June 16, 2021

Gun control rebrands, recovers

*Editor’s Note* – There is little reason to put much stock in the “data” that Milbank uses in his opinion piece. That aside, readers should not be fooled into believing that this “rebranding,” i.e. a focus on somehow creating a means of keeping “all guns away from certain people,” will accomplish the fake stated goal of preventing gun violence, nor is it a concise representation of the long term goals of anti-gunners. This is incrementalism at its finest. Whether planned or happenstance, regardless of what appears to be working – or at least what form of propagandizing is working – this is an incremental step that they hope will work as they continue to chip away at people control disguised as gun control, or in this case keeping “all guns away from CERTAIN people.”

The more important question here is why isn’t those who present themselves as opposing gun violence, addressing the root problem of violence. Many tools are used in the perpetuation of human violence. Guns happens to be just one of the many. It’s not the tool, is about what causes the will or desire to be violent.

Gross overstates the case. (Among his tipping-point evidence: supportive tweets from Kim Kardashian.) But there is some truth to what he says. From the legislative debacle following Sandy Hook, the gun-control movement has retreated to a limited but pragmatic approach. Gone is the notion of “gun control,” replaced by “reducing gun deaths” or “gun violence prevention.” Gone, for now, are efforts to restrict any type of gun or ammunition. Instead, the movement has found a laser focus on background checks.

Source: Gun control rebrands, recovers — Opinion — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine


Maine Residents Seek to Add Gun Measure to 2016 Ballot

*Editor’s Note* – This is not new news. Neither is the BS found in the Newsweek propaganda piece. But there are two things to point out. First, Newsweek is a garbage publication and nobody there is smart enough to figure out why. They can’t sell their rotten copy and thus, when you follow the link, you are subjected to numerous pop-up ads, I suppose hoping they can somehow pay for their propaganda. Which brings me to the second point. The article is so full of lies and misleading information and the comments that follow the written garbage proves the point. Readers are beginning to understand that the brainwashing propaganda is no longer subtle. It’s a blatant attempt at simply lying and they get away with it…just like Barack H. Obama and every stinking rotten politician in Washington.

Supporters want universal background checks for all firearms sales.

Source: Maine Residents Seek to Add Gun Measure to 2016 Ballot


Group aims for 2016 Maine vote on gun sales background checks

“The Maine Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense Fund submitted an application to the secretary of state’s office Monday to force a question onto the ballot with a petition drive. The group’s “Background Check Initiative” would require all sales and transfers of guns be conducted through licensed gun dealers, which would ensure criminal background checks are performed every time.”<<<Read More>>>

By god that would have saved that woman who CHOSE to go unarmed.




Background Check System Failed In Lafayette Murders

*Editor’s Note* – This is a wobbly line to try to walk because on the one hand we have a writer who is rightly pointing out the ongoing failures of government, and yet, seems to be advocating for a better government background check system believing it will better prevent guns getting into the hands of those, “crazy as a loon.” Isn’t he?

Government fails at everything…period, and there is no perfect, foolproof system that can be put in place that would keep guns out of the hands of anyone with the mind to kill people or of those with no mind at all.

Before anyone goes advocating for a “better” or stricter background check system, shouldn’t we first attempt to assess whether the failed system in place now is actually accomplishing anything except costing the taxpayers more money just to create jobs?

John Russell Houser, the “drifter” who murdered two and wounded several more in a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana, was crazy as a loon. That isn’t unusual in such cases, but whatis unusual is that Houser was involuntarily committed to a mental institution in 2008. That fact should have prevented him from buying the gun that he used to commit murder, but the federal government’s NICS system failed.

Source: Background Check System Failed In Lafayette Murders | Power Line



Background Checks for Guns Peaks at 2.8 Million a Month

But since that peak number, sales, or at least federal background checks, have dropped off; some of which is attributed to stricter gun control laws in several states. <<<Read More>>>


Gun Control/People Control Drivel

On one hand, half of George Smith’s article today in the Morning Sentinel, makes sense. On the other hand, the other half is absolutely illogical.

George Smith, outdoor writer and political activist in Maine, often eager to team up with environmentalist groups, presents himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment. Whether he is or isn’t leaves one always scratching his head due to the fact that Smith, on one hand, makes good sense and yet in the same article sounds more like a representative of the Brady bunch who hate guns and people, always wishing to squash their rights and put more authority into the hands of government to force regulations upon us.

Smith’s title to his article reads like a good one: “Smart laws can limit damage firearms do in the wrong hands.” By the way, what’s a “smart law?” Any law that takes away my inalienable rights for no good reason is a law that isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

The activist reveals from his writing that to prevent gun violence, such as the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, the shooting in Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary, we need to figure out how to stop these mentally deranged people from getting guns. Brilliant!

Smith suggests that Maine should take better care of the mentally ill, forgetting to remind readers it was other mentally deranged people who threw the other mentally deranged people out on the street several years ago. How did that work out anyway? But that’s water under the bridge isn’t it.

There exists one common denominator in all of these violent gun crimes mentioned and for many years previous – they were all mentally ill and/or on some kind of drugs for mental illness and/or depression. And yet we insist on attacking the guns and not the real problems.

However, while I applaud Smith for at least addressing the mental health issue, which few others before have done, I can’t say that his suggestions are the best. Smith wants to make sure that all mentally ill people are included on the NICS background check list to ensure they can’t purchase a gun. Smith writes:

We also should submit, to the federal background check system, the names of those mentally ill individuals who were prohibited — beginning six years ago — from possessing guns. Immediately.

I’m not sure exactly what Smith is thinking here. Preceding this statement is a very disturbing comment in which Smith says he likes the idea. It reads:

A friend suggested an idea I also like: We should create a system that will provide families who think a member is mentally ill a way to receive quick, comprehensive help and remove guns from the home until the weapons can be returned safely.

What could possibly go wrong with this? Now we are going to suggest that non qualified individuals make a determination as to whether or not a family member (or neighbor or acquaintance?) is mentally unfit to own a gun? Here’s a novel idea. If you think a layperson is qualified to determine the mental capacity of another, then shouldn’t that same family member have enough brain matter to realize that they better make sure all guns are out of the reach of someone they think is mentally ill? Why does anybody have to bring in government to remove the guns? This kind of irrational thinking, that a person is capable of being cerebral about one issue and not another, is typical irrational poppycock by shallow thinking people.

There exists standards that President Obama has created concerning mental illness, that if they were fully implemented, most Americans would not like. For instance, returning military veterans who seek psychiatric treatment to cope with and reenter the world the rest of us enjoy after many months on the battlefield, should not be allowed to posses a gun. Really?

The point is, and this has been discussed often, there already exists the tools to determine mental health issues. The problem is all the names aren’t making the NICS background checklist. So do we further give up rights to somehow offset incompetency? Doesn’t it make more sense to fix that broken spoke rather than having family members committing their own blood to a list declaring them incompetent and mentally deranged, while inviting in government opening us up for further governmental overreach?

But the terribly disconnected statement comes after all this. Smith writes:

While extending the background check requirement to all private sales will be inconvenient and unnecessary for many Mainers, it is something we gun owners should be willing to support to stop the sale of guns to the bad guys.

This is wrong on several levels. It wouldn’t be “inconvenient and unnecessary” for “many” Mainers. It would be so for all Mainers and for what real purpose? And when you consider the final statement, “to stop the sale of guns to the bad guys”, tells us that Smith actually believes that “bad guys” obey the law.

Smith certainly leaves me scratching my head when it comes to people control issues like guns. On the one hand he has for some time supported the idea of getting rid of Concealed Carry Permits, stating, “concealed carry permits waste money and time and are useless in fighting crime and violence.” I couldn’t agree more, but his nonsense of expanding background checks because it will catch the bad guys, is unproven prattle.

Why do free Americans always seem to be pressured into giving up their rights, mostly because incompetent people can’t do their jobs? And in continuation of that question, why do we give in? We’ve turned into non thinking sheep.

Even consider the latest event in Boston. It doesn’t take a degree in criminology to determine that the FBI failed in keeping a watch on a person that should have been a high profile target. People died and consequently the police, disregarding our constitutional rights, illegally invaded homes and forced people onto the streets, where a real armed murderer was still at large. Who have considered the risk these lawful citizens were subjected to? Why?

We know what happened to the suspect but the aftermath rhetoric is very disturbing and I hope it will be for millions of other Americans. People like New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is saying that we need to reinterpret what the constitution says about privacy and rights. And this is because why? BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCY!

NO! NO! NO! The answer should be NO! Fix the damned problem and the problem isn’t that I have too many rights.

When someone makes a statement or something similar to it that, “it is something we gun owners should be willing to support”, I say no way. I balk whenever I am told by anyone that I should be willing to give up and compromise and be reasonable about my God-given rights, and that includes self protection.

We shouldn’t be willing to give up anything when the problem doesn’t involve you and your rights. Have you considered that it might possibly be that one of the reasons we are seeing what appears to be more of this kind of heinous violence is because we have “reasonably” given up our rights and been “willing to support” the effort to chisel away at our rights?


Gun Rights: Moral Panic, Loopholes, Beefing Up School Security for Administrators

Three Wise Men and a Virgin?

Jim Taranto writes at the Wall Street Journal that Gabby Giffords is at the head of the parade of “moral panic” as it pertains to Obama’s efforts at gun control.

Anger still pervades those wanting to see some kind of anti Second Amendment action regardless of what it might accomplish. Taranto takes some of that misguided anger and breaks down specific comments made by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. One of the funnier lines that Taranto writes goes like this:

The no-true-Scotsman move. “These senators have heard from their constituents–who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks,” Giffords writes. She ignores the possibility that those polls are flawed and that the senators are hearing a different message from their constituents. Then she qualifies her claim of public unanimity: “I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth . . .” See what she did there? (The switcheroo to every reasonable American reminds us of a probably apocryphal tale about Adlai Stevenson. A woman is supposed to have said to him, “Governor, you have the support of every thinking American,” to which he replied: “But madam, I need a majority.”)

Giffords also speaks as though from fact that the majority of Americans want universal background checks before gun purchases. According to Jim Taranto, Giffords says:

“These senators have heard from their constituents–who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks,”

I have spoken with many people over the past few weeks about this background check issue. Most rational people understand that all polls, regardless of who makes them, are designed to achieve desired results. If you think they are not, you are the reason polls continue as a tool.

There is much left unsaid and either misunderstood or deliberately left out of these so-called polls that show the majority of Americans want background checks on guns. Some have claimed as many as 90% of Americans wish this. Really? Perhaps I can easily get a handle on a poll that said that 90% or more of Americans don’t what guns getting into the hands of criminals and mentally whacked out people. A lesser percentage of people might respond to a generic question about background checks in a favorable way. But few people are in favor of background checks that seriously overstep the bounds of privacy and the rights to that. How many people polled had read the proposed bills? How many people polled were asked specific questions that revealed their desires of what should be found in background checks? I’m guessing none and none.

Can’t we fix the broken parts of background checks now with better information on the mentally ill? Are we more interested in protecting the rights of the mentally ill and not of lawful citizens?

I can casually ask anybody on the street if they wanted guns in the hands of crooks and mentally ill people and the answer is a no-brainer. Ask them if they favored background checks that involved a retention of private data or a registry and the outcome is vastly different.


A “common sense” anti rights bill today becomes……?

Mike Lee explains why he opposed the Manchin/Toomey gun control bill.

The Toomey-Manchin amendment admirably attempted to carve out certain protections for gun owners, but today’s carve-outs are tomorrow’s loopholes. The current “gun show loophole” was itself once considered a legitimate carve-out that protected certain private sales.

Working Toward Increased Safety for Kids…..or NOT

At first read, I thought how nice it was that at in some areas efforts are underway to actually accomplish tasks that would make our schools safer from deranged idiots with guns. And then a couple of lines I found in the Morning Sentinel about a study approved by the Maine Education Association that would look at ways to increase safety in school buildings. Check this out:

The study, to be performed by the Maine Department of Education, would look at a wide range of physical measures to improve security at schools.

They include upgraded doors, walls and windows and even “ballistic protection” for walls around administrative areas in schools.(emboldening added)

Hmmmmmm! Is that where the kids hang out?


Day 88 – No Executive Orders


On the 88th day since Barack Obama pretended before millions of Americans and the rest of the world, to be signing 23 executive orders that he told the people would help to protect children in our schools, he has either kept the details of those orders out of the sight of the people or the entire fiasco was nothing more than Kabuki Theater. There still is nothing posted on the White House website about those orders.

Kim Jong Un Destroy

Background Checks for Politicians

Not that it’s a new concept, but Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is suggesting that if politicians want background checks before a person can purchase a firearm, then perhaps it is time, considering the growing number of crooks and criminals now running the country, that any would-be politician should undergo a background check. And by the way, those background checks should NOT be conducted by any governmental agency.

Second Amendment Pretenders

Has anyone else noticed the growing number of fake Second Amendment supporters who are now saying that background checks and gun registration would do a lot to stop mass murders? On the O’Reilly Factor the other night, Bill O’Reilly, one who has at least pretended in the past to be a supporter of gun rights, personal protection and the Second Amendment, came out and said that tough background checks and gun registration, combined with stiffer sentences for those caught possessing an unregistered gun, would solve most of the problems this country has with gun violence.

If nothing else, this debate on gun rights is showing the true colors of some pretenders.

Maine Governor Inviting Gun Manufacturers

Maine’s governor Paul R. LePage, in an editorial found in the Wall Street Journal, is inviting Beretta, Colt, Magpul and probably about anybody else that makes guns and accessories to come to the Pine Tree State and set up shop there. LePage wrote:

I will never sign anti-gun legislation that erodes the rights of Maine citizens, drives your business away or infringes on the U.S. Constitution or the State of Maine Constitution.


Background Checks for Scientists

Guest post by Jim Beers

(An article written recently for The Pen, the newsletter of Common Sense Coalition Talk Radio program out of California, Missouri.)

As the debate on requiring background checks for gun sales rages, I submit that background checks should be mandatory for scientists that sell their research to government bureaucracies.

A recent news article in The Washington Post (of all places) describes a former scientist at Johns Hopkins University that became embroiled in the controversy over growing scientific research retractions coinciding with the competition for available government grant dollars.

The tainted and slanted research that was going increasingly unquestioned, concerned cancer drugs and genetic relationships. The scientist found that questioning results based on incomplete testing and ignoring applicable factual references resulted in his being disciplined, his eventually being fired and the suicide of a colleague asked to verify the unverifiable science purported to be reliable.

The number of research articles retracted in the field of biomedical research has increased “tenfold since 1975”. Two thousand of these retracted scientific papers were reviewed and it was determined that “67% were attributable to misconduct, mainly fraud or suspected fraud”. While government grant availability has increased since the 1960’s, when 2 out of 3 requests were funded: today only one out of 5 requests are funded. Because jobs and funding for the researchers are really what is on the line today, shoddy and cheap “science” to give government grant administrators what they want is the only guarantor of future funding preferences.

If potentially human life-threatening aspects of cancer drugs relative to the genetics of those afflicted with cancer can be misrepresented, what is sacred anymore? Eventual lawsuits by wealthy families suspecting misuse of drugs or malpractice as the cause of losing a loved one might well punish these “scientists” publishing misleading and self-serving results. Yet these charlatans are evidently not deterred. If this is so, what about all the environmental/animal “rights” “science” purchased by government since “the 1960’s”?

When “science” tells us that logging “must” be stopped; or grazing is “bad”; or hunting “unbalances the environment”; or predators “balance” the environment; or “native” species “belong” everywhere; or dams “must” be removed; or roads “disturb” grizzly bears; or fatal attacks by predators are the “fault” of those killed; or lethal control of predators is “ineffective”; or pipelines “disturb” species X; or sage grouse are “in danger”; or bats are “disappearing”; or wildfires are “good”; or Sanctuaries and Wilderness are “beneficial”; or that only more federal jurisdiction over water or more federal land ownership or easement control of private property will do X, Y, and Z: other than pandering for more federal funding, what possible down side is there for unscrupulous ”scientists”?

When federally-protected grizzly bears kill hikers, no scientist or bureaucrat is responsible. Ditto when wolves decimate big game herds and force ranchers out of business and diminish the quality of rural life. Ditto when logging communities are decimated and unmanaged forests result in fewer and fewer of the critters supposedly saved by eliminating logging. Ditto when federal lands are closed to use and roads and access only to burn down and kill neighbors while their homes and belonging are destroyed. All the faulty environmental/animal “rights” “science” since “the 1960’s” has bred a national nightmare to rival the corruption of human life-saving biomedical research that has become less and less reliable.

Until and unless the federal-influence spigot to Universities and research organizations is turned way down or off, corruption is inevitable. The spigot won’t be turned off until the US Congress stops funding and writing laws that imagine laws and regulations that are triggered by or act only upon “science”. Think Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Animal Welfare Act, Wilderness Act, and other such laws that absolve all involved humans of any responsibility while pointing always to “science” as the reason and trigger for un-Constitutional and anti-human actions by a government of men supposedly bounded by a Constitution. This is an especially important matter for rural Americans today.

The federal laws will not be amended or repealed until we elect federal legislators that respect the Constitution and have our best interests at heart. Federal Legislators will not do the right thing until State Legislators and Governors stand their ground (think Wyoming and wolves as a role model here). State Legislators and Governors with our best interests at heart come from Local elected officials like Commissioners, Supervisors and Sheriffs. The time to get this food chain going is right now. I won’t repeat that old Chicago canard about “voting early and often” but I will say we have to vote and vote for this aspect of our lives and liberty. Letting bureaucrats and “scientists” rule us is akin to letting Druid priests read bones or Shamans stare into smoke as a basis for national decisions. As Dirty Harry once remarked about his boss’s breath mint “it ‘ain’t’ cutting it”

Jim Beers

13 March 2013
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net


Chucky Schumer’s Gun Rights Promise

Can you say “LIAR?” I know you can.