Kamala Harris lies during the debate – and it reached new lows. Like many Americans, I watched the Presidential Debate last week. I’m not going to get into the whole event here. But, I do want to touch on two major lies that should disqualify anyone for life in public office, let alone the Office of the President of the United States.
Lie #1: Crime Has Fallen under the Biden/Harris Administration
This claim is a clear case of gaslighting. I have previously covered how the FBI has under-reported crime, during the last 3.5 years of the Biden Administration. Dr. John Lott published a piece last week debunking that lie. From Dr. Lott:
“It’s no accident that violent crime is near a record 50-year low,” President Biden claimed.
In fact, the opposite is true: between 2016 and 2020, violent crime fell by 17% under Trump and soared by 43% under Biden between 2020 and 2022. Even if you take the starting period for Biden as 2019 because the numbers may have been artificially depressed during COVID, violent crime rose by 12%. Using 2019 as the end-point for Trump would imply a 6.6% increase over 2016, about half the increase under Biden. The problem is people don’t understand the difference between the number of crimes reported to police and the total number of crimes. However, as we have pointed out, there are problems with the FBI’s measure of reported crimes (seehere,here, andhere).
There are two measures of crime. The FBI’s NIBRS counts the number of crimes reported to police yearly. The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses its National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to ask about 240,000 people each year whether they have been victims of crime, to measure reported and unreported crime. Since 2020, these two measures have been highly negatively correlated. The FBI has been finding fewer instances of crime, but people are simultaneously answering in greater numbers that they have been victims.”
As a Reserve Police Officer here in Iowa, I’m well familiar with the FBI’s NIBRS crime reporting system. I can also tell you that not all jurisdictions use it, or even uniformly report crime. Guess what? The greatest number of places that do not report, are Democrat-controlled cities and states like New York and Chicago among many others. When it’s this easy to point out the lies of the left, how can you ever trust the liberals?
Lie #2: There Are No American Troops Currently Stationed in Combat Zones Around The World
Heels-Up Harris stated during the debates:
“As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world for the first time this century.”
Well, someone should tell the DOD payroll department to start withholding income taxes from the thousands of US Military people in combat zones around the world.
But the best fact check of all came from this small group of troops watching the debate last Tuesday night and this video says it all:
We cannot survive as a nation with these loony toons dangerous quacks in power. Please get out and help pro-freedom candidates across Iowa and America today!
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
BATNA — and are illegals part of the people as defined by the US Constitution? Let’s touch on these two issues in this week’s 2A blog.
BATNA
In negotiation theory, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA (no deal option) refers to the most advantageous alternative course of action a party can take if negotiations fail and an agreement cannot be reached.
Mr. Tom H. Hastings, is the director of PeaceVoice, and the coordinator of conflict resolution BA/BS degree programs and certificates at Portland State University. He recently wrote a ridiculous article in the Lockport Journal:
“…So, back to gun control vs. gun rights. My choice of BATNA would be, ‘Look, gun rights people, we want to negotiate common sense regulations with you. However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to overcome the will of the people by challenging those commonsense measures in court, with your lawsuits, and it’s all based on the Second Amendment.
No other country has anything like the Second Amendment and other countries that have dealt with this issue have passed commonsense restrictions, such as the assault weapon ban in Australia virtually immediately after a mass shooting there.
So we have a best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Our BATNA is that we are going to stop all other gun control work and focus all our resources on a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment. We have a template for that; the amendment outlawing alcoholic beverages was passed and a decade later that Amendment was repealed. We are either going to get your commitment to allow our democratically produced local and state laws honored or we will end our negotiations and begin a massive campaign to overturn the Second Amendment’…”
As written in the 1990’s book “Getting To Yes”, BATNA is the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement”. Well, when dealing with the dangerous quacks like Mr. Hastings on the anti-gun left, it’s readily apparent that they have not thought through where they are going with their demand to repeal the Second Amendment and disarm the American people. Even if somehow the Second Amendment was repealed, it does not remove your right to defend your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Dangerous Quacks are just like Hamas in Gaza: you can’t negotiate with people who want you dead. To soyboy Mr. Hasting’s I say; “Come and Take Them”.
ARE ILLEGALS PART OF THE PEOPLE?
The simple answer is NO! Mark W. Smith over at the Four Boxes Diner gives a great explanation of a case out of the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals clearly explaining this issue and referenced not just the Hellerand Bruen cases, but also the Verdugocase. A burglar does not become a part of your family by simply breaking into your home and sitting on the living room couch. It’s the same with illegals presently in our country. You can watch Mr. Smith’s explanation in this short YouTube videohere.
We as 2A advocates need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November.
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
Yes, you do need standard capacity magazines and not artificially low limits (like those shown above). You cannot count on only needing five or ten rounds. If you watched the news last week, two stories should provide all of the proof you need to slap back the anti-self-defense dangerous quacks.
First out of Aurora, Colorado is a video of armed Venezuelan gang members taking over multiple apartment complexes. This is exactly why Americans need modern sporting rifles:
And, there is this incredible video out of Staten Island, for years considered the safest Borough in New York City. The video illustrates why you need a pistol with at least 15 rounds in its magazine.
I’ll cite two experts for you, with advice on these attacks. The first is Massad Ayoob who I have studied under multiple times. Under the doctrine of disparate force as explained by Mass here, when you’re outnumbered or facing younger, stronger, and violent felons, lethal force is a legal option.
John Farnam over at AmmoLand.com cites these three lessons:
1) The “illusion of safety”
THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY
This vicious, unprovoked attack took place in the middle of a sunny day, in a “gun-free” school zone, and within a quiet residential area.
Reputation and symbolism (e.g., “safety zones”) protect no one!
2) “When you leave them alone, they’ll leave you alone” represents a self-deceptive fantasy!
These vicious, murderous [possibly illegal-alien] gangs know no limits, do not fear the “authorities,” have no compunction about randomly maiming/murdering anyone they choose, and respect no boundaries (particularly symbolic ones).
Too many honest, decent, productive citizens believe their personal respectability should, and does, magically protect them from harm.
Nonsense, as we see!
3) “Retreat, and they’ll let you go.”
More nonsense!
This victim did his best to disengage and run away. The gang overtook him, chased him down, and physically attacked him, in unison.
Unless you want to be totally defenseless like many in the blue states currently are, we need to boot out the Obama/Biden/Harris regime. We, as 2A advocates, need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November.
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
Are knives “Arms” under the Second Amendment? The Massachusetts Supreme Court just ruled that they are which is no surprise since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. In the case of Commonwealth v. David E. Canjura the court held that the state’s law prohibiting carrying of “switchblade” knives is an unconstitutional violation of the right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had argued that “knives categorically are not protected by the Second Amendment because the definition of arms is limited to firearms.” The court refuted that nonsense, stating that “… the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms and is not limited to firearms”, referring back to Heller.
Interestingly, the Massachusetts Court pointed out that the law (and similar laws elsewhere) was passed in response to “sensationalized portrayals (in plays, films, etc.) of switchblades as weapons solely intended for criminality.” The court noted that the government did not provide evidence that “switchblades are…more likely to be used for criminal purposes”. But even had it done so, the Bruen decision (2022) by SCOTUS “expressly” prohibits weighing the right to keep and bear arms against any perceived public benefit of a law infringing upon that right. This is an exactly correct application of the Heller/Bruen methodology for deciding Second Amendment cases. I believe the outcome of this case strongly foreshadows forthcoming rulings on similar bans or restrictions on so-called “assault weapons”.
On The Other Hand…California
In contrast to the Massachusetts decision, a federal district court judge ruled last week that California’s ban on possession of switchblade knives is constitutional. In that case, the judge declared that those knives are not protected under the Second Amendment as they are “dangerous and unusual”. The ruling is quite obviously flawed in several respects. An article in the San Diego Tribune, makes clear that the fight is not over:
Doug Ritter, the CEO and founder of Knife Rights, an Arizona-based organization that’s the lead plaintiff in the case, called Simmons’ ruling “ludicrous and irrational” and promised to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
RKBA is a natural and fundamental right that is protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Sixteen years after the full-throated recognition of those facts by the Supreme Court in Heller, the state of American jurisprudence is finally coming around to acceptance of that reality.
BRUEN is the gift that keeps on giving! You may have already seen IFC’s coverage about the ruling by the U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes out of Wichita that dismissed machine gun charges in US v Tamori Morgan. This is a monster case using Bruen, Rahimi, and nowMorgan, regarding the NFA. Our fellow BOD member and past Chairman Michael Ware covers it in a detailed video here.
Second Amendment to the US Constitution text on parchment paper
SCOTUS ruled in the Bruen Case that all courts are now required to follow the historical analog that use historical precedents from the time of our nation’s founding, and not some made-up needs balancing test. That’s exactly what Judge Broomes did in the Morgan. I’ll summarize it here directly from his ruling:
“Under the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008). To keep arms means, simply, to possess arms. Id. at 583. If the plain text of the Second Amendment applies to a defendant’s conduct, the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical firearm regulation tradition. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). This standard requires a “historical analogue” between the modern regulation and historical regulations, not a “historical twin.” United States v. Rahimi,”
Judge Broomes concludes with this:
“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion. In Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), the Tenth Circuit side-stepped the Bruen analysis in a challenge to the prohibition against felons possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), concluding that Bruen did not abrogate the Tenth Circuit’s prior decision, United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10 th Cir. 2009), which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in the face of a Second Amendment challenge.. Vincent, 80 F.4th at 1202.
Nevertheless, just last month the Supreme Court vacated Vincent and remanded it for further consideration in light of Rahimi. Vincent v. Garland, No. 23-683, 2024 WL 3259668 (U.S. July 2, 2024). The court interprets that as indicating that the Supreme Court means what it says: “The constitutionality of laws regulating the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment must be evaluated under the Bruen framework.”
REACTIONS
I love what Jeff Charles pointed out in his RedState.com column on August 24, 2024. This ruling set off the anti-gun dangerous quacks in an amazing fashion;
Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, a leading anti-gun organization, criticized Broomes’ decision, saying it is “appalling that the District Court would so brazenly put the deadly agenda of the gun lobby over the safety of Kansans.”
“Machine guns – guns capable of automatic firing – have been tightly regulated under federal law since the 1930s. The laws banning them are not only constitutional but crucial to public safety. These weapons of war, capable of causing irreparable harm to countless innocent people, have no place in our communities,” she added.
Of course, Ms. Carter could not explain a reasoned legal objection to the ruling, only an emotional response.
VOTE!
If you want to keep racking up these court victories we need to boot out the Obama/Biden/Harris regime. We as 2A advocates need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November. Are you registered to vote?
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
Sign up now for our e-mail alert list to stay plugged into what's going on with your 2A rights here in Iowa.
IFC will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your e-mail address, with any third parties for any purposes without your express permission. IFC may share your personal information for the purpose of delivering our e-mail to you or as required by law.
A burglar does not become a part of your family by simply breaking into your home and sitting on the living room couch. It’s the same with illegals presently in our country. You can watch 
Recent Comments