You've probably seen that Biden is about to have a final rule be published on the so-called "gun show loophole."
It isn't actually a loophole, and the rule does nothing to impact actual private-party sales of firearms which are legal under certain circumstances.
What it does do is stomp -- hard -- on people claiming to be private sellers who are actually in the business of buying and selling guns but have not registered to do so.
Let's me stipulate up front that I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment Supporter as written. But I'm also a strict Constitutionalist and the Constitution clearly gives the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce, and these situations quite-clearly are that.
So from a Constitutional point of view I have no quarrel with it.
What we do know is that criminals don't tend to go buy their firearms at a gun store. They often engage someone who is foolish enough to trust them to make the purchase for them (which is seriously illegal and will get you a nice stay in the slammer if caught, and if the gun is used in a crime and recovered you will get caught), they steal them (obviously someone who intends to stick up a liquor store or otherwise commit a crime isn't squeamish about stealing things) or they purchase them "under the table" from someone who doesn't care about any of the above. Most true private sellers of lawfully-owned firearms do care because while you generally can't be thrown in prison for selling someone a gun privately that you have no reason to suspect is prohibited or will do an illegal thing with it you still get to defend against the prosecution and related costs which is very likely to occur. Who among us wants to pay a lawyer $10,000 because you sold someone an old $200 shotgun?
Someone who is running a "back door" business, on the other hand, knows they're breaking the law already and can be jailed for it. They thus likely don't much care about what the buyer intends to do -- or who they are. It's just basic logic when you get down to it and the prevalence of this issue has been the subject of some study -- such as here.
Let's separate this out from the tactics of agencies, because I know there will be people who want to go there. Ruby Ridge, Waco and more (including recently) make clear that these folks don't give a crap about this thing called "Due Process"; they want "their man" and dead is just fine with them, along with anyone who happens to be there at the time -- including in more than one case sleeping children who obviously had nothing to do with the original issue. This has to be stopped and our government won't do it, so if you want my view of it that comes back to what I've repeatedly said: Only when the cops FEAR the outcome of such will it change, and that means that any sort of "no-knock" raid has to result in the target of same adopting a "shoot them in the face instantly for as many of them as you can get" response because from the clear history over the last several decades you're dead the moment it begins and they have no intention of arresting you or allowing due process and any sort of trial, and the government has never thrown these jackasses in prison for doing it either, so the only wat to deter that crap for the NEXT GUY is to make sure as many of them go to Hell with you as you can and make sure their families cannot hold an open-casket funeral too so they are forced to wake up in a cold sweat at night thinking about whether being dead and their children having to deal with the back of their head being blown off is worth their big-ball hero-combat style bullshit -- which has ZERO legal defense. Janet Reno should have been executed for that shit at Waco, never mind the Ruby Ridge in which Weaver, who survived it, got $3 million for the unlawful conduct of the agents.
What unlawful conduct? Well, for one the warrant was fraudulent in that part of the justification was a claim that Weaver had fired on a police helicopter. That was later proved to be a lie in that both the pilot and agents on the ground knew there had been no shots fired. This sort of outrageously fraudulent and in fact felonious conduct by the government was never punished with prison sentences as is absolutely required when one commits perjury. If you think this sort of falsehood has been stopped why would any government agent or agency cut that crap out when there is never criminal sanction laid on those who engage in it?
The facts are that except for active hostage situations or where someone is already shooting at others there is absolutely zero reason for these sorts of raids unless we are willing to permit law enforcement to execute people on a summary basis, and if we ARE then the same rules should apply for everyone else with them as the targets. Even in the case of a so-called "drug investigation" where the concern is that the suspect might flush the evidence (that's hard to do with guns, obviously) its stupid because everyone leaves wherever they are to go do routine things from time to time and arresting someone when they do leave to go to work, the grocery store or wherever is both easy and preserves said evidence.
Nonetheless this specific change, which likely does comport both with Statute and clearly is Constitutional -- provided there actually are goods moving across state lines -- is not one I have a material issue with so long as we allow the Federal Government to regulate such commerce in the first place.
Now if you want to have that debate then let's have at it. From my point of view the old Sears Catalog approach is the right one, and yes, when I was a boy you could literally order guns from the "Big Book" that came around at Thanksgiving for Christmastime as that was perfectly legal until the 1968 GCA. But so long as that 1968 law stands and it was passed by Congress, and Congress clearly can regulate interstate commerce per the Constitution, there you are.
Seriously, read this and it ought to pop in and make sense.
"A number of things," she said. "We started to see patients who were experiencing very significant medical harms being rushed to the emergency room with lacerations requiring stitches. We had patients contact us who were begging to have body parts put back on within months of having surgeries."
She went on to claim, "The thing that kept happening is every time I would raise concerns and ask about the protocols and ask about the guidelines - this is just how the industry works, if a child says they're trans there's no questioning it. We just say, ‘Yep, you're trans, what would you like?’"
Why?
Simple, and for the same reason doctors and medical centers kept using Remdesivir even after the WHO ran a huge multi-national study that found it was worthless: They got paid for it; the government paid for the drug and the hospital got to bill for it being administered, which is not cheap as it is an IV medication and they also got paid more the worse you got with no incentive to quickly and effectively treat you.
In the case of "transitioning" once you start you are a forced customer for life at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That's all they care about.
It is simply and only about the money.
You are just a mule that causes the money to flow.
Think not?
Its been known that statins cause Type II diabetes for a couple of decades. Yet they're handed out like candy, despite the fact that diabetes kills a huge number of people but more important for the medical system it gains them hundreds of thousands of dollars first, so anything that they can find some reason to get you to do that will some time down the road lead you to that financial ruin, especially if you don't connect the two, they're all-in on because once again it is just about the money.
How about covid shots? We knew pretty-quickly they didn't stop transmission nor did they last long in interdicting the disease either which was just perfect from the medical system's point of view in that you'd have to come back and get another one. That it turned out to be even worse (and in a large percentage of people produces long-term and permanent -- even lethal -- damage) is icing on the cake but whether they knew that or not up front didn't matter -- all that mattered was that two would never be enough and every three or six months you'd have to come back for more.
Our system of laws is supposed to prohibit this because all such exploitation is in fact fraud.
Telling someone "you're protected" when you have every reason to believe that protection is fleeting at best and in fact doesn't help anyone else (because it doesn't interrupt transmission) is active fraud. Every single person who did that should be rotting in prison right now but nobody is.
Likewise, everyone prescribed a statin without being told that the drugs inevitably damage insulin response and in some cases cause diabetes directly, and thus their efficacy over a long period of time is dubious at best has comitted fraud and should be rotting in prison but nobody is.
And anyone telling someone they can "transition" without fully disclosing that at best you can cosmetically look like the other sex but that it is scientifically impossible to become the other sex or gain the sexual and physical functions of the other sex is committing fraud and every one of those people should be in prison but once again -- nobody is.
Until this stops you will bother be screwed financially and in many cases shoved in the hole.
Since government has refused to jail anyone for any of those over the last 30+ years despite the black letter law being clear..... what does that leave us with for options?
Well then I'm a racist and I wear the badge with pride:
A Boston, Massachusetts, hospital announced Tuesday that after finding Black mothers were more likely to be reported for child abuse and neglect if a toxicology report came back positive, it would be taking steps to reevaluate the process in order to avoid perpetuating "structural racism."
"Black pregnant people are more likely to be drug tested and to be reported to child welfare systems than white pregnant people," said Mass General Brigham, a nonprofit health care system.
Pregnant people eh? Can you describe who might be pregnant accurately to begin with? For instance there has never been a pregnant man nor will there ever be, so the correct description is pregnant women, not people.
Oh, and then it gets really rich:
"Substance use disorder (SUD) is a condition with significant racial and ethnic inequities, especially in the context of pregnancy, when more punitive approaches to substance use disproportionately affect Black individuals," the announcement said.
You mean because it is more-likely that black people might be using drugs?
The drugs are either there or they are not. If they are there then they are, and the skin color of the woman (and/or child) is irrelevant.
The hospital said its new policy is in line with medical recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which opposes drug testing of individuals or infants without consent and discourages "the separation of parents from their children solely based on substance use disorder, either suspected or confirmed."
Oh really?
So a woman who deliberately exposes her pre-born infant to harmful and addictive drugs should be considered "fit" and "responsible" to be a parent with custody of said kid? You're serious about this?
I do understand and support that a woman who is pregnant and is using prescription treatment for her addiction, but is not violating that treatment protocol, inevitably will expose the infant to the treatment drug. Provided that she does not also consume the drug(s) in question for which she sought treatment I can support leaving her and the child alone because she's recognized the problem, affirmatively taken steps to address it and the exposure in that case is inevitable and, as near as we can tell, it is not particularly dangerous.
But none of that is true if the actual drug is found in the infant or, for that matter, in the mother during the pregnancy or at the time of birth. In that case she has willingly and intentionally exposed her child to narcotics on a direct basis and is per-se unfit to have custody of that kid.
For a hospital system to declare otherwise is the very definition of malpractice, fraud, and in addition it violates mandatory reporting statutes which should expose said hospital personnel personally to felony criminal child endangerment charges and, if said kid is seriously harmed or dies every single one of them should be indicted and tried as accessories before the fact to murder and executed for said crime.
I've long held the position that if you are female, of child-bearing age and caught with narcotics in your system your options should be (1) prison or (2) permanent sterilization. Why? Because while you have the right to abuse your body that does not extend to others who cannot give consent, and a girl is born with every egg she will ever have, so once those eggs are "polluted" there's nothing you can do about it.
ENOUGH of this woke bullshit.
If someone who works at such a place is run over by someone's SUV -- twice just to make sure they didn't miss -- I will cheer and laugh at their family members when the funeral is held. I've had it with so-called "medical professionals" suborning intentional harm such as occurred with Remdesivir and now they want to do it to infants who have no capacity to consent whatsoever.
FUCK YOU Mass General and every single rat bastard who is employed there along with their entire genetic line.
That, bluntly, in other than very high risk people its worthless (but of course expensive):
Among the 1288 participants who received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir or placebo and had at least one postbaseline visit, the median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs or symptoms through day 28 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir–ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group, a difference that was not significant (P=0.60) (Table 2). Similar results were observed in the high-risk subgroup (i.e., participants who had been vaccinated and had at least one risk factor for severe illness) and in the standard-risk subgroup (i.e., those who had no risk factors for severe illness and had never been vaccinated or had not been vaccinated within the previous 12 months).
It had zero impact statistically on the time to alleviation of symptoms. The drug was bought and did not work.
However:
In a planned subgroup analysis involving high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 3 (0.9%) in the nirmaltrelvir–ritonavir group and 7 (2.2%) in the placebo group (difference, −1.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.3 to 0.7).
Problem: There was only one death in total so the difference here begs the obvious question on matching of morbidities and such in the trial arms. How well was that done, given that they did find among the high-risk people a difference in hospitalization and ICU admittance? It is not logical for these results to occur when the improvement time did not vary between the high risk and not-high-risk groups.
However, it is what it is.
But the real punchline is this:
From August 25, 2021, to July 25, 2022, a total of 1296 participants underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population (Figure 1), and 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit.
In other words before full approval by roughly a year the study outcome was known but hidden and not published. As you probably recall you've seen "If Covid, Paxlovid" commercials yet the study says it won't help you get better faster. Of course the government was paying for it and had been since late 2021 but again, within just a few months it was known that it didn't work and yet this was concealed.
In fact the FDA had no evidence when they made this statement:
“Today’s authorization introduces the first treatment for COVID-19 that is in the form of a pill that is taken orally — a major step forward in the fight against this global pandemic,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “This authorization provides a new tool to combat COVID-19 at a crucial time in the pandemic as new variants emerge and promises to make antiviral treatment more accessible to patients who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.”
And yet just a few months later the company had in its hands evidence that there was no statistical improvement in recovery time between using it and not, yet that study was not published, the FDA was (apparently) not notified and no statement correcting the record was made by anyone.
Now here we are in 2024 and the data comes out -- after being hidden for nearly two years.
This is the world we live in folks -- plenty of money to be made and yet what you're sold doesn't have to work and nobody has a duty to tell anyone as soon as they know, via a formal study, that it doesn't. In fact the FDA went on to give full approval nearly one year after these study results were known.
Should we expect anything different given what we know happened with Remdesivir where the government continued to pay for it and hospitals continued to push it on patients even after a huge multinational study was completed and published showing it was worthless -- and using it came with the significant risk of destroying your kidney function.
I guess not.
Oh by the way, marketing something as effective when you know that it is statistically worthless is fraud. It is like selling "brake pads" that you know do not stop a car. If the law meant anything the entirety of the firm's Board of Directors and all their officers would be under indictment since the money stolen from both the government and patients is in the billions.
PS: Have you noticed anything interesting? When did "new variants" stop showing up and getting all manner of press?
WHEN PEOPLE STOPPED TAKING MORE SHOTS.