![By Larry Keane President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them. It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal. Blaming the ‘Resistance’ President Biden was joined by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams for a “Gun Violence Strategies Partnership” meeting to talk about how to solve the crime surge, particularly those involving firearms. Instead of real solutions, the focus devolved into blaming law-abiding gun owners and again pushing a gun control agenda. “Enough is enough,” President Biden said. “Because we know we can do things about this, but for the resistance, we’re getting from some sectors of the government and the Congress and the state legislatures, and the organizational structures out there.” That “resistance” the president spoke of is the American people. Over the past two years they’ve become fed up with police defunding policies and soft-on-crime prosecutors, like Manhattan’s Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg. They’ve invested in their own safety. The “resistance” is the 21 million lawful gun buyers in 2020, including more than 8.4 million first-time buyers, and the 18.5 million gun buyers in 2021, with more than 5.4 million first-timers. The ”resistance” has backstopped Congress from passing federal gun control that don’t address crime. It also stopped President Biden’s nominations of paid gun control lobbyist David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and banking activist Saule Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency because not even all U.S. Senate Democrats could support them. They would have turned those agencies into bludgeons to hammer the firearm industry to achieve a special interest, gun control agenda. Favorite Falsehoods The president turned his aim from lawful gun owners towards the firearm industry and repeated a lie he’s rehearsed several times before. “Imagine had we had a liabil… [sic] they’re the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. Only one,” the president protested. “Why the gun manufacturers?… It’s got to end. They’ve got to be held responsible for the things they do that are irresponsible.” He repeated the claim for emphasis. “And I find that outrageous.” This is flatly false. The president knows by now, or his speechwriters do and they don’t bother with the facts. CNN, Politicfact and Washington Post have all checked President Biden on his remark, including after he said it in the White House Rose Garden. CNN cleanly rebuked it. “This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.” Politifact rated it “false.” Washington Post wasn’t kinder, saying, “Biden is wrong to claim the gun industry is totally immune.” The firearm industry has liability protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), bipartisan legislation enacted under former President George W. Bush. The firearm industry cannot be held liable when unaffiliated third-parties, in this case criminals, misuse a legal, lawfully sold product. It’s fundamental tort law and is similar to an individual attempting to hold Ford and Budweiser responsible for drunk driving deaths. The law was passed in direct response to lawsuits filed against the industry by control groups and municipalities like the city of New York and the state of New York. These type of lawsuit continue to be filed, now even by foreign governments represented by the same gun control group, the Brady Center. Colonial-Era Error President Biden continued to ignore facts on the Second Amendment and its history. He even erred when speaking about the Revolution-era days and why the right to keep and bear arms was so sacrosanct. “When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” President Biden remarked. “You couldn’t buy a cannon, and when – the – when this, uh, this amendment was passed.” It did, and does, say the right of the People “shall not be infringed.” Even The Washington Post was brutal in their assignment of “Four Pinocchio’s” to this statement. “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.” In fact, the Constitution of early America – before the Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, was even ratified – granted and encouraged “special waivers” to American merchants and sailors, “allowing private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it.” Americans given waivers and who owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle. In fact, it is still perfectly legal to buy a cannon today. It is the presidents’ fundamental misunderstanding and blatant lying about the Second Amendment that informs his gun control agenda and misguided approach to solving the crime problem. Millions of law-abiding Americans took ownership of their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, understanding the president won’t. Instead of mangling the meaning of the right and pushing for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, the president should keep it simple. Take on the criminals and punish them for breaking the law.](https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/download-26.jpeg "false truth-o-meter politifact fact check")
The legacy media has mostly given up the pretense of carrying out its once-professed mission – holding power to account. At this point, no reasonable person expects the regime press to cover legitimate news that might reflect poorly on their political allies. Still, conspicuous ignorance is one thing, distortion is another.
At an August 3 campaign rally in Atlanta, President Donald Trump told those gathered that Vice President Kamala Harris “supports mandatory gun confiscation.” On August 7, the ill-named PolitiFact rated Trump’s statement “mostly false.”
As NRA-ILA has regularly documented, Trump is correct. Harris has repeatedly supported prohibiting and confiscating commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, including America’s most popular rifle – the AR-15.
At a 2020 presidential campaign event in Londonderry, N.H. in September 2019, then-presidential candidate Harris told reporters that confiscation of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was “a good idea.” Elaborating on her support for a compulsory “buyback” program, the senator added, “We have to work out the details — there are a lot of details — but I do…We have to take those guns off the streets.”
On the September 16, 2019 episode of “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation. During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris “Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?”
The candidate responded, “I do believe that we need to do buybacks.” Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added “A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.”
Further demonstrating Harris’s commitment to gun confiscation, the candidate called for a “mandatory buyback program” during an October 3, 2019 MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November 2019 interview with NBC Nightly News.
Given Harris’s obvious and indisputable record of support for gun confiscation, a reasonable person might wonder how a news outlet could rebut Trump’s accurate statement. PolitiFact’s lazy reasoning boiled down to: That was then, this is now. And PolitiFact’s sole piece of “evidence” for their conclusion? Less than a sentence from a New York Times article that cited Harris “campaign officials.”
So, Americans can either believe the actual presidential candidate’s repeated calls for gun confiscation in her own words on video or a second-hand account of what a campaign official supposedly said to a regime press outlet about a purported flip-flop on an unpopular policy. Are Americans supposed to believe so-called “factcheckers” are this gullible, or is there something else at play? There is a reason statements against interest are given special weight in court.
Moreover, while PolitiFact may want to portray 2019 as ancient history, there’s more recent evidence that Harris supports gun confiscation. Noticeably absent from the PolitiFact piece was any mention of Harris’s October 26, 2023 remarks at a state luncheon with Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Harris praised Australia’s gun control measures – the most famous of which was the Aussie equivalent of Harris’s gun confiscation proposal. Referencing violence perpetrated with firearms, Harris remarked, “And let us be clear, it does not have to be this way, as our friends in Australia have demonstrated.” (emphasis added).
In 1996, Australia adopted a near total ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. To coincide with the new restrictions, the government instituted a mandatory “buyback” confiscation scheme where gun owners were required to turn their newly-prohibited firearms over to the government for a set price.
Thankfully, fewer and fewer Americans are relying on the regime press to mediate reality. In October, Gallup reported the results of a recent poll, stating,
The 32% of Americans who say they trust the mass media “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to report the news in a full, fair and accurate way ties Gallup’s lowest historical reading, previously recorded in 2016.
Another 29% of U.S. adults have “not very much” trust, while a record-high 39% register “none at all.”
On June 26, the Washington Post published a piece titled “A new measure of Americans’ deep distrust of the media.” The item explained,
Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics. Swing-state polling from The Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University found that only 3 in 10 residents of six of the most important states in this year’s presidential election trust that the media will fairly and accurately report political news. Seven in 10 indicated that they had not too much trust in that occurring — or that they had no trust at all.
The notion that the legacy press is unbiased is quite literally laughable. A visible manifestation of this sentiment occurred on the August 12 episode of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” Audience members burst into laughter when the host, in all seriousness, suggested that CNN is objective.
With the regime press losing all semblance of credibility, NRA members and other gun rights activists should work even harder to share the facts about about the dangers Harris poses to the Second Amendment and gun ownership with their family, friends, neighbors, and other freedom-minded individuals.
—Courtesy NRA-ILA
Unfortunately the useful idiots rarely read beyond the headlines and thus believe what they are told. Journalism is dead as it concerns the legacy media. The only thing that comes from them is at best semi informed opinion or the talking points that the left feeds them. The legacy media was really upset with Twitter being purchased by Elon Musk was because that is where so called journalists got their sources and we all know how reliable that is.
After academia, the next sector for infiltration was journalism. Control what people see and hear, you control the narrative.
Fox News does the same. Literally reading talking points from the Repubs off the email on the air as “news”
When you compare a fact you know to be true against what is reported, and you find the press gets it wrong, how can you trust their reporting on subjects you don’t have knowledge of?
I’ve got a pretty solid background in science, computers and firearms. When I find their reporting on those subjects incorrect, I can’t trust them in other reporting either.
Thanks to the internet, we can now research the same documents and press releases that the press sees. We can check their facts, as well as the context. If there’s nothing to check, then it’s an unnamed source or someone is asking you to trust their word.
What were the two biggest stories of the past decade? (Which two stories did the press spend the most time on, outside of elections?) Answer: The Russian collusion conspiracy theory and Covid. Using hindsight, which mainstream television outlet performed the best? Fox or everyone else? You know the answer. Fox News isn’t great, but to call them the same as the other networks means that you’re either a liar, or you’re ignorant.
I have been stating FOX, for decades, was there to give the ILLUSION of an opposition..
Now they have officially joined the MARXIST agenda!!!
While Fox may be right of center I’ll bet dollars to donuts the actual “journalists” are very left of center.
I get Fox News updates at the top and bottom of the hour on a radio station I listen to. The way they frame the news, and the terms they use, is no different from the NYT.
They’re not lying to cover for Harris. They’re lying to push corporatist globalism. Harris is just a small part of that.
that would seem closer to the truth…they have to trot someone out there to push their agenda
Wall Street has supported the Democrat candidate for president since at least 2008. Democrats are still pretending to stick it to the rich, and give to the poor. They’ve controlled the White House for 12 out of the last 16 years, and they have yet to live up to that. The spending priority of Biden Harris was to pay their cronies.
They taxed the poor and working class with inflation. Now Harris wants lots of new taxes. Corporate taxes don’t lower prices. It isn’t like they take a loss. They transfer the cost to the consumer. It will be another tax on the working class during a time of inflation. Her policies may be more moronic than the Puppet’s.
Heels Up Harris is also on record stating that if she does not get gun control legislation on her desk in the first 100 days of her presidency she will simply write an Executive Order getting what she wants. Taking our guns away is about the only subject she can talk about without cackling and that is just as scary.
Nullification of all Marxist evils and secession if necessary. And no, it’s not illegal unless you’ve been duped by your public school education. We are sovereign, not the government.
The First amendment protection for the press was written for hand cranked one page at a time printing presses…LOL Not the instant media stuff of today…I think it should be required that possession of an “assault printer” or similar weapon should be controlled…WAHAHAH
Imagine reporters having to get a licence…and maybe we could have RED Flag laws for false reporting.
In the former c’nist eastern Europe, typewriters were registered with the government and the secret police had examples from every machine.
Miner, stop doing that! At least not in public.
How They Can Use the Rule on Unfinished Frames and Receivers to Disarm a LOT of You.
“You think the upcoming challenges to ATF’s rule on unfinished frames and receivers doesn’t affect you? Think again. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the very, very dangerous argument that could be made, should the ATF prevail, that all AR-15 lower receivers are capable of being banned as they are capable of being converted to a fully automatic receiver. Don’t believe us, check out the brief that FPC filed on this case so that you can see for yourself, this case has a lot more going on than just 80% lowers.”
They say the average price paid to racketeers per illegal is 1500$.
1500×1000000= 1.5 BILLION
And how many millions have crossed while the Border Czar giggled? 15?
Now THAT is big time crime, and “sanctuary cities” are INVOLVED.
Now let’s talk about the knock-on effects… No, wait, let’s don’t. I ain’t got all day.
Meanwhile, “journalists” are crowing about folks who are in trouble because they could prove that a crime was committed, in court.
Two things *are* proved here – 1) MSM has successfully pounded the true narrative into the ground floor of the collective mind, and 2) Deep State doesn’t prosecute itself.
Now tell us about how Trump was caught jaywalking on the way to the hospital after the magically lucky and prescient shoot-aire shot him. Did he have someone with him? Ooooh, that is conspiracy!!!! Did he complain? Defamation!!!!!
Never heard anybody talk about how illegal immigration is a racket, and govt officials who enable it should be prosecuted under RICO? QED.
This is your reminder that Biden was able to beat every election predictor (bellwether counties and states, no sitting president has ever lost by getting more votes for reelection, etc.) that we know of by expanding which demographic? Rural white men! Which is why they’ve been trying to court the rural white vote ever since, right? Right? Trump expanded his voting base in every other demographic. He continues to do so.
Do you know which voting demographic is the least likely to vote after new immigrants? Rural white people. Theory to explain this phenomenon: they knew those people weren’t voting, so they voted on their behalf. They’re doing the same thing with newly registered illegals. Anyone think that’s a crackpot theory? Please explain why. Why did the once in a lifetime predictor beater, Biden, have to drop out? (If he won, even the idiots would pause to think about it.)
Our sound (joke) voting laws wouldn’t catch that, so why wouldn’t they cheat? Trillion$ are at stake. People cheat for thousands. Why was flooding the country with the world’s poor, on a level never before experienced by any other country in the history of the world, so important to the Democrat powers that be? It’s hurting some areas so bad, that Democrat “sanctuary cities” began to complain about it. So why are Democrats doing it? They can no longer win without cheating.
“They can no longer win without cheating“
Hilarious claim from the party of ‘fake electors’.
“Voter data expert hired by Trump campaign says 2020 election was not stolen
BY SARAH FORTINSKY 01/02/24 02:11 PM ET
Ken Block, whom the Trump campaign hired in 2020 to find voter fraud in the election, penned an op-ed Tuesday stating unequivocally that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.
“I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign,” Block wrote.
Block, who owns Simpatico Software Systems, said his company’s findings were communicated directly to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and transcripts of depositions taken by the Jan. 6 select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol “show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election.”
Cool. If there’s no fraud, then everyone should be cooperating to demonstrate to the public that there’s nothing to hide. Yet, the opposite has happened all over the country ever since the election. It’s still happening to this day. Even this guy admits that he only had 34 days to evaluate the data available to him, and that he had incomplete voter data to work with.
From your linked article: (notice all of the qualifiers in bold)
Those emails and documents show that the voter data available to the campaign contained no evidence of large-scale voter fraud based on data mining and fraud analytics.
That sure is a lot of hedging. BTW, you know this guy is selling a book, right? Was this guy able to verify signatures? Did he check the person’s face voting against the voter’s ID? It turns out, that is impossible for anyone to do when the ballot is mailed in, dropped off in a box, or if the jurisdiction doesn’t require ID at all.
Now why would anyone want such loose voting laws, Miner? Why don’t you ponder that one, and come back with an answer. We know the usual Democrat line of, “black people are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID” is complete BS. Why do they keep lying about that? Why are you complicit? There are even non-profits out there helping to register people to vote. How do they register someone to vote without proving who that person is, Miner? Why aren’t you helping those poor people get IDs? Why are we the only country in the West with such loose voting laws? Why do Democrats insist on making them even looser? Because it’s fair? Because you can audit it? Because you can prove it after an election? Hmm…
Per Trump legal team attorney, Cleta Mitchell:
Ken Block completely misses the point of the concerns about the 2020 election. We were not alleging in our election contest that there was “massive voter fraud.” Vote fraud is a legal term of art, and it requires elements that we had no way to investigate or prove in court. What we did find was that there were more votes that had been cast in violation of Georgia state law and included in the certified total, than the margin between President Trump and Joe Biden.
Per an article I can’t link due to moderation (search any part of this, and you’ll find the article):
Mitchell explained that under Georgia law, if there are more illegal votes than the margin between two candidates, the remedy is a new election. “There are many other types of illegal votes besides ‘fraudulent’ votes. We documented in our election contest many, many more illegal votes than the margin between Trump and Biden and were prepared to prove it in court, but we never had the opportunity to present that evidence in a hearing,” Mitchell said.
Trump’s 64-page complaint, accompanied by more than 1,100 pages of affidavits, data, and expert opinions, did not allege widespread voter fraud, she said. “So Block is ‘disproving’ something that our election contest did not allege.”
And ain’t it weird how every change to the process they propose makes it easier to cheat – to include letting children to vote.
Cleta Mitchell?
“What we did find was that there were more votes that had been cast in violation of Georgia state law“
So why didn’t they introduce their ‘evidence’ in one of the 60 court cases they filed?
Because they ain’t got no evidence:
“Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing
BY RUSS BYNUM
Updated 4:06 PM EDT, February 14, 2024
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.
Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.
A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group’s refusal to share evidence with investigators.”
It’s all bullshit, the judge ordered them to produce the evidence and they couldn’t because it’s all bullshit.
Even the Republican Georgia Secretary of State said it’s all bullshit:
“Once again, True the Vote has proven itself untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations,” Raffensperger spokesman Mike Hassinger said Wednesday. “Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, their fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked.”
You’re talking about a different case, Miner.
We documented in our election contest many, many more illegal votes than the margin between Trump and Biden and were prepared to prove it in court, but we never had the opportunity to present that evidence in a hearing,” Mitchell said.
Leftist groups conducted a pressure campaign to get her fired from her law firm for questioning the election. Remember how Big Tech censored people questioning the election? They did the same thing with Covid. Hindsight tells us that the people asking questions about Covid, the vax, civil rights abuses, etc. were correct. Why are left wingers always trying to silence people questioning the regime?
They’re using “Raffensperger is a Republican” the same way they used it with Mueller, Comey, and Crooks. Raffensperger, and the MSM, have been intentionally dishonest about that phone call with Trump. All you have to do is listen to the entire call to understand the context. It’s no different from the “very fine people” lie. Now why would Raffensperger do that? It was a distraction. After he claimed that the election was secure, he had to admit that there were multiple problems. It’s CYA time.
If you guys are half as confident about elections as you pretend to be, then why not use well-known election controls? Why wouldn’t they be open and transparent? That would make the public confident in the results. So why aren’t they doing that? You know why.
She provided a report to Raffensperger of the evidence. Raffensperger never responded to it. But he did write the forward to that book.
That different case you’re referring to wasn’t about obtaining evidence. It was about obtaining witness names. They were protecting their identities so the leftist groups wouldn’t try to ruin their lives for daring to work on election integrity issues. If they cared about evidence, their office would respond to the report they were given. It’s CYA time.
OK, then we need to see the documentation:
“We documented in our election contest many, many more illegal votes“
The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim.
“She provided a report to Raffensperger of the evidence“
No, she ‘reported’ that she had provided a report to Raffensberger of the evidence.
Certainly she’s made that evidence public now, would you be kind enough to provide a link?
“It was about obtaining witness names. They were protecting their identities“
Oh yes, the old secret witness gambit, a favorite of dictatorships.
Here in America our constitution grants us the right to confront our accuser so there’ll be no secret witnesses.
And in any case, the judge ordered the witnesses’ names be revealed, he could merely examine them in camera if there was a security risk.
But that’s not the case, because you are lying. True the Vote did not say they were keeping the witnesses secret for safety, True the Vote said they did not have any evidence.
“Conservative group tells judge it has no evidence to back its claims of Georgia ballot stuffing
BY RUSS BYNUM
Updated 4:06 PM EDT, February 14, 2024“
From True the Vote:
In addition to what was originally provided to the FBI and GBI in 2021, we provided three written complaints, with documentation, to the Secretary of State, and over 6,000 documents to the SEB.
The state was unwilling to provide whistleblower protection in 2021, unwillingly to examine our data while it was still set up in active databases, and unwilling to act on the summary data which it could easily have done. Now, three years later, after the statute of limitations has expired on any election crimes, its apparent that the SEB’s interest is not in investigating. Rather, it is in silencing citizens from speaking out, lest they get the same treatment our group is now enduring. It is outrageous.
I’ll leave a link for documents in a separate comment in case it goes to moderation. As if you’re going to study these documents LOL. Yeah, right. You’re a headline reader. You never try to understand anything. I can honestly say that because I’ve had conversations with you for years. I understand how you operate.
Edit: Yep. Link comment is awaiting moderation.
“because they could prove that a crime”
*because they could –> NOT <– prove that a