Connect with us

Opinion

Revolutionize Handguns Through Technology

It’s not a lot to ask of gun manufacturers. And, it helps keep the Second Amendment intact.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As the Smith & Wesson case vs. the State of New Jersey unfolds, it’s a good time to remember that it is the right of every U.S. citizen to be able to defend himself or herself. I believe the phrasing of the Second Amendment (above) does not require someone to be part of a militia to lawfully own and use a gun. At the same time, we are beset in the U.S., with one mass shooting after another, and one homicide after another. 

These mass shootings receive major attention if the assailant is white although, based on their percentage of the overall population, blacks commit more mass shootings and more gun-related homicides. Most shootings by black assailants receive little or no coverage, certainly nationally, because such news items do not fit the decades-long facade that the ‘mainstream’ media insists on propagating. 

Deliberately Fomenting Riots

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Police officers involved in a killing generates the most mainstream media coverage, much of it non-stop for days, especially if a black death is involved. In such cases, the mainstream media seeks to foment all types of protests, marches, and arguably, even looting and riots. That same media then downplays the looting, riots, and any associated violence, often making claims that are the direct opposite or reality.

The white victims of police gained no traction in the news. There are no marches, no looting, and no rioting. Nobody composes a slogan and posts it on a sign. No long and involved news and opinion editorials appear when a Caucasian dies at the hands of police – and in absolute numbers there are many more such victims each year than with any other race or ethnicity.

When white victims die, if any news coverage is provided, that coverage dies with them about a day later.

Incapacitate, but not Kill 

All of which brings us to the dire need to have technology revolutionize the gun industry. Why do all guns continue to be manufactured to kill or severely wound those who take a bullet? It is entirely possible with today’s technology to create guns that incapacitate and not kill. 

Police officers could be armed with such weapons and know that, if they have to fire such guns, potential assailants will adequately be incapacitated (but not killed).

Let us not second-guess for even a minute the dire role that police officers play in our country. Often, reporters as well as the general public views incidents for a few moments on a YouTube video. Or they read a highly biased account of what transpired. All the while, what’s gravely missing is context

Police officers often operate in high danger zones. At the end of their shift, they can be as shaken as soldiers at war. Post-traumatic stress disorder can affect police officers like it can affect soldiers. When you are in tense situations, perhaps day after day, sometimes you only have reflexes and adrenaline with which to operate. 

Covering Considerable Ground

An NFL pass receiver, or a track and field sprinter, can run nearly 10 yards in one second. An everyday assailant with a knife can traverse seven yards, roughly 20 feet, in a single second. If someone who is about seven paces away is charging forward and flashes a knife, a police officer has less than a single second to determine whether or not to stop that assailant. Who among us could do any better? The go-to weapon of choice is a holstered handgun. 

If today’s gun manufacturers embrace technology and produce guns for police forces that clearly incapacitate but do not kill a charging assailant, the dynamics of law enforcement on the streets would change.

Let’s call upon Colt’s Manufacturing; Smith & Wesson; Springfield Armory; Glock; Beretta; Sturm, Ruger & Company; Magnum Research; Lugar; Remington, and others to embrace today’s technology. 

Revolutionizing the Gun Industry

Going beyond mace and sprays, figure out how to safely arm police and, as a byproduct, help police to contribute to far fewer deaths of those they encounter – especially for when they suspect that their own lives might be in danger. 

It’s not a lot to ask of gun manufacturers. And, it helps keep the Second Amendment intact.

 

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week