A Shooting in Virginia (UPDATED)

There was a shooting in Virginia today. The shooter, a former WDBJ journalist pulled a gun on two of the station’s reporters and killed them both. He also wounded the woman being interviewed on the air. She is thankfully listed in stable condition. He then proceeded to drive north on I-81 and east on I-66 with police in pursuit before shooting himself in the head.

Before the bodies of 24-year-old reporter Alison Parker and 27-year-old cameraman Adam Ward were even cold, Virginia’s opportunistic swine of a governor Fast Terry McAuliffe started immediately calling for more gun control.

“There are too many guns in the hands of people that shouldn’t have guns,” McAuliffe said during an interview with WTOP. “There is too much gun violence in America,” he said, adding that he has long advocated for strengthening gun background checks and that it should be made a priority.

The only problem with Fast Terry’s contention is that no background check would have stopped Vester Lee Flanagan from purchasing a gun.

Let’s for a moment ignore the fact that he could quickly and easily have gotten a firearm through illegal means.

Let’s for a moment forget that Vester Lee Flanagan did not have a criminal record, and the only crime he had ever been charged with was driving with an altered or revoked licence and having no registration on his vehicle in Pitt County, North Carolina in 2004, which certainly would not have made him ineligible to purchase a firearm.  And he had no history of mental illness either. In other words, he would have passed any background check any time.

So what would Fast Terry suggest?

Depriving him of his Second Amendment right, because he had a history of filing grievances against his employers?

How about making him ineligible to purchase a firearm because he was black? Or gay?

Or how about taking away his rights because he was upset about being fired and refused to leave, forcing the station to call the police to physically remove him from the premises? Would Terry have infringed on his right to keep and bear arms, because he was a jerk to his co-workers?

I’ve always said that the gun grabbers’ goal was not to reduce violence or save lives, but to disarm those of us who committed no crime whatsoever all for the sake of political expediency.

Fast Terry knows perfectly well that no new law would have stopped this shooting. Flanagan would have passed every background check in the world, so the only option left is for Fast Terry to start working to deny others their rights. Others who may be odd… or gay… or black… or difficult to work with…

As my friend Mike said in an article a long time ago, these politicians want to keep guns out of the “wrong hands” – your hands.

UPDATE: In an interview with Megyn Kelly last night, Alison Parker’s father pledged to do everything in his power to keep guns out of the hands of people he called “crazy.”

I grieve along with Mr. Parker. I cannot imagine the unbearable grief of losing a child! I understand the emotion behind that pledge to shame “legislators into doing something about closing loopholes and background checks.”

However, I also understand the following as a rational person: There was no loophole, and no background check that could have prevented Flanagan from getting a firearm! He was not even seeing a psychiatrist! He was not a prohibited person. There is no background check he would not have passed. The fact that he was an entitled jerk, a bad employee, and a crappy co-worker does not make him mentally ill or ineligible to own a firearm.

There is literally no loophole and no law that allowed him – a law abiding citizen, until he pulled that trigger yesterday – to purchase a gun when he should not have been allowed to do so. None.

And yet, in the heat of grief, the push for more ineffective laws that will do nothing but disarm those who have committed no crime continues, with the likes of Fast Terry and Hillary Clinton leading the charge.


A Traditional Young Man

Several days ago a French high-speed train was zooming across the lowlands from Amsterdam, through Belgium, and on to Paris carrying hundreds of passengers.

Among them was a young man, originally from Morocco, studiously, but quietly listening to jihadist videos. After Liege, but before crossing intro France, he took a rather large bag and went to the restroom.

Nearby a young American artist and teacher and his wife, then residing in France, noted his odd behavior and protracted visit to the bathroom. Then he heard the man struggling therein with something mechanical.

The moment the man exited, this American’s fears were confirmed. The young Muslim jihadi had an AK-47 rifle, a Luger handgun, copious spare ammunition, and a Stanley-type utility knife.

The American and a nearby French gentleman immediately lunged at the jihadi to stop the impending slaughter. The American took two bullets (one through his neck) but fought on and got the rifle away from the Jihadi.

By that time, three American servicemen (lifelong friends), an a Briton, seeing the same thing from some thirty yards away had run to the scene and together with many passengers disarmed the jihadi, beat him senseless, and hog-tied him with their undershirts. There they attended to the wounded passengers, and only then to their own wounds, and held the culprit until the next stop.

Reportedly, and by contrast, the crew nearest the incident fled to cover, securing themselves in a room accessible only by their “special key”. The passengers, carefully denied effective self-defense, excepting their wits, their bare hands, by the Railroad and the State, nonetheless prevailed against certain death and mayhem.

To their credit, the Police, the Anti-Terror squads, and the upper echelons of the French Government saw fit as to regard these men as the true heroes they are. Awards ceremonies followed.

The jihadi appears to be associated with a very violent group who had a deadly firefight in Belgium only a few months back, directly in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo & Hyper Cacher murders.

Contrary to the assertions of his attorney, he is no mere homeless “lost child”. Neither did he happen upon the weapons, and decide in a moment of race-victimhood driven desperation and weakness, to commit a robbery.


He was carrying on a proud, 1300 year old tradition.

Perfecting the world.

One corpse at a time.



Not All of Hollywood is Anti-Gun, Clueless, and Anti-Israel

I will admit I’m a fan of crime dramas. I will watch episodes of Law & Order endlessly, and my latest interest is Criminal Minds – a show about the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit. I tend not to look at the politics of a show. If I did, the writing, plot, and characterization would be sullied for me in most cases. I also try not to pay attention to the politics of the actors, unless they become so unbearable and preachy, that I am unable to separate the screeching lunacy from the character, in which case, the actor’s talent can be called into question.

The reason I bring this up is because as you may know, the majority of Hollywood is leftist, and most actors are sworn enemies of the Second Amendment – from their gated communities and guarded mansions, of course.

One, however, stands out from the pile of mindless, sheltered, spoiled celebrities – Joe Mantegna one of the stars of the aforementioned Criminal Minds.

A recent Ammoland article shows Mantegna as not just friend to the Second Amendment, but also friend to Israel – a combination you won’t often find in Hollywood.

IWI US, Inc., a subsidiary of Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) Ltd., announces it will be donating two TAVOR® rifles to be auctioned off at the next “Bullets & Bagels” event to be held Aug. 23, 2015 at the Raahauges Range in Corona, California. Joe Mantegna, best known for playing Special Agent David Rossi in the acclaimed TV show “Criminal Minds” and for portraying Joey Zasa in “The Godfather Part III” will be conducting the auction. Proceeds from the auction will be going to Friends of the IDF, an organization dedicated to supporting the men and women soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces who defend the state of Israel and to the families of fallen IDF soldiers.

As you can imagine, some Middle Eastern media outlets aren’t all that happy about Mr. Mantegna proudly showing his support for Israel.

Hollywood actors have been long supporting Israeli aggression against Palestinians through various means, such as direct fund-raising events or making movies backing Israeli interpretation and catalyzation of the ongoing unrest in the middle-east.

The obvious lunacy of that claim aside, keep crying those bitter tears, Pakistani media. They taste like WINNING!


Jewish lives matter

While researching for my last post, I got curious about whether anyone was also proclaiming that endangered Jewish lives matter. Sure enough.

Jeffrey Salkin of Martini Judaism (“for those who want to be shaken and stirred”), reminds us, speaking of the Iran nuclear deal, that Jewish lives matter, too.

There’s even a Jewish Lives Matter Facebook page. Where I found this:


Todd Gitlin writes, reflecting on the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher murders, that Jewish lives matter — to terrorists, but not so much to the political left who we foolishly expect to defend them.

Evan Traylor of the Jewish Multiracial Network likes Black Lives Matter and says so do those of black Jews.

And another article points out that many black lives are also Jewish lives — but that some Black Lives Matter activists have hijacked the BLM movement by also making it anti-Israel.

Finally, black Zionist Chloe Simone Valdary asserts (in the most nuanced piece I’m linking) that Jewish lives matter, and so do those of Palestinians, including Christians, women, and homosexuals who suffer at the hands of (or with the assent of) Palestinian political leadership.

Judge the value of such articles for yourself (as you will, anyway). Including them here doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with them all. I just thought it was interesting that “Jewish lives matter” was a meme in its own right, and fascinating what a variety of thought has gone into this.


“Black lives matter” is a great slogan

… if your aim is to guilt-trip Democrat politicians and alienate potential friends. Otherwise it’s just spouting a truism while denying the broader truism “All lives matter.”

But those who espouse the slogan are determined to hang on to it. Several activists have insisted that saying “all lives matter” is a violent statement against black people. (Short of a specific threat to do harm, I’m not actually sure what a “violent statement” is, and how valuing life could be a threat escapes me.) Taking a more moderate position, one Leonard Pitts writes in the Miami Herald (using specious examples) that it’s merely an act of moral cowardice to claim that all lives matter.

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with an interest group trying to protect its own interests. And some specific proposals of the Black Lives Matter movement could go a long way toward helping people of any race, color, or creed who encounter cops:

The platform also demands that all officers be equipped with body cameras; for hog-ties, nickel-rides and chokeholds to be felony offenses; for officers to undergo consistent racial bias training; police demilitarization and the establishment of a permanent special prosecutor at the federal level who will independently investigate all cases of a police killing or seriously injuring a civilian.

But shouting, “Black lives matter” — with its clear implication that other lives don’t matter is … well, at the very least, it’s terrible PR. It’s divisive and hostile (imagine how we’d react to the equivalent statement, “White lives matter”!).

Fortunately, if this poll is correct even most black people prefer the broader “all lives matter” viewpoint.


But what about what these Black Lives Matter activists are actually doing to protect themselves and their communities? Petitioning for laws to curb out-of-control cops is well and good. But it’s not the same as taking personal responsibility to defend lives.

I think back to the Deacons for Defense and Justice, who clearly believed with their hearts and souls that black lives mattered, but who walked their walk. They didn’t bother disrupting and intimidating politicians. They just armed themselves. Not merely for protection against “freelance” racist thugs, but against those who enforced noxious Jim Crow laws.

Later came the Black Panthers, who were even more in-your-face than the Black Lives Matter activists. Their techniques were divisive, too. They scared the heck out of “honkies” and some of their techniques may have boomeranged on them badly (with the help of J. Edgar Hoover, who loathed them and militated against them).

Their sudden armed appearance at the California statehouse in 1967 may have been one of the factors that led to passage of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. But let’s also not forget that, on that day at the California Assembly, they were acting as pro-gun activists. They were protesting a proposed bill to outlaw carry of loaded firearms.

To this day, historians debate whether the original Panthers (there’s now a revival party) were good or bad for the black community. But of one thing, there’s no doubt whatsoever. They armed themselves and took responsibility for trying to protect and better their communities. Per Wikipedia:

At its inception in October 1966, the Black Panther Party’s core practice was its armed citizens’ patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality in Oakland, California. In 1969, community social programs became a core activity of party members. The Black Panther Party instituted a variety of community social programs, most extensively the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics.

If Black Lives Matter advocates really believe what they say, then they won’t just protest and petition. They won’t wait — patiently or otherwise — for the political establishment to fix the problems they perceive. They’ll step up to defend real lives in the real world as the Deacons and the Panthers did.

It would be a bonus if they recognized that the very political establishment they’re looking to for their salvation is the one that militarized the police, equipped them with both the mindset and the materiel of soldiers, and ensured that few armed agents of the government would ever bear personal accountability for excessive brutality. That same establishment is the creator of the drug war that has wrecked so many black homes, left so many black children fatherless, and filled so many cities with gang violence.

If black lives really matter — and they should — then activists will step up to personally defend them. Not only with defensive arms, but with the understanding that government is a cause, not a solution, to their problems.


The Victims’ Mothers

Carolyn Loughton with a photograph of her daughter, Sarah Loughton


(Carolyn Loughton, who lost her 15-year-old daughter Sarah at Port Arthur, is petitioning against the sale of the Adler A110 shotgun in Australia.)

Citizen, remember!

The fact I have been hurt in a horrifying atrocity makes me entitled to all of your rights and liberties, for all of eternity, claimable by myself. Should you not agree with the above statement, then you are, in fact, guilty of compassion.

It does not matter that bills have already been passed to enable the darkest dystopian dreams of sci-fi writers – mass gun confiscation, a registry of all gun owners, etc. It does not matter that the government has been empowered to rule, in secret, on what future regulations to pass and what liberties you will be allowed to retain.

I am The Victim’s Mother. I can come at any time and demand more and you are totally defenseless against me, because I am the The Poor Innocent Victim’s Mother. Because your friends and neighbors are human, and because compassion towards a woman holding her dead child’s photograph in her hands is what most people will feel, this will empower my political masters to do anything we want.

The history of this practice – of rounding up victims’ mothers to protest for the political cause in question – dates back at least to the Prohibition. There are are more comical episodes – few people today remember Patricia Pulling and Kathleen Staples, for instance.

Sometimes I state that the True Revolutionary should be fearless, ruthless, and shameless. Incidents such as this one are examples why. The natural compassion we feel towards people like Staples, Pulling, and Loughton is essentially a tool in the hands of endless well-motivated do-gooders who seek to gnaw at the foundations of free society.

Some people in the liberty movement have taken to outright rudely mocking the endless throng of Victim’s Mothers which come out every time something tragic happens in our society. While this is something that’s hard to recommend to the mainstream politician, these acts of rude mockery exist because some of us have come to understand that the compassion that Victim’s Mothers elicit is such a powerful tool to bleed us dry.

I don’t need to turn to the experience of other people to discuss this. I have lost a loved one to a drug overdose, and for a while this did turn me to be anti-drug. This was fundamentally wrong. I realize now that the pain I’ve felt is not a hold over the humanity of others, nor over their dignity and freedom. Sadly the Loughtons and Pullings of this world never will.




Welcoming Boris Karpa

The post just below this one is by TZP’s newest blogger. We are delighted to have Boris Karpa join us.

He may be a familar name to you. In the oughts, he blogged for USConcealedCarry.com. He has written for The Libertarian Enterprise. Most recently he’s been known for his translations of historic firearms and combat manuals.

Boris is a citizen and resident of Israel, but an American at heart. He’s done extensive study on 19th-century U.S. history and has a strong interest in worldwide military history. He’s a historian, translator, writer, and libertarian activist. And you don’t need me to tell you he’s going to bring tremendous talent and a vigorous new perspective to The Zelman Partisans.

Welcome, Boris! We’re looking forward to having you here.


What the Right to Bear Arms is All About


One of the issues that repeats itself in practically any gun argument is the trope wherein the anti-gun party commences its argument by stating: “We are not here to take your hunting shotgun. We are here to ban some extremely dangerous firearm that is only useful for killing other people.” Many times the people who are trying to defend their gun rights are lured into attempting to argue that their firearm of choice is actually meant for sports, and not actually meant for combat or self-defense. The extent to which this line is bought by gun rights advocates is quite fearsome – I have had numerous discussions with European gun owners who told me they actually feared discussing the concept of armed self-defense in public for fear of reprisals from the government.

It is important to understand that in these cases, the antis are often not deliberately lying. They do not intend to abolish the ownership outright – and there is no European country where gun ownership has been totally abolished. Even in the United Kingdom, individuals can buy shotguns and rifles if they prostrate themselves before the state sufficiently. That said, the right to bear arms in those countries has been extinguished completely as a social institution. (While a right of course is innate, and cannot be abolished by government fiat, the practice of defensive gun ownership has been de-facto eradicated in most of Europe).

To be clear, what the anti-gunners oppose is not guns as such. They are not lying, in that sense. What they oppose is the notion of people owning weapons. To an anti-gunner, there is no legitimate application, in modern society, of private armed force. He intends to take it from you, either by outright banning the ownership of weapons, or by making it as bothersome and complicated as possible. Nobody believes, of course, that introducing ‘universal background checks’ will prevent criminals from buying guns – but it might reduce gun ownership by, say, 1%, just by making it as bothersome and irritating as possible. Nibble a bit there, a bit there, and eventually the amount of gun owners decreases – like that of smokers – until it becomes politically tenable to do anything to restrain their rights and freedoms.

At first it might appear – and millions of gun owners the world around believe this – that you can compromise with these people, after all not all of us personally own guns as weapons, if we but explain to them rationally that our guns are not weapons, we can preserve our hobby…

Every gun rights organization around the world that tried to have this as their driving strategy has been utterly crushed. The reason is simple: once you’ve accepted the narrative that the only legitimate reason to own firearms is to use them in the shooting sports, most people do not empathize with your desire to participate in shooting sports. When the average person – who does not have the shooting sports as their hobby – is offered the chance to choose between some gun control measure that is peddled as increasing the security of his children, and the right of some person he doesn’t know to engage in a strange hobby, he will only naturally choose his children’s security. (Obviously, in real life, these measures won’t make him safer,  but he doesn’t have any way to know that).

Sadly, while the more advanced and knowledgeable segments of the RKBA movement have already understood this, there are still millions of people – especially outside the US – that haven’t quite grasped this concept. The lesson of the past few decades of gun rights activism is one that needs to be spread far and wide, beyond the core of the RKBA faithful.

The only meaningful strategy to defend the right to bear arms is to recognize what the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution have meant it as: a right to have weapons, implements of self-defense with which you will fight and kill people who intend to do you harm. Self-defense is a concern that all human beings share, and if you can poise an alternate narrative – telling the listener, in effect, that the right to bear arms is the mechanism by which you mean to enhance your own safety (a desire everyone shares), and that it arguably also enhances his safety, you will be able to forge a universalist argument.

The truth is, we support the right to bear arms – and we own various guns and other implements of combat – because we recognize that there is evil in the world, and because we hope we are prepared to face it with guns in hand. If we attempt to cede our opponents’ argument, to try and haggle with them based on the false notion that our firearms are not tools of self-defense, we will end up humiliated and vanquished – as gun rights advocates around the world have been.

Only digging in on the position of the truth – yes, I defend guns because guns are useful for killing criminals and tyrants – is going to be successful. Only the truth shall set you free.


There they go again

For a while it’s seemed as if the anti-gunners have been staggering around without direction. Yes, they’ve won several billionaire-funded state-level victories on the issue of gun-owner registration universal background checks. But beyond those few determined mega-rich (we’re talking to you, Bloomberg, Hanauer, and your elitist Microsoft pals, and you, too, Ms. Wynn), the hoplophobes appear to be wandering lost.

No doubt the financial smackdown for the Brady Center’s frivolous lawsuits has had something to do with that.

But recently, the marching morons show signs of getting their feet back under them so they can go goose-stepping along their merry way.

To wit:

1. The influential Pew Research organization issued yet another poll claiming that darned near every American, of any party or philosophical stripe is just dying to impose more restrictions on gun ownership.

It doesn’t matter that poll questions can be carefully crafted to produce desired results. It doesn’t matter that the 85% supposedly in favor of forcing us to ask government permission to buy guns universal background checks almost certainly haven’t studied the matter at all, let alone studied it well enough to grok the ramifications. Pew helpfully produced a statistic for the antis to use. And use it they will.

2. The University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health (consider the source!) next drops a badly done “study” claiming the more guns in a given state, the more murdered cops.

3. Then Georgetown University (consider the source!) comes out with a report on “Lone Wolf Terrorism” that once again makes the laughable claim that “far-right extremists” (e.g. angry gun owners) are at least as big a threat as Islamic jihadis.

This isn’t new, of course. It’s a notion that the media and various alphabet agencies of the fedgov have been promoting for a long time. But there is a problem when it becomes acceptible (and even encouraged) to think of millions of fellow countrymen as the enemy — not just as people you might disagree with, not just as political opponents, not just as members of a different culture — but as enemies.


(And yes, it’s ironic that that excellent quote was tweeted by the wildly excessive, polarizing CSGV, who have been responsible for stirring endless hate against gun owners — to the point of calling on people to SWAT us and otherwise threaten our health and our lives.)

We already know what happens when propagandists turn an entire country against a portion of its population. Been there. Done that. Have the mass graves to show for it in country after country. Of course, not very often do Masters of Public Opinion choose well-armed millions as their target.

That could end up getting interesting if they push the issue.


Do you value what you find here at The Zelman Partisans? If so, please join our wonderful supporters. You can: become a member; shop in our store for yarmulkes, custom knives, and cool morale patches (and targets to come soon); or purchase wearables and other stuff from our Queensboro or CafePress stores.


Rumblings Below the Bible Belt

When you think of observant Judaism, San Antonio, Texas may not spring immediately to mind. Yet in north-central part of the City there is a Jewish community large and vibrant enough to support two orthodox synagogues.

One, as is found in nearly every viable location on Earth, is a Chabad Lubavitch shul. Indeed, theirs is so strong that they have no less than THREE shaliach couples (Rabbis and their indispensable wives).

A couple of miles to the West, is a bit of a fixture in San Antonio: Congregation Rodfei Sholom.

Rodfei Sholom, affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America / Orthodox Union, serves a congregation of over three hundred families, from a wide variety of backgrounds, from orthodox to reform. Their Rabbi is Aryeh Scheinberg.

Rabbi Scheinberg, classically trained in a Brooklyn yeshiva, has spent the last thirty years building a reputation for integrity, blended with inclusiveness and tolerance. The latter aspects, although always valuable, are crucial in communities where Jews are few and yiddishkeit difficult.

Although raising eyebrows along the way, Rabbi Scheinberg has built Rodfei Shalom into an integral and valued part of the larger community.

On Wednesday August 12th, congregants filed out from early morning Shacharit services, to find that not everyone in San Antonio was a “Pursuer of Peace” (as the Rodfei Sholom translates from Hebrew). Someone had spray painted swastikas and racist sentiments on the synagogue, neighboring homes, cars, fences. One of the cars also had the window glass shattered. Over thirty locations in all.

The local police began their investigation, soon joined due to the “Hate Crime” aspect, by the FBI, who has recently added a $5, 000.00 reward for the capture and conviction of the culprit. Then the reward was doubled.  Reportedly, they have their eye on one particular person who resides in the area.

Most noteworthy was the immediate and strong response of the internationally known Pastor John Hagee, who roundly condemned the act, and underlined his long-standing support. Pastor Hagee, of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, was quickly joined by a wide variety of political and social leaders in condemning the acts and calling for swift justice.

These kinds of acts, usually perpetrated by some defective goober, rarely precipitate into violence against people. Like the numerous KKK or Neo-Nazi “Rallys” where maybe three or four rather sad characters turn up to a city park in their clapped out AMC Gremlin, to wave flags, march about, and annoy several hundred counter-protesters for the TV cameras, only to return to obscurity, this racist graffiti and mischief likely portends nothing.

Still, when the real violence happens, the perpetrators were usually among the participants in the lesser crimes, or the “rallys”. So, it is wise to keep an eye peeled.

I am not a fan of the idea “Hate Crimes”. If they do catch the culprit, I would much rather he or she be compelled to make full and personal restitution, in a very public way, to each and every victim.

Who knows, doing so might save the idiot from a path leading to a determined Jew defending his home and family with a shotgun.

“The Lord tries the righteous, but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.”  Tehillim 11:5


Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.

XSLT Plugin by Leo Jiang