Gun Control Is Racist

Besides being a stupid and ineffective policy (or policies) and much of it deemed unconsititional, gun control policies appear to be racist.

This is according to an article by John Stossel in Creators Syndicate.

It begins with:

Media scream, "Too many people have guns!"

Second Amendment activist Maj Toure says more people should carry guns.

"Everybody should be walking around," he says in my new video, "like, 'Oh man, I left my gun in the house. Let me go back and get it.' It should be as normal as a cellphone."

Activists and some politicians want gun control.

Toure says, "All gun control is racist!"

All?

"It was literally started to stop Black people from having the means to defend themselves."

To read more, go here. 

Insidious Operational Dynamics of Gun Confiscation Laws

Those who have followed this blog are aware of my personal experience of a "red flag law" in California brought on by a vindictive ex.

I'm not going to go into that again, but such laws have been used as revenge against political opponents and vindictive exes.

John Stossel has penned an article at Townhall.com on the insidious operational dynamics of "red flag laws". The U.S. Senate is now debating a gun control package that gives states incentives of moolah if they enact red flag laws.

He begins with:

Part of the “gun control” package of new laws now being debated in the U.S. Senate includes possible grant monies for states to develop their own versions of a “red flag” law—by which a petition to a state court can result in an order for the temporary removal of firearms from a person who a judge believes may present a danger to others or themselves.  About two-fifths of the states and the District of Columbia now have some form of a red flag law, while one state (Oklahoma) passed an “anti-red flag law” in 2020.

Supporters of the 2nd Amendment have backlashed particularly against the “red flag” component of the Senate’s proposed gun control package because, first, that Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; and, second, because they fear that red flag laws will quickly lead to a denial of due process in the confiscation of legally possessed firearms.  Given the Democrat Party’s ultimate end game of disarming American citizens, the outcry is quite understandable. 

To read the full article, go here. 

Stossel: Facebook Fact-Checking A Pretext Used To Defame Users

Television host John Stossel is suing Facebook and two of its fact-checking partners for defamation over two videos Stossel posted on Facebook.

From what the article states, Facebook is not "fact-checking", it's "opinion-checking".

From The Epoch Times:

Labels placed on posts on Facebook accompanying so-called fact-checks are opinion, lawyers for the social media platform’s parent company said in a recent court filing.

Television host John Stossel sued Facebook and two of its fact-checking partners, Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, earlier this year, accusing the entities of defaming him.

Stossel posted two video reports on Facebook, one of which explored the forest fires devastating California in 2020, including an interview with Michael Shellenberger, a climate change expert.

Stossel said that climate change has made things worse in the state; Shellenberger said climate change played a role but that mismanaged forests were the primary reason for the large fires.

Facebook placed a label over the video, telling users that it was “missing context.”

If users clicked through, they were met with a page on Climate Feedback’s website that stated “Claim – ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” and “Verdict: misleading.”

That claim, though, is “contained nowhere in” Stossel’s video, the suit says.

Stossel said he reached out to Climate Feedback and they didn’t respond, but two of the scientists listed as the group’s reviewers admitted they had not reviewed the video.

A similar situation played out with a different video, which explored “environmental alarmists.”

Stossel said the fact-checking process “is nothing more than a pretext used by defendants to defame users with impunity, particularly when defendants disagree with the scientific opinions expressed in user content.”

The case was filed in federal court in northern California.

I hope Stossel prevails. This is one case we should keep a sharp eye on.

I have my own issues with Facebook. My account is currently "restricted" for "at least 90 days" for "shared false information".

These are attached to my account:

 

I agree with Stossel's claim that Facebook's fact-checking process is nothing more than a pretext used by them to defame users with impunity. Items shared by me were all already in the news feed and not originated by me.

Facebook feels it can abuse users with so-called fact-checking that are solely based on their opinion, as its own lawyers stated in court filings. Interesting.

You know what is said about opinions:

To read more, go here.