The 2nd Amendment Was Only For Muskets (Puckle Update)

The First “Assault” Weapon – 1718

(Via FIREARM BLOG) The Puckle Gun is one of those firearms of which only a couple of expamples exist in the world, but which is covered in a great deal of introductory firearms books, usually in their section on the history of machine guns. This has led many to assume the Puckle Gun was some kind of proto-machine gun, which isn’t exactly the case, although it is a very important historical step on the road to modern rapid-fire weaponry. Some discussion will follow below, but first, Forgotten Weapons released an installment on the partial original Puckle Gun located at Reed Knight’s Institute of Military Technology…

[ the video below is here in the Firearm Blog post ]

What makes the Puckle significant to the development of rapid fire guns? Its features. It is one of the earliest, if not the earliest breechloading guns to my knowledge that incorporates all of the following features necessary for a modern rapid-fire gun:

  • A method of sealing the chamber to prevent gas escape
  • A quick-changeable feeding device for rapid reloading
  • Pre-set, integrated priming to elminate the priming stage of loading and protect the priming compound from the environment

Previous breechloaders did incorporate one or two of these features, but Puckle’s gun combined all three to produce a true rapid-fire weapon….



InPuckle Gun 1718 the “Puckle gun” [above], the first machine gun, appeared. (One could argue that the so-called “assault rifle pre-dated the Second Amendment.) The Colt revolver followed not long after and in the late 1800s the Gatling gun, which fired 200 rounds per minute, appeared on the market. The evolution of firearms was observable during the time that the Constitution was drafted; to argue that the Founding Fathers were unaware of, or not living through, the ever-evolving capabilities of firearms is blatant ignorance of both common sense and fact. Jefferson himself was a noted collector and in letters explained what technological capabilities he favored in pieces over others in his collection. ~ The Dana Show

A transcript of the above CBS 46 presentation can be found HERE.

RED STATE continues on with this thinking:

…Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and that first Congress dropped references to “as allowed by Law” that had been in the English Bill of Rights. The Founders intended that Congress was to make no law curtailing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment, contrary to much of today’s conversation, has just as much to do with the people protecting themselves from tyranny as it does burglars. That is why there is so little common ground about assault rifles — even charitably ignoring the fact that there really is no such thing. If the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from even their own government, then the citizenry should be able to be armed.

There are plenty of arguments and bodies to suggest that we might, as a nation, need to rethink this. The Founders gave us that option. We can amend the Constitution.

In doing so, we should keep in mind that in the past 100 years Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, and other governments have turned on their people at various times and, in doing so, restricted freedoms starting often with gun ownership. You may think a 30 round magazine is too big. Under the real purpose of the second amendment, a 30 round magazine might be too small.

Regardless, as the President announces how he will curtail the freedoms of the second amendment, we should remember Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

And the Examiner notes “Pepperbox” and “Volley Guns”

…Put whoever tries to get away with such an unsupportable wild claim on the spot by asking them to explain pepperbox revolvers, multiple barrel handheld firearms based on a concept introduced in the 15th Century, albeit they were initially fired using a match. At the time the Constitution was adopted, pepperboxes had upgraded their technology to flintlock versions, with up to seven barrels rotated by hand.

Then ask them to explain volley guns, first used in 1339.

The Founders experienced first-hand a major technological innovation that yielded a range and accuracy advantage: long guns with rifled barrels, like Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles, had it all over British standard-issue Brown Bess smooth bore muskets…

The Wild-Wild West:

…How many murders do you suppose these old western towns saw a year? Let’s say the bloodiest, gun-slingingest of the famous cattle towns with the cowboys doing quick-draws at high noon every other day. A hundred? More?

How about five? That was the most murders any old-west town saw in any one year. Ever. Most towns averaged about 1.5 murders a year, and not all of those were shooting. You were way more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than you were in Tombstone in 1881, the year of the famous gunfight at the OK Corral (body count: three) and the town’s most violent year ever.

As for the traditional Western gunfight as depicted in movies, the inaccuracy of handguns at the time would have made quick-drawing skill irrelevant: It was simply so unlikely you’d hit a guy on the first, second or third shot that it didn’t really matter which guy got out his gun first. The closest history got to high-noon show downs was dueling, where people just stood across from one another with their guns out, aimed and fired until someone got lucky, and someone else was dead. Forget about “fanning,” rapidly cocking a single-action revolver between rounds like Clint Eastwood does in A Fistful of Dollars. You’d be lucky to hit a henchman if the duel took place in a closet.

Why Do We Believe It?

Because famous gunfighters like Billy the Kid wanted you to believe it. If you’ve seen Young Guns on cable, you probably know the guy was gunning somebody down every ten minutes!

Well according to sources who aren’t Billy The Kid, his lifetime kill count was four. Criminals inflated their murder stats for the same reason guys today inflate their sexual experience: It made them look cool. Towns like Deadwood talked up their violent, lawless natures in order to attract adventurous settlers. Books were written about them and movies were made as soon as cameras were invented, and nobody who’d been out west was rushing to correct the misconceptions because, why the hell would they. A century and a half later, we still love that lie…

(6 Ridiculous History Myths ~ You Probably Think Are True)

Miss Malcolm’s Book has some startling examples of a society gone mad!

Malcolm’s book has shown me that I radically underestimated the danger of gun control. Her detailed study of British legislation on the topic shows the real aim of the disarmers. They wish to abolish the right to armed self-defense entirely. The point is not only to block armed resistance to the state, as I had previously thought; in addition, everyone is to be made totally dependent on the state for protection.

Some of Malcolm’s examples are shocking. In England “[m]erely threatening to defend oneself can also prove illegal, as an elderly lady discovered. She succeeded in frightening off a gang of thugs by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm” (p. 184).

Not even if one’s life is in danger can one legally use a weapon. In another case, two men assaulted Eric Butler in a subway, smashing his head and choking him. “In desperation he unsheathed a sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of them. . . . The assailants were charged with unlawful wounding but Butler was also tried, and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon” (p. 185).

You can imagine the legal position if someone goes so far as to use a real gun to defend himself. As British law now stands, you cannot even use a gun in your own home to defend yourself against burglars. In a 1999 incident, Tony Martin surprised a professional burglar and his accomplice while they robbed his home. He fired, killing one of them.

Did the government commend Martin for his bravery in confronting the burglars? Quite the contrary, they tried and convicted him for murder. “Thus an English farmer, living alone, has been sentenced to life in prison for killing one professional burglar and ten years for wounding another when the two broke into his home at night” (p. 216). Fortunately, our story has a “happy” ending: the court of appeals reduced his sentence to five years, on grounds of “diminished capacity.”

[….]

Gun control advocates, faced with these facts, will at once begin to yammer uncontrollably, “a correlation is not a cause.” Indeed it is not; but in this instance, a strong correlation holds in two ways: when guns increase in number, violent crimes decrease, and when guns decrease, violent crimes increase. Further, a plausible causal story explains the correlation: the prospect of armed resistance deters criminals. This is about as good as an inductive argument gets. But I do not anticipate that those who wish to take away the right to self-defense will alter their position. They aim to make everyone totally dependent on the all-powerful state….

(Guns and Violence: The English Experience, Joyce Lee Malcolm)

Beware Fake News!

Or the Washington Post (WaPo) publishing an article on Thursday on how the Russians used American websites to push anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda in the 2016 election. The problem was, however, the the source for their story admitted to lying:

Surveillance Valley reported:

Within a day of the article coming out, PropOrNot’s story is already unraveling. The group admitted to lying about its partnering organizations and refuses to disclose why its media blacklist of “Russian agents” contains some of the best journalists in recent history: Robert Parry (who helped break the Iran-Contra scandal), Robert Scheer (who helped expose CIA funding of student groups in the 1960s as editor at Ramparts) and Yves Smith (the fearless founder of an invaluable and respected financial blog, nakedcapitalism.com). It’s shocking and disturbing that WaPo would smear respected journalists as traitors with no evidence.

Details about this group continue to emerge. It appears there’s a chance that PropOrNot is connected to groups funded the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a CIA spinoff that manages the U.S. government’s foreign propaganda division. If true, that would make PropOrNot’s activities illegal — in violation of a federal law that prohibits the BBG from intentionally influencing or swaying public opinion inside the United States. Creating blacklists of American journalists, labelling them as traitors and then circulating this information to American newspapers would certainly fall into that category.

Maybe Russia has the means to “hack” America’s elections, but it’s hard to talk about it without real evidence. Sure, Russia’s been getting into the psyops game much more lately — with fake and biased news, comment trolls and Twitter bots. It’s cheap and effective, and good at exploiting people’s increasing lack trust in their country’s institutions and political process. But in reality it seems to have very little penetration of America’s media landscape. Let’s face it: life is miserable and getting more miserable by the day for most Americans — and no one in power seems to care one way or another. Americans don’t need a Russian Twitter bot to undermine their trust in the Democratic Party.

(GATEWAY PUNDIT)

Or how bout when the L.A. Times knew about John Edwards affair while running for President, but kept the story bottled up:

The mainstream media’s near-silence about a tabloid report that former presidential candidate John Edwards had an extramarital affair with a campaign worker ended abruptly Friday when he admitted the relationship to ABC News.

The cable news networks pounced on the story, broken by the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer last year but largely unaddressed by major news organizations until Edwards’ admission.

Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all had extensive coverage of the scandal throughout the afternoon, and the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post quickly posted stories on their websites.

Several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. But the burst of attention after he confirmed a romantic relationship with Rielle Hunter, who produced video documentaries for his campaign website, was in marked contrast to the way those news organizations had tiptoed around the original reports….

(CONSERVAPEDIA and L.A. TIMES)

Or NPR’s bias of omission with 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments (CAMERA). Or, as the WASHINGTON TIMES notes, mainstream media outlets advocating certain outcomes:

“The study found a huge disparity in the airtime devoted to advancing more gun control versus arguments in favor of gun rights.,” he continued, noting that the time spent in favor of more gun control was 65 minutes, compared to eight minutes spent on Second Amendment rights and other pro-gun issues.    

“CBS was the most stridently anti-gun rights network. By a whopping 10 to 1 ratio, CBS devoted more time to arguing in favor of gun control (30 minutes, 40 seconds) to time that supported gun rights (2 minutes, 56 seconds),” Mr. Dickens noted.

NBC followed with nine times as much airtime for anti-gun rights arguments, with ABC in third place with a 4 to 1 ratio.

“When it came to spokesmen, viewers were far more likely to hear from gun control advocates like liberal Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than Second Amendment defenders like GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump or Republican Senator James Inhofe,” Mr. Dickens stated. “Anti-gun spokesmen were aired three times as frequently as pro-gun ones (57 to 19), while 27 spokesmen were neutral.”

How bout the medias tendency to not be fair and balanced, thus, guiding public opinion in some way (stories linked in graphics):


Some older examples from ABC, NBC, CBS that include some stats on story imbalances…. as IF they are trying to advocate for something… hmmm:

So all the recent “HUB-BUB” in regards to “fake news” is really an attempt to control the news by corporate news interests. If you do not know WHY this is not a good thing, please read 1984 again. And this bias is not conspiratorial as much as a worldview issue that cause it’s adherents not to lie or conspire about slanting stories as much as a form of group-think. (ALTHOUGH THIS “CONSPIRING” DOES HAPPEN.) Often times this “group-think” is ripped from it’s context to say people are involved in a giant conspiracy.

  • The media as a whole is said to be in a giant conspiracy to overthrow America or conservatives by a designed plan.
    • No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates truth to them.
  • Many people think there is a nefarious cabal of bankers, CFR and Bilderberger types, controlling human affairs on such a level that World Wars were started and guided by these people.
    • No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates a border-less society with all being equal… “just ‘some’ more equal than others” (Animal Farm).
  • I often hear people mention that “how could scientist all agree then with evolution? Are you saying there is a giant conspiracy? If you are, I am through listening to you, being that you are crazy.” [BTW, one can substitute “climate change” issues with evolution.]
    • No… groupthink…

And this is the crux of the matter… No matter if there is a conspiracy or not, the goals are the same. BUT — and this is an important BUT — how one responds and interacts with society is impacted… greatly. In other words if you tell people of these “grand conspiracies” or “meta-narratives” you will not change anyone’s mind but harm your position. However, if you talk about worldviews and group-think, you will impact minds on the matter, thus, fortifying the case trying to made in regards to media bias.

Hugh Hewitt talks about a time he got to speak to a graduating class of journalists at [I think] Columbia University School of Journalism. He asked the crowd some questions and asked them to separate themselves to one side or the other of the auditorium ~ (questions like: are you pro-life or pro-choice?… are you pro 2nd amendment of for gun control? etc., etc.). By the end of the 5-questions, only a handful were left on one side… all the liberal/progressives were packed into one side of the auditorium. His point was to show this graduating class that what they believe now will impact their work, and that they should be aware [self-aware] of their own biases and try to be reporters, not “change” agents.

(Link to Wikileaks emails showing collusion with Hillary and the Media)

bias-hillary-endorsements

Another recent example can be expressed in donations to campaigns. In an excellent article entitled, “Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash: Far fewer making contributions to Donald Trump, analysis shows,” we see the percentages donated from journalists to the Hillary or Trump campaigns:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)

(See more at MEDIA’ITE)

“Ahhh ‘Heller’ No!” Hillary Shot Down by John Lott

THE FEDERALIST notes how the Supreme Court described the facts of the case:

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

No mention of toddlers.

JOHN LOTT’S article responding to Hillary Clinton’s claims in the 3rd Presidential debate in regards to the 2nd Amendment and the Heller Case:

…The 2008 Heller decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s complete ban on handguns.  Before the decision, people in the District could own a rifle or a shotgun, it was a felony to load the gun. This amounted to a complete ban on guns, and the Supreme Court said that Washington went too far.

But then, on Wednesday night, Clinton suggested that Wallace had misunderstood her statement.

She explained: “I support the Second Amendment… I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

But the Supreme Court did nothing at all to stop safe-storage laws. And the Justices that Clinton promises to appoint to the High Court will, in all likelihood, again make it possible for the government to ban guns.

As to the storage laws, the Heller decision couldn’t have been clearer: “Nor, correspondingly, does our analysis suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”  If the ruling contributed to the problem that Clinton describes, one would think that there would have been a lot of accidental gun deaths involving toddlers.  But there doesn’t appear to have been a single accidental gun death of any kind in the District, let alone for toddlers, during the eight years since the Heller decision was announced.

The only gun laws that the Supreme Court has struck down have been complete bans on guns. Let me repeat this: If Clinton’s judicial appointments vote to overturn Heller, governments will again be able to ban guns.

And this is a real possibility. Heller can be overturned with just one more appointment to the court.

The Supreme Court is currently tied 4-4 on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Right now, all four liberal justices have made it clear that they believe in the government’s right to completely ban guns.

In 2010, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

This decision will ensure that many Americans will face gun bans. With the change in the Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and some cities will quickly move to ban guns.

California has already banned over 12,000 models of handguns since 2001, with only a dozen that can still be sold in the state and even those likely banned within a few years.

If Clinton becomes president, all handguns in California will likely soon be banned.

[….]

That Hillary Clinton won’t honestly tell American’s what she intends to do if she becomes president, shows that she is concerned that many Americans do support gun ownership.  But regardless of whether or not she openly acknowledges her plans, the threat that she poses is still very real.

 

 

Cam Edwards On Anti-Gun Ad (NRA)

Via THE BLAZE

  • “It’s interesting. The big city with the most unintentional, accidental homicides or accidental killings was Chicago, Illinois, where there are no gun stores and there are no gun ranges and JROTC is not in the school system. There’s no way to get education; there’s no way to get training.

Media Hysteria Relegates Trump to Godfather Status

Dennis Prager touches on Donald Trumps poor use of the English vernacular to express his poor thinking. The bottom line is that Trump should stay on script and (b) we shouldn’t allow the media to form the narrative. One comment on another video on this topic reads:

“Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish – the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. That will be a horrible day.”

That last line is very ambiguous, you could interpret that as following on from the previous line i.e. It would be horrible if the second amendment people shot her. Or that it means it would be horrible if Clinton picked supreme court justices.

He shouldn’t have left it open to interpretation, it’s just giving the Clinton campaign and the biased media far too much ammunition.

I wish to reword this a bit myself:

➤ “Hillary wants to abolish – essentially abolish – the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the NRA and other pro-second amendment groups could continue the fight. But if Hillary gets to appoint judges for the Court, that would be a horrible day.”

Did Trump Call For An Assassination of His Rival?

HotAir comments on Dan Rather’s rather obnoxious indignation:

Disgraced news anchor Dan Rather wrote a post on Facebook yesterday attacking Trump’s comments about “Second Amendment people.” Here’s a sample:

No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?…

To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.

There’s a lot more like this but it all has the same urgent tone of righteous indignation. This Facebook post shows everything that was wrong with Dan Rather as a journalist. There’s no effort to understand or explain the subject he’s discussing. Was Trump really making a threat here? Was he talking about the NRA? Was this a joke Trump should never have made? He doesn’t even bother to quote more than four words of what Trump said that prompted this response….

Before continuing, not how the story is presented, and then see Kayleigh McEnany rightly note the correct view of what Trump said:

Using the Left’s logic, however, we see that Hillary called for the assassination of Obama in 2008 (POWERLINE!):

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”…

Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.

Let’s see whether the typical media double standard kicks in with Trump’s comments today.

Colion Noir on the Media and Philando Castile (UPDATE)

Anti-gun media outlets have made much of the NRA’s refusal to rush to judgment in the shooting death of Philando Castile to push the narrative that the organization “doesn’t care about black people.” Colion Noir fires back against that claim, pointing out that the NRA fights effectively for the constitutional rights of people of all races.

UPDATE:

Here is Philando Castile permit!

Larry Elder Sprinkles Some Kryptonite on Liberals

Here is LARRY ELDER layin’ down the SAGE LAW!

Where to start with actor Jesse Williams’ widely praised rant on police brutality and white racism delivered at this year’s Black Entertainment Television awards show?

To his enthusiastic audience, Williams reeled off lie after lie, all in the name of black “resistance” over the “oppressor” – meaning anyone he believes benefits from “this invention called whiteness.” Time magazine called his discourse “powerful.”

Where are fact-checkers when the fact-devoid desperately need fact-checking? After all, Williams practically begged to be fact-checked when he said, “What we’ve been doing is looking at the data, and we know that police somehow manage to de-escalate, disarm and not kill white people every day.”

The “police … manage to … not kill white people every day”?

Let’s start with 2014, the last year for which there are official records. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the police killed 261 whites and 131 blacks. The CDC also found that from 1999 to 2013, the police killed almost twice the number of whites compared to blacks, 3,160 and 1,724, respectively.

Activists promptly note that whites account for nearly 65 percent of the population and that, therefore, one would expect whites to comprise most of those killed by cops. And we are told that blacks, while 13 percent of the population, represent a much greater percentage of those killed by cops. Institutional, systemic, structural racism!

Here’s what those promoting the “police disproportionately kill black people” narrative consistently omit. Whites, despite being almost 65 percent of the population, disproportionately commit less of the nation’s violent crime – 10 percent. Blacks, at 13 percent of the population, disproportionately commit more violent crime. As to murders, black commit nearly half. Yet whites are 50 percent of cop killings.

Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were black. “Adjusted for the homicide rate,” says Moskos, “whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” So if anything, whites have more to complain about than Mr. Williams….

Again we see a false narrative built by the media and then is comes collapsing down, via, THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR:

Here we go again.

Yet another hotly reported media narrative stamps itself on the national dialogue only to find — oops! — maybe there are actually more facts to be discovered before we know, as they say, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

This time around the media narrative surrounds the Minnesota shooting by St. Anthony Village Police Department officer Jeronimo Yanez, the shooting victim one Philando Castile. Says a police audio tape of Yanez:

  • “I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over. The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ’cause of the wide-set nose.”

Then we learn that there are pictures out there of the robber — one of two — committing the robbery, gun in hand. And indeed there is a similarity between one of the robbers and Castile.

Now. How did we learn any of this? From a narrative quite different from the mainstream media’s all-too-predictable “racist white cop kills black man” story — a different narrative that went viral over at CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE. The TreeHouse story drew instant wrath from liberal websites. Over at Mediaite John Ziegler PUT IT THIS WAY:

  • Shocker! It Looks Like the Media May Have Bought a False Narrative in Philando Castile Shooting

Writes Ziegler in part:

If there is one thing I’ve learned about media firestorms in the modern age of one-hour news cycles and 15-second attention spans, it’s that whoever tells the first story which the news media likes is the “winner.” Once the narrative is set in stone (when the news media works in unison that takes about two days, tops), the truth will face a battle that is severely uphill, into the wind, on ice, and will almost never prevail.

There was no better example of this sad reality than the “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” myth which drove the entire Ferguson fiasco and was the origin of the entire “Black Lives Matter” movement. Every investigation into the matter (including by the Obama administration) later concluded, against self-interest, that this catchphrase was based on an obvious and despicable lie. However, even that did almost nothing to alter public perceptions of that event or the media’s eagerness to give instant credibility to similar claims from the same groups in the future.

Ziegler goes on at a later point to add:

Again, none of this remotely proves that Castile was indeed the armed robbery suspect. The point is that there is a potentially very compelling other side of this story which is being ignored or ridiculed by the media which is already very invested in the current narrative.

One of the best examples of this is the “fact check” website “Snopes,” which, in its typically arrogant and liberal fashion, has definitely declared these “rumors” about Castile to be “false,” while actually doing a pretty good job of establishing that they might actually be true (while also ignoring the significance of what we now know was in the police officer’s mindset). A close reading of their conclusions could best be summed up by saying: “We want this story to be false, so, because it hasn’t yet been proven 100% true by liberal media sources with no incentive to do so, it must be false.”

I have seen many times the power of what happens to media coverage once every new fact is seen through the prism of a false narrative and is impacted by a clear confirmation bias. Everything is then perceived completely differently than it should be, sometimes laughably so….

Exactly so….

(American Spectator)

New York Times – AR-15 Fires 8-Rounds a Sec. (Ghost Gun Added)

THE BLAZE notes that the New York Times (Alan Feuer) makes an amazing claim, and it is this (H/T – Young Conservative):

  • In making its case that the popular AR-15 is a “common element in mass shootings,” the New York Times, citing the owner of a gun engineering company, reported the semi-automatic rifle can FIRE EIGHT ROUNDS PER SECOND.

The Blaze then quotes Olympic shooter AMANDA FURRER (pictured below) saying she can only shoot 3-rounds a second, and she shoots guns for a living!

In regards to the Grayson’s comment, my son (a Marine) and I were rolling over all the variables involved in his 700-rounds a minute statement:

My son and I were talking about the logistics of this. A shooter that could pull this off would have to be legendary. There would have to be a wheel-barrel full of magazines, and a person to hand off full magazines to the shooter who would have to change them out quickly. Carbon build-up would most likely jam the striker, the shooters finger would tire from pulling the trigger so many times. We were laughing about all the scenarios available to a father and son, but the idea Grayson puts forward is not funny as it serves the left to try to put forward gun-control.

Taking Amanda’s ability, and assuming she had a magazine or a belt with enough ammo on it, as well as assuming no muscular degradation in muscle ability from pulling the trigger for a minute straight, she would be able to shoot 180-rounds a minute.

These people [leftist media’ites and Democrats] are idiots, that is the only explanation. I thought this video by DOM RASO would be fitting considering the topic:

(Above video description) After the attack at Pulse night club in Orlando, Hillary Clinton looked past the obvious enemy – radical Islamic terror – and instead said “weapons of war have no place on our streets” and that we need to ban AR-15s immediately. AR-15s are fine for Hillary and her family. They’ve been protected by armed guards who use them for three decades. But average Americans who watch the news and feel genuine fear for their safety, and their families’ safety—Hillary wants to deny them the level of protection she insists upon herself.

The Media Is Ignoring This Nightclub Shooting (Video Added)

THE BLAZE reports on this incident that could have turned into a mass shooting:

Police said Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun during an argument in front of the Playoffz nightclub in Lyman, South Carolina, early Sunday morning and fired at a gathered crowd, hitting three people.

Spartanburg County Sheriff’s deputies told WHNS-TV Thompson almost hit a fourth person — who just so happens to be a concealed carry permit holder.

Lt. Kevin Bobo said that the man pulled out his own gun in self defense and fired back at Thompson, hitting him in the leg.

The concealed carry permit holder, who hasn’t been named, cooperated with investigators and won’t be facing any charges stemming from the 3:30 a.m. incident, WHNS reported…

Other shooting that could have turned into a “mass shooting” but didn’t because of an armed citizen are these (there are many more, but this is good enough for the point):

1. The Pearl High School Shooting

2. The Parker Middle School Dance Shooting

3. The Appalachian School of Law Shooting

4. The New Life Church Shooting

5. The Trolley Square Shooting

6. The Golden Market Shooting

7. The New York Mills AT&T Store Shooting

8. The Clackamas Town Center Shooting

9. The San Antonio Theater Shooting