Mike Weed

@GunOwners If @LeaderJohnThune hadn't betrayed us on the OBBB this would be non issue. He kept the progressive Senate parliamentarian in place and allowed her determination to keep the registration of SBRs and SBSs in place despite the tax being eliminated.

Even though Biden’s pistol brace rule was vacated, ATF is still enforcing the same legal theory.   DOJ’s response was not on our bingo card.   Basically, they're telling gun owners: “Yep, we’re still going after your braces. Nothing you can do about it.”

@MorosKostas @RenoMayGuns You're not allowed to have an optic or a light on your carry pistol in CA????? 🤯

Tell them to chop silly rules. Like Contra Costa and their dumb no red dots/WMLs. If they are worried about zeroing, then a less-bad rule would be you can have a dot, but must qualify with your dot on the gun. (No idea what their logic even is for lights). That sort of stuff is going to be a lawsuit eventually, they aren't safe just because it hasn't happened yet. We've just had bigger fish to fry. Tell them to encourage AB 1948 to pass. Cut psych exams. Yes they are allowed to require them, but it adds massively to the cost and most counties don't require them without any issues. At most, require them only of applicants that give them cause for concern (which is what I think the statute allowing them was really meant for - not blanket requirement to everyone applying). As to expenses, I realize that some of it is unavoidable due to the requirements of state law. But there is no fathomable reason why Riverside permits cost an applicant around $400 or $500 in total expense, but Santa Clara costs $2000. They need to copy whatever it is Riverside is doing. Finally, on wait times, if they can't due it within the 120 day time limit of state law (to say nothing of 2A), then they need to ignore other requirements of state law to get there. Just do the livescan, collect training certificates, and issue permits. Skip interviews, extra investigation, etc. Yes that'd be ignoring state law, but they don't seem to have a problem ignoring state law for the 120 day time limit, now do they?

Speaking at a Ccw conference for California law enforcement next week. It’s proving very difficult to fight the desire to say “remove all the requirements and make it free” But there’s a real opportunity to impact change in the right direction. If you have experience in the process good or bad about the California Ccw process let me know. If you have things you’d like changed on the admin side/sheriffs office side let me know.

@BlueBoxDave I'm all for incrementalism. But I'm concerned that voter ID alone will be counterproductive. It will give the appearance of integrity without the substance. I think this outcome would be worse than the status quo.

I have spent two weeks, since the TX primary, using everything in my power short of semafor flags to urge Thune to pass the Save America Act. He won’t. So, let’s get something. Let’s make a start of it.

@Helloimmorgan He looks like a boss

I brought Albert back to his Turf and he still owns the street

The die was cast with the 17th Amendment -- beginning the progressive transformation of the Senate into a supercharged (but less accountable) version of the House. Since then, only the Democrats have held the supermajorities necessary to overcome cloture. In the next Democrat-controlled Senate, they WILL nuke the Filibuster as evidenced by the fact that they already tried once and were only unable to do so by Manchin and Sinema (who are no longer there). Then they will use raw power to solidify their control. Knowing this, it seems beyond foolish for the Republicans to not strike first and at least take a chance at solidifying their control now by enacting policies that make it harder for Democrats to get elected in the future. That fact that they won't leads one to wonder if they don't secretly want progressives to control things in the future. It is beyond imaginable that GOP leadership is truly this naive.

@RealMikeWeed But Thune shut that down.

“Senate leadership can, with a single swipe, take away all of the excuses that Democrats have for opposing the same ID requirements to vote that we have to buy a pack of smokes.”

The die was cast with the 17th Amendment -- beginning the progressive transformation of the Senate into a supercharged (but less accountable) version of the House. Since then, only the Democrats have held the supermajorities necessary to overcome cloture. In the next Democrat-controlled Senate, they WILL nuke the Filibuster as evidenced by the fact that they already tried once and were only unable to do so by Manchin and Sinema (who are no longer there). Then they will use raw power to solidify their control. Knowing this, it seems beyond foolish for the Republicans to not strike first and at least take a chance at solidifying their control now by enacting policies that make it harder for Democrats to get elected in the future. That fact that they won't leads one to wonder if they don't secretly want progressives to control things in the future. It is beyond imaginable that GOP leadership is truly this naive.

@BlueBoxDave @MrsLibertyBell1 Voter ID, alone, IS nothing.

@MrsLibertyBell1 Then you get nothing.

@tomselliott Limit the scope of amendments -- such as to the structure of the government itself. The 17th Amendment did tremendous damage to the republic. I would also forbid any direct taxation (and not subject to amendment) -- only allowing taxation of consumption and caped at 4%.

If you could wipe the slate clean & start the United States with a new, reimagined structure, what would be your main change?

@FiatLuxGenesis @MrCasey62 @Imperium3221 Me too

@MrCasey62 @Imperium3221 Every day I feel that this may truly be reality in my lifetime.

“The martyrs of the last times will be the greatest of all, for the first fought against the Emperors, but the last will battle with Satan.” ~ St. Augustine

How can an artifact produced by an institution carry more authority than the institution, itself? And what was the source of Divine Revelation before Sacred Scripture existed? Who/What were Christians to look to for the first ~400 years when the New Testament was still being written/edited?

@Joseph_Spurgeon What part of the Bible says which books should be in the Bible? Are there 73 or 66?

Roman Catholics never seem to understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not the belief that Holy Scripture is the only authority, nor that an individual can infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Rather, it is the doctrine that Holy Scripture is the only infallible authority and therefore has supreme authority over the church. It is not the only authority. The church has real authority, along with other forms of authority in the Christian life. Those who hold to sola scriptura also maintain that Scripture is to be understood within the life of the church. It was given to the church. It guards and defines the boundaries of the church. It shapes the life of the church. The church receives it, interprets it, and works through it, not as a single infallible institution, but as a body that is accountable to the Word. A central problem in Roman Catholic argumentation is their equivocation on the word infallible. They blur the distinction between infallible and inerrant, and then build an entire doctrine on that confusion. Infallible means unable to err by nature. It is not merely that something happens to be correct in a given instance. It means it cannot be wrong. Holy Scripture is infallible because it is the very Word of God. God cannot err, and therefore His Word cannot err. Everything Scripture says carries full authority because it is true without any possibility of error. Human beings, however, can make inerrant statements without being infallible. “Jesus Christ is the Messiah” is an inerrant statement. “My name is Joseph Spurgeon” is an inerrant statement. Even something like the table of contents of Scripture can be correct. The church can recognize the canon without error. But none of that makes the church infallible. It simply means that, at times, it has spoken truly. Infallibility is not something that comes and goes. It is not something that appears in rare moments and then disappears. If a person or institution is infallible, that is a property of what they are, not a temporary condition they enter into under certain circumstances. That is exactly where the Roman doctrine of papal infallibility breaks down. It claims the Pope is infallible only in specific moments, under carefully defined conditions. That is not infallibility. That is a redefinition of the term to protect a doctrine that cannot stand on its own. And historically, this was not some universally held belief quietly passed down from the apostles. In the Middle Ages, the Franciscans, particularly in their disputes over poverty, began pressing arguments that would effectively bind the Pope to prior authoritative statements. They were attempting to lock in earlier papal rulings so that a later pope could not overturn them. In response, Pope John XXII rejected those claims outright. He saw exactly what was happening. To grant that kind of infallibility would place the pope in submission to prior declarations in a way that undermined his own authority. He resisted it, and the idea was not accepted as settled doctrine at the time. Only much later, under very different pressures, was papal infallibility formally defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870. It was not the clear, consistent teaching of the church through the ages. It was a deformation, argued for, resisted, and finally imposed. Sola scriptura cuts through all of this confusion. It locates infallibility where it actually belongs, in the Word of God. Scripture alone cannot err. Scripture alone carries absolute authority. The church has real authority, but it is always a derived and accountable authority. It can speak truly, but it is never incapable of error. Everything must be judged by the Word of God, because only the Word of God is infallible.

@elonmusk The 17th Amendment caused this. It needs to be repealed.

Why is that?

@BreannaMorello Since the 17th Amendment was ratified, the Republicans have never controlled the Senate -- which requires a supermajority. Only the Democrats have.

Republicans control the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court. How’s that working out?

@megbasham While the Democrats have enjoyed supermajorities in the Senate numerous times since ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Republicans never have. The 17th Amendment is the issue. It destroyed the Senate.

You know why Democrats manage to get through unpopular legislation? Because their base demands it of them, as opposed to giving up by self importantly telling one another, “it’s just a show vote.” They push and they push and they keep pushing until they win. So I don’t want to hear a single Republican tell me that the Save Act can’t be done. Because if they can get through something like Obamacare that majority hated, Republicans should be able to get through a piece of legislation that around 85% of the American public backs.

@BBMagaMom Those appear to be FMJ. Hollow-points are more effective.

100% safe and effective against PEDOS!!! 👌🏼

@Helloimmorgan I do this too. I have a huge backlog of unwatched stuff.

Am I the only one that saves movies and shows to a list but never actually goes to the list

@SoveyX #MulletPower

Bro went from Joe Dirt to Enrique Iglesias. It’s like he refinanced his face with that hat.

@FiatLuxGenesis @alancornett Introspection is ancient. Navel gazing is modern. The former is virtuous. The latter is not.

@alancornett Sounds miserable to be honest. And stupid. Philosophy, prayer, meditation, etc... all truly deep, intellectual, or transcendent activity requires introspection. He wants men to be simply programmable machines

By deleting this one basic human function you, too, can be a billionaire or prime minister. You are, however, unlikely to be a saint.

@CamEdwards @BearingArmsCom @NRAILA Did they ask for your autograph?

Ran to the Amish store for lunch today. While I'm waiting, a couple comes up to me and asks, "Are you the person in this video?" Turns out they'd been watching today's @BearingArmsCom Cam & Company with @NRAILA Exec Director John Commerford while they were eating lunch.

@Tier1Memerator @MajToure What is new (if true) is the Iranians, themselves, admitting to having weapons-grade material. If this is true, then I don't see how the president couldn't have acted as he did.

@RealMikeWeed @MajToure This has been discussed for well over 30 years. Netanyahu has said countless times that Iran is days or weeks away from a nuclear weapon since the 90's. Books such as "Atomic Iran" by James Corsi have outlined the same "facts" since the early 2000's. None of this is new.

Here’s what Mike Glover, another SF, dialed in veteran had to say about Joe Kent stepping down. I use Mike’s take here because undoubtedly some of you who have served will AUTOMATICALLY go to “Joe Kent is a traitor” talk. And because you served where others may haven’t, you may think that gives you moral superiority. It does not. So, I present another vet giving a balanced take to remove the attempt to monopolize speech based on service. Let’s hear everyone’s thoughts in the comments.