If your video suddenly becomes banned by YouTube and you receive a “Community Guidelines strike,” it could be that your video violated YouTube’s guidelines, which prohibit any videos from encouraging violence and drug abuse. If this rule was fair and applied equally, then why did YouTube openly allow children to view a violent gun massacre depiction video, while banning the same video that included important commentary that exposed the video’s message of hate? The problem with YouTube’s rules is they are manipulated to prop up one agenda of leftist brainwashing and hate, while also censoring out any dissidence or important debate.
At least one gunman opened fire at a Houston-area high school Friday, killing eight to 10 people, most of them students, authorities said, in the nation’s deadliest such attack since the massacre in Florida that gave rise to a campaign by teens for gun control. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said he could not be precise about the number of deaths at Santa Fe High School, which went on lockdown around 8 a.m. One person was in custody, and a second person had been detained, he said.
Punk rock band NOFX is facing intense backlash after band members’ onstage comments at a Las Vegas music festival Sunday — and the jokes that did them in were about the Las Vegas massacre last October.
Frontman Fat Mike quipped, “We played a song about Muslims, and we didn’t get shot,” KNTV-TV reported. A resounding “alright!” followed. Then another NOFX member added a line about only “getting shot in Vegas if you’re in a country band.”
And with that, Fat Mike, whose real name is Michael Burkett, offered the following: “I mean, that sucked, but at least they were country fans and not punk rock fans,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
Here’s a clip. (Content warning: Profanity):
The crowd yelled and groaned in disapproval most loudly after the “country music fans” comment — and it turns out others weren’t too happy about what was said, either.
What happened next?
Punk Rock Bowling founders Mark and Shawn Stern apologized in a statement to the Review-Journal “to those in attendance, the city of Las Vegas, the victims and the families of 10/1.”
“Las Vegas is home to the Punk Rock Bowling & Music Festival, and we do not condone the statements made from our stage on Sunday night,” they continued, the paper said. “We take the safety of our festivalgoers seriously and want to relay that there is nothing funny about people being shot and murdered, ever.”
And a California beer company pulled its sponsorship of NOFX’s tour over the comments, KNTV reported, adding that the company said it will make a donation to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Foundation.
Here’s the statement, the station noted:
We at Stone Brewing are aware of NOFX’s insensitive and indefensible statements this past weekend. As a result, we are severing all our ties with NOFX, including festival sponsorship and the production of our collaboration beer.
We respect punk rock, and the DIY ethos for which it stands. To us, it means standing up for things you believe in, and fearlessly committing to what’s right.
And it is for that reason that Stone Brewing is immediately disassociating ourselves from the band NOFX. Stone had a sponsorship deal for this summer’s Punk In Drublic festivals. Emphasis “had.” That sponsorship is now canceled.
At this moment, there is Stone & NOFX Punk In Drublic Hoppy Lager in the marketplace that was brewed by Stone Brewing. It’s done already. Know that NOFX does not earn any money from the sale of the beer.
Nevertheless, to try our best to make some good come out of these awful comments, we have decided that we will donate all profits of the beer to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Foundation, which provides post Route 91 trauma counseling for officers and other first responders alongside other safety programs, training and funding.
We have cancelled any future rebrews of this beer. We apologize to the fans of the beer itself, but know that we make this decision out of respect to all. Punk rock is cool. These callous comments were the furthest thing from it.
What else do we know about NOFX?
NOFX has not commented about the incident, KNTV said, but the band and particularly frontman Burkett are known for making controversial statements.
In their song catalogue, the group has joked about the death of the Grateful Dead’s Jerry Garcia (“August 8”), feminists (“The Black and the White”) and the Bible Belt (“Leaving Jesusland”), the Review-Journal said.
But while a fair share of commenters on the Punk Rock Bowling Facebook page said Burkett’s comments were typical of him and that detractors should move on with their lives, another commenter had this to say: “I’d like to see some of these people saying that everyone needs to ‘get over it’ go tell some of the survivors to just ‘get over it.’”
(H/T: Louder With Crowder)
On August 7, 1933, a horrific event occurred in Duhok, Northern Iraq, which is now administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The Iraqi government of Baghdad sent Kurdish Iraqi Gen.
Tonight, Wednesday, at eight o’clock, Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes Remembrance Day events will open, and for 24 hours the Jewish people will unite with the memory of the six million, and the tragedy of the greatest massacre in history will be seen from …
While the Parkland kids got invited to Hollywood premiers and pretty much every prime time news slot the anti-gun media could manufacture for them, there still remained a question about just how much they actually accomplished. It’s a fair question.
Florida enacted some gun control measures in the immediate aftermath of Parkland, so there’s that, but nothing has passed nationally. Yet that’s not the only measure of their potential effectiveness, right?
Have they been effective in other ways?
The Parkland, Florida, school massacre has had little lasting impact on U.S. views on gun control, three months after the shooting deaths of 17 people propelled a national movement by some student survivors, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Wednesday.
While U.S. public support for more gun control measures has grown slowly but steadily over the years, it typically spikes immediately after the mass shootings that have become part of the U.S. landscape, then falls back to pre-massacre levels within a few months.
The pollfound that 69 percent of American adults supported strong or moderate regulations or restrictions for firearms, down from 75 percent in late March, when the first poll was conducted following the Valentine’s Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The new poll numbers are virtually unchanged from pre-Parkland levels.
The latest poll surveyed 3,458 adults from May 5 to 17. That was before the May 18 shooting in Texas, at Santa Fe High School near Houston, that killed 10 people.
Of course, the Reuters poll shows a similar trend to the Gallup poll we mentioned earlier today, namely that support for gun control is dropping. Their numbers are very different, but the overall point remains. Support for gun control is typically short-lived in the wake of an attack.
The Parkland kids tried to change that, of course, and the media sure as hell helped them along, but in the end, Americans aren’t crazy about rights being curtailed when they’re not hopped up on emotion.
It doesn’t help their case that they’ve been pushing a whole list of gun control items and then Santa Fe happened, which undermined everything. While another school attack would, theoretically, help their cause, the fact that literally none of the proposals being typically discussed would have done a damn thing to have prevented the attack that killed 10 and left 10 wounded, but was stopped by a couple of good guys with guns.
You know, the very same thing folks like us say stop attacks?
David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez are pushing for whatever, but at the end of the day, they’re just another couple of anti-gun activists with a chip on their shoulder who think they should be taken more seriously than they are despite the near constant barrage of nonsense they spew. They offer nothing new except their victimhood, which only goes so far, even with people inclined to take such things into account.
At the end of the day, they’re nothing really new. They’re just people who don’t understand the Constitution who want to take guns away from the law-abiding because they labor under the false belief that it will make things better.
No wonder little has come of it.
The post Parkland Impact On Gun Control? A Bunch Of Nothing appeared first on Bearing Arms.
By Chris Knox and Jeff Knox
Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, turned ubiquitous talking head on left-leaning cable news and radio, recently published five talking points that he claims shoot holes in the NRA’s (here meaning all gun-rights supporters’) arguments. The points are not at all unique to Mr. Reich, so we thought it would be worthwhile to take a closer look.
Reich’s Point Number 1: Gun laws save lives.
“Consider the federal assault weapons ban. After it became law in 1994, gun massacres – defined as instances of gun violence in which six or more people were shot and killed – fell by 37 percent. The number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43 percent. But when Republicans in Congress let the ban lapse in 2004, gun massacres more than doubled.”
Nonsense. Reich doesn’t cite a source for his claims because there is no credible source drawing that conclusion. Start with his definition of “gun massacres” being shootings resulting in 6 or more deaths. Despite a rash of those horrible events, massacres, by any definition, remain rare. But because of their horrific nature, they draw media, following the ancient newspaper adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a result the nation fixes its gaze on a single-digit percentage of all crime involving guns, and a fraction of a percent of overall deaths.
With such a small sample size, a difference of one or two incidents has a dramatic impact when presented as a percentage. Thirty-seven percent of 10,000 would be a significant result, but 37% of 3 would be one more or less – a meaningless statistical anomaly. There’s no way of knowing exactly what Reich’s percentages are based on though, because he provides no source, and most tellingly, no real numbers. In short, Reich’s first point is just short of a total fabrication.
Reich’s Point Number 2: The Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter.
When the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago, the framers’ goal was [to] permit a “well-regulated militia,” not to enable Americans to terrorize their communities.
The First Amendment was written more than 200 years ago and the founders’ goal was to protect people’s right to assemble in person, and protect the press – newspapers printed on paper, not to enable the mass propagation of fake news by internet trolls. But few today would argue that the First Amendment does not apply to online communications. The rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are not dependent on technology.
It is also worth noting that during the framers’ time, it was common for private citizens who could afford them to own canons, and even fully-armed warships. The right to arms does not “permit mass slaughter,” and restricting that right does not prevent mass slaughter. Every day over 100 million lawful gunowners don’t kill anyone or terrorize their communities. Restricting their rights will not prevent evil people from doing evil things.
Reich’s Point Number 3: More guns have not, and will not, make us safer.
“More than 30 studies show that guns are linked to an increased risk for violence and homicide. In 1996, Australia initiated a mandatory buyback program to reduce `the number of guns in private ownership. Their firearm homicide rate fell 42 percent in the seven years that followed.”
Once again, Mr. Reich throws around “studies” but fails to mention which ones. We can easily present more than 30 studies that show that gun control laws don’t reduce risks of violence. In fact, in the late 1970s Wright and Rossi produced a study funded by the Carter Justice Department, with the objective of determining which “gun control” programs were most effective. They found none. In the mid-2000s, both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Science Foundation did independent reviews with the same objective. Both reviews reached the same conclusion as Wright and Rossi: that there is no clear evidence that any gun control laws have effectively reduced crime.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Reich also fails to mention that murder rates in Australia were declining prior to the massacre that triggered their gun ban and confiscation. The rates went up slightly in the year right after the ban, then resumed their downward trend at a slower pace than previously, and slower than the rate enjoyed in the U.S., where gun laws were being liberalized, and gun ownership was skyrocketing.
Reich’s Point Number 4: The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun safety laws.
“According to Gallup, 96 percent of Americans support universal background checks, 75 percent support a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales, and 70 percent favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police. Even the vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common-sense gun safety laws.”
Gallup polls also concluded that Hillary Clinton was supposed to be our president.
Poll results depend on how questions are phrased and asked. A good many Americans support some of the general ideas around gun control, but absolutely reject specific proposals. Rephrase the question about “universal” (sic) background checks to ask whether it should be a felony for you to lend your gun to a friend for target practice, and different answers come back, as they did in Nevada and Maine when such proposals were put to voters.
Reich’s Point Number 5: The National Rifle Association is a special interest group with a stranglehold on the Republican Party.
“In 2016, the group spent a record [for them] $55 million on elections. Their real goal is to protect a few big gun manufacturers who want to enlarge their profits.
America is better than the NRA. America is the young people from Parkland, Florida, who are telling legislators to act like adults. It’s time all of us listen.”
Gun prohibitionists routinely target the NRA instead of ordinary American gun owners. It’s certainly easier to stir fear and uncertainty about some large organization funded by a faceless industry than to risk humanizing the opposition. Even so, the NRA’s power does not arise from industry money, it comes from millions of individuals who freely choose to defend their rights with their voices, their votes, and their dollars.
Something else worth mentioning is that while Reich and other media accuse NRA of buying politicians with their $55 million in election spending in 2016, labor unions reportedly spent $1.7 billion on those elections.
If those talking points are the strongest assault an Ivy League lawyer can launch against the unfettered right to arms for defense of self, family, home, and homeland, then the Second Amendment should be safe for a while longer. Unfortunately, these and similar points rarely get any sort of honest scrutiny in the media shouting matches, so it’s up to you to call them out every time they pop up again.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.
The post How To Prove The NRA Is Wrong: Just Make Stuff Up… ANTI-GUN VIDEO appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
The shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas shows how little we have learned since the massacre at Parkland.
ATLANTA — The massacre that killed 10 people at a high school in Texas last week was just the latest to happen in a small or suburban city. Of the 10 deadliest school shootings in the U.S., all but one took place in a town with fewer than 75,000 residents …
Educrat (ED-yoo-krat) noun, usually pejorative. A government school official or administrator whose primary function is to spend tax dollars telling other parents what to do with their children.
Beltway education bureaucrats abhor families who choose to keep their kids out of public schools — unless it’s to grandstand over gun control.
Behold Arne Duncan, longtime pal of Barack Obama and former U.S. Department of Education secretary, who called last weekend for parents nationwide to withdraw students from classes “until gun laws (are) changed to keep them safe.”
Emotions are still raw after a teen shot 10 classmates and teachers to death in Texas last week. But Duncan has no excuse for his cynical, made-for-cable-TV exploitation of the Santa Fe High School massacre. Existing state laws banning minors under 18 from purchasing or possessing guns didn’t stop the shooter. Neither did laws against possessing sawed-off shotguns or pipe bombs.
And contrary to hysterical early reports, the accused 17-year-old gunman did not use “assault rifles.” So a “common sense” ban on “assault weapons” would not have saved lives, either.
But effective solutions to maximize students’ safety and well-being seemingly aren’t Duncan’s goals. His mission is airtime. Publicity. Entertainment. Provocation for provocation’s sake. Show time — for the children, of course.
School boycotts are a “radical idea,” he admitted to MSNBC. “It’s controversial. It’s intentionally provocative.” Praising teacher walkouts and student protests, Duncan told The Atlantic he supported parent-initiated school shutdowns for gun control because “we are not protecting our kids… And the fact that we’re not doing that — we’re not willing to think radically enough to do it — I can’t stomach that.”
Ah, the royal, unstomachable “we.”
Here’s another thing I find hard to swallow: Education overlord Arne Duncan now championing the radical idea of parents exercising their autonomy to do what’s best for their children.
As Obama’s meddling power-hungry education secretary, Duncan attacked “white suburban moms” and their children who turned to homeschooling in protest of the top-down Common Core “standards”/testing/data-mining program. Duncan sneered that he found it “fascinating” that the grass-roots anti-Common Core revolt came from “white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.”
This elitist control freak revealed his fundamental disdain for rabble-rousing parents who’ve taken educational matters in to their own hands. By characterizing the movement against Common Core as “white” and “suburban,” Duncan also exposed his bigotry against countless parents “of color,” like myself, who’ve long opposed Fed Ed’s sabotage of academic excellence, local control and student privacy in school districts across the country.
Note that newly minted parents’ rights advocate Arne Duncan never once advocated boycotting Chicago public schools, which he ran for eight years, for their abject failure to quell rampant school violence.
Nor has Duncan called for parents to demand their districts withdraw from the disastrous “PROMISE” alternative discipline program that he helped create. (After Duncan’s protege, Broward County school superintendent Robert Runcie, initially denied that Parkland, Fla., shooter Nicholas Cruz had benefited from the program, he sheepishly acknowledged last week that Cruz had in fact been referred to the program and avoided criminal prosecution for school vandalism as a result.)
Nor has Duncan said a peep about systemic coddling of abusers in the classroom by teachers’ union presidents in New Jersey and Ohio, as exposed over the past month by undercover investigative journalists at Project Veritas.
Instead, Duncan has won high praise and more media interviews for his phony boycott proposal. “My family is all in if we can do this at scale,” he nobly tweeted.
But what his slavering fans in the liberal media won’t tell you is that Duncan’s wife works at and his own children attend the exclusive, private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools in tony Hyde Park, which a Lab Schools brochure brags is “patrolled by the University of Chicago Police Department and private security.”
Armed, of course, for thine and thee, Arne. But not for we.