June 21, 2020 |  Cam Edwards  At least 22 people have been shot in New York City this weekend, including a man who was gunned down at point blank range as he was washing his car in Brooklyn on Saturday afternoon, and the rapid rise in violent crime isn’t limited only to the state’s biggest city. In Syracuse, 9 people were shot on Saturday evening at what’s being described as a “celebration” in the city.

The party in a parking lot behind WCNY Studios near the intersection of Wyoming Street and Marcellus was attended by hundreds according to Syracuse Police Chief Kenton Buckner.

All nine victims were sent to the hospital with various injuries although the most seriously hurt was also the youngest: a 17-year-old male.

Syracuse Police report, when officers arrived, that people were running away and yelling.

Buckner said the incident was first called in as a stolen car complaint, and when officers arrived people said there was a person shooting. Buckner said his officers did not hear gunfire while they were at the scene.

In the state capitol of Albany, Chief Eric Hawkins and Mayor Kathy Sheehan held a press conference on Friday to implore the public to cooperate with law enforcement as they try to cope with a staggering increase in violent crime.

According to Hawkins, they have seen three times as many shots-fired incidents in 2020 than they did at this point in 2019.

Hawkins said the pandemic lead to a decrease in community policing and restricted the department’s ability to address issues that arose. Now with the area opening back up, Hawkins is seeking help from the community to stifle the violence.

“We are working together in a united front to address this issue,” Hawkins said. “We are arresting people, we are taking guns off the street, but yet this problem is persisting. We need more. We need more than just innovatice police strategies, we need more than just more cops. We need our community to help.”

Other city leaders at the Friday press conference said the community knows who the shooters are, and pleaded with people not to wait until they are personally impacted by gun violence.

Keep in mind that New York has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thanks in large part to the SAFE Act signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2013. So-called assault weapons are banned, ammunition magazines with more than seven rounds of ammunition are illegal, and possession of a firearm without a license is a felony crime. Cuomo has claimed that the law “stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun,” but clearly criminals are paying as much attention to the state’s gun control laws as they are the laws on the books prohibiting aggravated assault and homicide.

In New York City, officials are still doubling down on the idea that more gun control and fewer police officers on the streets will lead to less shootings.

“We are going to put more and more resources into the Cure Violence movement and the Crisis Management System, which has proven to be extraordinarily effective in stopping gun violence before it happens and mediating conflicts,” Mayor Bill de Blasio has said.

The mayor has increased the Cure Violence budget by $10 million for more staff and sites, especially those with high gun violence in areas including Jamaica, Canarsie, and Crown Heights.

“During the month of May, we are seeing an increase of 25 percent in homicides in the last few days, so it is concerning – we are deploying our Cure Violence particularly in retaliation shootings,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams.

While the City Council is proposing $1 billion in cuts to the police department, Adams is backing that decision.

“If we put money on the front end, we won’t be dealing with the crisis on the back end, that is how we have been policing in the city,” he said.

According to the city’s website, the Cure Violence program:

“employs ‘violence interrupters’ and outreach workers from the community who have themselves experienced violence and also have strong relationships with young adults, community leaders, and service providers. Violence interrupters stop conflicts before they happen, and outreach workers re-direct the highest-risk youth away from life on the streets. Outreach workers implement a detailed risk reduction plan that links youth with needed services. These connections result in the cooling of violence hot spots, in addition to positive outcomes for those who participate in the intervention.”

I don’t have a problem with Cure Violence’s strategy in theory, as long as it’s working. Unfortunately, at the moment, the “violence interruptors” don’t seem to be actually interrupting the violence at all.

During the month of May, overall crime decreased compared to the same period last year.

But the NYPD says murders in the city increase by 79%.

Shootings went up 64%, while burglaries rose 34%.

While anti-gun politicians like Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo wring their hands and twiddle their thumbs, New York’s violent criminals are having a field day, and law-abiding New Yorkers should be asking themselves this simple question: who exactly is safer thanks to the SAFE Act and the state’s gun control regime?

The most likely explanation is that neither of the Court?s ideological factions was confident enough of Roberts?s support to risk grantingÿcertiorari.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review all ten of the Second Amendment cases it had pending on its docket. Though the cases presented different fact patterns and procedural postures, the Court simply refused to weigh in on any of them. There seems to be one likely reason: Chief Justice Roberts does not want the Court to take a stance on the Second Amendment. We know because it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case but five to reach a decision once a case is heard ? and there are four justices on record as being in favor of the Court?s reviewing Second Amendment issues.

Justice Thomas has been dissenting from the Court?s refusal to review those issues for years, and he did so again on Monday, writing to protest the Court?s decision to pass onÿRogers v. Grewal, a case addressing New Jersey?s unconstitutional handgun-carry-permit laws:

This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry in public; and resolve a square Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiable need restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Justice Alito authored the landmark 2010ÿMcDonald v. Chicagoÿopinion, which incorporated Second Amendment rights to cover the states, and recently filed a scathing dissent to the Court?s decision inÿNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York:

Twelve years ago inÿDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerÿ. . . we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision inÿMcDonald v. Chicagoÿ. . . established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.

Alito?s dissent goes on to review the underlying merits of the case and argue that the New York City gun-control law at issue is certainly unconstitutional.

Justice Kavanaugh is also in favor of the Court?s weighing in on Second Amendment issues. He wrote a well-knownÿdissent inÿHeller II, a follow-up case stemming from theÿHellerÿdecision Alito references, in which he chastised the D.C. Circuit?s reasoning and directly applied the Supreme Court test that was established inÿHeller. More recently, he joined Thomas?s dissent against the Court?s refusal to hearÿRogers, and wrote, in a concurrence to theÿNew York State Rifleÿdecision:

I share Justice Alito?s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applyingÿHellerÿandÿMcDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch, while being quieter on the subject, has voiced his support for a review of Second Amendment issues as well: He has joined a couple of dissents penned by Justices Thomas and Alito, inÿPeruta v. CaliforniaÿandÿNew York State Rifle, respectively.

If you?re counting along at home, that?s four Justices ? Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh ? in favor of the Court?s reviewing Second Amendment issues. Those four together can grantÿcertiorariÿin any case they wish. One presumes that the only reason they didn?t do so in one of the ten Second Amendment cases the Court passed on Monday is that they were unsure how Chief Justice Roberts would vote once the cases were heard.

To be clear, the Court wasn?t in want of choice. The ten cases pending before it covered issues ranging from New Jersey?s handgun-carry regulations (Rogers) to California?s presumptively unsafe handgun law (Pena v. Horan) and Massachusetts? ?assault weapon? and ?high-capacity magazine? bans (Worman v. Healey).

Some of the ten also showed a clear circuit split ? a conflict between two or more courts of appeals in the nation as to how to decide a similar or identical issue ? which tends to make the Court far more likely to hear a case. In this instance, there was and is a clear split between circuits on the applicability of the Second Amendment outside the home.

So, ruling out votes and issues, the remaining roadblock would seem to be Chief Justice Roberts. What is unclear is why.

Some have speculated that Roberts wants to avoid risking the Court?s reputation on a controversial case during a tense political cycle. But, if the Court had grantedÿcertiorariÿin one of these cases today, the case would have been briefed over the summer, argued in late 2020 or early 2021, and decided in early or mid 2021, well after the next president had been elected.

Does Roberts actually align with the four progressive-leaning justices on the Court when it comes to the Second Amendment? Not likely. Remember, the four progressive-leaning justices can grant review of a case just as the four conservative-leaning justices can. Given that they didn?t on Monday, they likely don?t believe Chief Justice Roberts is on their ?side? of the issue.

The conclusion we?re left with is that Chief Justice Roberts doesn?t want the Court to weigh in on the Second Amendment right now, and neither the four conservative justices nor the four progressive justices were confident enough of his siding with them on the issue to risk grantingÿcertiorariÿin any of the ten cases.

Keep in mind, when the chief justice is in the majority on a decision, he gets to pick who writes the opinion.If Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote in a case, he?ll be in the majority however he decides, and could easily assign himself the opinion. Given that the rest of the Court is evenly split, no matter how he drafted it, the justices who agreed with the outcome of the opinion would almost have to sign on, regardless of its reasoning, and that could spell trouble.

For now, we will have to rely on the decisions of the circuit courts in gun-rights cases. But while it?s unclear what the impact of this week will be on the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence, those of us committed to defending Second Amendment-protected rights will not give up the fight.

Cody J. Wisnieisniewski is an attorney with Mountain States Legal Foundation. He primarily focuses on Second Amendment issues, and is the co-author ofÿAmicus Curiaeÿbriefs inÿNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New YorkÿandÿPena v. Horan

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.prageru.com%2Fvideo%2Fcops-are-the-good-guys%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca8db017c9c714173dfaa08d80ede01d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637275693952836704&sdata=zdKvMErx4BEpH7BSIrOdaEVjaR9OAzI5imL09H4m%2FY0%3D&reserved=0

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- A group of small business truckers has sent an email to the Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. The email asks that, as part of the national emergency involving the Chinese virus, the federal government declare the Second Amendment overrides state law and federal regulation forbidding truckers from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

From transportationnation.com:

The 15,000-member SBTC is calling on federal authorities to preempt state and local laws regarding the right to carry a firearm.

Therefore, in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we hereby request the U.S. Department of Transportation please issue a preemption order nullifying any and all state and local laws that restrict truck drivers from carrying firearms across state lines throughout America in order to enable them to protect themselves and their cargo as they engage in interstate commerce.

As this is now a matter of life and death, please issue same forthwith.

“The SBTC through its TRUCKER LIVES MATTER campaign has sought the unfettered ability of drivers to carry firearms for self protection nationwide since its inception in 2014,” Lamb tells Transportation Nation Network (TNN).  “We have pointed to Department of Labor statistics that show the unusually high rates of murders on the road for workers in interstate transportation.”

This is a valid argument.  It is vital that trucks keep delivering everything society needs to keep operating during the emergency. During social unrest, there will always be an element attempting to take advantage of the situation.

One argument between those who want the population disarmed and those who believe the population should have easy access to arms is a small scale, utilitarian one.

People who are voluntarily unarmed have a psychological interest in promoting the idea that having a gun makes a person less safe, and that having a gun has no utility in preventing crime. It reassures them they have made the correct decision by deciding to be unarmed.

It is a difficult argument to make rationally persuasive. Weapons would not exist if they did not provide the possessor with an advantage over the disarmed.

The fallback position, for those who wish the population to be disarmed, is to claim only intensely trained and supervised individual, such as, supposedly, police and military personnel, can gain benefit from being armed.

However, people who have passed through the legal hoops required to obtain carry permits, commit far fewer crimes than do the police. Police tend to train more with firearms than do most military (as difficult as that is to believe).

Commercial truckers go through a similar background check process as do most concealed carry permit holders. Truckers are especially vulnerable to violent crime because of their vocation.

It would be a good test case for the Trump Administration to declare, during this emergency, the exercise of Second Amendment rights by commercial truckers (whose licenses are federally supervised) overrides state powers to regulate firearms. This argument would be bolstered by the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, as granted by the Constitution.

Those who have lived by the abuse of the interstate commerce clause for decades would be feeling the other side of the blade.

It would be a good policy. It would be good politics.

It would be immediately challenged in court. It would send a good message to the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court.

It combines utility, emergency powers, the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. It would be nearly irresistible for activist district court judges. It would be difficult for the appellate courts to ignore. Such a combination would be very difficult for the current Supreme Court to ignore.

It would not be perfect. Perfect is the enemy of the good, because, those who insist on perfect prevent the good from ever happening.

Such an emergency proclamation would be a double-edged dagger pointed at the heart of the arguments against the exercise of Second Amendment right.

Download a copy from this link:

May/June Firing Lines (Pdf)

Dear Friend, I hope this email finds you and your family well. I am contacting you about an important issue facing our local counties. With elections approaching on June 23rd, there is an urgent need for Election Inspectors. Election Inspectors help make our elections run safely and smoothly and it is important that our election locations are properly staffed. To be an Election inspector, you must be a registered Democrat or Republican voter in the county. You will be paid $200 to work the day of the Primary (June 23rd) and the General (November 3rd) in addition to $25 to attend a training. I have included links to each of our counties Board Of Election websites if you are interested in signing up. Cayuga County: https://www.cayugacounty.us/212/Election-Inspector-Information Phone: 315-253-1285 Monroe County: https://www2.monroecounty.gov/elections-inspectors.php Phone:585-753-1550 Ontario County: https://www.co.ontario.ny.us/FormCenter/Board-of-Elections-23/Inspector-Signup-111 Phone: 585-396-4005 Seneca:County https://www.co.seneca.ny.us/gov/elections/jobs/ Phone:315-539-1760 Tompkins County: https://tompkinscountyny.gov/boe/For_ElectionWorkers/How_do_I_become_a_Poll_Worker/Index_PollWorker Phone: 607-274-5522 Wayne County: https://web.co.wayne.ny.us/index.php/wayne-county-board-of-elections/election-inspectors/ Phone:315-946-7400 Again, it is important that our polling locations are properly staffed and I urge you to consider becoming an election inspector. As always, please do not hesitate to contact my office if I can be of assistance to you or your family. Best, Pam

Albany Office:  517 Legislative Office Bldg  Albany, NY 12247  518-455-2366 District Office:  425 Exchange St  Geneva, NY 14456  315-568-9816

Nolte: Democrats Want to Abolish the Police and Confiscate Our Guns

John Nolte6 Jun 2020

Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

4:58

A radical, utterly sincere, and determined movement is on to abolish police departments.

A radical, utterly sincere, and determined movement is on to confiscate our guns, to confiscate our right to defend ourselves.

This is no accident.

But first the facts…

Links to mainstream Democrats calling for the police to be defunded, which will obviously result in the police being abolished, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most especially here.

Links to mainstream Democrats like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others calling for — not just gun control — but straight up confiscation, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Secondly, to those of you who think this idea of abolishing the police and the Second Amendment is insane and can therefore never happen, you need to remove your head from the sand. Here are some more facts…

• We went from zero to gay marriage in less than ten years.
• We went from zero to drag queen story hour in about ten seconds.
• The left is blacklisting us for referring to biological men as “he.”
• The corporate media are now describing the burning and looting of cities as “political speech.”
• This same media are describing peaceful protests by Tea Partiers and those ravaged by anti-science lockdowns as “dangerous” and “violent.”
• Lego is blacklisting its own toys.
• The NFL just committed suicide.
• Drew Brees is now on his third 1984-ish public confession, a full-blown grovel tour, for the sin of expressing respect for the American flag.
• Legions of white people are kneeling to ask forgiveness for something they had no part of.
• Healthcare “experts” are telling us the coronavirus is lethal if you want to go to work, school, or your grandmother’s funeral, but not so lethal if you are out en masse to support “approved” causes.

The Democrat Party has been completely radicalized, emboldened, and is currently eating itself alive in the kind of cultish moral panic we have not seen since McCarthyism or the McMartin preschool scandal.

Now, you might say, there’s no way Democrats will abolish the police; this will only make life infinitely worse for the people who live in Democrat-run cities, which is where a bulk of the black population live.

Must I explain everything?

Democrats have completely failed black people, and that is by design. Democrats know that once people become middle class, they are much more likely to vote Republican. So the goal is to keep people poor, keep ’em scared, keep their schools crappy (no school choice, no charter schools), tell them there’s no hope because America is evil and racist — in other words, keep ’em voting for Democrats.

You’ve heard of Jim Crow and Southern Segregation…? That was ALL Democrats. George Wallace and Bull Connor were Democrats. The whole system was created and enforced by Democrats. Black lives were destroyed in the South to keep Democrats in power then; black lives in urban areas are destroyed to keep Democrats in power now.

Good grief, we just elected a black president for two terms, we just brought black unemployment to a record low, and the entire country was repulsed by what happened to George Floyd, most especially President Trump… But people are still rioting.

Why?

So Democrats and the left can cover up their own staggering failures.

For decades Democrats have had sole providence over almost every major city in America. We’ve literally poured trillions of tax dollars into the War on Poverty and public schools… In other words, Democrats have had sole control over these areas, have instituted every policy they believe in without opposition, and have received swimming pools full of federal dollars… And look at the result… Total failure.

What you are seeing in all this social unrest is 1) the of the abject failure of leftist ideas that have had 50 years to work, and 2) the whipping up of the mob to distract from those failures and blame a guy who’s only been in office — who’s only been in politics three years: the Orange Bad Man.

Making life worse for black people is not a bug in the Democrat Party, it’s a feature. As is tyranny. Good grief, what better example of the Democrat tyranny do you need than these anti-science lockdowns? What more proof do you need than Democrat governors and mayors arresting people for going to church just days before they openly encourage and join massive protests?

So of course Democrats want to abolish the police and confiscate our guns.

Of course these power-hungry leftists want us helpless and defenseless.

Duh.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Joshua Skovlund | June 02, 2020    A Marine Corps veteran turned security contractor, who asked that his name not be used for security reasons, unintentionally took the internet by storm after a video surfaced of him disarming a Seattle rioter who had stolen a police officer’s AR-15 from a destroyed squad car Saturday.   

The preliminary details of what happened have become distorted on social media, with misconceptions about a second rifle that was slung on his back as well as why he was at the protests that developed following George Floyd’s death in police custody. Coffee or Die obtained an exclusive interview with the contractor to set the record straight on what happened that day. 

The contractor served four years in the U.S. Marine Corps infantry in 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, Alpha Company. After separating from service, he entered into his current career of military contracting, which has included working as a firearms instructor and in security, along with starting a community group on Instagram called Firewatch Official, a page dedicated to helping military and first responder personnel share their stories and quell demons that some carry with them. He said that he is in-between jobs, and due to financial strains incurred by the pandemic, is also in the beginning stages of starting his own company. “When you get to the bottom, it’s like, where are you going to go but up?” he said.

Being introduced to firearms at a young age helped him view guns as tools and develop safe handling practices. He said his father taught him the intricacies of firearms. “It’s a passion, it’s a hobby. It’s obsession. It’s a love. It’s the thing I choose to make my life around,” he explained. He was naturally drawn to working with firearms and in a career that allows him to use them. And he was in the right place at the right time during the protests and riots on the streets of Seattle. 

The contractor was hired to protect the crew of reporters from a local Fox News affiliate out of Seattle while they covered the protests and riots in the city, although he’s been accused of being at the protest to assert himself. “I was working and doing my job, trying to pay bills,” he said. “I’d rather be home playing with my dog — [laughs] my wife’s dog, she would kill me if she heard that one!”

He thought through every step of this contract and then some, starting with the decision to carry his pistol in a bag because he wanted to blend in. The contractor also expressed concern over the hundreds of people potentially bumping into him and trying to lift a side holstered pistol or his spare magazines on his belt. He dressed in multiple layers in case he was “made” by the rioters and would need to switch up to obscure his identity. 

The contractor and his U.S. Marine Corps crew. Photo courtesy of the contractor/Instagram.

The contractor met with the news crew around 3 PM to move them down to the area where they would be reporting. He said there was complete chaos when they arrived, and it continued throughout the day. He was immediately busy. “I was trying to keep them safe from anything, […] whether it was thrown, tossed or someone just rushing by,” he said. The contractor was especially cognizant of the Fox News photojournalist who had a camera on his shoulder, leaving him completely blind to the right side. “I became his eyes,” he said.

The news crew wanted to set up in a particular area to record what was happening to two police vehicles that were on the street. Rioters were destroying the squad cars rapidly, and the contractor had already made a mental note to watch them because he suspected that there were firearms inside. He saw the vandals digging in the first squad car and immediately moved the news crew around the corner to safety. “Stay safe, and I’ll be right back,” he told them.

“The first, he was a shooter. People are getting me on this. He was a shooter. He produced the AR-15, held it like good ol’ Rambo-style at the hip, and he fired four rounds into the police vehicle and the wall of the building,” he said. The contractor explained that he wasn’t sure why the rioter stopped at four rounds, but knew he needed to act quickly. The rioter didn’t see him coming, but ducked into a store next to the squad car. The contractor could still see a part of the vandal’s frame around the corner of the doorway, and as soon as he turned the corner, he yelled aggressively for him to put down the weapon. 

The contractor described the rioter’s reaction to the confrontation as a “deer in headlights, stunned — you know, wide eyes and his hands kind of opened up. And he’s still holding the rifle. He didn’t drop it. So, [I] snatched his weapon.” After confiscating the rifle, he backed out of the store slowly, then took off back to his news crew, simultaneously removing the bolt carrier group and the charging handle of the AR-15 and stuffing them in his pocket. He regrouped to continue his job. 

Shortly after the first incident, the contractor eyed a second rioter doing the same thing to the other squad car. Rinse and repeat — he said the second one caught on video was almost identical to the first disarming of a rioter. Even though he had successfully prevented two separate potential threats, he had a much larger threat looming. 

“I had just taken a firearm from a guy that was essentially aligned with hundreds, if not thousands, of people in this area,” he said. “And I drew a line around me that said, ‘I’m not with any of you here.’” In addition to keeping the news crew safe, his concern now grew to the rioters turning on him after he thwarted their plans. The contractor quickly called the police dispatcher and reported the two confiscated AR-15’s. 

A large group of protesters started running around the corner, past the contractor and the news crew. He walked around the corner expecting to see the police approaching, but there were no officers in sight. The contractor knew he needed to get the rifles off him due to the growing threat.

“Until I got to about three and a half blocks away where I was getting closer to the police, I had people on me, I had a horde of people on me saying all kinds of things imaginable, phones out, all that,” he said. “So there was definitely an uptick. It went from maybe 15 to 50 percent of attention because people were just looking at me like, you know, Why do you have this rifle? […] Everyone’s after me.”

The contractor headed out with one of the news crew members to get the rifles back to the police, and two males were following him. He turned to confront them and found out that they were following him to make sure he got there safely. He recalled that one of them wore an American flag bandana and had another in his pocket, partially showing.

One of the two rioters that the contractor disarmed. Screen grab from video uploaded to YouTube by KOMO News.

“[That tells me] you’re here to protest, and you’re trying to hold up American values, which I thought was excellent,” he said. The American flag protester assisted the contractor the whole way, while the second peeled off prior to the police line. The protester jogged ahead to gather intel on whether the police were actually there and confirmed their position. 

As the trio approached the police line, the contractor said, “They’re on high alert just as well as I was, you know? […] I made it very clear what my intentions were. I listened to what they were saying, and I approached showing them exactly what I was doing.” He popped the AR-15’s, slung them over his forearm, and holstered his pistol to make it clear that he was not threatening the police. 

The contractor and his crew were met with some resistance from the police and were ordered to stop approaching. He explained to the officer talking to him that the rifles were theirs and they needed to take them. “I took the bolt carrier groups and charging handles out of my back pocket. I put them in his hand, and as his lieutenant walks up, his eyes were just kind of like, what the hell?” he said. He explained the situation and that the rifles actually belonged to the police, handed them over, and ran back to find the crew member who had stayed by their original location. 

Rioters and protesters recognized him from the previous events, so he switched out his outer layer of clothing and wore a mask for the rest of the night. But he kept his news crew safe while simultaneously preventing the potential deaths of police officers, protesters, and rioters.

Editor’s Note: Article updated to remove name due to security concerns. 

Joshua is a staff writer for Coffee or Die Magazine. He has previously covered the 75th anniversary of D-Day in France, multinational military exercises in Germany, and civil unrest during the 2020 riots that followed the death of George Floyd. Born and raised in small town South Dakota, Josh grew up playing football and soccer before going on to serve as a forward observer in the U.S. Army. After leaving the service, he earned his Crossfit Level 1 certificate and worked as a personal trainer while earning his paramedic license. Josh went on to work in paramedicine for over five years, much of that time in the North Minneapolis area, before transitioning to his career in multimedia journalism. Josh is married and has two children, and is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in multimedia journalism. His creative outlets include Skovlund Photography and Concentrated Emotion, which is where he publishes poetry focused on his life experiences.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,"

--the First Amendment

If you know anything about Joe Biden, you know that gun control was going to be a major part of his 2020 campaign. He has a long history with the issue, and he was promising to make it a central plank in his administration’s platform. A quick glance at his recent campaign gaffes will show you that he was gearing up for a major anti-2nd Amendment push.

In August of 2016, he told Anderson Cooper that he was indeed coming for your guns:

COOPER: So, to gun owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns?

BIDEN: Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka. You can’t have a flame thrower.

In February, while debating Bernie, he was making ridiculous claims about guns killing 12 million Americans each year since 2007:

“Imagine if I stood here and said we give immunity to drug companies, we give immunity to tobacco companies. That has caused carnage on our streets. 150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.”

TRENDING: So . . . social distancing is over, right?

Then he announced that, should he win, he’d put Beto in charge of his confiscation efforts and berated a Detroit factory worker who supported gun ownership. Clearly, this consistent escalation was heading toward a major push in advance of November. One assumes the Democratic National Convention was going to be awash in anti-gun rhetoric, promises would be made, and they would have used promises of wide-ranging gun control to stir up the base.

Then the riots happened, and the gun control debate is over for a generation.

One of the left’s favorite tactics is to ask “why do you need a gun?”  Sometimes they’re referring to a specific category of weapon, other times they reveal their true intentions and it’s all weapons. Either way, we all know their ultimate agenda is the total elimination of privately-owned firearms.

That’s all over.  It’s simply not going happen.

The question, “why do you need a gun,” has been answered by feckless Democrat leaders who refuse to protect their citizens. It’s been answered by violent mobs who wreak havoc, burn buildings, and kill.  It’s been answered by police that are either unable or unwilling to handle the protection end of “serve and protect.”

No one who believes in the right of the people to protect themselves will ever again lack a justification for their instincts.  Red states will not tolerate anyone who attempts to pare back their rights, and even blue state Dems will be thinking twice about the issue. Those who say there’s “no need” will now look as ridiculous people blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video.

Or… as ridiculous as Joe Biden offering shotgun advice.