Good News: We Can Have Eco-Grief Without Saying ‘Climate Change’

We can also say bat-guano insane without saying “you’re just 5 beers short of a 6 pack”

Grieving for the environment, without saying ‘climate change’

Agnieszka Wolska, a therapist in Calgary, joined an “Eco-Grief Support Circle” that meets twice a month after losing faith, she says, that nature could rebalance itself. She compares the circles to being at a wake, but it’s also where she finds hope. “Together we have less individual despair. We can just have connection instead of fear or just sadness,” she says.

Academics have begun to attach neologisms to feelings like Ms. Wolska’s: “solastalgia,” coined by an Australian philosopher in 2005, describes a form of distress caused by environmental change, or “ecological grief.” Those feelings of loss surrounding a place are becoming increasingly common, as wilder weather patterns and natural disasters are, many scientists say, becoming more commonplace. (snip)

“I remember after the flood thinking, nothing is the same anymore,” she says over coffee in her farmhouse on a recent day. “All my favorite places are destroyed.”

That refrain is becoming increasingly common, as weather patterns and natural disasters are becoming more intense. Academics have even begun to attach neologisms to the feelings: “solastalgia,” coined by an Australian philosopher in 2005, describes a form of distress caused by environmental change, or “ecological grief.”

Call it what you want, it’s still crazy. The climate is always changing, weather will always happen. Did you know that they found elephant bones on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea? That’s because it was mostly dried up during the last glacial period. It couldn’t sustain itself without the Atlantic Ocean, which was too low from being locked in ice. The Sahara was once not a desert (and is trending back that way now).

“There are many people who might deny climate change, for example, but still have really fundamentally strong relationships to their land and to nature, and that’s something we need to tap into,” says Katie Hayes, who is working on her doctorate at the University of Toronto on the psychological and social consequences of climate change, using the 2013 Alberta floods as a case study. “People can have anxiety about what’s happening to them and maybe not see that climate change is a problem that is exacerbating that ecological degradation.”

I believe the climate has and is changing. The fact that it is mostly from natural causation isn’t making me nuts.

Amy Spark trained as an environmental scientist and co-founded the Calgary-based Refugia Retreats in 2016. They run workshops focused on the intersection between ecological change and mental health. Sometimes those meetings take the form of informational sessions at universities or community centers, where she and her colleague provide an overview of the growing body of research on ecological grief. Sometimes they are spiritual retreats that help participants process their feelings about the loss of cherished spaces – a destroyed landscape or even a single tree.

The anxiety they see is often not about the changes in the present but fears about what is coming or doubts that individual action – say, eschewing plastics – will make a difference. Much distress comes from disorientation – a sense that rhythms of the seasons aren’t reliable, that birds are chirping at unfamiliar times of year, or that wildfire smoke is coming earlier.

Read: Good News: We Can Have Eco-Grief Without Saying ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…are hills with dying trees from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on Democrats embracing a pro-terrorist group that recycled blood libel against Jews.

Read: If All You See… »

Hot New Idea: Shadow Zones In Classrooms To Protect From Mass Shooters

What’s the cost differential between building these shadow zones and the teacher having a firearm and proper training?

Classrooms in this new school will have a ‘shadow zone’ so a gunman cannot see cowering students

Engineers in World War I dug through the earth to build serpentine trenches borne from horrifically clear logic.

If enemy soldiers ever breached it, the zigzagging pattern would prevent them from shooting in a straight line down the length of the trench — leaving only a relative few exposed to gunfire or shrapnel.

That concept has been reinvigorated a century later, in a sense, for a western Michigan high school, to dampen the killing potential of a mass shooter.

A $48 million major construction project at Fruitport High School will add curved hallways to reduce a gunman’s range, jutting barriers to provide cover and egress, and meticulously spaced classrooms that can lock on demand and hide students in the corner, out of a killer’s sight.

“If I go to FPH and I want to be an active shooter, I’m going in knowing I have reduced sightlines,” Fruitport Superintendent Bob Szymoniak told The Washington Post about the curved hallways. “It has reduced his ability to do harm.”

Yes, a mass shooter is worried about that, considering it would also be a gun free zone with little chance of anyone offering opposition. For, what, $5000 or so they could arm multiple teachers along with proper training and range time, right?

The construction in Michigan is also part of a grim reality of schools methodically preparing for massacres as if they were lesson plans and quizzes.

Jefferson County schools in Colorado have given teachers buckets and cat litter to have on hand in case children need to relieve themselves during a prolonged active-shooter lockdown. Sharpies are supplied for writing the time in which tourniquets were applied, and candy helps diabetic children with low blood sugar hiding in darkness.

Or, a teacher could shoot the shooter. Whatever floats your boat.

Classrooms will be built with a “shadow zone” where a gunman peeking in could not see students cowering along a side wall, said Matt Slagle, an architect for the project and director of K-12 projects at the TowerPinkster design firm.

Or, a properly trained school employee could pull out an easy to use “assault rifle” and shoot the perpetrator. Hell, even a shotgun loaded with beanbags could be used to knock the person senseless.

Read: Hot New Idea: Shadow Zones In Classrooms To Protect From Mass Shooters »

Private Jet Travel Is Greener Than You Think Or Something

As Yechezkel Moskowitz notes, “This is totally bonkers – the leftist propogandists will rationalize anything to defend their own.” The Cult of Climastrology will do everything they can, because this is about politics, not science. Here’s Excitable Doug Gollan

Private Jet Travel Is Greener Than You Think

Much like before and after the World Economic Forum, it was hard to avoid blaring headlines in recent weeks calling out the alleged hypocrisy of billionaires, CEOs, celebrities and environmentalists. As you may recall, they descended on Sicily in their private jets for the seventh annual “summer camp” hosted by Google, this year with a focus on sustainability.  Then as I was writing this, OMG, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were spotted using a private jet. That was several days ago and the controversy is still going strong.

Private jets are of course a popular lightning rod, easily and often used as a metaphor for excess, waste, greed, mismanagement and even criminality, which is not to say there aren’t folks flying on them who haven’t done something for which they should deservedly be taken to the woodshed. When somebody who is concerned about our planet’s future is found to be flying privately, it’s often a take no prisoners approach. Just ask the young Royals (see below). (snip)

But back the point about what I want to discuss: When it comes to the conversation about global warming, private jets are an important part of the solution.

In terms of limiting planetary damage, in some cases, more private jet travelers in place of mass tourism might even be beneficial, not only to the local economies that rely on visitors, but for the environment.

Back in 2007, I co-authored a book titled, “The Sky’s the Limit: Marketing Luxury to the New Jet Set.” At the time I was president and editor-in-chief of a magazine distributed on private jets, so we needed data that would be helpful in selling ads, although understanding the reasons rich people buy stuff ended up being a fascinating exercise, something that’s still widely misunderstood.

What he’s determined is that all these Rich Warmists bring a lot of money to the places they visit, on average $85,000 per visit, which is an Excuse for being a climahypocrite. So

Irresponsibly trying to deter air travel via flight shaming is a threat to the global economy. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, the industry is responsible for 10% of all jobs around the world and some $8.8 trillion in contributions to local economies far and wide. In places that rely heavily on visitors, as much as half of all jobs are tied to tourism.

Flight shaming. Good grief.

With a spend of $85,000, it would mean those often ridiculed private fliers would have brought 250% more revenue to the local economy while emitting less than one-tenth the CO2 of a full passenger jet.

Yes, but the private jet tends to be carrying just a few people, while a full passenger jet can carry 150 or more easily. And this avoids the central proposition that these uber-Warmists are taking fossil fueled flights in the first place. He continues attempting to defend this climahypocrisy, ending with

Villanizing private aviation and those who use it does nothing to solve the global warming, and in fact, ignores the benefits users bring to the places they visit, and the impact on those who benefit economically.

No one is saying that they do not bring economic benefit. They’re noting the hypocrisy. And it is hypocrisy. Period.

That’s right, Barack and Michelle just bought a home on an island, Martha’s Vineyard. Guess the existential crisis isn’t.

Read: Private Jet Travel Is Greener Than You Think Or Something »

Chickens Roosting: Protesters Invade Pelosi Award Ceremony, Demand Impeachment

When you enable Crazy from the top down, don’t be surprised when Crazy comes back to bite you. And Democrats have enabled a whole lot of Crazy this century

Protesters Demanding Impeachment Crash Nancy Pelosi Award Ceremony in San Francisco

Progressive activists crashed an award ceremony honoring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a San Francisco hotel on Wednesday night, demanding she support the introduction of articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

Armed with signs that read “We can’t wait,” demonstrators stood on chairs while shouting, “Which side are you on, Pelosi? Impeach!” inside the InterContinental hotel, where the San Francisco Democrat Party members honored the longtime California lawmaker with a lifetime achievement award.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

“Impeach Trump now!” shouted activists, who initially had been quietly seated in the audience. One woman, Thais Marques, screamed into the packed room that her “people are being killed by white supremacists” across the country. She demanded action from Pelosi. Another activist said, “We are your constituents.”

Pelosi supporters tried to drown out the activists, chanting, “Let her speak” and waving signs of Pelosi’s face superimposed onto Rosie the Riveter’s likeness. Others opted to say “hush” in deep, hoarse voices, while others screamed, “Sit down!”

Pelosi continued with her remarks and quipped that the energy in the ballroom was “making me feel right at home,” a remark that was met with raucous cheers from the crowd.

While San Francisco police officers and security hauled the far-left activists out of the venue, it is unclear if any were taken into custody. Not only were protesters causing trouble inside the hotel, but outside of it as well.

That’s right, there were barking moonbats outside of the hotel on megaphones yammering their yammerings, leaving big moonbat droppings everywhere

Despite 125 House Democrats publically supporting impeachment, Pelosi has remained firmly opposed to the move, instead urging committee investigators to continue their obstruction and corruption investigations into President Trump.

“We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed — not one day sooner,” Pelosi told reporters when pressed about her position on ousting the president in July.

No matter what you might say about Pelosi, she’s not an idiot. She understands that the impeachment push hurts Democrats and helps Trump. Hot Air’s Allahpundit, not exactly a Trump supporter, notes

A brutal poll through and through for impeachment fanatics, and therefore a good one for Pelosi. There are now 130 House Democrats in favor of impeaching Trump, the most notable of which is Ben Ray Lujan, the fourth-ranking Democrat. Every time someone in the caucus speaks up to declare his or her support, a new frisson of suspense shoots through the media: Might there be a dam break?

Another question is whether it is a good idea to have impeachment investigations. 37% says good idea, 56% say bad idea. And if he is impeached by the House, knowing that the Senate has about a 99% chance of not removing him, 31% say it will help him, 36% say no change, and just 23% say it will hurt him.

(For those unaware, the graphic has Pelosi with two Surrender Monkeys, something that hearkens back to before Obama)

Read: Chickens Roosting: Protesters Invade Pelosi Award Ceremony, Demand Impeachment »

Comrade Bernie Releases His Own Green New Disaster

It’s a doozy

This thing is big and crazy, and it’s hard to know where to end as there’s so much Cult of Climastrology crazy. On the bright side, it doesn’t include the notion of “bringing climate deniers to justice”, as his plan did in 2016, which meant to prosecute Wrongthink. Though, it does mention “justice” 20 times. Here’s a bit of the overview

  • Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by at least 2050 – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. (his plan does, in fact, look to get rid of all use of fossil fuels by 2030, when you read deeper. Nutso level 1)
  • Ending unemployment by creating 20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis. These jobs will be good paying, union jobs with strong benefits and safety standards in steel and auto manufacturing, construction, energy efficiency retrofitting, coding and server farms, and renewable power plants. We will also create millions of jobs in sustainable agriculture, engineering, a reimagined and expanded Civilian Conservation Corp, and preserving our public lands. (Ending unemployment. Will people be forced to work, Comrade? And there’s no need for automotive manufacturing, because fossil fuels are banned)
  • Directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion public investment toward these efforts, in line with the mobilization of resources made during the New Deal and WWII, but with an explicit choice to include black, indigenous and other minority communities who were systematically excluded in the past. (yes, he wrote $16.3 trillion. He thinks the money will come from all sorts of sources, like suing fossil fuels companies, The Rich, Wall Street, etc, never realizing that the citizens will be completely boned)
  • Justice for frontline communities – especially under-resourced groups, communities of color, Native Americans, people with disabilities, children and the elderly – to recover from, and prepare for, the climate impacts, including through a $40 billion Climate Justice Resiliency Fund. And providing those frontline and fenceline communities a just transition including real jobs, resilient infrastructure, economic development. (you get a justice and you get a justice and everyone gets a justice!)
  • Expanding the climate justice movement. We will do this by coming together in a truly inclusive movement that prioritizes young people, workers, indigenous peoples, communities of color, and other historically marginalized groups to take on the fossil fuel industry and other polluters to push this over the finish line and lead the globe in solving the climate crisis. (see?)

How to pay for it?

This plan will pay for itself over 15 years. Experts have scored the plan and its economic effects. We will pay for the massive investment we need to reverse the climate crisis by:

  • Making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution, through litigation, fees, and taxes, and eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies.
  • Generating revenue from the wholesale of energy produced by the regional Power Marketing Authorities. Revenues will be collected from 2023-2035, and after 2035 electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs.
  • Scaling back military spending on maintaining global oil dependence.
  • Collecting new income tax revenue from the 20 million new jobs created by the plan.
  • Reduced need for federal and state safety net spending due to the creation of millions of good-paying, unionized jobs.
  • Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.

Shared poverty.

We will end greed in our energy system. The renewable energy generated by the Green New Deal will be publicly owned, managed by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority and sold to distribution utilities with a preference for public power districts, municipally- and cooperatively-owned utilities with democratic, public ownership, and other existing utilities that demonstrate a commitment to the public interest. The Department of Energy will provide technical assistance to states and municipalities that would like to establish publicly owned distribution utilities or community choice aggregation programs in their communities. Electricity will be sold at current rates to keep the cost of electricity stable during this transition.

So, the Government will own the power? All of it? Da, Comrade. He also wants a smart grid, which is code for “government having the ability to turn your power off when they need to.”

Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding communities.

Nuclear is actually pushed by many leading climate cultists, because it is effectively carbon neutral, and provides immense power for the size. I guess we’ll all be powering our homes with unicorn farts.

And there I will stop, otherwise this will become gigantic, because it continues on and on and on. It’s a lot of money, and it’s a lot of Central Government growth, not too mention control of citizens, businesses, the agricultural and energy sectors, essentially limiting movement of citizens, and causing their cost of living to not only skyrocket, but degrade.

Read: Comrade Bernie Releases His Own Green New Disaster »

If All You See…

…is a horrible, evil fossil fueled vehicle creating a flooded world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on media folks telling Other People to set their thermostats higher.

Read: If All You See… »

National Review: Michigan Court Hands Down Good Decision For Law Abiding Gun Owners

Every citizen who has a firearm for self defense should cheer this decision

A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think

Yesterday the Michigan Court of Appeals handed down a decision in a highly public and very controversial case that gun owners across the United States should applaud. In short, it demonstrates and validates the value of armed self-defense even when you do not pull the trigger and — crucially — have no cause to pull the trigger. It justifies the brandishing of a gun as pre-emptive measure to block the use of unlawful force.

What do I mean? Hang with me for a moment, because this case is a bit complicated. At its heart is a dispute between Siwatu-Salama Ra, an African-American concealed-carry permit holder from Detroit, and a woman named Channel Harvey. Ra was put on trial for assault with a dangerous weapon and possessing a firearm while committing a felony after she brandished her unloaded pistol at Harvey during a heated confrontation outside Ra’s mother’s house.

The facts are hotly disputed, but Ra claimed that during the course of an argument, Harvey backed her car into into Ra’s vehicle — while Ra’s two-year-old daughter was inside, playing. Ra claims she grabbed her daughter out of the car, then grabbed her unloaded gun, “pointed the gun at Harvey’s car” and then again demanded that Harvey leave. Harvey testified that Ra was the aggressor, and that she hit Ra’s car on accident only after Ra pointed the gun at her. The jury apparently believed Harvey’s version of events, and Ra received a two-year prison sentence.

The case was immediately controversial, with critics of the verdict claiming that the case represented “yet another instance of a black gun owner, with the permits to legally carry, defending themselves against violence — and getting punished for it.”

So, what happened?

Yesterday the Michigan Court of Appeals threw out her conviction. It didn’t hold that the jury got the outcome wrong but rather that it didn’t have a true opportunity to get it right. It was improperly instructed on the law, and the trial court placed too high a burden on Ra to justify her decision to brandish her weapon.

The jury was instructed only on the affirmative defense of self-defense through the use of “deadly force.” To prove that deadly force was appropriate, a defendant has to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.” (Emphasis added.)

Under this reasoning, a person could brandish a weapon only when she has the legal right to fire the weapon.

The court of appeals, however, said that’s not the law. When one brandishes a weapon without firing it, they don’t, in fact, use “deadly force.” They use nondeadly force, and the legal standard for the use of nondeadly force only requires the defendant to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.” (Emphasis added.)

Under this reasoning, a person can brandish a weapon to prevent the imminent use of force from escalating to a threat of imminent death.

Ra spent months in prison, giving birth, then having her child taken away two days later. It is important to note, as the piece later does, that this is only a Michigan case, but, it can set a proper legal foundation for any cases that arise in other states, and can be used if fought to the federal level. Of course, it also means that people can’t just whip out their firearm carelessly, nor should they, Responsibility is the key. But, if you feel your life is threatened, you should be able to pull it out to de-escalate.

Read: National Review: Michigan Court Hands Down Good Decision For Law Abiding Gun Owners »

HotCold Take: More Poor People Are Eating Better, So They’ll Live Longer, Which Is Bad For ‘Climate Change”

In a sane world, this tweet would never have been written. In a slightly less sane world, it would have been taken down after being written. But, this is Cult of Climastrology World, where Warmists will bob their head in agreement, so…

The article is actually from May 5th, but, they decided to repost it because someone is nuts. It’s also behind a paywall, so, make sure to watch the video. The Blaze notes

The tweet included a video discussing how an “increasing number of people in rich countries are vegan or vegetarian but in the rest of the world the trend is going the other way” while warning that “this is a giant problem for the environment.”

The video gave the reasoning that as more people in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa are able to buy meat and give up their vegetarian ways for a more nutrient-rich diet, global warming will speed up because increased livestock production will mean more greenhouse-gas emissions.

Slashdot has a couple of the further down paragraphs for the article, which also touches on China

The shift from pork to beef in the world’s most populous country is bad news for the environment. Because pigs require no pasture, and are efficient at converting feed into flesh, pork is among the greenest of meats. Cattle are usually much less efficient, although they can be farmed in different ways. And because cows are ruminants, they belch methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. A study of American farm data in 2014 estimated that, calorie for calorie, beef production requires three times as much animal feed as pork production and produces almost five times as much greenhouse gases. Other estimates suggest it uses two and a half times as much water…

Sub-Saharan Africans currently have tiny carbon footprints because they use so little energy — excluding South Africa, the entire continent produces about as much electricity as France. The armies of cattle, goats and sheep will raise Africans’ collective contribution to global climate change, though not to near Western or Chinese levels. People will probably become healthier, though. Many African children are stunted (notably small for their age) partly because they do not get enough micronutrients such as Vitamin A. Iron deficiency is startlingly common. In Senegal a health survey in 2017 found that 42% of young children and 14% of women are moderately or severely anaemic. Poor nutrition stunts brains as well as bodies. Animal products are excellent sources of essential vitamins and minerals. Studies in several developing countries have shown that giving milk to schoolchildren makes them taller. Recent research in rural western Kenya found that children who regularly ate eggs grew 5% faster than children who did not; cow’s milk had a smaller effect.

These people are deranged, and are more and more willing to show it.

Read: HotCold Take: More Poor People Are Eating Better, So They’ll Live Longer, Which Is Bad For ‘Climate Change” »

Parkland Survivors Release Their Version Of Gun Control

It’s a very interesting plan, called “sweeping”, because it is more than gun control

Parkland massacre survivors unveil sweeping U.S. gun-control plan ahead of 2020 election

Survivors of the Parkland, Florida, high school massacre on Wednesday released a sweeping gun-control plan that would ban assault-style rifles and take other steps in hopes of halving U.S. firearms deaths and injuries. The proposal included a measure to register more young voters, and the group’s leaders addressed it to 2020 candidates seeking the presidential nomination, urging them to make gun control a top priority.

“We urge them to take a look at this agenda,” Tyah Amoy-Roberts, a former student who survived the shooting, said in a statement. “We cannot allow mass shootings in grocery stores, churches, shopping malls, and schools to be the new normal.”

The former Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students have worked to inspire a sense of urgency about gun violence since they started the national campaign “March for Our Lives” after a former student massacred 17 people with an assault rifle at their high school on Feb. 14, 2018.

First, did you catch it? No? You’ll see more of it. Second, most of those places tend to be gun free zones, where mass killers like to go because few are armed to stop them.

The Parkland student’s plan calls for several hard-line gun control measures, including a national gun buy-back and disposal program, a federal system of gun licensing that requires background checks and annual renewals, and it urges politicians to declare a national emergency around gun violence.

The plan also calls on the government to automatically register all U.S. citizens to vote when they turn 18, a measure that March for Our Lives has pushed in an effort to turn out the youth vote and sway elections to yield tighter gun policies.

And there’s the registration of firearms bit. Most who are pushing expanded background checks have stayed away from discussing that it would require registration, meaning the Government knows exactly what all your guns are, making it easier to take them. Not these kids. Remember, Australia reportedly only saw 20% of guns which were banned, which included most, turned in, because the government didn’t know who had what. New Zealand is having the same problem.

But, then, there’s the registration of citizens to vote. What does that have to do with gun control? What if someone doesn’t want to be registered? This sounds more like it is about politics.

Anyhow, the plan itself is nuts, and has zero change of going anywhere, because it is nuts. Most, like the above from Reuters, have tried to sanitize it

(Fox News) March for Our Lives, the gun control group started by Parkland survivors, announced an ambitious series of proposals that would radically change the landscape of firearm regulations, aiming to reduce gun ownership and gun-related deaths.

The plan announced on Wednesday seeks to reduce gun deaths by 200,000 (or 50 percent) over 10 years, install an apparent czar for gun violence, create a “Peace Corps for gun violence prevention,” and lower the nation’s firearm stock by 30 percent through a mandatory buyback program, according to the group.

Jaclyn Corin, the group’s co-founder, described the plan as a “Green New Deal, but for guns” — a reference to Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sweeping plan to address climate change.

The above graphic comes from their sorta-plan page. Regarding “a higher standard of ownership”, licensing would be required

For decades, the NRA and gun lobby have focused on a singular goal: to keep the standards for gun ownership dangerously low. To make a sizable dent in reducing gun violence, we need to do the complete opposite: we need to raise the bar for gun ownership and responsibility in America. This begins with what a wide body of research and international precedents tell us is essential to reducing gun violence: a federal system of gun licensing. The facts are clear: a comprehensive system of gun licensing reduces illegal gun trafficking, cuts down on gun homicides, and reduces gun suicides.

In other words, they are going to find a way to deny people from their 2nd Amendment Right. Of course, criminals usually do not obtain a license. Nor own one lawfully.

  • A multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.
  • Annual licensing fees for anyone who wants to obtain a national gun and ammunition license.
  • A higher standard for gun ownership, which would start with raising the minimum age for gun possession to 21.

It’s essentially a stealth ban, because Democrats will make it almost impossible for a law abiding citizens to obtain a firearm, much like was happening in D.C. prior to the Heller decision. They also want to give states authority beyond federal law. Remember when Dems stated that states couldn’t go beyond federal law vis a vis Arizona’s SB1070, the illegal alien law? Now they want to change things up for gun grabbing.

Look, it’s not all bad, there are a few good ideas in the plan, but, this is about gun bans, disarming law abiding citizens. They want the aforementioned Heller decision re-examined, meaning, overturned. They want the NRA “investigated”, which is a serious violation of the 1st Amendment. And, of course, suing gun manufacturers, which would put them out of business. And “consumer safety standards”, which would also help put maufacturers out of business, with those few left making a product almost worthless for self defense.

Will any Democrat candidates pick it up and run with it? This plan violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 9th Amendments.

Read: Parkland Survivors Release Their Version Of Gun Control »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5553 access attempts in the last 7 days.