A more polite and yet more insulting way to repel that stupid statement than “fuck off.”

https://twitter.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1623779595534098433?s=19

A woman has no chance to stand up against four men in a hand to hand fight.

A woman with a 9mm full of JHP does.

A gun is the great equalizer.

The cowboys knew this.  God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal.

This is why Bruen was such an important victory for everyone.

The Woke Left has let the criminal element of society run amok.

Law abiding citizens need effective tools of self defense to protect themselves.

B.L.U.F. 18 USC §922, the GCA is likely Unconstitutional, and §922(g) which lists prohibited persons should go away and be replaced with something else

In 1963 A. Hidell mail ordered a rifle and a .38 Smith & Wesson Model 10. This man then used the rifle to fire a shot at US Major General Edwin Walker from less than 100ft away.

He missed.

Later that year A. Hidell went to the upper stories of a building in the city and set up a snipers nest. Even though he had once qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines, he had not kept that qualification. When he was honorably discharged from the Marines he was only a “marksman”. His MOS was Aviation Electronics Operator. He was never a “sniper” was never very good with a rifle.

Look at missing his target from less than 100 ft.

On November 22, 1963 A. Hidell was in his snipers nest waiting for his target. A slow moving vehicle. From the sixth floor he took his shots.

One of them hit his target, President John F. Kennedy. His real name was Lee Harvey Oswald. A. Hidell was the name he gave when he purchased his rifle and pistol.

In shock over the assassination of Kennedy which was followed by still more assassinations, the public was horrified to learn that it was “easy to buy a gun”.

“If the gun Oswald would have attempted to purchase those firearms in person, nobody would have sold to him because he gave a false name.”

The push started to eliminate mail order firearms in order to save people and to make society safer.

Oswald was known to law enforcement, had been court martialed, twice, had been in juvenile detention at 12 because he was emotionally disturbed. He was a defector that had come back to the US from Soviet Russia. And he was a communist.

Regardless, the people knew that the real reason that Oswald was able to kill the President of the United States was because of easy mail order access to firearms.

This lead to a push for the first federal gun control since the National Firearms Act of 1934, a tax bill.

Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the US Constitution says:

The Congress shall have power..
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

From this, congress decided to regulate commerce in firearms with the Gun Control Act of 1968

7. It shall be unlawful for any person—
   1. who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
   2. who is a fugitive from justice;
   3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or
   4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

   to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce.

This is the law as it was passed in 1968. What was forbidden of a prohibited person was shipping or transporting firearms or ammunition across state lines.

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

This is what is prohibited today. It is now unlawful to transport, possess, or receive any firearm or ammunition which might affect commerce or be involved with interstate or foreign commerce.

With the clause of “affecting commerce” the law becomes much broader. If you are making firearms for use only in your state you are not covered by interstate commerce. The catch is that if you are selling within your state and somebody buys your firearm instead of one that is covered by interstate commerce, you have affected commerce.

If you are competing with commerce that is federally regulated then you are affecting that commerce and congress thinks that gives them the power to regulate you as well.

The amended GCA adds four more classes of prohibited person.

When we look at the list of prohibited person, the only one that might have constitutional support is “who, being an alien… is illegally or unlawfully in the United States…” (exceptions omitted).

The class of people that belong to “The People” are all legal residents of the US and any US Citizens. Everything else is an attempt at removing a class of persons from “The People”.

Everything in §922(g) is about determining who is and is not virtuous. This is where we have issues.

As a member of society, I would prefer that the bad people be disarmed. There are some strong indicators of who a bad person is. A person that has been convicted of a serious crime involving the use of weapons or other physical threat and those that are mentally unstable are the two groups that I feel should be prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.

That is NOT what the Constitution says. The Second Amendment says “the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not give any set of persons that is excluded from “The People”. In other places in the Constitution “The People” might be better translated as “Citizens”.

It is clear that the second amendment covered more than just citizens. There are just too many historical examples of people being residents of the United States but having the right to keep and bear arms.

Having stated who I feel should not have firearms, I stand up and say that what I want is not constitutional and as such should not be done.

When a person is convicted of a crime or committed for a mental issue they will either be incarcerated or they will be released on probation.

If a person is incarcerated they have lost many of their freedoms. That includes the right to keep and bear arms. They have lost that right for as long as they are incarcerated.

My humble suggestion is that when a person is released from incarceration that they should be put on probation. The period of probation to be fixed based on the conviction and to include all time remaining on their sentence if they are paroled.

As an example consider a person convicted of rape, kidnapping and robbery and sentenced to 30 years for each count to run concurrently. The probation period for the violent crimes of rape and kidnapping have a 7 years probation and robbery with out a weapon has a 5 year probation period.

If our felon was paroled after 23 years in prison he would be on probation for 7 years till his original release date. Since the three convictions run concurrently there is another 7 years of probation for a total of 14 years that the felon would be on probation.

During this time if the felon is caught with a firearm it will be construed as a violation of their probation. The assumption is that they intended to do harm with that firearm.

At the end of their probation period they are allowed to keep and bear arms once again.

This covers all of the issues, in my opinion. Bad people are prohibited till they prove they are no longer doing bad things. People that aren’t doing bad things aren’t prohibited. It all balances.

Regardless, the GCA is taking hit after hit and is likely to fall soon. There is just to much over reach in §922 that are unlikely to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

You know what to do-

I am honoured to be Australia’s new Ambassador for Gender Equality.

I look forward to promoting ??’s commitment to gender equality and the human rights of women and girls, and persons of diverse gender identities. pic.twitter.com/DNF50XXeM7

— Australian Ambassador for Gender Equality (@AusAmbGender) February 8, 2023

That’s a lizard in a skin suit.

Normal humans do not have eyes that function like that.

The smile is also off.

Something is not right here.

I saw this in my Twitter feed:

Jill Biden Is Bringing Texas Woman Who Almost Died from Miscarriage to State of the Union https://t.co/BosexrcPKx pic.twitter.com/V9BssNAmIT

— Jezebel (@Jezebel) February 7, 2023

That seems like something bullshit, so I read the article.

In August, Amanda’s water broke when she was 18 weeks pregnant, long before a fetus can survive outside the uterus. But doctors didn’t intervene in her miscarriage because the treatment is an abortion, which the state had outlawed. They sent her home to watch for signs of infection, including sepsis. Three days later her fever spiked to 103 degrees and the hospital decided she was now sick enough to be induced (which is considered an abortion when done before viability). But hours after the procedure, and even with antibiotics, her infection got worse. She developed symptoms of sepsis and was moved to the ICU, and her family members were preparing to say their goodbyes. Zurawski survived, but the infection scarred her uterus, and it’s not clear if she will be able to conceive again.

Even the ACLU of Texas acknowledges that:

Texas bans abortions at all stages of pregnancy, unless you have a life-threatening medical emergency.

I’m not a medical doctor, but it seems like a miscarriage that would lead to a life threatening infection is exactly the type of medical emergency that is exempted by the Texas law.

Malicious Compliance is defined as:

Malicious compliance is the behavior of strictly following the orders of a superior despite knowing that compliance with the orders will have an unintended or negative result.

So, I have to ask…

Did these doctors deliberately give this woman bad medical care to maliciously comply with the state’s abortion law for the purposes of creating a martyr for their cause?

Pre-COVID that might seem utterly insane.

After COVID, with just how political and partisan and distrustful the medical establishment has proven to be, I don’t know.

Would doctors harm patients for political credit?

Some are mutilating children’s bodies in the advancement of the Transgender movement.

So who the fuck knows.

But it doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibilities.

From VERY long time blog reader Royko a nice and short dismantling of BS. Properly stolen, of course.

Never Trust what an Anti claims