Choices

In one way, Scott Jennings is correct.

How many lives would ultimately be saved if we actually kept violent criminals in prison instead of releasing them onto the streets to terrorize America?

We don't have to live this way. pic.twitter.com/iVyZ119QQP

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) April 20, 2026

In a discussion on CNN last August when President Donald Trump ordered the takeover of Washington, D.C. by federal forces, host Abby

Phillip said it is “interesting” and “probably it’s a good thing” that Republicans are now talking about illegal guns on the streets, as for years they rejected calls for stricter gun regulation and insisted the number of firearms on the streets was not the issue in the country’s gun violence.

Phillip also noted the GOP have long hit out at D.C’s stricter gun laws making it harder to legally own a firearm, which Jennings now seems to be supporting.

“Republicans aren’t for illegal guns. Republicans are for responsible gun ownership,” Jennings said.

Frost then asked Jennings if that was the case, why had Trump stripped funding for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which included grants earmarked for local gun-violence prevention. Reuters reported last month that the Trump administration had terminated around $158 million in gun violence prevention grants in Democratic-led cities such as D.C., New York, and Los Angeles.

“Republicans are for legal gun ownership,” Jennings reiterated. “The laws of D.C. have obviously not been enforced to the point where the citizens believe they’re safe.”

Phillip then asked Jennings that if Republicans want fewer gun laws, how can he advocate for legal gun ownership while opposing as much regulation on guns.

“A gun becomes illegal when a violent person uses it on another person,” Jennings said.

Making a gun illegal only as it's used on another person is a little late for the children of Shamar Elkins of Shreveport, Louisiana, a National Guard veteran who early on April 19

went to two houses within a short walk of each other, killing eight children – seven of his own – and gravely wounding two women, including the mother of his children. The victims who were fatally shot ranged in age from three to 11, authorities said...

After the shootings, the gunman, identified as 31-year-old Shamar Elkins, stole a car at gunpoint and fled onto a nearby interstate, officials said. Police pursued him into Bossier City, where they exchanged gunfire. Elkins was pronounced dead at the scene, but it remains unclear whether he was shot by police or died by suicide.

The incident is being investigated by ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana and

On April 26, 2026, federal prosecutors charged Charles Ford, 56, with being a felon in possession of a firearm and making a false statement to federal agents, with the firearm and false statement charges relating to the firearm used by Elkins....

Whne law enforcement interviewed the original purchaser, that person identified Ford as the person to whom she'd given it. Ford, a convicted felon not permitted to possess firearms, initially lied to ATF agents about possessing the firearm, claiming he never did. Ford later admitted that he did possess the firearm, claiming that he kept the firearm under his seat. Ford further admitted to believieng that Elkins tookd possession of the firearm.

In the video above, Jennings notes that Elkins had been charged in Louisian in 2019 for illegal use of weapons and carrying a firearm on school property. He pled guilty to (only) the illegal weapons charge while the other charge was dismissed and was placed on probation for 18 months. Jennings remarks

It makes you wonder what if he had gotten a lengthy prison sentence back then instead of leniency from progressive prosecutors. Well, we probably wouldn't be talking about eight dead children today if something different had happened back then.  Another example of a criminal justice system that seems to be tilted in favor of the violent instead of the innocent. Living this way is a choice, folks, and we can stop making it any time we want.

"We" can make that decision, though probably neither Jennings nor I knows whether the fault in this case lies with the prosecutor's office of the judge hearing the case in this very conservative, solidly Republican state. (More details would be helpful.) But if we can (re-) create a criminal justice system more concerned with the needs of the innocent rather than of violent offenders, we can also decide to do something with guns.

We can renew an assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2014. It was highly effective, perhaps 

because assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use, and large-capacity magazines increase the number of rounds that can be fired without reloading. While the gun lobby prevented the ban from being as effective as it could have been and saddled the law with a 10-year sunset provision, the ban did impede the easy access to the type of lethal weaponry that those intent on mass killing have readily available in most of the country today. (Assault weapons are legal in 43 states; large-capacity magazines, commonly understood as ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds, are legal in 41.)

Louisiana has no assault weapon restrictions and its gun laws are among the most lenient in the nation. It also has the second highest rate of gun violence in the nation, which is very likely not coincidental. Firearm violence is a problem, of course, not only for Louisiana but for every state, especially those which tolerate it due to worship of guns and a convenient misreading of the Second Amendment. Punishment of the offender is important but so is prevention of firearm violence and that, too, is a choice we can make. 

Share |

The Money Factor

Balderdash.

Appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time in October of 2024, Van Jones had stated 

If progressives have a politics that says all White people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it's kinda hard to keep them on your side. if you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.

This quote had become most widely circulated only recently, and nothing Jones has said or even hinted at suggests that he has revised his perspective. So earlier this week I wrote "in 2020, neither Jones, or (Rahm) Emanuel (nor Carville) was heard offering criticismor even skepticism, maybe a word of caution,of the Black Lives Matter protests or the movement it symbolized. That would have demonstrated leadership, boldness, or prescience."

I have not changed my opinion but have changed my perspective. There are such Democrats who bash their own party because, among other things, it (allegedly) says that all white people are racist. These Democrats in neither 2020 nor the intervening years have uttered even a word of skepticism about BLM, thus rendering them feckless.

Most Democrats, even most progressives, don't argue that all white people are racist. However, the idea that some whites don't believe they're fully accepted by the Democratic Party because of their race has merit.

This (real or imagined) perception goes back decades. However, it was placed on steroids by the George Floyd protests of 2020,  of which the Democrats publicly skeptical could fit inside a phone booth, were one to be found.

Yet, as Sam Seder recognized, the thrust of Jones' comments was not directed toward race or gender. It concerned primarily money, or class. Seder remarked (with remarks in parentheses made by off-screen contributors)

It sounds like he's making an argument like "look, you just don't have the votes if you say no white people or no men. Yea. But honestly, like how many votes could we lose if we said no billionaires? (About a thousand.) I mean, how many billionaires do we have voting for, uh, Democrats now or progressives? How many billionaires do we have that are supporting progressives?

I don't know. Yea, a bunch. And with, uh (there are 200 billionaires in the United States but they're all in, um, in Ohio.) We could be losing a small town somewhere. (We'd be losing Pritzer?) It just gives you a sense of what his project is and it, it really is one of the best illustrations of that whole cohort of voices that you hear across the spectrum who considers themselves moderates The will argue we've got to stop this identitarian politics.

Characterizing Jones' sentiment, Seder adds "we've got to stop demonizing, uh, white people, we've got to stop demonizing, uh, black people. I mean, excuse me, we can still do that. Uh, we've got to stop demonizing men, etc. etc."

For one brief moment, Seder geot it wrong. Not only does Van Jones never demonize black people but no reasonably prominent Democrat on the national level demonizes black persons. A black person, obviously, can be demonized but never black people as a race nor anyone because he or she is black. Never.

Pardon the digression (or as they say on ESPN, Pardon the Interruption).  

Date:  July 6, 2017

Motorist: Philando Castille, 32-year-old black male

Police Officer: Geronimo Yanez

Location: Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minnesota

Incident: Officer stops car with whose two adult occupants look like robbery suspects. Castille tells Yanez that he has a gun (legally/illegally carried unclear). Yanez tells Castille not to reach for it or pull it out. Castille makes a move. Yanez believes Castille is reaching for gun, shoots him five times, killing him.

Trual: Prosecutor argues that Yanez was "a nervous officer who lost control of his traffic stop. He was too quick to pull the trigger after learning Castille had a gun" (CNN).

Verdict: Not guilty of "culpable negligence" 

It was awful police work, Castille shouldn't have been shot, and Officer Yanez soon thereafter was separated from the St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Department. 

The victim should not- and was not- blamed by anyone anywhere for having been shot. It proved tragically disastrous that Castille was carrying a firearm while driving with his wife and his child. The police officer, as the prosecution conceded in its own argument, panicked. Following the killing, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain issued a travel advisory as they warned of the USA's "gun culture." (Good point, guys.)

Gun safety advocates joined all notable Americans  (NRA excepted, for its own reasons) in acceptance of an individual unnecessarily carrying a firearm. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, otherwise a gun safety advocacy group, argued "A traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men but, in America, it's an all-too-oommon occurrence."

Not "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence" but "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men." He was a hero because he was black, which runs contrary to Seder's notion that blacks can be demonized. Moms Demand Action hardly demonized blacks, Van Jones did not demonize blacks, and given black women as the base of the Democratic Party, no Democrat demonizes blacks. However, Seder is spot-on when he continues 

But what they're doing is they're protecting money interests. They're just trying to distract you with the first two. It was really the perfect illustration, the perfect and most concise illustration. And the context in which he said it also was sort of magnificent. You would literally have to goto a laboratory and create that.

Van Jones et al. are trying to distract us with the other stuff.  Moms Demand Action was unintentionally and stupidly diverting attention from its calling, gun safety. However, Jones and others usually are trying to distract us, turning our attention from their support of monied interests. Race and gender are easy distractions, but money talks.

 

Share |

Don't Credit God for Unbridled Murder

Don't blame God for this. He- actually, not a "he"- is not to be blamed.

Thank God for the Second Amendment
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 https://t.co/M1tFRviWHq

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 19, 2025

After 35 people were gunned down in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur in 1996, Australia

essentially banned assault rifles and many other semiautomatic rifles, as well as shotguns. They imposed mandatory gun buybacks that took as many as one in three privately held guns out of circulation, and, according to some estimates, melted down as many as one million guns. They also imposed new registration requirements and restrictions on gun purchases.

Thereafter, mass murders by firearm, aside from domestic situations, were almost unknown in Australia until 15 individuals were slaughtered at Bondi Beach in Sydney on December 14.  In the USA, they are common, whatever the definition of mass shooting. And so it is notable, though regrettably no longer shocking, that

There were almost 47,000 firearms-related deaths in the United States in 2023, the most recent year with available data from Pew Research Center, for an average rate of 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people.

Of those, about 18,000 were gun-related homicides, for a rate of 5.6 gun murders per 100,000 people that year.

During a comparable period (July 2023 through June 2024) Australia saw only 31 gun-related murders, a homicide rate of 0.09 gun murders per 100,000 people, according to data from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

And so, unburdened by a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of every resident to own a musket he can take upon joining a no-existent militia, the government of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is encouraging stricter gun control measures.  The nation's officials evidently are determined to prevent Australia from creating the killing fields we have in the USA.  A merciful God would approve.

Share |

Far-Fetched Dream

The announcement on Sunday of the decision of President Joe Biden to pardon son Hunter Biden was met with swift criticism.

Several members of Congress were upset.

Senators Peter Welch of Vermont labeled it "unwise" and Gary Peters of Michigan termed it "wrong."  Representatives Gerry Connolly of Virginia admonished the President while,Jason Crow of Colorado said it was "a mistake," and Greg Stanton of Ohio remarked "... but I think he got this one wrong." Representative Greg Landsman of Arizon tweeted ".... but as someone who wants people to believe in public service again, it's a setback." Ro Khanna of California slammed it as a manifestation of "the archaic pardon power."

With, presumably, a straight face, centrist Marie Gluesenkamp of Washington State posted "no family should be above the law." (How is that two billion dollars Jared Kushner pocketed from the butchers of Riyadh figure in with that, Congresswoman?)

Michael Bennet of of Colorado contended the pardon puts "personal interest ahead of duty and further erodes Americans' faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all."

And these were Democrats. 

(Bennet's concern that Americans trust the justice system to be "fair and equal for all" is particularly amusing. In the summer of 2020, Bennet was a full-throated supporter of the black lives matter movement, which strenuously argued that treatment of blacks by the police and criminal justice system is, well, unfair and unequal compared to the treatment other people receive. Presumably, after the end of those protesst, Bennet decided, until Sunday, that the justice system actually is fair and equal for all.)

President Biden's action was condemned, as inevitable, by several Republicans. And the Hunter and Joe episode presents an opportunity for action in which Democrats concerned with gun safety and Republicans horrified by street crime can join together in an effective bipartisan manner.

Hunter Biden was convicted in June of three federal gun charges stemming from lying on an application for a gun license.  As noted here, he lied on a federal screening form about his drug use, lied to a gun dealer, and possessed a firearm despite restrictions for people addicted to drugs. In September, he pled guilty to three felonies and six misdemeanors for failing to pay $1.4 million in federalt axes from 2016 to 2019. He already had paid the money back, plus penalties bit was to be sentenced on both cases in a few weeks.

Question 11e on Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record of the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firears reads

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

As with virtually every other user or abuser of an illegal drug, Mr. Biden marked the "no" rather than the "yes" box.  (Presumably, anyone checking "yes" would be denied a firearms license on the grounds of stupidity.)  Drug addicts, and even users not addicted, are not partial to ratting themselves out to law enforcement authorities and have little incentive to be truthful because

The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent. In the 2019 fiscal year, when Hunter Biden purchased his gun, federal prosecutors received 478 referrals for lying on Form 4473 — and filed just 298 cases. The numbers were roughly similar for fiscal 2020. At issue is when Biden answered “no” on the question that asks about unlawful drug use and addiction when purchasing a gun. Biden had been discharged five years earlier from the Navy Reserve for drug use and based on his 2021 memoir, he was actively using crack cocaine in the year he bought the gun. The data do not show how many people might have been prosecuted for falsely answering the question about active drug use. A 1990 Justice Department study noted how difficult it was to bring cases against people who falsely answer questions on the form, especially because there is no paper trail for drug abusers like there is for felons.

As Dan Abrams objectively explains in the transaction beginning at 10:38:

 

Nonetheless, lying on a form to obtain a firearm is a serious offense- or should be treated as such. Democrats could (would) call the GOP's bluff by proposing to congressional Republicans that prosecution be mandatory for lying on the ATF application for a gun license.  Democrats are serious about gun safety laws (when race is not a direct or indirect factor) and Republicans are troubled about Hunter Biden and (during an election campaign) crime. Democrats might even suggest that lying on the drug use question (11e) prompt mandatory jail/prison time.

It's great occasion for that kind of approach, not only because of Hunter Biden. James Carville, James Clyburn, and others have slammed fellow Democrats for allegedly supporting "defund the police."  Condemning the elder Biden, ihe leading Republican on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Mike Johnson, arged "real reform cannot begin soon enough."

So real reform might begin with an effort to keep firearms out of the hands of irresponsible or dangerous individuals. Just kidding! Johnson has no interest in gun safety, whatever it is he meant by "reform."  Democrats are adjusting to the reality of being steamrolled next year by the Party of Trump, and the mass incarceration (especially of blacks) encouraged by President Clinton's 1994 anti-crime legislation has made them gunshy about mandatory prosecution, let alone imprisonment. And so this Biden tempest in a teapot will go on or with any luck, will not.

Share |

One Candidate Speaking Truth

Will Bunch is disappointed in a comment made by Tim Walz at his debate Tuesday night against J.D. Vance.

"I've become friends with school shooters" was an unfortunate Walz misstatement

— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) October 2, 2024

It certainly was a misstatement, a stupid thing to say on national television. Given the context of his statement, as well as common sense, the Minnesotan evidently meant the parents or family of school shooters or of his victims. The statement was preceded by "Yeah, I sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents" and followed by

I've seen it. Look, the NRA. I was the NRA guy for a long time. They used to teach gun safety. I'm of an age where my shotgun was in my car so I could pheasant hunt after football practice. That's not where we live today. And several things I want to mention on this is talking about cities and where it's at. The number one, where the most firearm deaths happen in Minnesota are rural suicides. And we have an epidemic of children getting guns and shooting themselves. And so we have, and we should look at all of the issues, making sure folks have healthcare and all that. But I want to be very careful. This idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn't mean you're violent. And I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. Sometimes it just is the guns. It's just the guns. And there are things that you can do about it. But I do think that this is one, and I think this is a healthy conversation. I think there's a capacity to find solutions on this that work, protect Second Amendment, protect our children. That's our priority.

            

This was  a substantive response from a candidate more substantial than his running mate who recognizes that gun ownership ought to be put into context." I was the NRA guy for a long time. They used to teach gun safety. I'm of an age where my shotgun was in my car so I could pheasant hunt after football practice. That's not where we live today."

That's not where we live today is an acknowledgement few politicians are willing to make- that circumstances in America have changed. It's not a statement Kamala Harris would make. However, Walz is, or at least once was, a guy who owned a weapon when men of that time and place did so.. 

At her own debate, Harris was queried about her current health care plan because she had supported "Bernie Sanders' proposal to do away with private insurance" and since then has "proposed a plan that included a private insurance option." She replied in part

And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff. As it relates to the Affordable Care Act.

Asked about health care (health care!), the presidential nominee managed to remind viewers that she owns a gun. Congratulations, Madame Vice President; we're impressed that you're a kickass woman. One individual who admits that he is not a psychologist or sociologist nonetheless defines "out-of-nowhere brags" as "rather rare. Typically the occur when the speaker wants that dopamine rush of sharing perceived superiority so badly that they can't bring themselves to wait until the right moment arises."

By contrast, not only did Walz note the importance of not stigmatizing mental illness, he put the importance of mental health in context as of less importance than firearm possession,, which he clearly believes is serious business. He explained

This idea of stigmatizing mental health, just because you have a mental health issue doesn't mean you're violent. And I think what we end up doing is we start looking for a scapegoat. Sometimes it just is the guns. It's just the guns. And there are things that you can do about it.

Sometimes it just is the guns. This is a bold statement, though it shouldn't be. It's bold because no one else says it. Not Harris, not her fellow Democrats (though Connecticut's Chris Murphy comes close), and certainly not Republicans, who generally worship firearms. As Walz recognizes, mental illness cannot be ignored- but it has become a scapegoat. In the hands of the wrong person, or occasionally the right person at the wrong moment, the gun becomes the most deadly weapon a civilian can possess.

Tim Walz probably is not ready to become a presidential candidate, and he is not one. The once very unpopular Kamala Harris has proven herself a viable presidential candidate as her surge in polls the last couple of months has demonstrated. However, unlike the former California senator and the deeply dishonest Republican candidates J.D. Vance and Donald J. Trump, Tim Walz is one candidate for national office who has principles he's ready to defend.

Share |

Jokester

Back in the old days, when Kamala Harris was a U.S. Senator, having been promoted from Attorney General of the State of California, she supported not only an assault weapons ban but a mandatory buyback of the weapon. She explicitly stated her support for procuring such weapons from owners if an assault weapons ban were re-enacted. Senator Harris was running for the Democratic nomination for President on each of those occasions: 9/16/19, on The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon; 10/2/19, at an MSNBC gun safety forum; and on 10/31/19 at a public television forum in Ankeny, Iowa.

                .

One can only hope that the Senator expressed those views not because she was competing for the support of Democratic primary voters but because of her experience as a district attorney in the city of San Francisco and an attorney general in the state of California. 

Harris has not now renounced her prior position. When she was asked during her debate with Donald Trump about her shifting positions on issues such as prior support for "mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons," Harris niftily avoided the question. Nonetheless, she is now singing a different tune.         

                  .

National Review explains

During a live-streamed rally hosted by Oprah Winfrey on Thursday, Harris mentioned being a gun owner and said, “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”

She then laughed and acknowledged she probably “should not” have said that, but said her staff could “deal with that later.”

She then laughed and acknowledged she probably “should not” have said that, but said her staff could “deal with that later.”

Gun violence is now a laughing matter. Not being psychic, the presidential nominee could not have known this would happen:

 

        

 

But these things do happen and, arguably, with increasing frequency. And this, from the very political campaign Ms. Harris is engaged in:

        

The NR continues

“It was a joke, and she knew that we would still be talking about it today, but I think it‘s important that people know that the vice president respects the right to bear arms, that she supports the Second Amendment, but she wants responsible gun ownership and she wants our communities to be safe,” (Harris strategist Keisha Lance) Bottoms said.

The former Atlanta mayor claimed Harris’s comment “humanizes” her.

Disturbingly, it probably does. On Real Time with Bill Maher Friday evening, the host, who is skeptical of Harris but will vote for her, offered his support for Harris' comment. Democrats will not question their candidate; Republicans will not criticize someone who wields a firearm, unless it's in a Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian protest.

As Vice President and now as a presidential candidate, Harris enjoys Secret Service protection. Thus, there is no reason that she currently owns a weapon. However, as National Review notes, Senator Harris previously explained that she possesses a gun "for personal safety," because she had been a "career prosecutor" in San Francisco.

Appearing on CNN on Sunday, Harris' spokesperson dodged a question about when Harris acquired the firearm. Nonetheless, Harris' one-time claim that she owns a weapon because of safety concerns as a prosecutor is plausible.

However, that's not good enough, and not only because we don't have confirmation that the Vice President owns a gun to blow away an intruder, as she boasts she would do.  California law on retaliating against intruders is governed by the Castle Doctrine, which gives a homeowner or tenant more latitude than is given in many states, but less than is allowed under "stand your ground" rules prevalent in some states. Whether a resident would be prosecuted for responding as Harris promises would depend upon various factors.

Kamala Harris was a prosecutor, as she reminded us during her debate with Trump, as she has on other occasions. Yet, she didn't offer any caveats in her remark to Winfrey, no recommendation that individuals understand the law in their particular state about gun use and- less surprisingly- no condemnation of burglary or other street crime. I

It's easy to understand why Ms. Harris was an irresponsible Attorney General. As a comedian, she's even worse. 

 

Share |

Waiting for James Carville to Say "It's the Assault Weapon, Stupid"

Piers Morgan and Cenk Uygur do not see eye-to-eye.

"Piers, you're totally guilty... YOU'RE guilty!"

Cenk Uygur blows his top discussing the assassination attempts on Donald Trump with Piers Morgan.

Watch more: 📺 https://t.co/PkhSOAFHlV@piersmorgan | @cenkuygur pic.twitter.com/cPc6OR4zKP

— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) September 18, 2024

Hillary Clinton would like a word On August 9, 2016

Repeating his contention that Mrs. Clinton wanted to abolish the right to bear arms, Mr. Trump warned at a rally here that it would be “a horrible day” if Mrs. Clinton were elected and got to appoint a tiebreaking Supreme Court justice.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Last September the former President was peeved that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley had taken a call from Mainland China and assured that nation that it was in danger of imminent attack. he He characterized Milley's behavior as "an act so egregious that in times gone by, the punishment would be death!" However, Trump usually does not recommend assassination, although

CREW analyzed over 13,000 of Trump’s Truth Social posts from January 1, 2023 to April 1, 2024, and found that while Trump has recently backed off some of his more violent rhetoric, threatening political opponents has been a consistent fixation for Trump. Since the start of last year, Trump has issued direct or implied threats on Truth Social to use the powers of the federal government to target Joe Biden during a second Trump administration 25 times. Specifically, Trump has threatened him with FBI raids, investigations, indictments and even jail time.

But Biden is not Trump’s only target. He’s also threatened or suggested that the FBI and the Department of Justice should take action against senators, judges, members of Biden’s family and even non-governmental organizations.

This doesn't faze Piers Morgan, though he himself isn't "guilty" of much of anything. However, Cenk Uygur, while blowing his top, nevertheless raised a forgotten point. He stated "I'm asking you a question. Do you not consider for a moment that within forty-eight hours you're still saying 'monster, dictator, blah, blah, blah?'" A moment later, he referred to the "shooter at the golf course, specifically in his social media post, parroting Kamala Harris saying essentially that he was an existential threat to demoracy in America. You're doing the same . Does nothing make you pause?

Notwithstanding blowing his top, Cenk rationally explained

Trump does it two thousand times worse... Your great idea is Democrats shouldn't campaign against Donald Trump because some moron, mentally unstable guy, took a shot at him- one or two them did. You know what? I can protect Donald Trump- ban assault weapons. That'll protect Donald Trump wa more than any of, oh, say nice nice things about him now that some lunatic took some shots at him.

Here, let me be super clear: if you're on the left- I know the right-wingers love their guns, Second Amendment remedy, it's what they've been riled up to do, violence nonstop. But if you're on the left and you do any violence, you're not one of us. You're a stupid person who does nothing but make a worthy cause look immoral with your insanity.

Twice someone tries to kill their hero and conservatives still won't acknowledge the need for gun safety, let alone gun safety legislation.

It seems it's not only conservatives, though. During the presidential debate in Philadelphia, Kamala Harris was asked about her support for "a government-run health care system" in 2017 and two years proposal in 2018 for a plan including a private insurance option." Before pivoting to the Affordable Care Act she considers a panacea, she slammed "this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away."

Reversing her position in favor of a mandatory assault weapon buyback program is sensible and believable. But, oh please:

In the span of 4 years, Kamala has gone from campaigning on gun confiscation to telling Oprah “if someone breaks into my house, they gettin’ SHOT”

This just shows how strongly the American people reject Kamala’s radicalism

She’s in total pandering mode pic.twitter.com/czR1st11PH

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 20, 2024

Five years ago, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harris favored mandatory assault weapons buyback, tantamount to confiscation. 

 

Today, the presidential nominee is promoting herself for the Charles Bronson role if there is any remake of Death Wish. Fortunately, she probably still supports some form of gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, it's likely that it's nothing to which she is committed, especially compared to Cenk Uygur. However, her electoral opponent is Donald Trump who, even after two attempts on his life, is still firmly in support of guns in the hands of dangerous individuals. As on other things, it's a very bad choice but still an easy one.

Share |

Hunter

President Joe Biden's son Hunter has been indicted and the right-wing now is satisfied that justice is being upheld.

Just kidding. Of course, they're not.

Out of all the crimes to charge Hunter with, they chose the gun charges for two reasons.

It’s the only crimes that do not involve Joe Biden, the rest do.

And they want to sway court rulings on the Second Amendment to impose gun control.

David Weiss must be held accountable.

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) September 16, 2023

Below is Norm Eisen speaking truth to CNN viewers, noting

And if you look at the statistics, for example in 2019, there were only three referrals of these kinds of charges in Delaware. Do you know how many were actually referred to the U.S. Attorney? Do you know how many were actually prosecuted, Roger? Zero.

This is disproportionate treatment precisely because he bears the name "Biden." In a normal universe, this would never be charged. I represented people, including on weapons charges, for thirty years. This case would never be charged if his name were not "Biden."

Statistics on gun cases like Hunter Biden's show one thing:

In a normal universe, he would never have been charged if it weren’t for his last name

I explained @CNN w/ @abbydphillip @GloriaBorger @RogerSeverino_ pic.twitter.com/KmkJ2wDej4

— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) September 15, 2023

According to The New York Times, Biden was indicted on three charges. One of them accuses him of possessing a firearm while addicted to a controlled substance, for which the maximum sentence is ten years in prison. The other two pertains to an alleged lie on ATF Form 4473, in which he accused of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, which carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison, and the other making the false claim on the application, for which the defendant can receive a maximum sentence of five years.

Question 11e on the federal firearms application (emphasis theirs) reads

Are you an abuser of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

If you're wondering why an individual who wants a firearm would admit to using illegal drugs- thus jeopardizing the opportunity to own the weapon while simultaneously admitting to committing a criminal offense- you've been paying attention. 

Nonetheless, the ATF has a strategic reason for including that question, and it's not a commitment to keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons. It is used for an "add-on." Though the defendant may be found not guilty of all other charges, lying on ATF Form 4473 is easily proven, thus saving the prosecution from the embarrassment, let alone expenditure of considerable resources, of having secured an indictment while failing to convict the defendant on anything. If the accused pleads guilty, the prosecutor may convince the judge to increase the penalty imposed upon the defendant.

Thus, rarely is an individual prosecuted for any or all of the three charges which Hunter Biden faces. The motivation for charging Biden is almost entirely political, where "almost entirely" may be superfluous. Nonetheless, the defendant deserves little sympathy because, notwithstanding the reason he is being charged, he could have avoided legal trouble without his memoir "Beautiful Things,: in which he outlined his problems with alcohol and illegal drugs. No one twisted Hunter's arm to compel him to write any book.

Still, this saga presents an opportunity for Democrats serious about keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Assuming adequate resources, the Justice Department should prosecute individuals who knowingly answer one or more pertinent questions falsely on their firearms application.

Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland has remarked "I think our Republican colleagues would probably be demanding that the charges be dropped if it were for almost any other American. They don't believe in gun charges. They would be trying to turn him into some kind of Second Amendment martyr."  

If Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has wanted Hunter Biden prosecuted, now complains on Twitter/X because "they chose the gun charges," Democrats should counter by advocating prosecution of individuals who choose to lie to obtain a firearm, even exploring legislation to reinforce their belief that possession should be limited to qualified, honest individuals. This would have the potential of putting Democrats simultaneously on the side of law enforcement and gun safety.

 

Share |

So Very Reasonable

In an otherwise good paragraph in an otherwise good post, Steve M. makes a minor, yet telling, mistake when he writes

In other words, the audience was the contemporary Republican electorate. Why do you think Governor Sununu chose not to run for Maggie Hassan's Senate seat last year? It was probably for the same reason Charlie Baker of Massachusetts -- also a moderate Republican governor with strong support from Democrats -- didn't run for reelection last year: he might not have survived his own party's primary.

I thought it was bad enough when last June former Chris Christie and Donald Trump strategist Bill Stepien characterized a group of Republicans as "Team Normal."  It's questionable whether a few Republicans these days are "normal"- but they certainly aren't "moderate."

And so it was that Jen Psaki (video below) on Sunday interviewed the relatable New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu,  who is one of many Republicans reportedly considering running for President. Sununu is no fire-breathing demagogue, surely would be considered among the "normal," and was labeled a "moderate" by Steve M.

When asked, Sununu stated that he would not sign a bill outlawing abortion nationwide, preferring to leave it to states to establish their own policies, presumably pro-life in some jurisdictions, pro-choice in others.

Sununu maintained that "with training," teachers should be allowed to take firearms into schools and in 2014 vetoed a bill which would have barred firearms on school property He stated "I believe the way the laws are now are pretty good."

Sununu declined to agree to any cuts in defense spending when Psaki turned the interview toward debt reduction. When she mentioned Social Security, he Governor contended it's "really about creating up other opportunities, options for the individual in terms of how they invest their dollars." That's privatization, at least partially, while avoiding the toxicity of the term.

Sununu mentioned "fiscal discipline"- Republican talk for cutting the taxes of the wealthy and slashing the safety net- and remarked "I don't mind increasing the debt limit as long as there are some cuts." He likes Kevin McCarthy's hostage-taking.

The most important pressing issue is lifting the debt limit to pay off bills already accrued. Spending has been approved and appropriated, and we need the money to pay the bills. In October, 2021 . As explained in October, 2021

The debt limit is a ceiling imposed by Congress on the amount of debt that the U.S. Federal government can have outstanding... 

It is also important to note that the debt limit is not a forward-looking budgeting tool that reveals what policymakers think are ideal levels of spending and revenue. Rather, it reflects the spending and revenue decisions debated and enacted in prior years by prior Congresses and Administrations;

If the debt ceiling is not raised, government services would be slashed, unemployment might skyrocket, interest rates would jump, and the stock market might plummet.

Social Security can be gutted, the USA could become a deadbeat nation, and school shootings can continue unabated as long as John Sununu can continue his 90%+ rating with the National Rifle Association. Failing to identify anything he disagrees with Donald Trump on, Sununu can argue only that the 45th President could not be elected again. This is today's "moderate Republican."

When my Master Card bill comes, I'm going to call the bank, advise that I will do as a Republican by imposing fiscal discipline upon myself in the future without paying the current bill. That will go well.

 

Share |

Three Men, Two Guns and Two Dead

Have gun, will shoot.

In 2019, police arrested Jermarico Carter for Scheerhoorn's killing. Carter, who was tracked down in Atlanta, confessed to the killing. He pleaded guilty to murder in 2022 and was sent to prison.

However, now he has been

taken into custody Friday after a warrant was issued for his arrest, police said. He remained jailed Sunday on $1 million bond. The attorney for Grant listed in court records in this case could not immediately be reached on Sunday.

The defendant "is accused of killing Edwin Arevalo, 33, following a minor traffic collision Thursday night, Houston police said. Police said Grant got out of his vehicle, shot Arvelo and then fled."

And why not? Presumably, Grant did not have the firearm for hunting or target practice- and why waste good ammunition?  There is little reason to have a weapon handy unless it is used. Daniel Perry, also of Texas (call me shocked) would agree.

Also in Texas- that, not a shock-

Less than 24 hours after a jury in Austin found Daniel Perry guilty of shooting to death a protester, Gov. Greg Abbott announced on social media Saturday that he would pardon the convicted killer as soon as a request "hits my desk"....

“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand your ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or progressive district attorney,” Abbott said in a statement. “I will work as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry.”

Abbott’s office did not return calls from the American-Statesman on Saturday seeking additional comment. The two-week trial, which included dozens of witnesses and much forensic evidence, was not broadcast. Abbott attended no portion of the trial.

Perry, an Army sergeant, was working as an Uber driver in Austin on the night of July 25, 2020, when he ran a red light at the intersection of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue and drove into a Black Lives Matter march before stopping.

Garrett Foster, carrying an AK-47 rifle, was among a group of protesters who approached his car. Perry told police that Foster threatened him by raising the barrel of his rifle at him, so he shot him five times with a .357 revolver through the window of his car before driving away.

Perry’s defense team argued that he acted in self-defense, but prosecutors contended that Perry instigated what happened. They highlighted a series of social media posts and Facebook messages in which Perry made statements that they said indicated his state of mind, such as he might “kill a few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex.”

A friend responded, “Can you legally do so?” Perry replied, “If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes.”

A jury Friday unanimously convicted Perry.

State District Judge Clifford Brown is set to sentence him to prison in the coming days. He faces up to life in prison.

it and planned on doing it.... He wanted to kill a protester and saw somebody exercising their Second Amendment right."

With all due respect to the brother of a man who did not deserve to die, Garrett Foster was not exercising any Second Amendment right. Foster- as with Perry- was not a member of  a militia. Nor was a musket capable of firing 600 rounds per minute. Nor did the Founding Fathers account for the occurrence of road rage involving vehicles with an internal combustion engine (or battery power).

Lydell Grant had a firearm. Daniel Perry had a firearm. Garrett Foster had a firearm. If these three individuals were not exercising their unfortunate and obscene right of open carry in Texas, two persons now dead would be alive. The Second Amendment- or rather its misinterpretation- has struck again.

 

Share |

Unity Now a Four-Letter Word

This is the big, obvious, and immediate problem.

Watch what's happening in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho & other red states that are rapidly becoming fascist dystopias--denying women, people of color, voters, retirees, families, and children their rights. This is America's nightmare now. It is much bigger than Trump.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) April 6, 2023

Nonetheless, there is another big problem, though far less obvious and immediate.

A survey conducted on a wide range of issues by Quinnipiac in March, 2023  found 73% of respondents believing abortion should be legal in "all" or "most cases (question #22). Only 25% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, with a mere 2% undecided.

That's a great and liberal response! But curtail they eagerness or, as Larry David would put, curb your enthusiasm. The same survey disturbingly found

Americans are divided on a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Forty-seven percent support a ban, while 48 percent oppose it. This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in July 2022 when 49 percent supported a ban and 45 percent opposed it.

As the cliche has it, "let that sink in." More Americans oppose a nationwide ban on assault weapons- which are easily trafficked from one state to another- than who favor it. Assault weapons. That's a firearm which refers

to a semi-automatic gun designed for military use and quick, efficient killing. Assault weapons are uniquely lethal because of their rapid rate of fire and high muzzle velocity — coupled with large-capacity magazines, which attach to an assault weapon to allow dozens of gunshots without needing to reload. A large-capacity magazine is typically defined as any magazine or drum that is capable of holding more than either 10 or 15 rounds of ammunition.

Yet, respondents who on the whole overwhelmingly in favor of abortion rights were (albeit by a tiny margin) opposed to a nationwide ban on assault weapons. 

It's speculation, but perhaps quite a few individuals may have been stuck on the "nationwide." This would be odd because it is illogical.  Banning assault weapons is unlike some issues, such as marijuana legalization, which individuals may oppose nationwide on principle, but  be supportive because of the economic benefits to their own state. By contrast, people armed with assault weapons and bent on murder are not discouraged from crime if they'd have to cross state lines and there is no rational reason to oppose a ban nationwide while supporting it locally.

There may be an instinct in that which is present in a new abortion law in Idaho, where Republican governor Brad Little on Wednesday 

that bans minors from traveling out of state for abortions without parental consent. The law creates a new felony crime called “abortion trafficking,” which the legislation defines as an “adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an abortion-inducing drug” for the minor.

“Recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking,” according to the legislation. The crime of abortion trafficking carries a felony offense punishable by two to five years in prison.

The law criminalizes anyone transporting a pregnant minor without parental consent within Idaho to get an abortion or abortion pills, which means it could apply to a grandmother driving a pregnant minor to the post office to pick up a package holding medication abortion or target an older brother driving a pregnant minor to a friend’s house to self-manage an abortion at home...

Although the legislation does not specifically discuss crossing state lines, most pregnant people in Idaho are not traveling in the state to get an abortion. Most are traveling to get legal abortions in neighboring states like Washington or Oregon. This law criminalizes the act of anyone driving a minor without parental consent to the border of Idaho with the intent of crossing state lines to get an abortion outside the state...

State Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R), one of the sponsors of the abortion trafficking law, told HuffPost last month that the intent of the legislation is to limit minors’ ability to travel out of state without parental consent, despite the text of the bill only discussing intrastate travel.

“It’s already illegal to get an abortion here in the state of Idaho,” Ehardt said. “So, it would be taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that’s where we’ll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent’s right."

Maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene is onto something, a bad policy suggestion but in capturing a little of the mood of the country.

We need a national divorce.

We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government.

Everyone I talk to says this.

From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are…

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) February 20, 2023

 

 We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government. Obviously, a nationwide ban on assault weapons, of which there are mixed opinions, would require an act of the federal government. Abortion legal "in all" or "in most" cases would not.  

And more: we once tried separating by red states/blue states or, rather, slave and non-slave, states. It did not work out well. Yet, the squeamish about a national assault weapons ban, Greene's advocacy of a separation of states from each other, and the travel ban upon (some) pregnant women in Idaho suggest  a weakening concept of union.  

There is a trend toward localism reflecting a growing preference for insularity.  Leave us alone, the sentiment runs, to implement a gun ban if we want; prohibiting the mobility of women; and, ultimately, carving out two countries from one. Even the support for the right to choose, a proper instinct, is one which has something in common with the other perspectives: leave us alone to do as we choose in response to our own values. 

The inclination is constructive when when applied to a right to do as she wishes, within reason, with her own body.  In most ways, however, it is damaging.  A dystopian future, indeed.

Share |