More than half a million adverse side effects have been reported from the various Covid vaccines (Ken’s place), and here are some good pictorial depictions of the damage (in graphs).  Here is one more related post.

But a large number of Congress critters and Congressional staffers understand.

According to Dr Pierre Kory, MD, MPA, and verified by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), 100 to 200 congressional reps and/or staff and families who contracted COVID-19 were treated with the Front Line Ivermectin protocol. [LINK and LINK]

This successful treatment is happening at the same time many congressional representatives are playing politics in favor of the vaccine; downplaying the effective anti-viral treatment and therapeutic approach with Ivermectin; and taking action to block regular American citizens from seeking similar treatment with Ivermectin.

Congress can seek treatment with a medication they simultaneously deny to others?  This is well beyond a “scandal”, and needs to be investigated quickly.

Additionally, as Merck has announced a new and similar anti-viral drug called Molnupiravir, two trial studies in India have requested to exit the trials.  Apparently the issue surrounds the new drug providing no benefit once a patient is moderately ill and hospitalized (READ MORE, Reuters Link).

Fun fact: Between 100-200 United States Congress Members (plus many of their staffers & family members) with COVID.. were treated by a colleague over the past 15 months with ivermectin & the I-MASK+ protocol at https://t.co/OvU8SLfLJq. None have gone to hospital. Just sayin'

— Pierre Kory, MD MPA (@PierreKory) October 8, 2021

Because they know.  Oh, they know.  But you see, their rules are for little people, and you’re a little person.

I think Tim is underplaying the importance of functional reliability, and thus doesn’t appreciate the radial delayed system in CMMG.  It’s very hard to get reliable feeding, bolt cycle and operation with pistol rounds in a carbine and CMMG has done that.

But that’s just my opinion.

Reason.

On a chilly December evening in 2017, a group of Wichita cops surrounded a modest house on West McCormick Street. They were there in response to what was purportedly a gruesome hostage situation: a father shot dead, a mother in danger, and a son threatening to burn everything down.

When Andrew Finch opened the door to his home, a sniper rifle killed him within seconds. Thirty minutes passed before anyone rendered emergency aid. Cops handcuffed his mother, sister, niece, and two friends outside in 24 degree weather for over an hour. But Finch was not the son the police were after, nor were he and his family involved in any crisis.

That’s because there was no crisis. Around 5:00 p.m. that day, in a prank known as “swatting,” a California caller had dialed the Wichita Police Department (WPD) and reported a work of fiction, doling out the address and setting the chaos in motion.

The officers involved failed to do the basics before exercising lethal force on an innocent man, according to a lawsuit filed by the family. The suit says the officers subverted department policy by declining to call a SWAT team, opted not to conduct any sort of inquiry despite “obvious warning signs” that the call was a farce, and did not try to negotiate with Finch before ending his life, among several other missteps.

“After Defendant Officers…surrounded 1033 West McCormick, they made no attempt to determine whether an occupant of the house was in a mental health crisis; had shot someone; had threatened to hold or was holding someone at gunpoint; had threatened or was threatening to burn the house down; had threatened or was threatening to commit suicide; was in possession of a firearm; or posed a danger to themselves or others,” reads the suit, which was originally filed against the city of Wichita and officers Justin Rapp (who fired the shot) and Benjamin Jonker (who organized the response).

Whether the family will see anyone face accountability remains uncertain.

“The argument from the police officer seems to be basically: because they thought a heinous crime had been committed…it was fine to shoot Mr. Finch onsite as soon as he opened the door,” says Easha Anand, an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center who is representing the family. “That’s just not how our justice system works. You don’t get to just shoot someone onsite because you think they committed a heinous crime.”

Anand recently made that argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, pushing back on Rapp’s contention that he should be protected by qualified immunity. That legal doctrine allows certain government officials to violate your constitutional rights without having to face a jury in civil court, so long as there are no preexisting court precedents explicitly declaring the specific conduct unconstitutional. Overcoming qualified immunity does not guarantee a settlement; it merely gives victims the right to state their case.

Yet that’s often a tall order for plaintiffs to meet, no matter how shocking the behavior in question. Consider an adjacent case: At 78 years old, Onree Norris was put under arrest after more than two dozen cops broke into his home, destroyed his door, and set off explosives in his house as part of a drug raid. They had the wrong residence. Though Norris survived the skirmish, he cannot sue the officers who left his home partially in ruins, because he was unable to locate an identical court ruling outlining his experience to a tee.

Well, shooting an innocent woman was what Lon Horiuchi did to Randy Weaver’s wife as soon as she stepped into the doorway, and Bill Barr defended the practice.  You’re never in more danger than when cops are around.

There is no system of justice in America.  The judges are corrupt, and the juries are packed with idiots who’ll do what the judge tells them to do.

And make no mistake, if told to confiscate firearms, they’ll obey orders and do it, just like the military will turn on the American public if ordered to by the corrupt generals.  You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

Some guy is apparently on the run, possibly in the Florida bush.

Alligators, black bears, clouds of gnawing insects. Two different types of rattlesnakes. Coyotes, bobcats and panthers. Everything is wet, almost nothing is edible, and safe drinking water is nowhere to be found.

If Brian Laundrie actually is deep in the Florida wilderness, a survival expert in Sarasota said that by now, he’s either dead or in very bad shape.

“If he’s down there in the Carlton Reserve, he’s living in hell,” local survival expert Mark Burrow said.

With heavy rain in recent days, starting a fire will be nearly impossible. It’s also the wrong season for foraging edible plants, Burrow said.

He said Laundrie may be able to scavenge leftovers from a predator’s kill. There also are freshwater clams and snails he could collect. Fishing is another possibility.

“People have been making a big deal of the alligators and the snakes,” Burrow said. “But it’s dehydration that’s the real danger.”

Even if he were able to get a fire started to boil water, recent rains will have made the drinking water full of tannins from local foliage. Tannins occur in the roots, wood, and bark of oak trees, and high concentrations can be harmful to humans, Burrow said.

“That can cause loose bowels,” he said. “Not a good thing when you are already dehydrated.”

When it comes to animals, the area’s bears and panthers are not likely to bother humans. But if Laundrie is injured or struggling, he will also have to deal with coyotes and bobcats.

“If you were injured or exhausted,” Burrow said, “they would eat you.”

There are at least four different types of venomous snakes in Carlton Reserve, the cottonmouth likely being the most dangerous. There’s also the pigmy rattlesnake, the diamondback rattlesnake, and the coral snake.

I wouldn’t be too worried about Bobcats or Coyotes, and panthers aren’t numerous enough to pose a real threat, but bears, alligators, snakes and insects are a threat.  The biggest threat, however, is lack of potable water.  I outlined how water controls your every thought and decision in a trip to Colorado.

Here is a recent video on water filtration.

Frankly, I wouldn’t trust a seep well.  It won’t filter Giardia or Cryptosporidium.  I have no idea whether water filters will remove plant tannins.  I confess I hadn’t thought about the risk posed by plant tannins.  I’m glad I stumbled on this article – I will think about it in the future.

I have a backpacking water filter, but I know there are a lot on the market now, and a lot of designs I haven’t seen.

What do readers think and what kind of water filtration do you have, and why?  I notice that carrying bleach wasn’t brought up in the video, and I’ll tell you that I don’t like the idea of loading my thyroid up with iodine.  There can be adverse health effects from that.

But pondering all of this shows just how difficult it would be to survive a protracted time in the wilderness without food, potable water, medical care, dental care, proper hygiene, etc.  Walkabouts can be dangerous.

News from Florida.

Some top Florida Republican lawmakers have now said they would support constitutional carry legislation in the upcoming session.

The policy would allow all legal gun owners to carry firearms without a concealed weapons license.

The constitutional carry legislation was filed by the Legislature’s most outspoken conservative member, Rep. Anthony Sabatini.

“Our very liberal Republican Speaker Chris Sprowls has gotten tens of thousands of emails from gun groups,” said Sabatini.

The policy is split into two bills.

The first would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a license.

“You don’t have to go ask the government for permission,” said Sabatini.

The second would allow for open carry.

“You shouldn’t have the duty to hide your firearm if you’ve done nothing wrong,” said Sabatini.

Eskamani said she’s doubtful Sabatini’s bills will get a hearing, due to his strained relationship with the House speaker.

“Sabatini does not have a lot of leverage within the chamber,” said Eskamani.

But recently, top brass in the Senate indicated they would support constitutional carry legislation, including Senate Majority Leader Debbie Mayfield.

“I support constitutional carry. That is one of the things that we will probably be looking at this session because it is important,” said Mayfield in a legislative delegation meeting last week.

Florida GOP Chair and State Sen. Joe Gruters said he might support constitutional carry, but doesn’t want to see assault weapons openly carried on beaches.

“Because I think that would adversely impact Florida’s tourism economy,” said Gruters.

While there seems to be some support for constitutional carry legislation in the Senate, a bill hasn’t yet been filed in the chamber.

I predict it won’t go anywhere this session.  Florida has a horrible history on gun control.  But it will eventually pass in coming sessions with enough effort.

You know what would help the case?  If Governor Ron DeSantis went on record for his support for the measure, and even demanded a bill be brought to his desk for approval before any other bill would be considered by the governor.

I also predict he won’t do that.

News from South Carolina.

An ordinance restricting the open carry of firearms passed its first reading with the Anderson City Council on Monday night.

The ordinance would prohibit residents from openly carrying firearms during events that take place on public property. These events include protests, according to the officials.

The background for the ordinance states, “While the City recognizes and appreciates the First and Second Amendment rights of its citizens and visitors, the presence of firearms at protests can serve to escalate tensions.”

The council will discuss the amendment again before it becomes a part of the law.

There’s always an excuse, isn’t there?

“While the City recognizes and appreciates the First and Second Amendment rights of its citizens …”  No, of course it doesn’t.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be debating the prohibition of open carry at events.  They always have to declare their support for your rights while they refuse to recognized them, don’t they?

As for the reason – “the presence of firearms at protests can serve to escalate tensions?”  They don’t believe that, otherwise they would be trying to ban concealed carry, because there is no difference between concealed and open carry except for the fact that the firearm can be seen with open carry.  The reality of the firearm is still there.

The good thing about the declaration of tyranny among the cities (Spartanburg, Greenville, Charleston, Columbia, and now Anderson have made it clear they intend to ban open carry) is that the tyrants self identify.

That’s good.  It gives patriots information on who to cast out of office next.

At Shooting Illustrated.

I’m not sure what makes these so great.

On another note, I was wondering if there’s something different for the same or less price as Pelican out there?  I recall I stumbled on a booth at a gun show a few years ago demonstrating their cases (both rifle and pistol), and I was very impressed.  I can’t recall their names.  If I can find a card from the show I’ll post it.

Related point, Condition 1 seems to have a loyal following and be pretty sturdy.

Any comments or input?

News.

In a reversal of Trump administration policy, the State Department on Tuesday disclosed the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile. It said this will aid global efforts to control the spread of such weapons.

The number of U.S. weapons, including those in active status as well as those in long-term storage, stood at 3,750 as of September 2020, the department said. That is down from 3,805 a year earlier and 3,785 in 2018.

As recently as 2003, the U.S. nuclear weapon total was slightly above 10,000. It peaked at 31,255 in 1967.

The last time the U.S. government released its stockpile number was in March 2018, when it said the total was 3,822 as of September 2017. That was early in the Trump administration, which subsequently kept updated numbers secret and denied a request by the Federation of American Scientists to declassified them.

[ … ]

At the Conference on Disarmament last February, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “President Biden has made it clear: the U.S. has a national security imperative and a moral responsibility to reduce and eventually eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.”

Find any infographic depiction of the number of deaths from conventional war through the centuries, and see where the graphic bottoms out to see the effects for peace brought about by nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons are the greatest contributor to world peace in human history.

But Biden and his ilk believe that the entire world is populated by folks with master’s degrees in social work from Ivy League schools who want nothing more than world peace, and are willing to divulge sensitive information about U.S. defense capabilities in order to join the club.

This follows a pattern of divulging OPSEC information, one of which I called out concerning Biden’s plan to share sensitive naval nuclear technology with Australia, whose commitment to protecting that technology will live no longer than the current administration.

It does no good to claim that it was all approve by Biden.  The State Department should not have done that, and Biden should not have approved it.

So after watching the debacle in Afghanistan, and then telling the world the status of our most important defensive capabilities, if you were actively trying to destroy the defense capabilities of America, what would you do any different than the administration?

By the way, a well connected source with the Navy SEALs tells me that morale among SEALs has tanked.  It couldn’t get much worse.

David Kopel writes at Reason explaining the 2A brief filed with the SCOTUS in the New York case.  It’s very good, but this part is worth lifting.

The king ordered London hostelers to tell their guests not to carry arms in London. According to the Ninth Circuit, this shows that arms carry restrictions “permeated public life.” To the contrary, the Feast of St. Thomas decree presumes that travelers will be carrying arms and will expect to continue carrying in London. The king ordered the hostelers to tell the visitors to pause their usual practices.

[ … ]

Whatever the English Bill of Rights protected, it was not good enough for Americans. James Madison’s notes for his speech introducing the Bill of Rights in Congress show that he regarded much of the English Bill of Rights as deficient, including the Protestants-only provision of the right to arms. St. George Tucker, William Rawle (author of an influential 1825 treatise on American constitutional law), and Joseph Story all denounced the English right to arms as feeble and as far inferior to the Second Amendment.

The second amendment also presumes that free men will bear arms, and in order to understand it, we must use that as a working assumption.  Nothing else will do.  The bearing of arms in colonial America was ubiquitous.

And yes, clearly, the founders felt the rights understood under English common law were inferior to what they understood under God.  Thus, the second amendment was crafted to ensure that the federal government stayed out of the business of dictating when or where to bear arms, or what kind of arms to bear.

How far we’ve fallen.