Gun Control Agenda and Propaganda- worth the listen!

2095 Views 54 Replies 7 Participants Last post by Beagle Huntsman, 4 d ago

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · 4 mo ago

This is worth 12 minutes of your time if you stand behind your gun rights.

It not only dissects the dishonesty of the CDC study, but he actually makes some good points regarding gun owners. I have run into some gun owners who have been swayed by the anti-gun propaganda.

Reactions: 2

41 - 55 of 55 Posts

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #41 · 1 mo ago

As expected-

Delaware County judge blocks Columbus gun ordinance enforcement
by Dean Rieck and Joe D. "Buck" Ruth
4:15PM TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2023
Delaware County Common Pleas Judge David M. Gormley issued a ruling today (April 25, 2023) prohibiting the city of Columbus from enforcing its unlawful ordinances that would outlaw certain firearm magazines and implement gun-storage restrictions.
From the ruling:

... the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is granted. Defendant City of Columbus, as well as its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and the individual defendants, plus all other persons acting in concert with them or with knowledge of this order are enjoined, until further order of the court, from enforcing Columbus City Code 2303.05(D), 2303.05(E), 2303.14(D), 2303.14(E), 2323.11(N), 2323.11(O), 2323.191, 2323.23(E), 2923.23(F), 2323.32, and 2323.321.
This order binds not only the defendants but also their agents, employees, law enforcement officers, attorneys, and any other persons or entities in active concert with them who receive actual notice of this order whether by personal service or otherwise. The City of Columbus and the individual defendants are directed to notify their employees, agents, and any other persons associated or acting in concert with them about the terms of this order and to make their best efforts at all times to ensure that all those persons comply with the order.

This means the city of Columbus cannot enforce its unlawful and unconstitutional gun ordinances until the legal issue has run its course. And this should provide some relief to residents who have been facing a deadline of July 1 to get rid of magazines capable of holding 30 or more rounds.

This ruling is the result of a suit brought by the Buckeye Institute in Delaware County.

Looking back: Columbus leaders' hypocrisy: We won't follow law, but you must follow ours

Looking back: Upper Arlington updates ordinances to comply with Ohio gun laws

"This is unlikely to be the end of this case," said Dean Rieck, Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association. "Columbus is likely to appeal. And we have ongoing litigation in Franklin and Fairfield Counties, as well as a separate case in Hamilton County.

"But this ruling should be welcome news to residents of Columbus. And it's a step in the right direction to unravel the mess created by Mayor Ginther, City Attorney Zack Klein, and Columbus City Council when they passed laws they knew for a fact were illegal and unconstitutional in Ohio."
Judge Gormley: City's decision to delay prosecution to July doesn't make case 'moot'
Gormley took issue with the city's assertion that because it had adjusted its ordinance to defer prosecutions to July 1, this case was somehow "moot."
He wrote:

The city's ban on large-capacity magazines is not a theoretical one. That ban has, in fact, been enacted, is in effect now, and will evidently be enforced on a date certain. ...
The risk of prosecution hanging over the anonymous plaintiffs may have been deferred for a few months, but the July 1, 2023 effective date for the city's enforcement efforts is fast approaching. And the latest version of the ordinance calls for persons holding large-capacity magazines to — before July 1, 2023 — remove those magazines from the city's geographic boundaries, sell the magazines to licensed firearms dealers elsewhere, or surrender the magazines to the city's division of police. ... Those choices are ones that the plaintiffs and others are directed by the ordinance to make now to comply with a ban that is in effect now.

ORC 9.68 renders city's ordinance 'unenforceable'
Gormley pointed to the constitutionality of Ohio Revise Code Section 9.68 and its authority on firearms legislation.

According to the plaintiffs, the Columbus ordinance conflicts with R.C. 9.68, which is a state statutory provision that "declares null and void" any ordinance or other regulation that imposes any firearms-related restrictions beyond those found in state or federal law. I agree.

He pointed to the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2006 decision in the Cincinnaty v. Baskin case that led to the state law being enacted in 2007. ORC 9.68 appears to have abrogated that 2006 decision, he said, adding that the Supreme Court "has undeniably already rejected ... a home-rule challenge to R.C. 9.68."
He continued:

Also, the parties agree that Ohio law imposes no limitations of the sort that the Columbus ordinance has imposed on so-called high-capacity magazines and on the safe storage of firearms. R.C. 9.68 indicates, too, that statewide uniformity in the regulation of the "possession" and "storage" of "firearms, their components, and their ammunition: is now compelled by the State and that any firearms-related regulations "[e]xcept as specifically provided by" state or federal law are "null and void. ...
In light of the current wording of R.C. 9.68 and in light of the Supreme Court's earlier rejection of a home-rule challenge to that provision, I conclude that any limitations or restrictions in the Columbus ordinance that go beyond those embodied in state law cannot be enforced by the city.

Judge invokes Second Amendment, even though plaintiffs don't
Gormley pointed out that although the plaintiffs' case doesn't directly mention the Second Amendment, it still must be considered.

So even though the plaintiffs have not claimed that the Columbus ordinance violates the Second Amendment, their reliance on that amendment's right-to-bear-arms counterpart in our state constitution means that this and other Ohio courts must — in analyzing that state-constitutional claim — interpret (Article I, Section 4) in a way that protects the individual right to bear arms at least as much as the U.S. Supreme Court would protect that right under the Second Amendment. ...
And the U.S. Supreme Court explained last year that any Second Amendment challenge must focus on two things: the Amendment's text and the country's historical tradition.

David C. Tryon, director of litigation at the Buckeye Institute, commented after Gormley granted the organization's request for a preliminary injunction.
“Judge Gormley’s order vindicates and protects our clients’ rights and recognizes that The Buckeye Institute’s clients are likely to succeed in their claims that this ordinance conflicts with state law and violates the right to bear arms as set forth in the Ohio Constitution," he said in an April 25 post on the organization's website. "In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Gormley recognized that Buckeye’s clients are already being harmed by the enforcement of the gun ordinance, which makes it a criminal offense to possess a 30-round magazine in the city of Columbus and dictates how firearms must be stored.”

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #42 · 1 mo ago

Politicians and their enforcers have no idea when they try to pass laws, and actually try and know about the law that they are passing along with understanding the principles surrounding those laws and have knowledge on what they are actually talking about. But as you see below, we strictly have politics pushing the agenda.

Biden ATF director supports 'assault weapons' ban, (still) can’t define it
6:00AM TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2023
Steven Dettelbach, President Joe Biden’s appointment to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), recently appeared twice on Capitol Hill to argue in favor of that agency’s funding and to answer questions about its priorities and activities. During those appearances he repeatedly underscored he is not a firearms expert and could not himself define what an “assault weapon” is. These were remarkable admissions from a man whose job is to oversee an agency that enforces highly technical federal firearm laws. A reasonable person might ask how Dettelbach can possibly be qualified to direct ATF or whether he occupies that post solely as a compliant puppet to execute the White House’s political orders.

The enforcement of federal firearms laws requires a complex understanding of how abstract legal rules apply to concrete technology. Any official tasked with enforcing federal firearm laws should – in addition to a working knowledge of the relevant statutes and regulations – have at least basic competency in using guns, experience with firearm commerce, and some familiarity with what is colloquially known as “gun culture.”

Dettelbach has admitted that he possesses none of these skills or experience. Indeed, it was established during his confirmation proceedings for ATF director that he has never owned a gun, has never been issued a gun in a professional capacity, and was unsure if he had even shot a gun within the five years preceding his nomination. Not only could Dettelbach not define “assault weapon,” he was unable to explain how it had been defined under the previous federal ban in effect from 1994 to 2004.

'Keep and Bear Radio' podcast: Courts Rule Against Columbus and the ATF, Plus How to Stay Out of Jail After Self-Defense

Dettelbach has been asked about “assault weapons” ever since Biden first nominated him as ATF director, including not just during his two recent Capitol Hill appearances but during his original ATF confirmation hearing and in written follow-up queries submitted by senators. It’s an important and topical question, because Biden and members of his party are eager to ban “assault weapons” and claim doing so will lower crime. Meanwhile, millions upon millions of law-abiding Americans own guns that – depending on how an “assault weapon” is defined – could be swept up in a ban and retroactively subject them to raids on their homes, seizure of their lawfully acquired firearms, and conviction and imprisonment.

Dettelbach’s consistent tactic when asked to define “assault weapons” is to claim that his job as ATF director is to enforce the law and to defer to legislative judgments on what is and is not legal. He has also indicated that he relies on the expertise of career ATF employees to guide him on highly technical matters.

Those would indeed be laudable tendencies in an ATF director, but they seem disingenuous given Dettelbach’s own past. He advocated for banning “assault weapons” as a political candidate in 2018 and has repeatedly called for additional federal gun controls. Moreover, as discussed extensively during last week’s ATF oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, the ATF under Dettelbach is currently promulgating a rule that rejects a decade of ATF technical guidance on pistol stabilizing braces to promote Joe Biden’s gun control agenda.

ICYMI: Delaware County judge blocks Columbus gun ordinance enforcement

It’s true that because of their broad managerial responsibilities, agency directors may have less specific subject matter expertise than some of the career personnel in their organizations and may depend on those career personnel to brief them on technical matters. This does not, however, absolve Dettelbach of understanding policies he himself has publicly promoted nor of ensuring the agency that he directs administers the laws under its jurisdiction consistently and without undue political interference.

Dettelbach’s refusal to go on record with a definition of “assault weapon” shows not just a basic lack of professionalism, preparation, and competence but a willingness to go along with any gun ban that is supported by the Biden Administration, no matter how broad or ineffective at targeting crime. And his willingness to retroactively enforce an interpretation of the law that reverses years of agency guidance and rulings shows it is the political whims of his White House patron, and not the expertise of his agency’s career staff, that guide his official decision-making.

At a time when Americans have been given little reason to trust in the institutions of government, the Biden Administration seem committed to further eroding that trust to pursue an extreme political agenda.

© 2023 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #43 · 1 mo ago

97Percent: Another fake 'pro gun' group calls for gun control
by Dean Rieck
6:00AM THURSDAY, MAY 04, 2023
Here we go again. There's another gun group out there claiming to respect the Second Amendment while, of course, calling for more gun control.

They call themselves 97Percent, a reference to shoddy research which they claim shows what percentage of Americans favor so-called "universal background checks." And they pose as representatives of the majority of gun owners.

In reality, they are a phony, astro-turf, smoke-and-mirrors organization pretending to be composed of average folks — who just happen to support the same draconian gun control policies every other gun control group supports.

This deceptive tactic has a long history.
Remember Americans for Gun Safety, funded by billionaire Andrew McKelvey? It was founded on the idea that the best chance of success for gun control was to stop using words like "gun control" and start using more friendly words while continuing to push for the same useless gun control policies.

Then there was the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which masqueraded as good ol' boys who were all about hunting and shooting but openly trashed the NRA, formed an alliance with Bloomberg-funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and endorsed Obama for president.

And let's not forget Sportsmen for Obama, American Rifle and Pistol Association, Ohioans for Gun Safety, March for Our Lives, among others, all of which pretended to be grassroots or pro-gun to thinly mask their gun control agendas.

97Percent is no different. On their website, they say:

Gun safety is not about guns, it’s about people.
97Percent’s mission is to reduce gun-related deaths in America by changing the conversation around gun safety to include gun owners, conducting original research to identify common ground, and leveraging technology to make our communities safer.

Translation:

Gun safety is not about the people who commit crime, it's about taking guns away from those who don't.
97Percent’s mission is to reduce gun ownership in America by limiting the conversation around gun safety to include gun control advocates only, conducting biased research to identify which restrictions we can get away with, and leveraging technology to flood the media with propaganda.

They claim to respect the Second Amendment, but they support universal background checks, red flag laws, and even state-level gun permits. That last one is surprising because it's so over-the-top, most other fake gun groups avoid it. They want permits to purchase and possess guns and separate permits for concealed carry.

So they definitely don't respect the Second Amendment. To support gun permits, you must ignore every modern U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the Second Amendment, including Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. And you must ignore the whole point of the Second Amendment, or any other enumerated amendment for that matter, which is to act as a check on government power. That's impossible when government has the power to deny a right based on a licensing scheme.

And look at their leadership team, featuring longtime gun control advocate Richard Aborn, former president of Handgun Inc., now known as the Brady Campaign, and a principal strategist behind the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Other leaders include liberal media analysts, left-leaning activists, and RINOs who all advocate for strict gun control.

While they claim to be a bipartisan group of "gun owners and non-gun owners," they don't try very hard to hide their true colors. They say they want to "have an honest, civil discussion about ways to reduce gun-related violence, while respecting the 2nd Amendment." However, we've been having a discussion for decades. And Americans have voiced their opinion loud and clear in the way they always do, through their votes, not through polls.

Elections are the only "polls" that matter, and gun control is a sure way to lose elections. Why? Because most people don't support it. If they did, advocates wouldn't have to create fake groups like 97Percent to gin up the illusion of consensus on gun control.

They wouldn't have to rely on polling to decide what words to use when talking about policy. They wouldn't need to get nearly all their funding from mega-rich donors, unlike true pro-gun groups like Buckeye Firearms Association, which is supported by thousands of real gun owners donating a few dollars at a time.

97Percent, whose address is a UPS Store, is phony in every respect. It is little more than what David Codrea, in a Firearms News article, called "kinder, gentler citizen disarmament outreach to gun owners."

The media love organizations like this because it lets them pretend to be fair and balanced while spreading the gun control agenda. And rich gun control advocates love to support organizations like this because they think real gun owners are too naive to see the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Sorry, but we don't buy it. And the American people won't either. Stay tuned for the article where we tell you about 97Percent folding up shop, same as other fake gun groups have done, while we're still here fighting to protect our constitutional rights.

And if you want to let 97Percent know that you're on to their charade and they're not fooling real gun owners, share your thoughts on their Facebook or Twitter page or their YouTube channel.
Dean Rieck is Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association, a former competitive shooter, NRA Patron Member, former #1 NRA Recruiter, and host of the Keep and Bear Radio podcast.

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #44 · 27 d ago

BFA delivers thousands of email messages to key House members urging support for SJR 2
6:00AM TUESDAY, MAY 09, 2023
The window for the Ohio House of Representatives to place an issue on the ballot to protect Ohio’s Constitution, including our gun rights, is closing fast.

To give people a chance to vote on Senate Joint Resolution 2 (SJR 2), it must be passed by the House and Senate by Wednesday, May 10.

That's why we sent an action alert to our Ohio-based supporters Monday morning asking them to contact House members and urge their support. As of this writing, thousands of email messages have been delivered, with the number climbing by the minute.

If you're an Ohio resident and you haven't yet made your voice heard, click here to send the pre-written message we've prepared for you. It's important for legislators to know we're going to hold them accountable if this resolution fails to pass.

Gun grabbers like New York Billionaire Mike Bloomberg bankroll ballot issues that would restrict and seize our constitutional rights.

SJR 2 would raise the bar for passing changes to our foundational document to 60%, thereby making it much harder for out of state money to force their values upon Ohio.

Without this change, firearms owners are vulnerable to constitutional amendments banning "assault weapons," high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic firearms, and much more.

The media and anti-gun activist groups are fighting against this hard. So we're doing all we can to get SJR 2 passed and on the ballot in August. If you're going to help us, it's now or never.

Read more information on this urgent issue here.

See less See more

UNCLEMIKE

· #45 · 26 d ago

Thanks for sharing John. Good stuff.

Reactions: 1

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #46 · 25 d ago

2

No Problem Mike- trying to get informative and factual information out there since the media cannot do so.

Ohio House of Representatives in session May 10, 2023

BFA-backed constitutional amendment for 60% threshold to appear on August ballot
by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth
3:07PM WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023
The Ohio House of Representatives today (May 10) passed Senate Joint Resolution 2, getting us one step closer to requiring a 60% threshold for changes to the Ohio Constitution.

The House voted 56-32 to put the measure on the Aug. 8 ballot. Only a simple majority vote was needed.

The final vote on the resolution itself was 62-37. A three-fifths majority (60 votes) was needed.
All Democrats voted against the resolution and August ballot, as did five Republicans: Jamie Callender, Jay Edwards, Brett Hillyer, Jeff LaRe, and Thomas Patton.

The Senate adopted the resolution April 19 by a vote of 26-7, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed.

SJR 2 is critical to the future of gun rights in Ohio, and putting the measure on the ballot gives the state's voters the chance to decide on it.

Buckeye Firearms Association has been a key advocate for this legislation because it is essential to defending our rights to keep and bear arms in the future. The reason for our position lies in the realities of political campaigns. It’s no secret that it takes millions for politicians to win elections for high offices. Senate and gubernatorial campaigns cost tens of millions of dollars these days. But the same is also true for statewide ballot issues.

Related news: BFA delivers thousands of email messages to key House members urging support for SJR 2

Gun grabbers like New York billionaire Mike Bloomberg bankroll ballot issues that would restrict and seize our constitutional rights.

SJR 2, if approved by voters, would raise the bar for passing changes to our foundational document to 60% instead of a simple majority, thereby making it much harder for out-of-state money to force their values upon Ohio.

Without this change, firearms owners are vulnerable to constitutional amendments banning "assault weapons," high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic firearms, and much more.

The media and anti-gun activist groups are fighting against this hard, so we're doing all we can to get on the ballot in August.

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #47 · 20 d ago

Anti-gun virtue signaling: Maybe good for show, but useless for security
by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth
6:00AM TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2023
A false sense of security is not true security. Doing things for show does nothing to protect people's lives.

Yet that's exactly what continues to occur throughout our country. Every time an atrocity involving a firearm occurs, virtue-signaling politicians, media outlets, and talking heads rush to blame firearms and "the gun lobby."

Then comes the barrage of people far too willing to forgo their freedoms if it means "saving just one life." Social-media platforms become inundated with memes like "I want to live in a country that loves its children more than it loves its guns."

Let's look at some of the commonalities among these merchants of misguided morality:

They clearly aren't interested in statistical facts and willingly repeat false claims based on propaganda from anti-gun groups.
They repeatedly demonstrate their near total lack of firearms knowledge.
They're more than willing to forfeit freedom for security — unless it's a freedom they hold in high regard.
They continually fail to recognize that almost all of these "mass" shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones, such as malls and schools, where citizens who might otherwise be armed are unable to fire back.
They have no use for the U.S. Constitution's amendments unless they believe their own rights — even if they aren't actually in the Constitution — are being violated.

Again, policy based on feelings and political points solves nothing. Those who really love the country's children should ask honest questions about ways to protect them instead of jumping on the "assault weapons" ban wagon.

Costs of ignoring state law, Ohio Supreme Court ruling
Look at the useless ordinances some of Ohio's cities continually try to pass, despite the fact that those ordinances violate state law (ORC 9.68) and the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2010 ruling that the law is indeed constitutional.
The Buckeye Firearms Association in February filed a public-records request for copies of Columbus City Council members' email mentions of firearms, preemption, and other key terms related to the city's unlawful gun ordinance passed in December 2022.

ICYMI: BFA-backed constitutional amendment for 60% threshold to appear on August ballot

For starters, the city failed in its obligation to provide those records in a timely manner. Then once it finally did several weeks later, it hid behind an "attorney-client privilege" excuse for some records, even though the state's courts have said repeatedly that such a privilege is to be strictly interpreted (See page 46 of the 2023 Ohio Sunshine Laws).
We found it odd, though, that those emails the city did provide include very little discussion on the introduction of such a law. Are we to believe that EVERYTHING in the discussion is protected by attorney-client privilege? Wouldn't that suggest a strategy to proactively hide public information from voters and taxpayers?

We could have pressed the issue, but it wasn't necessary. We don't need to expose an agenda that's been obvious from the start, as demonstrated by their idea to use a so-called public health crisis as one way to skirt state law. We mostly wanted to see if they were so open about their cause that they'd readily share their conversations about it. As expected, they weren't.
These city leaders aren't really interested in improving safety, and they're ultimately going to cost their taxpayers more in litigation costs, especially if they try to actually charge anyone for violating any succh laws.

As the state law currently states:

“A person, group, or entity adversely affected by any manner of ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, practice, or other action enacted or enforced by a political subdivision in conflict with division (A) of this section may bring a civil action against the political subdivision seeking damages from the political subdivision, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or a combination of those remedies. Any damages awarded shall be awarded against, and paid by, the political subdivision.”

A Delaware County judge on April 25 ordered Columbus to halt its ordinance, and as expected, the city on April 28 filed an appeal.
The irony — hypocrisy, really — is that the city's filings in the Delaware County case repeatedly mention Supreme Court rulings, yet the city fails to acknowledge the high court's 2010 ruling that bars them from these costly actions.

Targeting law-abiding citizens
The centerpiece of Columbus' new ordinance is a ban on "high capacity" magazines and "proper" firearms storage.

According to city code, failure to properly secure a firearm could result in a fourth-degree misdemeanor, which could mean 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.

But failure to comply with the new magazine law could result in a “misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail with a mandatory minimum jail term of at least one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days during which mandatory jail term the defendant shall not be eligible for work release and up to a $1500 fine.”

That's right: The city can violate state law, but if you violate the city's laws, you get jail time and/or a hefty fine.

But here's the real kicker: It's a law that, in the city's own words, mostly relies on an honor system among the city's good citizens and its violent criminal contingent.
A memorandum filed March 31 in the Delaware County case by assistant city attorney Matthew Sturtz reads in part:

"The new ordinance created a mechanism for surrendering large capacity magazines and conferred immunity from prosecution until July 1, 2023, for persons who lawfully acquired or possessed large capacity magazines prior to December 5, 2022."

As city attorney Zach Klein told The Columbus Dispatch in early March:

"To some degree, that is an honor system. … We have no intention of going door-to-door."

We have little doubt that one of the primary reasons behind this is that the city wants to prohibit the display of firearms at protests and rallies, even though such displays never result in gun violence.

Real common sense
Look at some of the actual text in Columbus' new ordinance, which was updated Feb. 27:

No person who lawfully acquired or possessed a large capacity magazine prior to December 5, 2022 shall be prosecuted for lawfully possessing a large capacity magazine in violation of section 2323.32 prior to July 1, 2023. Any person who may not lawfully possess a large-capacity magazine as of December 5, 2022, shall, prior to July 1, 2023:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the City limits; or
(2) Prior to July 1, 2023, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer located outside of the City limits; or
(3) Surrender the large capacity magazine for destruction by reporting the possession of the large capacity magazine to the Columbus Division of Police, describing the large capacity magazine in the person's possession and where the person may be found, and voluntarily surrendering the large capacity magazine to the Division of Police.

The highlight: The city is asking for compliance from those who legally acquired those magazines and from those who didn't. How does that make sense to anyone?

Ask yourself two simple questions: Is it likely that lawbreakers would comply with any new law related to the laws they're already willingly violating? And if it's only law-abiding citizens complying, exactly how would that improve safety for anyone?

Letters from city residents
Among the records the city did eventually provide BFA were several letters from residents who get it — many from Columbus and some from elsewhere. Here's just one example:

Both the State of Ohio and the Supreme Court have made it abundantly clear that these gun regulations that are under consideration are neither legal nor constitutional. You are aware of this and that numerous legal battles in both state and federal court will be spun up if these laws pass. You will lose. The evidence of this action would indicate to me that you are merely putting on a show to try to convince the anti-gun individuals and organizations that you tried to do something about limiting guns but were not able due to the State of Ohio or Supreme Court. This is amateurship. If you were using your own time and money, then I would say to proceed to your own heart's content. However, you are not using your own time and money, you want to use mine. Please stop wasting the resources of the people of Columbus. You know where the crime is occurring and why, so put our resources there.

Hyperlocal election year
To all Ohioans, it is highly important that you pay close attention to local races in your community — city councils, school boards, township trustees, etc. When those who oppose freedom infiltrate local governments, you will pay a hefty price. We all will.

As Benjamin Franklin often is quoted, including in the National Archives, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Joe D. "Buck" Ruth is a longtime small-game hunter and gun owner who spent nearly three decades in the news industry.

Anti-gun virtue signaling: Maybe good for show, but useless for security | Buckeye Firearms Association

A false sense of security is not true security. Doing things for show does nothing to protect people's lives. Yet that's exactly what continues to occur throughout our country. Every time an atrocity involving a firearm occurs, virtue-signaling politicians, media outlets, and talking heads rush...

www.buckeyefirearms.org

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #48 · 17 d ago

The tangled web we weave get's more tangled the more we talk...............

Biden caught using fake data to gaslight Americans on 'mass' shootings
by Lee Williams
6:00AM THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2023
President Joe Biden has always struggled with the truth. Whenever he wanders off script and speaks extemporaneously, he invents personal anecdotes — boldfaced lies, actually — in which he assigns himself the starring role.

Whether he’s getting arrested in South Africa for trying to bust into Nelson Mandela’s prison cell, or bravely confronting AR-toting hunters in a Delaware swamp or going toe-to-toe with the arch-criminal, CornPop, no one actually believes him or takes his tall tales seriously. It’s just Joe being Joe, right?

But when Biden’s lies are actually signed and set into type, it’s a bit more serious. He loses his normal litany of excuses: he was tired, he was confused, he misread the teleprompter, he was sundowning.

In an editorial published Sunday in USA Today and reprinted in scores of other newspapers, the Fabulist-in-Chief dropped a whopper – even for someone who has lowered the presidential-truthfulness bar so significantly.
The editorial was titled, “President Biden: I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more.”

Related story: Columbus' anti-gun virtue signaling: All show, useless for security

Most of Joe’s opus we’ve heard many times before. AR-15s are bad, so is anyone who owns one. Red flag laws and universal background checks will save the world. Congress needs to do more by banning “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and of course his ubiquitous: “For God’s sake, do something.”

But then there’s this: “We need to do more. In the year after the Buffalo tragedy, our country has experienced more than 650 mass shootings and well over 40,000 deaths due to gun violence, according to one analysis.”

The hyperlink whisks readers to the Gun Violence Archive — a blatantly anti-gun nonprofit we debunked years ago for their fake news.

Founded in 2013, the GVA has become the legacy media’s source of choice for mass shooting data because they hype the numbers. The GVA came up with its own broad definition of a mass shooting. Anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm, the GVA labels it a mass shooting, and politicians, gun control advocates and the legacy media treat their reports as if they’re pure gold. For example, according to the GVA there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower and more realistic definition.

USA Today’s vaunted fact-checkers never balked at Biden’s use of the fake GVA data. They use it too, as does CNN, MSNBC and FOX News, so they didn’t question the President’s numbers, even though they equate to nearly two mass shootings per day. They were just happy he chose their struggling newspaper to publish his biased screed.

'Keep and Bear Radio' podcast: Gun rights on the August ballot, and the Ohio House insurrection

To be clear, if anyone actually believes Biden wrote this editorial himself, I’ve got an ocean-front property in Rehoboth Beach to sell them, complete with a $500,000 taxpayer-funded wall. Lately, Biden has difficulty even reading much less writing. He spars daily with the teleprompter, and the teleprompter usually wins. Of course, he didn’t write the editorial, but that doesn’t matter. It bears his byline: “Joe Biden is the 46th president of the United States,” so he gets the credit and/or the blame. That’s the way the presidency is supposed to work.

That Team Biden would have to juke the stats to buttress their latest anti-gun hit piece is no surprise. They’re getting desperate. No one is listening. Guns are still flying off the shelves, especially ARs, and Black females are now the largest gun-buying demographic, because they realize Biden’s rants are hollow and won’t protect them or their families.

Biden’s editorial should be seen as a warning: He will do anything it takes to win his war against our guns, including gaslighting the American people with fake news. That, too, is no surprise.

Lee Williams is chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project.

Biden caught using fake data to gaslight Americans on 'mass' shootings | Buckeye Firearms Association

President Joe Biden has always struggled with the truth. Whenever he wanders off script and speaks extemporaneously, he invents personal anecdotes — boldfaced lies, actually — in which he assigns himself the starring role.

www.buckeyefirearms.org

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #49 · 13 d ago

Another educational piece and a good read with factual information-

Homicide: A 'red state' or 'blue city' problem?
6:00AM FRIDAY, MAY 19, 2023

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, ranks the 50 states on how well they have comported their laws to the organization’s civilian disarmament agenda. In doing so, the group describes New Hampshire, with its few gun control laws, as a “national failure.”
That descriptor might come as a surprise to residents of the bucolic northern New England state. According to CDC homicide mortality data, in 2020 and 2021 pro-Second Amendment New Hampshire had the lowest homicide rate in the nation

In the Granite State in 2020, there were 0.9 homicides per 100,000 residents. In contrast, Everytown gun control “national leader” New York experienced 4.7 homicides per 100,000 residents – a rate 5 times higher than New Hampshire’s. Everytown’s highest ranking gun control state, California, had a homicide rate of 6.1, almost 7 times higher than New Hampshire’s. Everytown darling Illinois had a homicide rate of 11.2.

The point is, political actors like Everytown will manipulate metrics to advance their agenda.
In recent years, Democratic enclaves have been conducting an experiment with soft-on-crime policies. Predictably, the national homicide rate has increased alongside these highly-visible efforts.

Understanding that most of the voting public doesn’t condone the intentional promotion of lawlessness, some prominent Democrats have attempted to shift the narrative by making misleading claims about homicide in Republican-controlled “red states.” According to the left-wing talking point, murder rates are worse in these “red states.” Part of the implication is that the lack of gun control in these states is part of the problem.

It should be noted that New Hampshire has a Republican governor that enacted Constitutional Carry in 2017 and both houses of the New Hampshire General Court are controlled by Republicans.

As the American Enterprise Institute’s Marc A. Thiessen pointed out in an October 20, 2022 piece for the Washington Post, the “red state” murder claim is “bogus.” Thiessen explained, “In most of these red states, the high murder rates are driven by the lethal violence in their blue cities.”
Missouri is one of the states with a high homicide rate that those on the left have cited to support their thesis. Thiessen pointed out,

Take Missouri. Yes, it voted for Trump. But it is also home to two of the most dangerous U.S. cities — St. Louis and Kansas City — both of which are run by Democrats… According to the FBI, the state had about 520 murders in major metropolitan areas that year, 20 in cities outside metropolitan areas, and 28 in nonmetropolitan counties. So, the vast majority of Missouri’s homicides took place in its Democrat-run cities.

To elaborate on the matter of St. Louis, the Gateway to the West’s homicide rate per 100 thousand residents exploded from 64.5 in 2019 to 87.2 in 2020. The homicide rate was far and away the city’s highest in the preceding 50 years.

This startling increase in homicides came under the tenure of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. Elected to the office in 2016, Gardner has worked to “reform” the city’s criminal justice system - often placing her at odds with city law enforcement. Gardner has received significant support from anti-gun billionaire George Soros. As Politico reported back in 2016, Soros is engaged in a wide-ranging effort to remake the U.S. criminal justice system by electing activist prosecutors throughout the country.

Research from the Manhattan Institute also undermines the left-wing “red state” murder factoid.
In May 2022, the think tank published a report examining the 2020 homicide spike using county-level data. The researchers found that “Counties with a higher share of GOP voters not only have lower homicide rates but also a lower growth in homicide rates between 2019 and 2020.” Further, the authors noted, “We also find that there is no statistically significant relationship between the growth in the homicide rate and either the number of Covid-19 deaths or the number of guns sold per capita.”

Researchers at the Heritage Foundation also debunked this Democrat talking point in a November 2022 report titled “The Blue City Murder Problem.”

Examining the 30 cities with the highest homicide rates in the nation, the researchers found, “27 have Democratic mayors” and “within those 30 cities there are at least 14 Soros-backed or Soros-inspired rogue prosecutors.”

To show the impact that “blue cities” have on the homicide rate in “red states,” the authors recalculated several states’ homicide rates when high-crime Democrat-dominated cities and counties were removed from the equation.

In the case of Missouri, the report pointed out that,

The elected officials in the City of Saint Louis, Missouri, are all Democrats. The 28 members of the Board of Alderman are all Democrats, as are Circuit Attorney (the equivalent of a local district attorney) Kim Gardner and Mayor Tishaura Jones.

Saint Louis County is equally lopsided with elected Democrats, including five of the seven members of the County Council and District Attorney Wesley Bell.
The report went on to explain,

St. Louis City and St. Louis County heavily influence the state’s homicide rate, having 46.235 and 14.387 homicides per 100,000 residents, respectively. Removing St. Louis City lowers the state’s homicide rate from 9.363 to 7.482 per 100,000 residents, a 20.09 percent reduction. Removing St. Louis County lowers the homicide rate to 8.395 per 100,000 residents,) a 10.34 percent reduction, while dropping both counties reduces the state’s homicide rate by 35.17 percent to 6.070 homicides per 100,000 residents… removing both counties drops Missouri’s homicide ranking from fifth to 20th in the nation.

Drilling down even further, the research shows that violent crime is concentrated, both geographically and within social networks, even within cities. So, smearing “red” jurisdictions to try to blame the crime wave on a lack of gun control is beyond misleading. But of course, that’s the point.
© 2023 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Homicide: A 'red state' or 'blue city' problem? | Buckeye Firearms Association

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, ranks the 50 states on how well they have comported their laws to the organization’s civilian disarmament agenda. In doing so, the group describes New Hampshire, with its few gun control laws, as a “national failure.”

www.buckeyefirearms.org

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #50 · 10 d ago

If your a gun owner, and hunter in Ohio, be happy you have Buckeye Firearms in your corner.

BFA Responds to Columbus Dispatch Editors' Attack on Gun Rights Lobbying
by Dean Rieck
6:00AM THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2023
The Columbus Dispatch has never been a friend of law-abiding gun owners in Ohio. For as long as I can remember, they've used their bully pulpit in support of gun control.

But that's not surprising. Many, if not most, metropolitan newspapers are staffed by people who support all manner of civil rights, except for the one enumerated as "Amendment II" of the U.S. Constitution.

Urban liberals really dislike that particular right, as does nearly every civil rights organization in the country. The ACLU, for example, the battle-hardened slayer of civil rights dragons, says this about their mission:

The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

However, these guardians of liberty who would go to the mat for the free-speech rights of pro-Nazi groups have always treated the Second Amendment as the redheaded stepchild of the Bill of Rights.
That's why organizations like Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) exist. We're just a civil rights organization advocating for the one right ignored by every other civil rights crusader. If the media and other civil rights groups would fight for the entire Bill of Rights — and not just for the bits they like — we could happily close up shop and go home.
Of particular concern to many editorial board members, including those with the Dispatch, is the violent crime rates in cities like Columbus. In fact, the Dispatch has been running an in-depth series of stories on so-called "gun violence" and ran a scathing editorial bemoaning the lack of gun control laws and calling out BFA for being "puppet masters" at the Statehouse.
The thrust of their argument is that they think legislators should look at cherry-picked polls that they claim represent Ohioans' overwhelming support for gun control and stop listening to gun rights advocates like us.
We could go toe-to-toe with polls and academic studies, but that won't convince anyone. So when we responded, we focused on the perplexing inference that somehow lobbying is wrong.
Here's our response to the editorial. They changed the headline upon publication.

'Puppet Masters' Respond: Dispatch editors need a lesson in basic civics
In a May 22 opinion piece titled “Puppet masters pulling lawmakers strings when it comes to guns in Ohio,” the Dispatch Editorial Board called out Buckeye Firearms Association for having the audacity to advocate for the rights of Ohio's 4 million gun owners.
They compare us to the “Wizard of Oz,” suggesting we're an “unseen force calling the shots from behind the curtain.”
But we're hardly an “unseen force.” We've been highly visible in Ohio for two decades and have been openly advocating for Second Amendment rights.
The editors speak of us with derision because we “lobby” for our policy preferences. Do they look with equal derision at lobbyists for labor unions, environmental causes, or civil rights? Do they accuse them of “pulling the strings” of legislators?
Of course not.
Maybe we need to remind the editorial board about the First Amendment, which guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That's the very definition of lobbying. It's as American as apple pie. Besides, anti-gun advocates are vocal with lawmakers. Shouldn't legislators listen to us, too?
We often don't agree with the Dispatch editors' opinions, but you don't see us decrying freedom of the press, do you?

If we had not been limited by the word count allowed for letters to the editor, the broader point I would have made is that elected leaders don't legislate based on arbitrary polling, surveys, or studies, such as those the Dispatch quoted ad nauseam. They are instead responsive to their constituents — the people who elect them, whose interests they represent and to whom they are accountable. Elections are the only polls that matter.

And BFA is just one of countless advocacy groups in Ohio who represent the interests of specific constituencies, in our case 4 million people who own guns in the state. We know what our supporters believe and what they expect from the leaders they vote for, and they rely on us to convey that to elected officials.

All we do is make sure their voice is heard at the Statehouse, same as lobbyists for the Ohio Federation of Teachers, Black Lives Matter, American Medical Association, AARP, VFW, National Association of Wheat Growers, Hookers for Hillary, or any other advocacy organization.

Speaking of gun grabbers: Columbus Files Yet Another Lawsuit Seeking to Infringe Gun Rights
And more: Columbus' anti-gun virtue signaling: All show, useless for security

And so the idea that legislators listening to BFA "lobbyists" is equivalent to ignoring "the people," and that we are a mysterious "unseen force" pulling the strings of volitionless Statehouse marionettes, is nonsense.

Pundits and editorial boards need to stop picking on lobbyists as if they're interlopers from another planet rather than what they actually are, which is representatives of a group of people with a particular point of view.

What we do by exercising our right to freely assemble and petition the government is just as American and patriotic as what the media do when they exercise their freedom of the press.
They should be celebrating us rather than sneering at us, even if we disagree on policy.

Dean Rieck is Executive Director of Buckeye Firearms Association, a former competitive shooter, NRA Patron Member, former #1 NRA Recruiter, and host of the Keep and Bear Radio podcast.

See less See more

Beagle Huntsman

· #51 · 9 d ago

I have been a hunter since the early 70s, all but a year of that in Ohio, and had never heard of the Buckeye Firearms Association until the last year or so. I don’t know if they are a relatively new organization, or if that says something about their exposure to hunters in Ohio. We’ve always known of the NRA and Sportsmen’s Alliance, though.

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #52 · 8 d ago (Edited)

Beagle Huntsman said:
I have been a hunter since the early 70s, all but a year of that in Ohio, and had never heard of the Buckeye Firearms Association until the last year or so. I don’t know if they are a relatively new organization, or if that says something about their exposure to hunters in Ohio. We’ve always known of the NRA and Sportsmen’s Alliance, though.

Buckeye Firearms has been around since the early 2000's. They were very active on this site as well and in our state on getting straight walled cartridges passed for hunters. They have been very active in protecting gun owners rights as well in Ohio for decades, and i would suggest you go to their website and click on the "about us" tab and review all the feedback from organizations around the country about what they have accomplished. The NRA, Gun owners of America etc... has their imprint throughout the country, while Buckeye Firearms is Ohio based and handles Ohio based issues, along with training in proper firearm use, ccw classes etc....

Link to their site-

Buckeye Firearms Association | Defending Your Firearm Rights

www.buckeyefirearms.org

And now on to the next headline- we have more questionable policies trying to be passed and this involves our men and women in our armed forces. Ask Yourself- the young Trooper's and officers have access to govt provided guns from the day they enlist and what prevents them from using those? I mean, hello???

DoD recommends private gun registration, centralized storage on bases, other absurdities
by John Farnam
6:00AM FRIDAY, MAY 26, 2023

As we witness our Armed Forces recruitment efforts repeatedly falling drastically short of even minimum maintenance goals, the Department of Defense, in its infinite wisdom, now cynically manufactures yet another significant reason for young Americans not to enlist.

Under the laughable pretext of “lethal-means reduction,” a new DOD report, “Preventing Suicide in the U.S. Military: Recommendations from the Suicide Prevention and Response Independent Review Committee,” consists of a demand for active-duty troops to “register” all privately owned guns, even those troopers who are in possession of valid, state-issued CCW permits.

This will, of course, immediately bring about a demand on the part of “woke” base commanders that all privately owned guns (now “registered”) be subsequently removed from homes (on-base or off) of troopers, including officers and NCOs, and locked up “for safe-keeping” within a base armory.

Of course, rightful owners will never see their guns again.
Excerpt from pages 10-11:

On DoD property, raise the minimum age for purchasing firearms and ammunition to 25 years. ...
Require anyone living on DoD property in military housing to register all privately owned firearms with the installation’s arming authority and to securely store all privately owned firearms in a locked safe or with another locking device.

Another part of this impending new policy is that “twenty-five” is to become the new minimum age for any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to privately own any kind of gun, again, even when the trooper already has a valid CCW permit.

So we put into the hands of 18-year-olds automatic weapons that we don’t teach them to use (because they’re all too busy attending “transgender sensitivity” classes), and then we prohibit them from obtaining, or training with, their own weapons.

Even when troopers reach the age of 25 (in the unlikely event they’re still around), guns that they do privately own they can’t keep with them, as all guns must be locked up and under the control of the base commander.

At this rate, few young recruits will be joining up. Fewer still will re-enlist.
It makes one wonder whom DOD is really working for.

“Where there is trust, no proof is necessary. Where there is none, no proof is possible.”

See less See more

Deehntr56

Discussion Starter · #53 · 4 d ago

Keep and Bear Radio Podcast

PODCAST: Lies, Lies, and More Lies About Guns and Gun Control
6:00AM MONDAY, MAY 29, 2023
The Keep and Bear Radio podcast is hosted on Podbean and is also available on Apple, Google, Spotify, iHeartRadio and many other platforms. Make sure to subscribe to the podcast to hear every episode.
How to Listen to Podcasts on Your Mobile Phone
***
Episode 97:
They lie about gun free zones. They lie about the racist roots of gun control. They lie about gun control laws saving lives. But the truth is out there if you're willing to open your mind to the facts.
Rob Morse, author of the SlowFacts blog and co-host of the Polite Society Podcast, helps us dispel some of today's biggest lies from the gun control crowd.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies About Guns and Gun Control | Keep and Bear Radio

They lie about gun free zones. They lie about the racist roots of gun control. They lie about gun control laws saving lives. But the truth is out there if you're willing to open your mind to the facts. Rob Morse, author of the SlowFacts blog and co-host of the Polite Society Podcast, helps us...

keepandbearradio.podbean.com

See less See more

HillbillynOhio

· #54 · 4 d ago

Deehntr56 said:
PODCAST: Lies, Lies, and More Lies About Guns and Gun Control
6:00AM MONDAY, MAY 29, 2023
The Keep and Bear Radio podcast is hosted on Podbean and is also available on Apple, Google, Spotify, iHeartRadio and many other platforms. Make sure to subscribe to the podcast to hear every episode.
How to Listen to Podcasts on Your Mobile Phone
***
Episode 97:
They lie about gun free zones. They lie about the racist roots of gun control. They lie about gun control laws saving lives. But the truth is out there if you're willing to open your mind to the facts.
Rob Morse, author of the SlowFacts blog and co-host of the Polite Society Podcast, helps us dispel some of today's biggest lies from the gun control crowd.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies About Guns and Gun Control | Keep and Bear Radio

They lie about gun free zones. They lie about the racist roots of gun control. They lie about gun control laws saving lives. But the truth is out there if you're willing to open your mind to the facts. Rob Morse, author of the SlowFacts blog and co-host of the Polite Society Podcast, helps us...

keepandbearradio.podbean.com

Is it a lie that the NRA gave their support to gun free zones? The NRA was never a friend to the #2A
Here is what LaPierre said, on behalf of the NRA, when testifying on May 27, 1999, before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee:
We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

In addition, at the same time, the NRA also supported a vast expansion of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
Wayne LaPierre admitted the NRA wrote the foundation bill of the NICS System during the 2018 C-PAC and boasted about it and is wanting to add to it.
The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.
And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law.

The NRA is one of the reasons we are having these problems in the first place for more gun control. They’ve proved they will surrender the #2A and politicians who follows them… Like Trump did..

See less See more

Beagle Huntsman

· #55 · 4 d ago

HillbillynOhio said:
Is it a lie that the NRA gave their support to gun free zones? The NRA was never a friend to the #2A
Here is what LaPierre said, on behalf of the NRA, when testifying on May 27, 1999, before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee:
We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

In addition, at the same time, the NRA also supported a vast expansion of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
Wayne LaPierre admitted the NRA wrote the foundation bill of the NICS System during the 2018 C-PAC and boasted about it and is wanting to add to it.
The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.
And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law.

The NRA is one of the reasons we are having these problems in the first place for more gun control. They’ve proved they will surrender the #2A and politicians who follows them… Like Trump did..

That’s the first time I have ever heard anyone blame the NRA for contributing to the movement for more gun control. Certainly a stretch. Personally, I believe the gun violence in our cities and continual mass shootings across the country are the driving factors behind most Americans being in favor of more control of guns. The NRA’s influence on Republicans is the primary reason that gun control is not yet happening.

41 - 55 of 55 Posts