the United States not face a similar level of cartel-related violence? Particularly under President Trump, crimes are prosecuted. The government enforces the law. Making the United States more like Mexico, with its clearly ineffective gun control policies, will not solve Mexico’s problem and is surely not a successful model for the U.S. to follow.

Narcotics activity is an ongoing, destructive problem in Mexico, a country infamous for the uneven enforcement of its own laws. The United States has a role to play as a partner in helping to deter and prosecute any cross-border cartel activities. However, shifting the conversation from law enforcement and rooting out government corruption to the Second Amendment is unhelpful and misguided.

Straw Purchasing

Cartels, while illicit, typically operate based on a for-profit business model. Buying firearms in bulk from countries in Central and South America is much more efficient than traversing the U.S. border with one or two guns at a time. With so much attention put on the northern border, this option is preferred for arming large amounts of sicarios at a time.

Inversely, buying firearms in the United States is a bigger hurdle than what Mexican officials and The Washington Post would like their readers to think. One of the ways that cartels can acquire firearms here in the U.S. and take them across the border is by straw purchasing – an illegal activity. While there are many avenues for criminals to secure firearms, passing more gun laws here in the United States, a strategy that Mexican officials demand, would do nothing to curb criminals from committing crimes.

Straw purchasing is when a non-prohibited person lies on a background check form to buy a firearm for someone else. This is already a serious and known federal crime, enforced with a felony conviction sentence of 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. Gun shops are educated by ATF through the NSSF-funded Don’t Lie For the Other Guy partnership program to identify and deny such transactions; however, like border security officials, they cannot catch everyone who lies and breaks the law. Cartels routinely bribe young adults and incentivize addicts to illegally purchase firearms in the United States and then illegally traffic those guns over the border using narcotics routes or sometimes border checkpoints. Thankfully, through the efforts of the Department of Justice with Operation Legend, straw purchasers are being prosecuted and brought to justice for illegally supplying guns to criminals.

Myths and Guns

The Washington Post wrongly points a finger at firearms being purchased at gun shows without a background check. This over-simplified vilification misses the facts on background checks. Licensed firearm retailers must run a background check before selling a firearm in any circumstance, whether in a store, at a gun show, or online and, the vast overwhelming number of guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers after a background check. The myth of the “Gun Show Loophole” has become a rallying cry for antigun proponents and those who do not understand the legal commerce of firearms.

Another prominent myth is that 90 percent of firearms recovered in Mexico originated from the United States. This is unequivocally false. This myth originated from Congressional testimony by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) when the ATF misstated and quickly attempted to clarify that 90 percent of the firearms traced by the ATF in Mexico circa 2008 came from the United States.

Mexico only submits to the ATF for tracing those firearms that they identify as coming from the United States. The ATF is not asked to – and has no way to trace firearms that are from outside of the United States. While the Mexican government rarely releases data on the number of firearms seized, it did in 2008. When the number of firearms submitted to the ATF for tracing is compared to the actual number seized in Mexico, the truth is about 12 percent of firearms seized in Mexico came from the United States.

Mexican officials should look internally before casting blame and making policy demands of other countries. Not all firearms that originate from the United States were trafficked or otherwise illegally brought into Mexico. Often, governments sell firearms to each other, which is certainly the case with the United States and Mexico. The United States and other countries sell firearms under official contracts to Mexico’s government. With the incentives provided by cartels, many soldiers and police officers have taken their training and service firearms and put it to work for the lucrative, but illicit, narcotics trade. Defections have soared to more than 150,000, which contributes to the ongoing problem of too many criminals and not enough police to push back. Mexico’s Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda was accused of taking bribes to allow a narcotics cartel to operate in Mexico. Zepeda, who served as Mexico’s Secretary of National Defense from 2012-2018, was arrested by U.S. authorities in October for suspicions of money laundering and narcotics conspiracy. Charges were later dropped, rumored by threats from Mexicano authorities to push out Drug Enforcement Agency authorities from Mexico, among other threats.

Enforce the law

Compounding the problem further are black markets like Tepito where firearms are one of many items that can be purchased illegally in a tented shopping area. Here, the black market is operated by Union de Tepito, a cartel that uses children as lookouts and is fortified enough that law enforcement agencies avoid the area altogether. In some instances, law enforcement officials are even working for the cartel, proving again that giant drug cartels are the problem, not the firearms themselves. The United States, which has vastly more firearms and more first-time gun owners than ever before, does not have the same crime problems as its neighbor south of the Rio Grande.

More guns does not equal more crime. Annual data from the FBI shows reduced violent crime for another year in a row in the United States. Mexico has one gun shop in the middle of a military base, operated stringently by the military. This creates a largely unarmed law abiding populous who, in turn, become helpless victims against well-armed criminal elements on a national level. It is safe to say that following the Mexican model of government and lawmaking for firearms would not be advantageous for law-abiding citizens on either side of the border. Time and budgets of both nations would be better spent catching criminals instead of deliberating what new laws can suddenly cease all criminal activity.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/mexico-proves-more-gun-control-does-not-mean-less-crime/#ixzz6g05rVen9
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

The Right to Armed Self Defense.

 I occasionally post articles from JPFO, when I started blogging, they were raising hell with the Obama administration and Fast and Furious as was David Codrea and Mike Vanderbaugh broke the story of "Fast and Furious when I first started Blogging about it in 2011.  I apparently had a lot of material about it if y'all want to go back in time and spend about 30 or 40 minutes or more reading about Obama and the stuff he pulled and what I posted back in 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, ...Man was a lot, LOL

       JPFO put a lot of material in the links, well worth the read and the research.

By David E Bernstein. October 5, 2020

The author describes the argument that the right to armed self-defense is obsolete, going into the most detail of anything published thus far about this past Summer's violence and the anemic law enforcement response, and then provides examples of individuals and groups that countered the violence with armed self-defense.
This very extensive work can be accessed from here or downloaded from JPFO.

"This article defends the position that the right of armed self-defense remains important today, in particular in light of the civil unrest of the Summer of 2020. The article proceeds in three parts. The first part will summarize arguments from various prominent commentators that the right to self-defense with firearms is anachronistic in the contemporary United States. These critics argue that Americans can and should rely solely on their local professional police force to protect them."

"The second part of the article will focus on how this argument has been undermined by recent events. This part documents in great detail the failures of law enforcement in reaction to looting, rioting, and other forms of illegal behavior that threatened the well-being of the public. First, many police departments received implicit or explicit orders from their political supervisors to "stand down." Second, in many instances, the police themselves were unwilling or unable to combat lawless behavior. If police consistently fail to enforce law and order, the argument against the individual right to bear arms for self-defense purposes significantly weakens."

"Finally, the last part of the article will discuss examples of individuals and groups of citizens using firearms in self-defense during the recent unrest in the absence of effective law enforcement. Some of these episodes are open to criticism, whether on the grounds that one believes that it's never worth using or even threatening to use deadly force to defend property, or because the line between justified self-defense and unjustified vigilantism is not always a clear one. Nevertheless, if law enforcement is unwilling or unable to preserve basic law and order, it's both inevitable that citizens will try to fill the breach, and desirable that law-abiding individuals should be given the means to do so."

"You don't have to be Jewish to fight by our side."
You just have to love freedom.

Prosecutorial Misconduct over McCloskey Self Defense issues.

I got this from jpfo.org, I have used their information before on my blog, they are a very aggressive in 2nd amendment issues.  I  Have been very busy in "Meatspace" as they say, I still am trying to upload some pics for a blogpost, I have felt bad about neglecting my blog but it couldn't be helped. I just didn't have the time.  And when I had the time I had technical issues like the the platform not willing to cooperate.  Oh well the life of a blogger.

Prosecutorial Misconduct Over McCloskey
Self Defense, Details of Gate Entry

(

Screen shot from video)

By Dean Weingarten. August 11, 2020
Article Source

The screen shot from video (above), just as the gate is being opened by lead agitators of the mob of protestors. In this screen shot , the gate is about a foot open, likely no more than a half second after the latch was jimmied.
Christine Byers of KSDK in Missouri has uncovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner's office. Kim is one of the radical prosecutors who has been elected with money from George Soros linked radical leftist "Justice & Public Safety" political action committee.
Gardner has drawn national attention with her decision to prosecute a St Louis couple for defending their home against an angry mob of Black Lives Matter agitators.
The document obtained by 5 On Your Side (KDSK) show pressure was applied by Gardner's office to structure the police report, so as to alter the evidence to justify a warrant, and then, criminal charges.
Gardner's Assistant Circuit Attorney, Chris Hinckley, had pushed the lead investigator, Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf, into signing a charging document that Hinckley wrote.
Burgdorf was unwilling to sign onto a document he disagreed with, but finally signed off, after revisions, under the political pressure from Hinckley. Here are the findings by KDSK:

Hinckley also wrote the document the lead detective did sign, known as the probable cause statement. But it went through at least two revisions after Burgdorf outlined 14 concerns he had about the document, 5 On Your Side has learned.
Among those concerns:

•  Hinckley characterized the protest as "peaceful and organized" and that it was "calling attention to racial inequities in the criminal justice system." Burgdorf wrote that the evidence he gathered showed the protest was to call for the resignation of Mayor Lyda Krewson. The final document called it "a protest march."
•  Hinckley wrote that Patricia McCloskey was "armed with a semi-automatic handgun." Burgdorf wrote the phrase should read, "What appears to be a semi-automatic handgun." Hinckley responded, in part, "You cannot be serious with this one. Again, this is really problematic." Ultimately, the document read: "What was later determined to be a semi-automatic handgun."
•  Hinckley called Mark McCloskey's gun an "assault" rifle. Burgdorf called the word "assault" a propaganda term. Hinckley disagreed, but it was left out of the final document.
•  Hinckley wrote that the protesters passed through an "open gate" onto private property. Burgdorf said he didn't know whether the gate guarding the private street was open when protesters went through it, but that, at some point, it was damaged. Hinckley responded: "Your points here are really problematic. It seems to go beyond oversight and into purposeful ignorance. I suggest you very quickly re-assess this evidence." Ultimately the document Burgdorf signed reads, "protesters walked through a gate."
•  Hinckley wrote that Mark McCloskey's gun was "visibly loaded with an ammunition clip." Burgdorf wrote that he would have to verify that detail because it wasn't mentioned in his report or interviews with them. Hinckley wrote back "Seriously??!!" Ultimately, the document did not include the phrase Hinckley wrote.
•  Hinckley wrote that both victims, identified only by their initials, "feared that the defendant might fire her weapon due to her finger being on the trigger and her highly agitated demeanor." Burgdorf wrote that the term "angrily" was subjective and he didn't like it. Hinckley wrote, "It's a fact and an element of the offense." The final document did not include the word "angrily".

Hinckley is reportedly the official who, when the pistol brandished by Patricia McCloskey was found to be non-functional by the forensic lab, ordered the pistol to be made functional when it was put back together by the lab.
Detective Sgt. Burgdorf has continued to investigate the case. He was able to discover recorded evidence of threats by people in the mob of agitators, toward the McCloskeys.

•  "You own a business. Your business is gone."
•  "We coming back baby."
•  "You ain't the only (expletive) with a gun."
•  "They coming back to your house."

One recording seems particularly significant. One of the leaders of the mob makes this disclosure:

In another livestream video, Burgdorf wrote a man was heard saying, "I was in front so I was the one who opened the gate. The gate was broken after they pulled a gun. What law did we break? We keep guns there but not for show though. Not to look a certain way, but for use. If they would've shot then they would've been put down."

Both the threat and the information is damning. The man admits the gate was closed. There is video of the gate showing it was closed.
In the video, you can see a masked agitator going up to the gate. It appears he has some sort of tool, perhaps a jimmy bar of some kind. He is partially obscured by the crowd. Someone to the left of the gate is working with him, and pulls open the left side of the gate, shortly after he arrives.
It seems the gate was spring loaded, probably with a spring latch that could not be legitimately opened from the street side. The easiest way to jimmy it would be from the right side. Only the left side of the gate was opened.
The person who pulled the left side of the gate open after the latch was defeated, held the gate open for others to enter. This implies the gate was spring loaded with a bias toward closure.
Link to video
The first person through the gate and the person in the sport coat appear to be members of the leadership. The mob would probably not have gone through the gate, without their lead. They appear to have a plan, and execute the plan.

Image of gate being held open, showing what is likely a spring latch
and the guard plate, where the thumb of the person holding it open is.
Spring latches are the easiest to jimmy.

Link to video
On the recording, the agitator leader asks, rhetorically "What law did we break?"
There are four obvious ones:

•  Trespassing.
•  Disturbing the peace.
•  Private peace disturbance
•  Criminal threats of violence.

Other laws that seem likely to have been violated:

•  Criminal conspiracy
•  Deprivation of Constitutional rights

The gate was severely damaged as the mob left.

Screen shot from Fox story, cropped by Dean Weingarten

Why was the gate damaged on the way out? Looking at the gate, notice the side which was opened has been pulled inward ( on the right from the inside). It is meant to open outward. The broken side was never opened at all. It was just broken and bent inward.
Some informed speculation:

It seems likely, when the mob had all gone inside, the springs on the gate closed the left hand side (viewed from the street) and the lock latched. The inside appears to be keyed. It may not have a lever to open it.
When the McCloskeys defended their property, the mob rapidly retreated back the way they had come.
The last in were the first out. They found themselves trapped by the locked gate. The man with the jimmy was probably not there to open it, so the mob just broke it, with many hands pulling on it.

We have not seen any video of the gate being broken.
Testimony about this is important. It would show the gate was locked when the mob arrived. The latch did not lock itself, after the mob was let into the private street by the ringleaders.
The evidence is likely to show the gate was locked. There is video evidence it was closed when the mob arrived. That contradicts assistant prosecutor Hinckley's assertion the gate was open.
If the gate was locked, it becomes clear the mob were trespassers, not "peaceful protestors". Most of the mob were being used by the leadership. The jimmy was done fast, shielded for the most part from the mob, as it was done. With a little practice, such a jimmy is faster than using a key.
Investigators in St. Louis can easily confirm if the gate is/was spring loaded, and if it was locked with a spring latch.
It is unlikely any but a few of the leadership knew the route planned for the action.
Mobs are easy to lead around. Everyone just follows those in front. A small cadre of activists do exactly that. The leadership knew radical prosecutor Kim Gardner could be counted on not to prosecute them.
She prosecuted the McCloskeys, no matter what the facts.
Prosecutors are shielded from nearly all lawsuits by absolute immunity created by the Supreme Court in 1983.
There are means to remove prosecutors who abuse their power. It is very difficult to remove an elected prosecutor by anyone but the voters.
Prosecutors have enormous power. It is a weak point in the system of ordered liberty in the United States.
The far left is exploiting that vulnerability. The Supreme Court removed many checks and balances when they gave prosecutors absolute immunity. The left is using that power against the democratic system. They don't have a further plan.
Their plan has devolved into one goal: tear down the system.

The 7 types of Gun Control Activist

I got this from JPFO   A very good 2nd amendment organization.  With all the the uncertainty and Canada pushing a really retarded,stupid,unworkable,makes no sense, no legislative sense, by imperial fiat banning 1500 kinds of weapons and a coffee believe it or not.  Black Rifle Coffee Company was listed, believe it or not, it shows that the people that drew up the list didn't really know EBR's I suppose.  There are a lot of governors and some local mayors getting in touch with their inner tyrants so it behooves to know what type of activist you have to deal with when you hear of some ass clown going after your 2nd amendment rights.

The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

ELITISTS

Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for the other nine amendments.

AUTHORITARIANS

Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

CRIMINALS

It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business." Also, it would seem that even non-violent or "white collar" criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

THE FEARFUL

Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS

Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

SECURITY MONOPOLISTS

Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY

Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.