The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to take up an appeal from a Connecticut state court, allowing a case, brought by the parents of victims and survivors of the Sandy Hook mass shooting, to move forward with their lawsuit against Remington Arms Co., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used by the Sandy Hook killer to murder a classroom full of first graders and their teacher.
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/778487920/supreme-court-allows-sandy-hook-families-case-against-remington-to-proceed">NPR reports</a> that the Supreme Court denied Remington&#8217;s appeal, which focused on a 2005 law prohibiting the victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers for wrongful death and disfigurement. The Sandy Hook parents are using one of the law&#8217;s exemptions, which allows victims to sue gun manufacturers for their alleged unfair and illegal marketing practices, not over the weapons themselves.
The Sandy Hook parents have been trying to sue Remington for years, and several other lawsuits were tossed by lower courts, citing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants gun manufacturers like Remington &#8220;broad immunity&#8221; from civil suits.
This time around, though, attorneys brought claims under a small exemption in the law that concerns weapons marketing under the theory that the Bushmaster rifle &#8220;never should have been sold to the public because it is a military-style weapon. They accuse Remington of violating Connecticut&#8217;s unfair trade practices law when it &#8216;knowingly marketed and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle for use in assaults against human beings,'&#8221; according to NPR.
<blockquote>In filings with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sandy Hook families say Remington &#8220;published promotional materials that promised &#8216;military-proven performance&#8217; for a &#8216;mission-adaptable&#8217; shooter in need of the &#8216;ultimate combat weapons system.'&#8221; They also accuse the company of fostering a &#8220;lone gunman&#8221; narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, &#8220;Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.&#8221;</blockquote>
&#8220;This is a weapon that&#8217;s been designed to inflict mass casualties and, &#8216;you&#8217;re not a man if you don&#8217;t have it.&#8217; That&#8217;s morally reprehensible and, from a marketing perspective, that&#8217;s just wrong and needs to stop,&#8221; one of the plaintiffs told CBS News.
The families also say that Remington marketed the rifle to odd demographics, including marginalized white males, by advertising within video games and in magazines and publications not geared toward hunters, which Remington says are the core consumers of the Bushmaster rifle series.
&#8220;Lawyers for the victims sued Remington contending that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/business/remington-sandy-hook-supreme-court/index.html">CNN reported Tuesday morning</a>.
Gun rights advocates contend that the lawsuit, if successful (it&#8217;s still in its very early stages), could provide a backdoor way for gun control advocates to restrict the sale of weapons they deem &#8220;unacceptable&#8221; to own or use, including the Bushmaster and the much-maligned AR-15.
Remington did not have comment on the Supreme Court denial Tuesday morning, but it is probably preparing to handle the case head-on in Connecticut courts. The case now moves to a discovery period, where the Sandy Hook victims&#8217; families will likely information on how Remington made its marketing decisions for the Bushmaster rifle.

US-POLITICS-COURT

Supreme Court Won&#8217;t Take Sandy Hook Case, Will Allow Victims Of Mass Shooting To Sue Gun Makers

Gun Control

Guns

Supreme Court

Last week, nine American citizens — three women and six of their young children — were brutally murdered by a suspected drug cartel in Sonora, Mexico. The attack, which quickly sparked <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/3-women-6-children-from-u-s-mormon-family-massacred-by-mexican-drug-cartel-trump-responds">President Donald Trump</a> to declared &#8220;war&#8221; on the Mexican cartels, received international media attention.
Following the gruesome nightmare of an attack on her family, Kendra Lee Miller, the sister-in-law of victim Rohnita Maria Miller, joined Anderson Cooper on CNN and urged Americans to &#8220;fight&#8221; for their guns.
&#8220;The Mexican people here are oppressed,&#8221; Miller explained. &#8220;They are being abused by the cartels, living in fear for their life. We can&#8217;t drive public roads safely. We&#8217;re being threatened that we can&#8217;t even take some of the public roads or else we&#8217;ll have bad things happen to us.&#8221;
&#8220;So many people are not protected the way they should be,&#8221; she noted.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t know where you&#8217;re standing on the whole, people-trying-to-take-the-away-guns-in-America right now, but I say, fight for those guns,&#8221; the sister-in-law told Cooper. &#8220;These things are happening here in Mexico because the people can&#8217;t protect themselves, because by law they&#8217;re not allowed to own these guns.&#8221;
&#8220;So since the government isn&#8217;t doing their job of protection in the way that they should, these cartels can just wreak havoc and the people are left defenseless. So I say, hold onto your guns, people,&#8221; Miller urged.
There has been conflicting reporting regarding the motive of the attack on the LeBarón and Langford families, but according to Miller, it was no accident. Her family was &#8220;targeted&#8221; by the cartel to spark a &#8220;war,&#8221; she said.
&#8220;Our family was picked to stir up trouble and start a war,&#8221; Miller claimed. &#8220;It was an attack on innocent civilians to basically start a war &#8230; between the Chihuahua and Sonora cartels who&#8217;ve been having turf battles.&#8221;
A suspect was arrested in connection to the crime, last week. “The suspect was holding two bound-and-gagged hostages in the hills of Agua Prieta in Sonora state, the ministerial Agency for Criminal Investigations (AMIC) said,” <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/americas/mormons-attacked-us-mexico-border-wednesday/index.html">CNN</a> reported Wednesday. “The suspect had several rifles and a large amount of ammunition, including a number of large-caliber weapons, the agency said in a statement posted to its official Facebook page.”
“We are waiting for some more intelligence in order to issue an official statement,” confirmed Chihuahua Attorney General Cesar Peniche Espejel.
&#8220;While some officials have said that the attack may have been a result of mistaken identity, former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda told CNN that the LeBarón family’s history of conflict with the cartels suggests that they may have been targeted,&#8221; noted the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cartel-attack-on-u-s-family-mexico-arrests-suspect-official-says-family-may-have-been-targeted">The Daily Wire</a>.
&#8220;They had stood up to the drug cartels, and they did have certain frictions either with the cartels or with neighboring communities over water rights,&#8221; Castañeda said.
&#8220;Their long-standing tensions, and apparently the woman who was driving in the first car that was attacked was an activist,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;She was someone who was very active in her community, defending her family, her fellow members of the community against cartels, on the issue of water rights.&#8221;
To watch the interview, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/11/05/acfc-full-kendra-lee-miller-mexico-ambush-vpx.cnn">click here</a>.

U.S. Citizens Murdered In Mexico

Relative Of Utah Family Killed By Cartel Goes On CNN, Urges: ‘Fight For Your Guns’

Drug Cartels

Mexico

Second Amendment

Gun control did not become politically acceptable until the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law&#8217;s primary focus was to regulate commerce in firearms by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. Today&#8217;s gun control advocates have gone much further, calling for an outright ban of what they call assault rifles such as the AR-15. By the way, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which is manufactured by Colt Manufacturing Co. As for being a military assault weapon, our soldiers would be laughed off the battlefield carrying AR-15s.
Let&#8217;s look at some FBI statistics on homicide and then you can decide how many homicides would be prevented by a ban on rifles. The FBI lists murder victims by weapon from 2014 to 2018 in their 2018 report on Crime in the United States. It turns out that slightly over 2% (297) out of a total of 14,123 homicides were committed with rifles. A total of 1,515 or 11% of homicides were committed by knives. Four hundred and forty-three people were murdered with a hammer, club or some other bludgeoning instrument. Six hundred seventy-two people were murdered by a hand, foot or fist. Handguns accounted for the most murders — 6,603.
What these statistics point out clearly is that the so-called assault weapons ban and mandatory buyback plan that 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O&#8217;Rourke and others call for, will do little or nothing to bring down homicides. More homicides could be prevented by advocating for knife control, hammer control and feet and fist control.
Gun controllers&#8217; belief that &#8220;easy&#8221; gun availability is our problem ignores U.S. history. Guns were far more readily available yesteryear. One could mail order a gun from Sears or walk into a hardware store or a pawnshop to make a purchase. With truly easy gun availability throughout our history, there was nowhere near the mayhem and mass murder that we see today. Here&#8217;s my question to all those who want restrictions placed on gun sales: Were the firearms of yesteryear better behaved than those same firearms are today? That&#8217;s really a silly question; guns are inanimate objects and have no capacity to act. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforce moral values.
Let&#8217;s examine some elements of this decline.
If any American who passed away before 1960 were to return to today&#8217;s America, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior acceptable today. They wouldn&#8217;t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing at and assaulting teachers. They wouldn&#8217;t believe that cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis and Baltimore hire hundreds of school police officers and that in some schools, students must go through metal detectors. During my own primary and secondary schooling in Philadelphia, from 1942 to 1954, the only time we saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture from Officer Friendly on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn&#8217;t believe that we&#8217;re now debating whether teachers should be armed.
Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation&#8217;s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they&#8217;ve eliminated our means to defend ourselves.
Venezuela dictator Nicolas Maduro banned private gun ownership in 2012. The result is that Venezuelans had no way to protect themselves from criminals and government troops who preyed upon them. After Fidel Castro&#8217;s demand for gun confiscation, he said, &#8220;Armas para que?&#8221; (&#8220;Guns, for what?&#8221;) Cubans later found out.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Guns.

WILLIAMS: Gun Grabbers Misleading Us

Beto O'Rourke

At a Beto O&#8217;Rourke campaign event Wednesday in Newtown, Connecticut — home of the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting — a &#8220;third generation&#8221; resident of the city stood up and unloaded on the Democratic presidential candidate for trying to &#8220;hijack this town&#8221; and &#8220;getting guns out of good people&#8217;s hands.&#8221;
After the El Paso shooting in early August, O&#8217;Rourke has largely focused his struggling campaign on pushing for radical gun control policies, including a &#8220;gun buyback&#8221; program which, he has proudly proclaimed, would result in the confiscation of &#8220;assault-style&#8221; rifles from law-abiding Americans.
O&#8217;Rourke, whose campaign has failed to gain any traction in the polls, chose Newtown in part because of the horrific 2012 mass shooting by a mentally ill man, a motive he made clear in his comments Wednesday. As reported by <a href="https://fox61.com/2019/10/30/beto-orourke-heckled-in-newtown-event-while-discussing-gun-violence-prevention/">Fox 61</a>, O&#8217;Rourke partnered with gun violence prevention groups, including the Newtown Action Alliance and Moms Demand Action.
&#8220;I know that the people of this community understand this better than perhaps any other community in this country and not just the devastation, the grief and the lost, but what those solutions are,&#8221; O’Rourke told the crowd gathered at the Newtown Community Center Wednesday.
But, as video footage posted by Fox 61 shows, at least one of those in attendance didn&#8217;t appreciate O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s exploitation of her city&#8217;s grief and loss.
&#8220;You&#8217;re here to hijack this town and try and make an issue out of getting guns out of good people&#8217;s hands that can make a difference. And you know that, Beto,&#8221; said Rebecca Carnes, a self-described third generation Newtown resident.
When the moderator attempted to cut her off, Carnes refused to cede the floor.
&#8220;No, this is bullish**,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It&#8217;s about mental health and it&#8217;s about this war on boys and masculinity. You&#8217;re bullish** by being here! Shame on you, Beto!&#8221;
&#8220;Why don&#8217;t you debate me?&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Why don&#8217;t you debate me? Go ahead, answer my question. Answer my question, Beto. Come on, Beto, let me hear it.&#8221;
&#8220;What do you have to say about mental health? What do you have to say about urban violence?&#8221; she asked. &#8220;You don&#8217;t care. The Democrats have been in charge of urban communities and cities for decades. The Democrats have failed.&#8221;
Carnes then pointed at one of her fellow town hall attendees and said, &#8220;They don&#8217;t care about you, sir. That&#8217;s why he&#8217;s at Sandy Hook. He doesn&#8217;t care,&#8221; she said in apparent reference to urban violence.
As the attendants began to try to usher her out, Carnes said, &#8220;I grew up in Newtown. No, you&#8217;re going to kick out a mother in this community. I grew up here. &#8230; I&#8217;m a third generation Newtown, so all you can go scr*w.&#8221;
WATCH (warning: language):
<iframe title="Beto O’Rourke yelled at by woman in Newtown, CT" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IA_l2wirfBs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In a Democratic presidential primary debate in September, O&#8217;Rourke came right out and said that, &#8220;hell yes,&#8221; he is going to take Americans&#8217; guns.
Asked by ABC News host David Muir if he is really serious about confiscating Americans’ AR-15s and AK-47s, O’Rourke famously said emphatically, &#8220;Hell yes.&#8221; He says:
<blockquote>&#8220;I am, if it is a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield,&#8221; said the Texas Democrat. &#8220;If the high impact high velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children and in Odessa. I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15. And that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland [that] there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time.&#8221;</blockquote>

Beto O&#8217;Rourke

WATCH: Newtown Woman Unloads On Beto: You’re Trying To ‘Hijack This Town,’ Take Guns &#8216;Out Of Good People’s Hands’

Mental Illness

Sandy Hook

Former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) seemingly walked back his rallying cries for the government to seize all so-called &#8220;assault weapons&#8221; from law abiding citizens after he was questioned on Friday about using an AR-15 to go hunting.
&#8220;Perhaps a way to address a legitimate concern or need is to ensure that those who have or want to use an AR-15 are able to keep it at a hunting club or at a gun range so that there is some control and safeguards still placed on that firearm,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told a group of high school students during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa.
The Democratic presidential hopeful&#8217;s response came after one of the students approached O&#8217;Rourke about the efficiency of using an AR-15 to hunt certain animals such as deer. The student put forth that using less &#8220;efficient&#8221; firearms could prolong the hunted animal&#8217;s suffering or even spoil the meat that would otherwise be consumed.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A student in Des Moines today told <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BetoORourke</a> that he hunts using an AR-15, arguing it&#39;s less painful for the animal. 
O&#39;Rourke said maybe those who want to use an AR-15 to hunt &quot;could keep it at a hunting club or at a gun range,&quot; &amp; committed to listening to all points of view <a href="https://t.co/RqGuqtdHEE">pic.twitter.com/RqGuqtdHEE</a>
&mdash; Maura Barrett (@MauraBarrettNBC) <a href="https://twitter.com/MauraBarrettNBC/status/1187805309210910722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
&#8220;This is the first time that I&#8217;ve heard the case made for using an AR-15 to hunt deer,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke replied. &#8220;I&#8217;ve heard feral hogs in Texas, which are a real problem on a lot of ranches and farms in my home state.&#8221;
The former Texas lawmaker was the first major 2020 Democratic presidential candidate to call for a nationwide gun confiscation program for all &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221; However, he has been notably vague about many aspects of the plan, including how much it would cost, how it would be enforced, or even what constitutes an &#8220;assault weapon.&#8221;
The proposal has been a divisive topic for the Democratic Party. While O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s declaration that &#8220;hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take away your AR-15 [and] your AK-47&#8221; has received massive applause from his left-wing supporters, many Democratic lawmakers have since been distancing themselves. Democrats, including those in leadership, have largely been sounding the alarm that such an anti-Second Amendment idea will backfire and simply fire up the Republican base.
Regardless, O&#8217;Rourke has touted the bipartisan disapproval as a signal that the former congressman is being authentic, proclaiming that &#8220;it shows me we are doing something right.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s demand for a nationwide gun grab comes as his presidential candidacy has been struggling to gain traction. Both his fundraising and polling numbers have been relatively stagnant over the past two quarters despite relaunching his campaign for a third time in August. O&#8217;Rourke has not broken 5% support since April 2019, and as of publication is receiving less than 3% of the vote on average, according to <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Real Clear Politics</a>.
&#8220;This is why I&#8217;m here. I want to listen to those who feel perhaps differently than I do, include your point of view and ideas in whatever becomes the final piece of legislation or the law that we adopt,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told the student. “But we have to make sure that ultimately we take some action to save the lives of those who are being taken and then to protect against the kind of fear these acts of terror are inspiring.&#8221;

Beto O&#8217;Rourke Begins First Campaign Swing In Iowa As A Presidential Candidate

WATCH: Beto Backs Off Confiscating AR-15s: &#8216;Keep It At A Hunting Club&#8217;

2020 Election

Gun Buybacks

The CEO of Dick&#8217;s Sporting Goods, Ed Stack, is reportedly &#8220;testing the waters for a possible third-party presidential bid,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/23/dicks-sporting-goods-ceo-presidential-run-055565">according to Politico</a>.
The Washington, D.C., based newsmagazine says that focus groups in Wisconsin &#8212; a key battleground state that went narrowly to now-President Donald Trump in 2016 &#8212; received questions about Stack, including whether they would be willing to vote for Stack in a head to head matchup against Trump, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
The questions reportedly referred to a potential third party run, making Stack, who is a longtime Republican donor, a wild card in the 2020 campaign, rather than a primary challenger in either party.
Stack may be best known for being the CEO who halted assault rifle sales at Dick&#8217;s Sporting Goods stores &#8212; and the chain&#8217;s partner store, Field &amp; Stream &#8212; following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and now restricts all customers under the age of 21 from purchasing any firearm.
The move led to the company destroying more than $5 million worth of stock, turning the guns into scrap metal rather than returning the rifles to their manufacturer, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/10/08/dicks-sporting-goods-nra-tweet-assault-rifles-destroyed-ed-stack/3905106002/">according to interviews Stack gave at the time</a>.
The financial results of Stack&#8217;s decision are mixed. Dick&#8217;s same store sales fell in 2019, and the company lost a reported $150 million in sales &#8212; or about 1.7% of its overall value. But <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/dicks-sporting-goods-stockretailer-earnings-51566480579">according to Barron&#8217;s</a>, the companies overall financial health is still good, and analysts expect the company&#8217;s stock price to rise around 2% over the course of 2019. Part of that comes from a company-wide decision to move away from hunting gear altogether &#8212; probably not a bad idea given that hunters were probably the prime audience concerned about Dick&#8217;s decision on rifles.
Focus groups in Wisconsin were specifically asked about Stack&#8217;s public image and &#8220;ran through varying themes involving Stack &#8230; [The session] heavily focused on his example of &#8216;showing leadership&#8217; by halting the sale of assault-style rifles at all of Dick’s Sporting Goods stores.&#8221;
&#8220;Those in the group were shown several short videos of other candidates including Biden, Warren and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz — a fellow billionaire who explored a presidential bid as an independent before announcing in September that he would not run — but viewed eight or nine videos that included Stack messaging, according to a focus group participant,&#8221; Politico reported Wednesday.
A source close to the CEO told Politico that, “Mr. Stack enjoys running Dick’s Sporting Goods and has no plans to run for any elected office,&#8221; but that tendency may be a function of how the focus group played out. According to the focus group participant who spoke to Politico, reaction to Stack was mixed, and that focus group members were concerned Stack was too old, and that he lacked the charisma necessary to take on Biden, Warren, or Trump.
But if Stack doesn&#8217;t run for president, it does seem like he&#8217;s interested in taking on a larger role in politics. He released a memoir last week, which includes his outlook on things like gun control legislation, and has been vocal on the issue of gun violence in recent weeks.

Dick&#8217;s Sporting Goods

CEO  Of Dick&#8217;s Sporting Goods &#8216;Quietly Testing&#8217; Presidential Campaign

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) went after presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg on Monday after the South Bend mayor criticized his Democratic rivals over their small donor fundraising strategy and demand for federally-mandated gun confiscation.
&#8220;Small-dollar grassroots campaigns, aka what Buttigieg insults here as &#8216;pocket change,&#8217; out-fundraises him by millions,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. &#8220;Our nation&#8217;s leaders should not be working to end the era of big money politics, not protect it.&#8221;
&#8220;[And] Beto&#8217;s gun policy isn&#8217;t &#8216;picking a fight,&#8217; it&#8217;s taking a stand,&#8221; she added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Small-dollar grassroots campaigns, aka what Buttegieg insults here as “pocket change,” out-fundraise him by millions.
Our nation’s leaders should be working to end the era of big money politics, not protect it.
&amp; Beto’s gun policy isn’t “picking a fight,” it’s taking a stand. <a href="https://t.co/a6k7rgXHiD">https://t.co/a6k7rgXHiD</a>
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1183881130107428865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s comments come as O&#8217;Rourke has been facing widespread backlash from both sides of the aisle for demanding that the government seize millions of firearms from law-abiding American citizens.
While O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s declaration that &#8220;hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take away your AR-15 [and] your AK-47&#8221; has received massive applause from his left-wing supporters, many Democratic lawmakers have since been distancing themselves from the divisive rallying cries.
Democrats have long been defending their gun control agenda against claims that the party wants to take away Americans&#8217; firearms. Accordingly, Buttigieg slammed O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s proposal as playing directly into the hands of the Republican Party.
&#8220;Look, right now, we have an amazing moment right here on our hands,&#8221; Buttigieg said in September. &#8220;We have agreement among the American people for not just universal background checks but we have a majority in favor of red flag laws, high capacity magazines, banning the new sale of assault weapons. This is a golden moment to finally do something because we&#8217;ve been arguing about this for as long as I&#8217;ve been alive.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke has touted both Republican and Democratic disapproval of the program, contending that it means he is &#8220;doing something right.&#8221; However, he lashed out at Buttigieg over his condemnation, noting that he was especially &#8220;offended.&#8221;
The radical proposal was largely seen as a last-ditch attempt to bring new life to O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s presidential campaign. The former Texas congressman has been struggling to gain traction in the polls &#8212; he has not broken 5% support since April and is averaging at less than 2% support. After his third quarter fundraising fell far short of his Democratic primary challengers, he sounded the alarm on the need for a &#8220;breakthrough.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a policy disagreement and it is about governing,&#8221; Buttigieg later responded to O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s remarks. &#8220;I get it, I mean he needs to pick a fight in order to stay relevant, but this is about a difference of opinion on policy and my focus right now is getting something done.&#8221;
While Ocasio-Cortez has not clarified her stance on a government-run gun confiscation program, she has been <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-has-four-point-plan-solve-americas-gun-issues-1371990">vocal in her support</a> for various gun control measures such as universal background checks, banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and implementing federally mandated safe storage requirements. She has also called for the U.S. government to ban all semi-automatic firearms, which accounts for the vast majority of guns in the country.
The New York congresswoman has yet to endorse a presidential candidate, but has voiced her praise for Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her progressive policies. Following the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s (DNC) first primary debate, Ocasio-Cortez highlighted Warren&#8217;s performance, noting that she &#8220;really distinguished herself&#8221; and that she even &#8220;knocked it out of the park.&#8221;

Large Climate Demonstration Marks The End Of The C40 World Mayors Summit 2019 In Copenhagen

Ocasio-Cortez Defends Beto&#8217;s Gun Confiscation Plan: It&#8217;s &#8216;Taking A Stand&#8217;

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Pete Buttigieg

At yet another CNN town hall event for Democratic Party presidential hopefuls, former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) once again peeled back the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s carefully crafted veneer of political centrism to reveal what the Left really thinks about bedrock American principles.
For weeks, O’Rourke has been touring the country to tell us all about his plan to take away America’s guns. Rather than embrace the importance of this Second Amendment freedom, O’Rourke continually doubles down, often invoking words you can’t say on television to emphasize his seriousness that, under his hypothetical administration, the American government will forcefully disarm its own citizens.
This has pushed some on the Left to turn their metaphorical guns on O’Rourke. These tepid rebukes of the erstwhile wunderkind who nearly toppled Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sound more like, “Hey, don’t tell everyone what we really think.”
Having staked his position on the Second Amendment Thursday night, Robert Francis O’Rourke turned his attention to the First Amendment. Sagging in the polls, O’Rourke stood opposite CNN’s Don Lemon as Lemon read from one of O’Rourke’s plans. All the longshot presidential hopefuls have a plan, it seems. And every plan is fine-tuned for a niche audience. This was a plan for the LGBTQ+ community.
Lemon noted that O’Rourke’s plan praised freedom of religion as a fundamental right, but one that “should not be used to discriminate.” With that setup, Lemon asked, “Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”
At this point, everyone in the audience knew what O’Rourke’s answer really was. But they also knew what he had to say if he was going to turn the corner after the primary to gain traction in a general election. True to himself, O’Rourke wasted no time in casting off the shackles of centrism. He told the world what the Left really believes.
“Yes,” O’Rourke says, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for any one or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”
Perhaps O’Rourke came to that conclusion after a discussion with someone in a Buc-ee&#8217;s bathroom. Perhaps it is what he has always thought. Perhaps he tested the answer in focus groups and has plans to double down on his answer in the coming days on the campaign trail.
Whatever the reason, O’Rourke’s answer is revealing for its honesty. While the Obama administration prosecuted nuns over birth control, it at least spoke in platitudes about “freedom to worship.” Celibate nuns may have to pay for birth control, but at least they are afforded a modicum of freedom to practice the worshipful elements of their religion.
Not so for O’Rourke. If a religious entity — religious colleges, charities motivated by religion, and churches adhering to two millennia of doctrine — disagrees with O’Rourke, it forfeits its tax exemption.
That’s a far cry from former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s promise in Obergefell v. Hodges, which emphasized “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost sincere conviction” their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality. Indeed, Kennedy promised that “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
Yet under an O’Rourke administration, Kennedy’s promise is only fulfilled when organized religion pays its own freight. Thus, Catholic hospitals, Muslim charities, evangelical soup kitchens, and Orthodox Jewish synagogues might manage to continue their good deeds, but only at a taxable rate. They must hope that their former donors are motivated more by the mission than by the tax incentives that have fueled the billions of dollars of charity that Americans have spread around the globe through religious organizations — charity that has relieved the American government from having to address it on its own.
O’Rourke’s plan has the high hurdle of a body of case law that makes it illegal for the government to deprive citizens of a protected right based upon the viewpoint of the citizen — but that’s not his point. O&#8217;Rourke knows that. Everyone knows that. Just like everyone knows O’Rourke has no legitimate path to presidential victory.
Rather, O’Rourke’s purpose is to expand the borders of the increasingly far-left Democratic Party. If a “churches lose their tax exemption” O’Rourke plan is too much. Then Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) “use [of] the Department of Justice to go after schools” plan is made more palatable and a Warren “pass the Equality Act” plan is practically mainstream. And so the entire political machine lurches just a little further to the left — comfortably on the road to total government control.
O’Rourke will not win the presidency. But he is not supposed to. Laugh, if you must, about his trademark flapping arms and insatiable desire to address crowds while standing on tabletops, but take with deadly seriousness his ability to say what his party is increasingly thinking.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Beto O&#8217;Rourke CNN town hall

DYS: Beto O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s &#8216;Liberty&#8217; Is No Liberty At All

Constitution

Democratic Party

Don Lemon

First Amendment

Leftism

Just days out from its big premiere, Warner Bros.&#8217; standalone DC film &#8220;Joker&#8221; has some communities on edge, with law enforcement officials in both Los Angeles and New York City, and even military officials on some bases, taking preventative action in fear of another Joker-inspired mass shooting.
The fictional villain&#8217;s popularity among the all-too-real &#8220;incel&#8221; extremists and the nightmarish memory of the 2012 mass shooting at a screening of &#8220;The Dark Knight Rises&#8221; in Aurora, Colorado has sparked increased controversy ahead of the release of the film this week. Five family members of victims of the Aurora shooting, which left 12 people dead and 70 injured, sent a letter last week to Warner Bros. CEO Ann Sarnoff calling on the studio to &#8220;be a part of the growing chorus of corporate leaders who understand that they have a social responsibility to keep us all safe&#8221; and &#8220;end political contributions to candidates who take money from the NRA and vote against gun reform.&#8221;
Around the same time that the letter to the studio was being penned, military officials issued warnings to service members about potential attacks at screenings of the highly anticipated film. &#8220;Posts on social media have made reference to involuntary celibate (‘incel’) extremists replicating the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at screenings of the Joker movie at nationwide theaters,&#8221; a September 18 memo from U.S. Army officials to service members warned. &#8220;This presents a potential risk to DOD personnel and family members, though there are no known specific credible threats to the opening of the Joker on 4 October.&#8221; As reported by <a href="https://io9.gizmodo.com/u-s-military-issues-warning-to-troops-about-incel-viol-1838412331">Gizmodo</a>, a separate memo sent by Army officials a few days later said Texas law enforcement presented &#8220;credible&#8221; intelligence of such a threat.
The latest development in the &#8220;Joker&#8221; controversy involves law enforcements officials in both New York City and Los Angeles. <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/09/30/nypd-covering-joker-screenings-over-fears-of-incel-violence/">The New York Post</a> reported Monday that NYPD Chief of Patrol Rodney Harrison &#8220;has directed all the city’s precincts to provide police coverage at Big Apple theaters showing the movie.&#8221;
&#8220;The thriller starring Joaquin Phoenix will be screened Wednesday at Alice Tully Hall at Lincoln Center during the New York Film Festival, and officers have been instructed to cover,&#8221; the paper reported, citing police sources. &#8220;According to sources, uniformed patrol cops will also be sent to AMC theaters throughout the city for screenings of the comic book-inspired movie, which officially opens in theaters across the country Friday, but is showing in some city theaters Thursday.&#8221;
Like Army officials specified in the September 18 memo, the New York City Police Department told <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joker-nypd-have-additional-officers-at-theaters-opening-weekend-1244515">The Hollywood Reporter</a> that they have no knowledge of any &#8220;specific or credible threats at this time,&#8221; but felt compelled to prepare for potential violence due to the associations with the film.
&#8220;There are no specific or credible threats at this time and these events will continue to be closely monitored,&#8221; the NYPD told the outlet. &#8220;Any additional personnel will be deployed as needed.&#8221;
THR notes that the report of the NYPD&#8217;s precautionary moves follows Los Angeles police <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joker-lapd-vows-increased-visibility-around-theaters-due-historical-significance-1243857" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">announcing</a> that its department would take similar action &#8220;in the wake of a wave of unease the dark Warner Bros. film has evoked for some after three more mass shootings took place over the summer and in light of the film&#8217;s indirect connection to a mass shooting that took place seven years ago.&#8221;
In a statement Friday, LAPD also stressed that there are &#8220;no credible threats&#8221; reported in the area. The department is &#8220;aware of public concerns and the historical significance associated with the premiere of Joker,&#8221; LAPD told the outlet. &#8220;While there are no credible threats in the Los Angeles area, the department will maintain high visibility around theaters when it opens.”
Additionally, at least one theater has decided not to show the film at all: the theater in Aurora where the 2012 massacre took place.
The criticism surrounding the film has revolved mainly around concerns about glorifying or inspiring more &#8220;incel&#8221; violence. The September 18 Army memo, which highlighted the &#8220;incel&#8221; threat, described them as &#8220;individuals who express frustration from perceived disadvantages to starting intimate relationships&#8221; and who &#8220;idolize violent individuals like the Aurora movie theater shooter” and “the Joker character, the violent clown from the Batman series.&#8221;
Warner Bros. responded to the increased pressure in a <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/warner-bros-says-joker-doesnt-endorse-real-world-violence/">statement</a> last week.
&#8220;Gun violence in our society is a critical issue, and we extend our deepest sympathy to all victims and families impacted by these tragedies,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;Our company has a long history of donating to victims of violence, including Aurora, and in recent weeks, our parent company joined other business leaders to call on policymakers to enact bi-partisan legislation to address this epidemic. At the same time, Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues. Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.&#8221;
<div class="embedded-content embedded-content--video is-embed-initialized" data-nid="1244642" data-nodetype="article" data-template="video">
<div class="video-embed video-embed--brightcove">
<div class="header">Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joker-director-the-far-left-can-sound-like-the-far-right-when-it-suits-their-agenda">‘Joker’ Director: ‘The Far-Left Can Sound Like The Far-Right When It Suits Their Agenda’</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Premiere Of Warner Bros Pictures &#8220;Joker&#8221;

‘Joker’ Update: Multiple Cities Deploying Police Amid Fears Of Attacks

Hollywood

Violence

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) sparked criticism from the Left after his call to ban the ownership of ambiguously classified “assault-style rifles.”
This week, O’Rourke held a rally at Kent State University, and several protesters showed up with legally owned rifles. As The Daily Wire’s Molly Prince <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-beto-scolds-protesters-who-brought-rifles-to-his-rally-thats-wrong">reported</a>, Beto scolded the protesters.
“It is not enough to stop selling AR-15s and AK-47s when there are more than 10 million of those potential instruments of terror,” O’Rourke said at the rally. “We must mandate that every single one of them be bought back — back home, off the streets, out of our lives. No longer a threat to every to every single one of us.”
The next day, O’Rourke tweeted about the exchange and included a line about the Kent State shootings in 1970.
“Yesterday, people brought assault weapons to our rally at Kent State—where 4 students were shot dead in 1970,” O’Rourke tweeted. “I told them nobody should show up with an AK-47 or an AR-15 to seek to intimidate us in our own democracy. We need to buy back every single one of them.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Yesterday, people brought assault weapons to our rally at Kent State—where 4 students were shot dead in 1970.
I told them nobody should show up with an AK-47 or an AR-15 to seek to intimidate us in our own democracy.
We need to buy back every single one of them. <a href="https://t.co/U7N5fWUlvv">pic.twitter.com/U7N5fWUlvv</a>
— Beto O&#8217;Rourke (@BetoORourke) <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1177274132674883584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Kent State shootings, O’Rourke seems to forget, were perpetrated by members of the Ohio National Guard, not average citizens. Students at Kent State had been protesting Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam War with the “Cambodian Incursion.” There had been protests for years against the war, but they picked up on May 1, 1970. At night, protesters left bars and began throwing beer bottles and breaking windows. Kent police officers were joined by officers from neighboring districts.
LeRoy Satrom, the mayor of Kent, declared a state of emergency and closed down the bars in town. Satrom called Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes to ask that the National Guard be brought in to the town.
It was on May 4, 1970, that the National Guard began firing at students for unknown reasons. The guardsmen had been trying to get the students to disperse, but there was no indication that they were in any danger requiring a violent response.
It was the state that killed the students at Kent State, not a random deranged citizen. O’Rourke’s gun ban would prevent private citizens from owning weapons he deems to be “assault-style rifles” or “weapons of war.” Since most mass shootings and homicides involve handguns, he may include them in his list of “weapons of war” that private citizens cannot own.
O’Rourke’s weapons ban would actually ensure that more Kent State’s happen, as citizens would not be able to defend themselves against a well-armed government. Throughout history, this has never gone well for the unarmed citizens.
O’Rourke’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/beto-says-hell-yes-were-going-take-americans-guns-james-barrett">original call to ban guns</a> appeared limited to weapons used by soldiers. But, again, it was the national guard who opened fire on Kent State students.
“I am, if it is a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield,” O’Rourke said at the third Democratic debate earlier this month in response to a question asking if he was pro the confiscation of guns. “If the high impact high velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so that you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children and in Odessa. I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15. And that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland [that] there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time.”

Beto O&#8217; Rourke

Beto Uses Kent State As Example To Ban Citizens From Owning Firearms, Ignoring Who Did The Shooting

The initial reports on Todd Phillips&#8217; &#8220;Joker&#8221; film proved universally positive, glowing even. Joaquin Phoenix as Batman&#8217;s archnemesis? A supervillain movie sans the usual CGI mayhem? A comic book film with legitimate Oscar buzz?
Bring it on. The superhero genre needs an enema, to paraphrase one of Jack Nicholson&#8217;s barbs from 1989&#8217;s &#8220;Batman.&#8221;
The early &#8220;Joker&#8221; reviews were mostly fawning, with critics confirming the film&#8217;s Oscar potential.
Then a shift took place across the media landscape. What if this &#8220;Joker&#8221; inspired real-world violence? Reporters and critics alike singled out the main character&#8217;s loner status, how society bludgeoned him until he felt the urge to even the score on his bloody terms and even his skin color.
Spoiler Alert: The Joker is white beneath the greasepaint.
In short, he&#8217;s an &#8220;incel&#8221; ready to fight fire with fire. For the uninitiated, incel refers to men who are involuntarily celibate and, as a result, prone to anger. It seemed odd that a bold spin on an iconic character would inspire a backlash weeks before people actually saw the film – &#8220;Joker&#8221; releases nationwide October 4.
Said backlash is here, no doubt.
Time&#8217;s far-left critic shared <a href="https://time.com/5666055/venice-joker-review-joaquin-phoenix-not-funny/">this hot take on the film</a>: &#8220;It&#8217;s not as if we don&#8217;t know how this pathology works: In America, there&#8217;s a mass shooting or attempted act of violence by a guy like Arthur practically every other week.&#8221;
Valiant Comics editor Heather Antos supported a tweet slamming <a href="https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/09/06/valiant-comics-editor-heather-antos-falsely-claims-james-holmes-was-inspired-by-joker/">&#8220;Joker&#8221; as, you guessed it, &#8220;problematic.&#8221;</a> Among the reasons cited? &#8220;I don&#8217;t want to be around any of the lonely white boys who can relate to it.&#8221;
The uber-woke Refinery29 site served up this <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/09/8407419/joker-violence-racist-movie-reaction">condemnation of the film</a>: &#8220;Did we really need a brutal movie about a white terrorist figure who uses gun violence to enact revenge on the society that rejects him? And did we need it now?&#8221;
This <a href="https://twitter.com/hilaryagro/status/1113506147066032128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1113506147066032128&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fculture%2F2019%2F9%2F18%2F20860890%2Fjoker-movie-controversy-incel-sjw">tweet from a PhD student</a> may have captured the overall mood: &#8220;In a time of increasing violence perpetrated by disaffected white men, is it really the best thing to keep making movies that portray disaffected white men doing violence as sympathetic?&#8221;
The modern progressive likes nothing better than singling out white males for attack, often despite sharing that very skin color. And &#8220;Joker,&#8221; apparently, indulges that craving.
A reporter baffled Phoenix recently by asking his thoughts on the film for provoking real-world violence. The actor left the room for a spell, unable or unsure how to respond.
Director Todd Phillips of &#8220;Hangover&#8221; fame steered aside similar queries as gently as he could. Warner Bros. the studio behind &#8220;Joker,&#8221; offered up a speedy <a href="https://www.warnerbros.com/news/press-releases/warner-bros-statement-regarding-joker">statement</a> on the matter:
<blockquote>Gun violence in our society is a critical issue, and we extend our deepest sympathy to all victims and families impacted by these tragedies. Our company has a long history of donating to victims of violence, including Aurora, and in recent weeks, our parent company joined other business leaders to call on policymakers to enact bi-partisan legislation to address this epidemic. At the same time, Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues. Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.</blockquote>
Those attempting to pin real-world violence on a movie that hasn&#8217;t even been released yet are strangely silent as Hollywood&#8217;s gun glorification continues unabated. No one raised an eyebrow as Keanu Reeves killed hundreds of people, including some for comic effect, in three blood-soaked &#8220;John Wick&#8221; films.
Critics loved &#8220;Ready or Not,&#8221; a recent film celebrating a new bride killing her enemy in-laws in the coolest ways possible.
Where&#8217;s the outrage?
There&#8217;s no political hay to be made from it. Reeves comes from a variety of ethnic heritages, including Chinese and Hawaiian on his father&#8217;s side. That makes it tougher to blame &#8220;white men&#8221; for his cinematic killing spree. &#8220;Ready or Not&#8221; features an empowered female heroine, so that&#8217;s something to be applauded.
Those films play up their grindhouse roots, a possible defense for the lack of clutched pearls. Other grittier and more fact-based violent films have likewise been spared left-wing critics&#8217; &#8220;concern.&#8221;
Heck, the <a href="https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/film-critics-cancel-clint-hustlers/">media is enthralled</a> with &#8220;Hustlers,&#8221; based on the true story of strippers who drug and steal from their clients. No one died from their hustle, but the film cheers their attack on Wall Street dude bros as if two wrongs finally made a right.
Again, not a speck of hand-wringing from the same outlets hanging &#8220;Joker&#8221; out to dry.
The anti-&#8220;Joker&#8221; movement got a legitimate boost this week, one sure to make the current critics double or triple in volume.
Here&#8217;s part of a <a href="https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a29227283/military-warning-incel-mass-shootings-joker-screenings/?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social-media&amp;utm_campaign=socialflowTWMH">message</a> sent by the U.S. Military to its members:
<blockquote>Posts on social media have made reference to involuntary celibate (“incel”) extremists replicating the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at screenings of the Joker movie at nationwide theaters. This presents a potential risk to DOD personnel and family members, though there are no known specific credible threats to the opening of the Joker on 4 October.</blockquote>
This could be connected to a few online yokels beating their cyber-chests, but in our delicate age being prepared is never a bad decision.
Some families impacted by the 2012 Colorado theater shooting that left 12 people dead also condemned the film as <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-49816205">potentially inciting violence</a>, though they haven&#8217;t screened the film yet. They demanded Warner Bros. contribute to a variety of gun control-related causes.
A bigger question remains unanswered.
If an on-screen &#8220;Joker&#8221; can prompt actual violence, couldn&#8217;t other violent movies serve up the same? The answer is consistently, reflexively &#8220;no&#8221; according to the media.
That subject once vexed Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, purveyor of some of the most violent movies in modern history. The Oscar-winning producer suggested a &#8220;violent movie summit&#8221; several years go, where the industry&#8217;s biggest names would gather and explore what impact, if any, movie violence has on the culture.
That summit never happened, and at the moment it&#8217;s the least of Weinstein&#8217;s woes.
Still, reporters dismiss any connection between films glorifying guns and off-screen carnage.
The leap to brand &#8220;Joker&#8221; problematic comes with a super-sized asterisk.  Its cultural critics have other targets in sight, especially the scourge of “white males.” That’s a hallmark of the modern Left, something that didn’t escape Phillips’ observations. The “Joker” director noted the direction of the recent attacks during a revealing chat with <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/joker-director-todd-phillips-rebuffs-criticism-of-dark-tone-we-didnt-make-the-movie-to-push-buttons-exclusive/">TheWrap.com</a>.
“I think it’s because outrage is a commodity, I think it’s something that has been a commodity for a while.” The director added, “What’s outstanding to me in this discourse in this movie is how easily the far left can sound like the far right when it suits their agenda. It’s really been eye-opening for me.”
If we need to have a debate about the impact of a killer clown movie, shouldn’t we at least explore the possibility that other Hollywood products could inspire something equally cruel?
A more honest debate would have fewer strings attached.

Joaquin Phoenix &#8220;Joker&#8221;

TOTO: Is This Why The Media Turned On Joaquin Phoenix’s ‘Joker&#8217;?

Director Todd Phillips&#8217; new DC film &#8220;Joker,&#8221; which tells the story of the iconic psychologically troubled villain&#8217;s spiral into murderous madness, has become the latest gun violence lightning rod, with gun control organizations demanding that Warner Bros. dedicate resources to promoting their agenda, while the film has been pummeled with preemptive outrage online for potentially inspiring &#8220;incel&#8221; extremists. The controversy turned even more heated this week amid reports of the U.S. Army issuing multiple warnings about threats of potential mass shootings in theaters when the film opens on October 4.
But Phillips, star Joaquin Phoenix, and Warner Bros. have been pushing back against those vilifying the film. Phoenix has maintained that it&#8217;s not an artist&#8217;s job to try to predict what will &#8220;trigger&#8221; a psychologically disturbed viewer, an argument Phillips has echoed. In an interview with <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/joker-director-todd-phillips-rebuffs-criticism-of-dark-tone-we-didnt-make-the-movie-to-push-buttons-exclusive/">TheWrap</a> conducted Friday and published Wednesday, Phillips added a politically charged wrinkle to his defense of his highly anticipated and now highly criticized film.
&#8220;I&#8217;m surprised,&#8221; Phillips told TheWrap&#8217;s Sharon Waxmann about the gun violence-related criticism of his film. &#8220;Isn’t it good to have these discussions? Isn&#8217;t it good to have these discussions about these movies, about violence? Why is that a bad thing if the movie does lead to a discourse about it?&#8221;
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s because outrage is a commodity, I think it&#8217;s something that has been a commodity for a while,&#8221; he added. &#8220;What&#8217;s outstanding to me in this discourse in this movie is how easily the far-left can sound like the far-right when it suits their agenda. It&#8217;s really been eye-opening for me.&#8221;
Prior to his criticism of the far-left, Phillips stressed that they did not make the film to try &#8220;to push buttons.&#8221; Instead, he explained, he approached &#8220;Joker&#8221; as &#8220;a way to sneak a real movie in the studio system under the guise of a comic book film.&#8221;
The intent was not &#8220;to glorify this behavior,&#8221; he emphasized; it &#8220;was literally like &#8216;Let&#8217;s make a real movie with a real budget and we’ll call it f–ing Joker.'&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joker-controversy-gets-serious-u-s-military-warns-of-credible-threats-of-incel-violence-at-joker-screenings">The Daily Wire</a> has reported, the criticism directed at the film has been building rapidly in recent weeks, with complaints about it excusing &#8220;incel&#8221; violence and concerns about its potential to promote more mass shootings.
As reported by <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/aurora-shooting-victims-voice-concerns-joker-emotional-letter-warner-bros-1241599">The Hollywood Reporter</a>, five members of families of victims from the horrific mass shooting at a screening of another Batman film, &#8220;The Dark Knight Rises,&#8221; in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 signed a letter sent to Warner Bros CEO Ann Sarnoff Tuesday urging the studio to &#8220;be a part of the growing chorus of corporate leaders who understand that they have a social responsibility to keep us all safe&#8221; and &#8220;end political contributions to candidates who take money from the NRA and vote against gun reform.&#8221;
Perhaps most head-turning are reports that the U.S. Army, after receiving information from the FBI, felt compelled to issue a warning to service members about the potential of &#8220;incel&#8221; violence at screenings of the film. A memo sent on September 18 and since confirmed by U.S. Army officials warned service members about threats on social media about a mass shooting at a screening of the film. The memo states that there were “no known specific credible threats to the opening of the Joker on 4 October,&#8221; but a separate memo sent Monday by senior officials of the U.S. Army’s criminal investigation division said Texas law enforcement presented &#8220;credible&#8221; intelligence of such a threat.
&#8220;Posts on social media have made reference to involuntary celibate (&#8216;incel&#8217;) extremists replicating the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, at screenings of the Joker movie at nationwide theaters,&#8221; the September 18 memo published by <a href="https://io9.gizmodo.com/u-s-military-issues-warning-to-troops-about-incel-viol-1838412331">Gizmodo</a> reads. &#8220;This presents a potential risk to DOD personnel and family members, though there are no known specific credible threats to the opening of the Joker on 4 October.&#8221;
The memo goes on to describe incels as &#8220;individuals who express frustration from perceived disadvantages to starting intimate relationships&#8221; and who &#8220;idolize violent individuals like the Aurora movie theater shooter&#8221; and &#8220;the Joker character, the violent clown from the Batman series.&#8221;
Warner Bros. responded to the letter sent by victims of the Aurora shooting, issuing a <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/warner-bros-says-joker-doesnt-endorse-real-world-violence/">statement</a> Tuesday reported by TheWrap.
&#8220;Gun violence in our society is a critical issue, and we extend our deepest sympathy to all victims and families impacted by these tragedies,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;Our company has a long history of donating to victims of violence, including Aurora, and in recent weeks, our parent company joined other business leaders to call on policymakers to enact bi-partisan legislation to address this epidemic. At the same time, Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues. Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.&#8221;

Todd Phillips Joaquin Phoenix

‘Joker’ Director: ‘The Far-Left Can Sound Like The Far-Right When It Suits Their Agenda’

Warner Bros.&#8217; highly anticipated &#8220;Joker&#8221; standalone DC film starring Joaquin Phoenix has come under fire from critics who fear the film, which depicts a psychologically unstable lead character embracing violence, may glorify mass murder in an era increasingly plagued by mass shootings. Just a few weeks out from the film&#8217;s release, Phoenix reportedly walked out of an interview after being questioned about the film&#8217;s potential culpability in promoting violence, while a group of victims of the Aurora tragedy has sent a letter to the studio calling on the studio to promote gun control and donate money to aid gun violence victims.
&#8220;Family members of those killed in the July 20, 2012, mass shooting at a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, have signed a letter to Warner Bros. sharing concerns about the upcoming Joker film and asking the studio to donate to groups that aid victims of gun violence,&#8221; <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/aurora-shooting-victims-voice-concerns-joker-emotional-letter-warner-bros-1241599">The Hollywood Reporter</a> reported Tuesday.
&#8220;We are calling on you to be a part of the growing chorus of corporate leaders who understand that they have a social responsibility to keep us all safe,&#8221; reads the letter, which was signed by five family members of victims of the Aurora shooting and sent to Warner Bros. CEO Ann Sarnoff Tuesday morning. The letter was organized by Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, founders of the nonprofit Survivors Empowered, and Igor Volsky, who works with gun control advocacy group Guns Down America.
The letter &#8220;does not seek to halt the release of the film nor to rally gun critics to boycott it,&#8221; THR reports. &#8220;Rather, it asks the studio to &#8216;end political contributions to candidates who take money from the NRA and vote against gun reform&#8217; and &#8216;use your political clout and leverage in Congress to actively lobby for gun reform. Keeping everyone safe should be a top corporate priority for Warner Brothers.'&#8221;
THR notes that Century Aurora and XD, the remodeled theater where the mass shooter (whose name is here withheld per Daily Wire policy) murdered a dozen people and injured another 70, has already decided not to show the new film.
The letter follows a series of headlines amid a flood of complaints on social media about the &#8220;<a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2019/09/8411843/joker-violence-racist-movie-reaction?utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter">dangerous</a>&#8221; new film. After reports that Phoenix <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/52093/joaquin-phoenix-flees-interview-when-questioned-if-paul-bois">walked out</a> of one interview in response to questions about the film&#8217;s potential to encourage violence, <a href="https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/09/23/joker-dangerous-movie-joaquin-phoenix-todd-phillips-interview">IGN</a> published an interview it conducted previously with the actor in which he addressed the issue.
&#8220;Well, I think that, for most of us, you&#8217;re able to tell the difference between right and wrong,&#8221; said Phoenix. &#8220;And those that aren&#8217;t are capable of interpreting anything in the way that they may want to. People misinterpret lyrics from songs. They misinterpret passages from books. So I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s the responsibility of a filmmaker to teach the audience morality or the difference between right or wrong. I mean, to me, I think that that&#8217;s obvious.”
&#8220;I think if you have somebody that has that level of emotional disturbance, they can find fuel anywhere. I just don&#8217;t think that you can function that way,&#8221; he added.
&#8220;It&#8221;s uncomfortable. It&#8217;s uncomfortable for all of us,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I think we all are aware of these issues and we&#8217;re concerned, and I think that&#8217;s why we talk about it. I don&#8217;t think that we can be afraid to talk about it. So I understand why you asked that question. But I think the same way that you feel that you need to ask that question and engage in the conversation this way, I think that&#8217;s how I feel as an actor. And that&#8217;s all I have to say.&#8221;
Below is a recently released trailer for &#8220;Joker,&#8221; which hits theaters on October 4:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zAGVQLHvwOY" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51450/will-new-joker-film-live-hype-heres-what-critics-james-barrett">Will The New ‘Joker’ Film Live Up To The Hype? Here’s What The Critics Are Saying.</a>

joaquin_phoenix_gi.jpg

‘Joker’ Under Fire: Phoenix Walks Out Of Interview; Shooting Victims Send Letter To Warner Bros

After far-left climate activist Greta Thunberg gave an extreme speech at the United Nations on Monday, the Left worked overtime to brand anyone who criticized Thunberg or her speech as a vicious bully picking on a child. The Left used similar tactics after the media repeatedly trotted out teen survivors of the tragic Parkland high school mass shooting last year to promote gun control.
But teens are only off-limits when they are promoting left-wing causes, it seems. Earlier this year, Catholic students at Covington High School were ripped apart and smeared by liberals after an out-of-context clip of a confrontation with Native American activist Nathan Phillips went viral online. More footage of the encounter would later show that the teens were the ones confronted by Phillips and endured nasty, racist taunting from another group of activists moments before.
Nonetheless, here&#8217;s how the Left treated 16-year-old Nick Sandmann, who became the face of the incident, and his fellow students.
&#8220;Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid&#8217;s?&#8221; asked former CNN host Reza Aslan.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s? <a href="https://t.co/jolQ7BZQPD">pic.twitter.com/jolQ7BZQPD</a>
— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) <a href="https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1086806539552284672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;I hate this! It makes me sick to see those smarmy self-congratulatory expressions on their faces!&#8221; wrote left-wing actress Mira Sorvino.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I hate this! It makes me sick to see those smarmy self-congratulatory expressions on their faces!
— Mira Sorvino (@MiraSorvino) <a href="https://twitter.com/MiraSorvino/status/1086664163995279361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;What I wouldn’t give to smack the smug little look off this guy&#8217;s f***ing face,&#8221; &#8220;Riverdale&#8221; star Lili Reinhart wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">What I wouldn’t give to smack the smug little look off this guy’s fucking face
— Lili Reinhart (@lilireinhart) <a href="https://twitter.com/lilireinhart/status/1086730772050980864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King predictably leveled racially charged smears against the teens.
&#8220;I am so deeply grieved and angry by this as young kids in MAGA hats surrounded and mocked a beloved Native American elder yesterday,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;When your power is centered in your whiteness, mocking others who are unlike you makes you feel strong. But it’s weak. And despicable.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">I am so deeply grieved and angry by this as young kids in MAGA hats surrounded and mocked a beloved Native American elder yesterday.
When your power is centered in your whiteness, mocking others who are unlike you makes you feel strong.
But it’s weak. And despicable. <a href="https://t.co/38FtzGtowL">pic.twitter.com/38FtzGtowL</a>
— Shaun King (@shaunking) <a href="https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1086686777732186112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
CNN analyst and self-styled Republican strategist Ana Navarro smeared the teens as &#8220;racist.&#8221;
&#8220;Must Watch: Native-American elder taunted by racist MAGA-hat wearing teens, speaks and cries for America, the country he defended and sacrificed and wore the uniform for. It is people like Nathan Phillips who make America great,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;Thank you for your dignity, sir.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Must Watch: Native-American elder taunted by racist MAGA-hat wearing teens, speaks and cries for America, the country he defended and sacrificed and wore the uniform for. It is people like Nathan Phillips who make America great. 
Thank you for your dignity, sir. <a href="https://t.co/Kae7lgAFrk">https://t.co/Kae7lgAFrk</a>
— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) <a href="https://twitter.com/ananavarro/status/1086699541611581441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Sports journalist Molly Knight ripped &#8220;white dude&#8221; Sandmann for his &#8220;smugness.&#8221;
&#8220;The smugness of knowing you can flaunt your lack of humanity and float through life with no consequences because you’re a white dude is the core of Trumpism. This is it,&#8221; she posted.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">The smugness of knowing you can flaunt your lack of humanity and float through life with no consequences because you’re a white dude is the core of Trumpism. This is it. <a href="https://t.co/R0H9dfcCOI">https://t.co/R0H9dfcCOI</a>
— Molly Knight (@molly_knight) <a href="https://twitter.com/molly_knight/status/1086744832494555137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Comedian and left-wing activist Kathy Griffin risked endangering the teen boys&#8217; lives via doxxing.
&#8220;Name these kids. I want NAMES. Shame them. If you think these fuckers wouldn’t dox you in a heartbeat, think again,&#8221; Griffin <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/high-schoolers-accuse-comedian-kathy-griffin-of-harassment/">tweeted</a>.
&#8220;Names please. And stories from people who can identify them and vouch for their identity. Thank you,&#8221; she later added via Twitter.
Porn star and anti-Trump resistance hero Stormy Daniels suggested, &#8220;I&#8217;m suddenly in favor of building a wall…around Covington Catholic High in KY. And let&#8217;s electrify it to keep those disgusting punks from getting loose and creating more vileness in society.&#8221; The tweet has since been <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stormy-daniels-wants-build-wall-around-disgusting-punks-filmed-taunting-native-american-protestors-140746359.html">removed</a> from Twitter.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49980/judge-dismisses-nick-sandmanns-lawsuit-against-paul-bois">Judge Appointed By Jimmy Carter Dismisses Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against Washington Post</a>

Greta Thunberg and MAGA teen

FLASHBACK: Here’s How The Left Treated 16-Year-Old Nick Sandmann And The Covington Boys

Climate Change

Donald Trump

Global Warming

Greta Thunberg

Media Bias

Nick Sandmann

Last week, while telling reporters that Democrats need to “start “flooding” the Senate with gun-control bills, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) exposed her complete lack of knowledge on the issue:
“I&#8217;ve held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I hadn’t,” Jackson Lee said. “It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber, these kinds of bullets, need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">“I held an AR-15 in my hand, I wish I hadn’t. It is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving. And the bullet that is utilized, a .50 caliber, these kinds of bullets need to be licensed and do not need to be on the street.” &#8211; Rep. <a href="https://twitter.com/JacksonLeeTX18?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JacksonLeeTX18</a> <a href="https://t.co/U71ir6BHZH">pic.twitter.com/U71ir6BHZH</a>
— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) <a href="https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1176145894061879302?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of guns knows that nothing she said was even close to being accurate. An AR-15 weighs less than a single filled moving box and uses .223 caliber bullets. There are some guns that can handle a .50 caliber bullet, but the AR-15 is not one of them.
Jason Howerton, one of the few journalists today who actually owns and knows anything about guns, laid into Jackson Lee on Twitter for her errors, which went unchecked by the mainstream media.
“For my non-gun peeps, claiming an AR-15 shoots .50 caliber bullets is as asinine as saying your car runs on orange juice,” Howerton tweeted. “Also, an AR-15 generally weighs somewhere between 7-9 pounds. So if 10 of your moving boxes weight 9 pounds, you&#8217;re really doing it wrong.”
Howerton followed up this tweet with a photo of the difference between the .223 rounds used in AR-15s and .50 caliber bullets.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">you can see how she got it wrong though. Basically the same. <a href="https://t.co/MxSKB0X5cT">pic.twitter.com/MxSKB0X5cT</a>
— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) <a href="https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1176156345457872896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The media and those advocating for gun control have a history of reporting demonstrably false information without consequence. Two years ago, left-wing media outlets <a href="https://observer.com/2017/03/mainstream-media-dishonest-gun-silencer-nra-bias/">went apoplectic</a> over firearm suppressors because Hollywood refers to them as “silencers” and makes it seem as though people can fire weapons without anyone hearing. The Washington Post that year decried suppressors, claiming it would make it harder to hear gunshots in mass shooting situations. The science they referred to showed that suppressors drop the sound of an AR-15 from 165 decibels to 135 decibels. The Federalist’s Sean Davis noted at the time that the “federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration bans employers from exposing employees to 115 decibels for more than 15 minutes per day without providing them sound mitigation or hearing protection measures.”
For reference, a jackhammer clocks in at around 135 decibels. The Post also claimed in that same article that a .22LR semiautomatic rifle – which is used for shooting small game like squirrels – is “high-powered.”
In 2014, California State Sen. Kevin de Leon held <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6tUf17mMII">a press conference</a> announcing his latest gun-control bill. In less than a minute, de Leon claimed that a rifle he was holding was “a ghost gun” that “ has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.&#8221;
Howerton was there at that time to dispute de Leon’s ludicrous claims. A “ghost gun,” Howerton explained, are firearms that do not have serial numbers or are homemade. He went on to explain:
<blockquote>Firstly, there is no such thing as a &#8220;30-caliber clip&#8221; in the context of which he is speaking. He clearly is referring to a 30-round magazine. An ammunition magazine is different than a &#8220;clip,&#8221; but the two are often confused by those not familiar with guns. And though it&#8217;s obvious, there is also no such thing as a &#8220;30 magazine clip.&#8221;
Secondly, caliber refers the measurement of the width of a bullet or internal diameter of a gun barrel, not magazine capacity.
According to the Associated Press, the rifle on display in the video is indeed a homemade fully automatic rifle. Still, a rate of fire of 60 rounds per second &#8212; or 3,600 rounds per minute &#8212; is unlikely with a &#8220;homemade&#8221; rifle. Fully automatic weapons are also essentially banned already, even if they are homemade. The average rate of fire for a semi-automatic rifle is roughly 120 rounds per minute, depending on the shooter and reload time.</blockquote>
Let’s also not forget how many gun control activists use armed security guards.
The people who want to severely limit or abolish the Second Amendment don’t know the first thing about that which they hate so much.

Sheila Jackson Lee

WATCH: Sheila Jackson Lee Gets Everything Wrong About AR-15s While Introducing Gun Control Bill

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke recently opened up about the attacks he faced over his demand for a nationwide gun confiscation program, stating that he took pride in condemnation from not only President Donald Trump, but also from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
&#8220;It shows me we are doing something right,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told reporters Thursday while visiting a marijuana dispensary in Oakland, California, on Thursday. The former Texas congressman further noted that because Schumer, a member of his own party, launched the attack, it signaled that O’Rourke was being authentic.
However, O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s calls for the government to seize firearms from millions of law-abiding citizens have been a divisive topic for the Democratic Party. While his declaration received massive applause from the left-wing crowd at the last Democratic National Committee (DNC) primary debate, many Democratic lawmakers have since been distancing themselves from the rallying cries.
Schumer brushed off O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s gun confiscation plan on Wednesday, telling reporters that he doesn&#8217;t &#8220;know of any other Democrat who agrees&#8221; with the proposal.
&#8220;Ask Chuck Schumer what he&#8217;s been able to get done,&#8221; O’Rourke responded to Schumer&#8217;s dismissal, in comments reported by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beto-orourke-says-senates-top-democrat-has-accomplished-absolutely-nothing-on-gun-control/2019/09/20/ced58c92-db93-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html">The Washington Post</a>. &#8220;We still don&#8217;t have [universal] background checks. Didn&#8217;t have them when he was in the majority either. So, you know, the game that he&#8217;s played, the politics that he&#8217;s pursued have give us absolutely nothing. And have produced a situation where we lose nearly 40,000 of our fellow Americans every year.&#8221;
&#8220;What [Schumer] may not know, but what I hear loud and clear, because I&#8217;m traveling the country listening to my fellow Americans, is that the people are there,&#8221; he added.
While Schumer has largely remained silent on the issue after his initial remarks to reporters, O&#8217;Rourke has continued to defend himself against the Senate&#8217;s top Democrat. O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s presidential campaign swiftly sent out fundraising emails illustrating the popularity of a nationwide gun-grab among Democrats, and O&#8217;Rourke tweeted his case to the minority leader multiple times.
Despite Schumer&#8217;s dismissal of the proposal, he has been a long-time advocate of strict gun reforms. While serving in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, he authored both the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the federal assault weapons ban. Following a recent slew of deadly mass shootings over the summer, Schumer has been urging Congress and the White House to enact an expansive package of gun control legislation that includes universal background checks and red flag laws.
&#8220;Over the last five weeks, I&#8217;ve just been focused on saying what&#8217;s on my mind, being myself,&#8221; O’Rourke told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/beto-orourke-guns-2020.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share">The New York Times</a> on Monday. &#8220;And not really in the slightest being interested in polls, or how things poll, or what you&#8217;re supposed to say.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign, however, has struggled to gain traction and his polling numbers have stalled out in the low single-digits.
After facing mounting pressure to drop out of the race in August, the Democratic presidential hopeful instead re-launched his campaign with a new-found calling to promulgate anti-Second Amendment policies in an attempt to prevent further gun crime.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/52052/hell-no-youre-not-mom-rips-beto-his-face-over-gun-ryan-saavedra">‘HELL NO, YOU’RE NOT!’: Mom Rips Beto To His Face Over Gun Confiscation Plan</a>

Beto Basks In Democratic Leader’s Condemnation: ‘It Shows Me We’re Doing Something Right’

Charles Schumer

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) praised Democratic presidential candidate Beto O&#8217;Rourke on Thursday for being honest about his desire to seize millions of firearms from law-abiding American citizens.
&#8220;Look, there are two groups of people behind these bills,&#8221; Kennedy told Fox News host Sandra Smith while discussing forthcoming gun control legislation.
&#8220;There&#8217;s a group of people who I think in good faith honestly believe that further curtailing our Second Amendment rights will enhance public safety,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;But there&#8217;s another group that just hates the Second Amendment, and I want to thank Congressman Beto O&#8217;Rourke for being honest — I mean, his honesty was refreshing.&#8221;
<div class="embed video fluid-video">Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a></div>
Kennedy&#8217;s remarks were in reference to O&#8217;Rourke’s recent proposal to implement a federally mandated gun confiscation program for so-called &#8220;assault weapons.&#8221; The anti-Second Amendment plan is so radical that even members of his own party swiftly distanced themselves from the proposal.
&#8220;Beto&#8217;s copy of the Bill of Rights goes from one to three. Mine includes the Second Amendment,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;But there are a whole host of people here in Washington D.C. — not all of my Democratic friends, but many of my Democratic friends — they don’t believe in the Second Amendment.&#8221;
&#8220;They would be happy to confiscate America&#8217;s guns,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And if you don’t believe that, then you probably also still believe in Big Foot. I mean, it&#8217;s a fact and everybody up here knows it.&#8221;
Kennedy, like many Republicans on Capitol Hill, had recently met with Attorney General William Barr to discuss possible gun control legislation in the aftermath of a slew of deadly mass shootings.
The White House is reportedly considering expanding background checks amid mounting public pressure to act. While the plan has largely been unpopular with Republican lawmakers, many are understandably waiting to see the legislation before publicly opining.
Kennedy revealed to Smith that at this point in time, he&#8217;s still not sure if both sides of the aisle will ultimately be able to agree on infringing any further gun rights for American citizens.
&#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t bet my house on it [that something gets done], and if I were betting your house, I&#8217;d probably say maybe,&#8221; the Louisiana senator said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve got to see what the proposals are first. The president&#8217;s opinion matters. I met with Bill Barr yesterday. I think the White House sent him up here because most people in the Senate have great respect for him.&#8221;
Kennedy further noted that when it comes to restricting constitutional rights, the burden is on the lawmakers to prove the necessity in doing so.
&#8220;The Bill of Rights isn&#8217;t an a la carte menu,&#8221; Kennedy said. &#8220;The Second Amendment is just as important as the Fourth and the First.&#8221;
&#8220;As usual, I&#8217;ll probably find what the president has to say to be persuasive, but I want to make it very clear, it&#8217;s dispositive for me,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;If the president puts a bill on the floor that I think curtails or hurts people&#8217;s constitutional rights without substantially enhancing public safety, uh uh, that’s a bridge too far for me. I&#8217;m going to fight for our Constitution.&#8221;

John Kennedy

WATCH: Republican Senator Thanks Beto For His ‘Refreshing’ Honesty On Gun Confiscation

William Barr

After Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dismissed Democratic presidential candidate former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s (D-TX) demand for a nationwide gun confiscation program as unrepresentative of the Democratic Party, O&#8217;Rourke responded with polls showing its support.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t know of any other Democrat who agrees with Beto O’Rourke,&#8221; Schumer told reporters during a conference call on Wednesday. &#8220;But it is no excuse not to go forward [with gun control legislation].&#8221;
&#8220;With respect to the Minority Leader, a recent Monmouth University poll found that nearly 70% of Democrats support Beto’s mandatory buyback plan for assault weapons,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign responded in a fundraising email. &#8220;A Washington Post poll found 74% of Democrats support it.&#8221;
The former Texas congressman was the first major 2020 Democratic candidate to endorse a government-run gun seizure program for so-called &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; but a host of his primary challengers have since followed suit, including members of Schumer&#8217;s own Senate caucus.
&#8220;Even several of Schumer&#8217;s colleagues support Beto’s plan,&#8221; the email continued. &#8220;For example, both Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker said they back Beto&#8217;s mandatory assault weapons buyback.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke faced widespread blowback after the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s (DNC) third primary debate when he stated in no uncertain terms that if he were to be elected president, he would confiscate millions of firearms from law-abiding American citizens.
&#8220;Hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take away your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said on the debate stage. &#8220;We are not going to allow [them] to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.&#8221;
While his declaration received massive applause from the left-wing crowd, many members of his own party have since distanced themselves from O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s rallying cries. Democratic lawmakers, including those in leadership, have even been sounding the alarm that such an anti-Second Amendment endorsement could be detrimental to Democrats and further fire up the Republican base.
&#8220;Look, Beto would support this even if it weren&#8217;t popular because this is about doing the right thing to end our nation&#8217;s gun violence epidemic,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign email continued. &#8220;But the fact is that the vast majority of Democrats do support Beto&#8217;s plan — which means it&#8217;s time for leadership that embraces bold gun safety reform.&#8221;
Schumer, however, has been working along side House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass an expansive package of gun control legislation, which includes universal background checks and &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws.
O’Rourke&#8217;s Democratic primary challenger, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, expressed concern days earlier that O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s demand for the federal government to seize firearms from American citizens is playing into the hands of Republicans and may prevent any Democratic-backed legislation from getting passed.
&#8220;Look, right now, we have an amazing member right here on our hands. We have agreement among the American people for not just universal background checks, but we have a majority in favor of red flag laws, high-capacity magazines, and banning the new sale of assault weapons,&#8221; Buttigieg said on CNN over the weekend. &#8220;This is a golden moment to finally do something because we&#8217;ve been arguing about this for as long as I’ve been alive.&#8221;
&#8220;Leaving millions of weapons of war on the streets because Trump and McConnell are &#8216;at least pretending to be open to reform&#8217;?&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke responded to the South Bend mayor. &#8220;That calculation and fear is what got us here in the first place. Let&#8217;s have the courage to say what we believe and fight for it.&#8221;

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaking at the press

Chuck Schumer Claims Democrats Don’t Support Gun Confiscation. Beto Proves Him Wrong.

On Wednesday, Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat representing West Virginia, blasted presidential contender Robert Francis &#8220;Beto&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke over his radical anti-gun rhetoric.
O&#8217;Rourke promised Americans during the last Democratic presidential primary debate that &#8220;hell yes,&#8221; he&#8217;s going to take law-abiding citizens&#8217; guns, such as AR-15s and AK-47s.
&#8220;Beto&#8217;s one human being. He gave his own opinion, OK?&#8221; Sen. Manchin told Wall Street Journal reporter Lindsay Wise. &#8220;I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats.&#8221;
&#8220;I can tell you one thing: [Beto O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s] not taking my guns away from me,&#8221; Manchin added. &#8220;You tell Beto that OK?&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Dem Sen. <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeManchinWV?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeManchinWV</a> on Beto pledge to confiscate AR15s:
&#8220;Beto&#8217;s one human being. He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BetoORourke</a>&#8216;s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?&#8221;
— Lindsay Wise (@lindsaywise) <a href="https://twitter.com/lindsaywise/status/1174378345594806278?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Following the blistering message to the fellow Democrat, Manchin&#8217;s office made it clear to NBC News that the senator does not own any AR-15s, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/462019-manchin-beto-orourke-is-not-taking-my-guns-away-from-me">The Hill.</a>
&#8220;FYI, per his office, Sen Manchin does NOT own an AR-type weapon, so Beto&#8217;s buyback program wouldn&#8217;t affect him,&#8221; posted NBC reporter Frank Thorp V.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">FYI, per his office, Sen Manchin does NOT own an AR-type weapon, so Beto&#8217;s buyback program wouldn&#8217;t affect him. <a href="https://t.co/Gqw4uPy7Ah">https://t.co/Gqw4uPy7Ah</a>
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) <a href="https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1174412138569437185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;Hell yes, we&#8217;re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke proudly bellowed during Thursday&#8217;s debate. The failed Senate candidate has used extreme language to bring in campaign dollars. He&#8217;s also claimed law-abiding citizens with AR-15s and AK-47s are eager to hand over their guns to the government for a so-called &#8220;buy back&#8221; program.
O&#8217;Rourke recently told MSNBC&#8217;s Joy Reid, &#8220;Texans who own AR-15s, they&#8217;ve told me, &#8216;I don&#8217;t need this. I don&#8217;t need it to hunt, I don&#8217;t need it to protect myself &#8230; if giving this back, or cutting it to pieces, or selling it to the gov helps to keep us safer, then by all means do it,'&#8221; reported The Daily Wire&#8217;s <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1172899392312885250">Ryan Saavedra</a>.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Beto O&#8217;Rourke with another: “Texans who own AR-15s, they’ve told me, &#8216;I don’t need this. I don’t need it to hunt, I don’t need it to protect myself…if giving this back, or cutting it to pieces, or selling it to the gov helps to keep us safer, then by all means do it’” <a href="https://t.co/am73OpOC8A">pic.twitter.com/am73OpOC8A</a>
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1172899392312885250?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
According to the Texas Tribune&#8217;s Patrick Svitek, O’Rourke also claimed a &#8220;longtime Republican&#8221; told him he&#8217;s all in for gun confiscation while they were standing next to one another in the bathroom, apparently urinating.
&#8220;New O&#8217;Rourke anecdote: He says a longtime Republican chatted him up today in [Buc-ee&#8217;s Beaver] bathroom on guns,&#8221; posted Svitek. &#8220;He said, &#8216;This is gonna be strange — not strange that I&#8217;m talking to you while we&#8217;re both at a urinal &#8230; but strange because I&#8217;m telling you you&#8217;re absolutely right on guns.’”
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">New O&#8217;Rourke anecdote: He says a longtime Republican chatted him up today in <a href="https://twitter.com/bucees?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BUCEES</a> bathroom on guns. &#8220;He said, &#8216;This is gonna be strange — not strange that I’m talking to you while we’re both at a urinal &#8230; but strange because I&#8217;m telling you you&#8217;re absolutely right on guns.&#8221;
— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1172932837630185472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
There has, however, been push-back by actual gun owners, as we&#8217;ve seen with Manchin, who&#8217;s notably a Democrat, though very moderate.
The Daily Wire&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51381/hammer-i-will-never-ever-let-government-buy-back-josh-hammer">Josh Hammer</a> wrote a piece explaining why the American people do need their AR-15s, and bluntly stated that he would not oblige with such government confiscation, writing in part:
<blockquote>No. I will not oblige. My <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1104844636558905345">staggeringly awesome</a> so-called &#8220;assault weapon,&#8221; replete as it is with multiple sights, numerous &#8220;high-capacity&#8221; magazines, and hundreds and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, is the ultimate guardian of my life and liberty. It is, in Kozinski&#8217;s &#8220;doomsday&#8221; scenario, the final fail-safe mechanism that, if all else were to fail in America and tyranny or anarchy were to reign, still gives me a chance to defend home, hearth, family, and self. It is the weapon that the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/10/the-warsaw-ghetto-uprising-armed-jews-vs-nazis/">Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising</a>, much like oppressed people living under <a href="https://twitter.com/SamElizabethan/status/1168281769277370368">totalitarian regimes</a> the whole world over, wished they could have had. Such weapons are — here, there, and everywhere — the ultimate guardians of a citizenry&#8217;s freedom.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51940/watch-beto-finally-reveals-how-he-will-enforce-his-molly-prince">WATCH: Beto Finally Reveals How He Will Enforce His Gun Confiscation Program</a>

Joe Manchin

Democrat Joe Manchin Offers Blistering Message To O’Rourke On Guns: ‘You Tell Beto That OK?’

Democratic presidential candidate former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) revealed on Wednesday that if elected to the presidency, he will enforce a nationwide gun confiscation program by fining any American who does not hand over their firearms to the government.
&#8220;I begin by saying that we expect our fellow Americans to follow the law,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told reporters while on the campaign trail. &#8220;If they do not, there would be a fine imposed to compel them to follow the law.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Question: what happens if people don’t sell their guns back to the govt&#8230;.answer: <a href="https://t.co/wGuXJlBZQG">pic.twitter.com/wGuXJlBZQG</a>
— Teresa Riley (@TeresaRFox4) <a href="https://twitter.com/TeresaRFox4/status/1173340287311208449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The former congressman has faced massive backlash for demanding that the federal government seize millions of firearms from law-abiding citizens. However, he has also been noticeably vague about how the federally mandated program would work in the event that Americans refuse to voluntarily turn in their firearms.
&#8220;We&#8217;ve seen this implemented successfully in Australia, where you&#8217;ve seen a near-50% reduction in gun violence deaths in that country,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said. &#8220;They estimate that between 16 and 20 mass shootings have been averted so far.&#8221;
&#8220;Take it from the people in El Paso and Midland-Odessa, if we can avoid one of those mass shootings, we absolutely should,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And if we can do so while protecting your Second Amendment rights — you still have a gun to hunt, you still have a gun to protect yourself, you can still take your kids out and teach them how to use those firearms or take them on a hunting trip — then let’s do that. And that&#8217;s the path that’s open to us right now in this country.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s demand for a nationwide gun grab comes as he has been facing mounting pressure to drop out of the presidential race. Instead of ending his campaign, he re-branded it for a third time in August with a primary focus on his anti-gun platform.
O&#8217;Rourke was the first major 2020 Democratic candidate to endorse a government-run gun confiscation program for so-called &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; but a host of his primary challengers have since followed suit. To date, none of the candidates have provided a clear definition of what constitutes an &#8220;assault weapon.&#8221;
The former Texas lawmaker faced a wave of criticism for what many consider to be a dangerous proposal — implementing such a program could lead to violent clashes, as Americans fear that they would be losing their right to defend themselves and their families.
O&#8217;Rourke has responded to the alarm bells by contending that his program would not require law enforcement to go to the homes of gun owners to seize the newly prohibited firearms. He also criticized the warnings as &#8220;not helpful&#8221; because they are &#8220;self-fulfilling.&#8221;
&#8220;How do we enforce any law?&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke replied when last week when asked about the logistics of is plan. &#8220;I mean, there&#8217;s a significant reliance on people complying with the law.&#8221;
&#8220;You know, that law is not created in a vacuum, it will have the input of members of Congress who are going to reflect their constituents&#8217; interests,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And, at the end of the day, I think we&#8217;re going to get to a solution that protects your Second Amendment rights while protecting the lives of everyone in this country. I&#8217;m confident America can do it.&#8221;

Menu

Gun Control

Articles tagged with Gun Control

Supreme Court Won’t Take Sandy Hook Case, Will Allow Victims Of Mass Shooting To Sue Gun Makers

Relative Of Utah Family Killed By Cartel Goes On CNN, Urges: ‘Fight For Your Guns’

WILLIAMS: Gun Grabbers Misleading Us

WATCH: Newtown Woman Unloads On Beto: You’re Trying To ‘Hijack This Town,’ Take Guns ‘Out Of Good People’s Hands’

WATCH: Beto Backs Off Confiscating AR-15s: ‘Keep It At A Hunting Club’

CEO Of Dick’s Sporting Goods ‘Quietly Testing’ Presidential Campaign

Ocasio-Cortez Defends Beto’s Gun Confiscation Plan: It’s ‘Taking A Stand’

DYS: Beto O’Rourke’s ‘Liberty’ Is No Liberty At All