News from Idaho:

When various far-left ecology and animal rights groups such as the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Biological Diversity, submitted a petition, calling for the manditory carry of bear spray by hunters, it made national news. The petition was submitted to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and others. The petition claimed that “Studies show that bear spray is far more effective than firearms.”

That claim is not correct.

The petition was written about in several Idaho outlets, and nationally.

The Commission turned down the request that the carry of bear spray by hunters be mandatory.  From lmtribune.com:

The commission turned down a request from environmental groups that it create a rule that would require hunters in grizzly bear habitat near Yellowstone National Park to carry bear spray. Commissioners said the rule would be overbearing and difficult to enforce, and agreed with agency officials who said education about recreating in grizzly bear country would be more effective.[ … ]

Bear Spray Hoax: IFGD Betrays Hunters

I’m pleased the Commission recommends denying a petition that would require hunters in grizzly country to carry bear spray. But the petition is not being denied for the right reason: When a grizzly charges a hunter with a rifle after a classic surprise encounter at close range, bear spray will not keep a hunter safe. IDFG must prepare hunters to use an adequate rifle quickly and effectively.

In 1991, a Hunter/Grizzly Bear Interactions Task Team (that included U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen) told the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee that bear spray has “minimal usefulness in trail encounters with bears at close range due to the difficulty of effective use.”

Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide that bear “spray isn’t the answer for every encounter, especially when it requires hunters to drop their guns when there’s little time to react. You’re talking milliseconds. It’s illogical that you’re going to set your gun down and get your pepper spray.”

Trina Jo Bradley, vice-president of the Marias River Livestock Association, said “Let’s just think about how we carry ourselves when we’re hunting. I carry a large caliber rifle in my hands, usually with a bullet in the chamber and the safety on. I can easily raise my rifle and fire if I see the game I am hunting, or if a bear attacks. Why in the world would I put down the firearm that I’ve used over and over to grab a can of bear spray?

It’s clear a hunter carrying a rifle cannot use bear spray in a safe or timely manner during a surprise encounter with a grizzly. IDFG and other agencies acknowledged this in 1991. But on September 1, 1999, these agencies did an about face on bear spray when U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service news release announced: “Outfitters And Guides Develop Safety Class To Prevent Bear Attacks.”

The news release said, “During the past year, over 200 outfitters and guides in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado have been trained to safely share the backcountry with bears.”

Were the outfitters and guides taught to use an adequate firearm effectively? No. “Course presenters discourage the use of firearms to mitigate bear attacks, because the practice has resulted in much greater frequency and severity of injuries to people involved [than bear spray]. The reliability and safety of pepper spray over other methods of deterrence has also been promoted by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.”

No data or references were provided to substantiate this claim. Nevertheless, these agencies adopted a de facto policy of discouraging firearm use, and promoting bear spray. The results have been disastrous. As the environmentalists’ bear spray petition notes, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team found that “54% of all injuries inflicted on humans by grizzly bears [in the Yellowstone region] involved hunters.”

In response to the environmentalists’ petition, Toby Broudreau said, “the Department already has a Bear Education Program within grizzly range in Idaho. That program helps inform hunters on bear spray use and benefits.”

That program does not teach hunters how to use bear spray with each of the six field carries for long guns. That program does not provide hunters with accurate, meaningful information about bear spray and firearms research. If you keep hyping bear spray—and use that as an excuse for not teaching hunters how to use an adequate rifle quickly for self-defense—you guarantee the carnage inflicted on hunters since 1999 will continue.

A 2008 study on the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska said, “In 96% (69 of 72) of bear spray incidents, the person’s activity at the time of was use reported. The largest category involved hikers (35%), followed by persons engaged in bear management activities (30%), people at their home or cabin (15%), campers in their tents (9%), people working on various jobs outdoors (4%), sport fishers (4%), a hunter stalking a wounded bear (1%), and a photographer (1%).”

Given that the purpose of stalking a wounded bear is to kill it, non-lethal bear spray was the wrong tool for the job. The study did not provide additional information about this mysterious incident. A 1998 bear spray study did not provide any information about the activity of people who used bear spray. So research tells us hunters carrying a rifle don’t use bear spray, and common sense tells us why: Hunters can’t use bear spray because they’re already carrying a rifle.

Bear spray advocates focus on the overall success rate from Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska: 3 people were injured during 75 incidents. Of 175 people present during 72 incidents, just 3 were injured. Bear spray advocates never inform hunters that 3 of 9 people who sprayed charging grizzly bears were injured.

Bear spray advocates have repeatedly made the indefensible claim that research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm. One, they’re claiming that research on bear spray use by non-hunters (who are not carrying a firearm) proves hunters (who are carrying a firearm) should use bear spray. That does not make sense.

Two, there have been two interrelated studies on bear spray, and two studies on guns vs. bears. Bear spray advocates are really saying, if you compare the results of one bear spray study to the results of one dissimilar study on guns, bear spray wins. But Field Use of Capsicum Spray As a Bear Deterrent/Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska used different methodologies than Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska. It is unethical to compare the two studies, because of the different dynamics involved.

In addition, you’ve got to be totally unprincipled to pretend a 1999 study on the Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska does not exist. After reviewing 1,036 incidents from 1986 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life or property (DLP), the authors of the 1999 study wrote, “Most of the persons shooting brown bears or black bears in DLP circumstances indicated that no human injury occurred (98.5% for brown bears and 99.2% for black bears).”

Bear spray advocates deny the existence of the 1999 study because it does not advance their cause. “Research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm” is not a factual statement based on research; it’s a baseless propaganda slogan. To provide for the safety of big-game hunters in grizzly country, IDFG must teach hunters how to use an adequate firearm quickly and effectively.

This report dovetails nicely with the analysis conducted by Dean Weingarten.  It’s nice to see some sanity from Idaho.  It’s also nice to see the human-hating, creation-worshipping environmentalists put in their place.

David Codrea:

If a “popular vote” replacement of the Electoral system is allowed to stand, you can kiss “legal” recognition of the right to keep and bear arms goodbye, as well as anything meaningful ever happening to stop the ongoing invasion of “pathway to citizenship”-bound foreign nationals into this country.

As I’ve said before, the GOP’ers want the Latinos because they want cheap labor.  The labor is cheap because they’ve set up a system of socialized medicine wherein the middle class has to provide medical care for themselves and everyone else, including immigrants.  So the cost of immigration is foist on the middle class, which they want to eviscerate.

Do you doubt any of this?

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice wants to eliminate all of Obamacare and drastically roll back access to healthcare. On Monday, the Trump DOJ announced that it will continue combating the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, agreeing with a Texas federal judge’s ruling against sustaining the ACA on the basis of the GOP tax law changes in 2017. This decision to continue pushing for the repeal of the ACA is a clear signal that health care will be one of the top pressing issues in the upcoming 2020 election.

Beyond these efforts, however, there will be disastrous consequences if the law is eliminated. According to the Urban Institute’s 2019 analysis of the potential consequences of the full repeal of the ACA, an estimated 20 million people would immediately lose health care coverage, and health care spending would decrease in states where coverage rates had increased the most via the ACA.

Latinos in particular made the biggest gains in access to insurance under Obamacare over the last six years.

That’s one big reason they vote democratic by 75%-80%.  As for the issue of gun control, we’ve discussed that before at length, and the statistics match almost precisely with what the numbers of supplied.

Of course, while the GOP elitists want to line the pockets of their fellow members of the BoD of various corporations with cheap labor, the democrats want the voters.  That’s why nothing can stop this.  It is inevitable.  North Carolina was close in the last election, and Florida was a razor’s edge.

Texas will likely go blue this election or next, and Georgia is heading that way.  But lose Florida or Texas and it’s over for any resemblance of constitutional conservatism in America for this generation and the next.

I realize this may be a bit far afield from David’s main point (the electoral college), but not really so much.  The Latino population weighs big in states like New Mexico, Texas, Florida and California.  What’s going to happen if we lose the electoral college and the popular vote is all that matters?

BBC:

In an impassioned address in London, the Rt Rev Bashar Warda said Iraq’s Christians now faced extinction after 1,400 years of persecution.

Since the US-led invasion toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003, he said, the Christian community had dwindled by 83%, from around 1.5 million to just 250,000.

“Christianity in Iraq,” he said, “one of the oldest Churches, if not the oldest Church in the world, is perilously close to extinction. Those of us who remain must be ready to face martyrdom.”

[ … ]

Taking a historical perspective, the Archbishop of Irbil lamented the fact that in centuries past there was a happy period of fruitful cooperation between Christians and Muslims in Iraq, a time that historians have referred to as the Islamic Golden Age.

“Our Christian ancestors shared with Muslim Arabs a deep tradition of thought and philosophy,” says Archbishop Warda. “They engaged with them in respectful dialogue from the 8th Century.

The last two paragraphs are an outright lie and he knows it.  I feel pretty bad about all of this for them, but it would help a great deal if [a] he would quit whining to the Brits about it (they aren’t going to do anything), and [b] his statement had read this way: “Those of us who remain must be ready to pick up weapons and go to war to kill our oppressors.”

So much for GWB’s naïve notion of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).  Yea, freedom only for certain religions, oppression for others.

Duncan Johnson at Ammoland.

While only a third of active ammunition consumers report spending less than they did three years ago, the difference is in the size of their purchases. On average, those who report spending less have reduced their annual purchases (in dollars) by 38%, while those who report buying more are buying only 23% more. When combined, the net effect of the two groups translates into a roughly 2% decline in overall retail ammunition sales. The differences between manufacturers’ reported declines and the numbers reported here can be attributed to this survey’s orientation towards more avid spenders and retailers’ inventories which affect the volume of orders received by manufacturers.

Over the past five years, stockpilers, or those who set aside 20% or more of their ammunition purchases for future use, account for 44% of all ammunition purchasers. Reasons given for storing ammunition include:

1. Uncertainty about future supplies, 69%

2. Uncertainty about the political climate, 64%

3. To save money, 57%

4. Uncertainty about future economic conditions and income, 54%

5. To save time, 39%

6. Other, 8%

I don’t believe this is very complicated.  I expect sales to pick up in about a year or little less as the election draws near.  Then it will go berserk right after the election or slow back down for another four years – depending upon the results of the election – at which point it will go gangbusters again, never to slow down until made illegal.

This is just a temporary lull.

Military.com:

One of the Marine Corps’ female infantry riflemen hit another milestone when she became the first woman to graduate from the service’s Urban Leaders Course.

Lance Cpl. Autumn Taniguchi, with 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, finished the three-week course that prepares leathernecks to lead troops in urban environments on May 3.

“This course is not easy,” Taniguchi said, according to a Marine Corps news release. “I didn’t expect it to be easy, but it also helps to show me that I can do more than I thought I could.”

The Urban Leaders Course, which is led by 1st Marine Division Schools at Camp Pendleton, California, covers room clearing, close-quarters battle and combat marksmanship. Students are taught to make challenging leadership decisions in an urban setting through realistic training scenarios and live-fire ranges.

None of the course standards has changed since women began serving in infantry roles, the release states, adding, “Every Marine who undergoes the training is expected to execute the mission regardless of gender.”

Seeing Taniguchi complete the course gives women in the Marine Corps another thing they can say they are able to accomplish, said Staff Sgt. Ken Rick, Urban Leaders Course chief instructor.

“Not necessarily begging for acceptance but proving to the males that they can do this,” Rick said in the release.

Well, that’s certainly reason for another celebratory glass of wine tonight, huh?  After all, that’s what the Marine Corps is all about – making it where people can say they are able to accomplish certain things.

Speaking of which, I have a quick question for Ms. Taniguchi.  Can you pick up a 220 lb Marine who has been shot and carry him over your shoulder for hundreds of yards to safety and medical assistance?  Without fracturing your pelvis?

If you can’t, do your Marines really trust you in combat?

If you don’t do anything else today, watch this video entirely.  It’s well worth your time. There is also information presented by Stoner that doesn’t fit the narrative, so it’s a good history lesson.

Do you think it would have been fun to have worked with him? I do.

I won’t do the video justice by embedding it, so if you’re interested, here is the link.

130 weapons in Prince George’s County alone.  Other counties count for more seizures.  The Prince George’s County Sheriff believes that the trend is heading in a positive direction and that people see it as a means of intervention.

Because the state is the new family, church, neighborhood, doctor, pastor, colleagues, friends, and confidant.  Just as the controllers want it to be.

Alex at Ammo.com sent this article my way, and I haven’t ignored it.  I had to ponder it a bit before weighing in.

Regardless if depression is overdiagnosed and America has a habit of over-prescribing mind-altering medications, there’s little doubt that SSRIs have a risk of increasing violence in patients, even in patients who have no previous history of violence or aggression before taking the medication.

This risk of violent behavior, both to the individual taking the medication and those around them, is so significant, it has led to the FDA mandating a black box warning on all SSRI medications. These black box warnings are designed to provide information and draw attention to the fact that the medication has serious and life-threatening risks.

As of 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. are labeled:

“Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.”

[ … ]

Some of the side effects caused by SSRIs can increase the risk of violence against others. Perhaps the most risky, emotional blunting (or detachment) has been linked to SSRI use and many people who’ve taken the drugs report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything. There’s also been an established causal relationship between SSRI use and psychosis and hallucinations, both of which are known to increase the risk of violence in individuals.

[ … ]

In most cases, the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are nonviolent. Even those who self-harm are highly unlikely to hurt others. In fact, these individuals are more likely to become victims of violent crimes than the general public.

Yet after each mass shooting tragedy, the media fills with psychiatrists who say that the individual didn’t seek the help they needed and that with the proper treatment, the tragedy may have been prevented. But research doesn’t support that philosophy.

In fact, depression in particular doesn’t lead to violence, yet since the increase in SSRI antidepressants being widely prescribed, the rise in mass shootings has increased right along with it. And evidence shows that many mass shooters were either taking or had recently taken SSRIs.

He gives a number of examples, and the number of examples he gives isn’t trivial.  So the initial reaction to all of this could be, “Well, if SSRIs can cause violence behavior, then put them on a list and prevent them from purchasing guns.”

But lists are exactly what the controllers want, and even more to the point, it’s exactly what the controllers want the soccer moms to admit that we need.  And the only ones who could manage such a list?  Why, it would be FedGov.  Presto.  More power for the controllers, and after the soccer moms admit that lists are needful, it’s a simple thing to keep adding to that list.

I am not asserting that there is no danger in SSRIs.  Anything that powerful to affect your psyche must be managed properly.  And there is no doubt that such things are over-prescribed today by doctors in America.  The flip side of the coin is that such medications do help with pain management, and there are certainly patients who do okay with them – for a while.

Other than pain management, I see this as a reflection of the depression not of individuals, but an entire society which has rejected God, His holy law for our lives, and the saving grace bestowed in His only Son.  My former (and now decreased) professor, Dr. C. Gregg Singer, wrote in the preface of his book “From Rationalism to Irrationality,” that the west is sick unto death.  That was decades ago.

The society reflects its individuals, and individuals make the society.  The world and life view of modernism has led us to where we are today, and lists won’t be of any help getting us back.  Lists will help the controllers be more controlling, and we all know about mass shootings on behalf of the state and what that did to the world in the twentieth century (170,000,000 dead).

As for what to do, if someone calls for lists, its as out of balance as our society is.  God’s economy is three-pronged: the state, the church, and the family.  None are supposed to be subservient to the other.  The solution lies in something other than lists, and thus I’m where David Codrea is on this: “Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.”

Exactly what form that takes is another discussion, but a ban-list for guns for some SSRI patients isn’t nearly enough, as they can always go to the local tractor supply for several loads of fertilizer.  And that doesn’t help the SSRI patients who do okay on the medications one whit.

Following up his bomb on the NRA BoD, Lt. Col. West updates us and fills in the gaps.

As a Battalion Commander in the 4th Infantry Division, 2d Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, I told my soldiers, before we deployed to Iraq, that the most expendable person in the unit was me. No single individual is more important than the unit they are called upon to serve.

America needs the National Rifle Association in these troublesome times. But our Constitutional Republic needs the NRA focused on its core competencies, its mission: to train and educate this nation on marksmanship and responsible gun ownership, and to ensure we will never be subjects, but armed individuals . . . citizens.

Read the rest here.  Most interesting, however, is what some of the comments say.  This one is rich.

To those of you who seem to be ANTI NRA, Stuff it . If the NRA goes down, TURN IN YOUR GUNS. You people are surely haven’t looked at the other side. OR your out to help the LEFT kill the second . Five million plus two million is a very large number , two million minus five million is to loose the second. This GOA and NRA LIFE member thinks that you should think about what you are doing . Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

So it sounds as if the author, “Rich Z,” needs a historical primer.  Via Kenny, commenter Skytrooper reminds us where we have been and where we are.

“Before there was an NRA/ILA to fight to protect our rights” — You conveniently “forgot” to mention the fact NRA officials support the BATFE and every current federal anti-gun law.

“the Democrats wove into their DNA the desire to disarm America.” — The two most vehemently anti-RKBA SCOTUS justices, Warren Burger and John Paul Stevens, were appointed by Republicans, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Who created the BATF in 1972 then told journalists there was no anti-gun law he wouldn’t support and how he regarded the private ownership of firearms as an “abomination”? Republican Richard Nixon.

Who signed the Mulford Act in 1967 banning the open carry of loaded firearms in California, endorsed the Brady Bill in 1991 then wrote members of Congress in 1994 urging them to vote for Bill Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban? Republican NRA Life Member Ronald Reagan.

Who voted for GCA-68 when he was a member of Congress, signed an executive order in 1989 banning the importation of many superb semiauto firearms then appointed anti-RKBA liberal David Souter to SCOTUS? Republican NRA Life Member George H.W. Bush.

Who supported the same anti-gun laws as Al Gore and John Kerry and, like Barack Obama, wanted to make Bill Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban a permanent statute in 2004? NRA-endorsed Republican George W. Bush.

Who signed Massachusetts’ “assault weapon” ban into law then touted his zeal for strict gun control? Republican Mitt Romney, NRA’s choice for president in 2012.

Who wrote a book, The America We Deserve, in which he wanted to make it harder for everyone to purchase a firearm, supported “assault weapon” bans, and criticized Republicans who “walk the NRA line?” Who contributed a fortune to liberal anti-gun Democrats, joined with Hillary Clinton in wanting to forbid Americans from being “allowed” to purchase a firearm without any due process of law then directed BATFE officials (without a shred of legal authority) to misconstrue the definition of automatic firearm under NFA-34 to ban “bump stocks”? Republican Donald Trump, NRA’s choice for president in 2016.

Kindly identify a single current Republican member of Congress seeking to repeal any federal anti-gun statute, every one of which is supported by Wayne LaPierre & Company.

“While we know the National Firearms Act” — You mean NFA-34 which NRA officials supported in 1934 and still do today?

“The National Rifle Association was caught off guard by this.” — Oh, please. Once handguns were removed from the original version of NFA-34, the NRA endorsed it. Four years later, top NRA officials endorsed FFA-38.

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” — NRA President Karl T. Frederick, testifying before Congress in favor of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938

“The NRA of 1934 was not the political juggernaut that it is today.” — You mean the “political juggernaut” that did nothing to oppose the 1986 machine gun ban signed into law by Ronald Reagan? You mean the “political juggernaut” that lobbied in 1993 to make the Brady Act more onerous than Sarah Brady sought by having it apply to all firearms sold by FFLs, not just handguns? You mean the “political juggernaut” that did absolutely nothing to oppose the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment which made GCA-68 even more oppressive? You mean the “political juggernaut” which rolled over and played dead when Donald Trump banned “bump stocks”? You mean the “political juggernaut” which routinely endorses anti-RKBA politicians, just so long as they’re Republicans?

“We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” — NRA Executive Vice President Franklin Orth, testifying before Congress in favor of a ban on the mail order sales of firearms (without bothering to explain what possible difference it made whether Lee Harvey Oswald bought his rifle by mail order or at a local sporting goods store)

“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” — American Rifleman magazine, March 1968, p. 22

“The measure as a whole [GCA-68] appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.” — NRA Executive Vice President Franklin Orth, 1968

Question: “Are there any anti-gun laws which the NRA supports?”

Answer: “The NRA fully supports the Gun Control Act of 1968.” — NRA-ILA head Tanya Metaksa, speaking before the National Press Club (televised on C-SPAN2) on 16 May 1995

Question (from CNN’s Larry King): “Does the NRA want to abolish the BATF?”

Answer: “Not only does the NRA not want to abolish the BATF, the NRA doesn’t want to restrict the BATF in any way.” — NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, appearing on CNN on 18 May 1995

“We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. … We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government.” — NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Congressional testimony, 27 May 1999, hearing before 106th Congress, House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime

“I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban” — George W. Bush, 13 October 2004; NRA’s choice for president in 2000 and 2004

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe that they help protect us and provide for our safety.” — Mitt Romney, 2002; NRA’s choice for president in 2012

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” — Mitt Romney; NRA’s choice for president in 2012

“I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. … The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.” — Donald Trump (from his book The America We Deserve); NRA’s choice for president in 2016

That about sums it up, and also explains why Mr. West is having to do what he’s doing.

Sanders:

“Some of the best men I’ve ever known, I met in the military.

Some of the biggest scumsucking dirtbag pieces of crap I’ve ever known, I met in the military.

If someone throws out “I was in the military” and expects me to take that as some kind of bonafides, they are assuming wrong.”