All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more

Mandating Technology

It’s not RKBA-related, but it’s exciting:

New bill bans electrical generation unless they are fusion-based
Introduced as the Make Power Green Act, the proposal would strip the ability of utility companies to build power plants with any greenhouse gas emissions. Backers argue that as much as 40% of global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions, which fusion power is incapable of producing.

Oh. Wait. My bad; this one — H.R.3458; text not yet posted — bans “pistol sales unless they can microstamp their bullets.”

“Introduced as the Make Identifiable Criminal Rounds Obvious (MICRO) Act last month, the proposal would strip the ability of federal firearms licensees to sell pistols that do not carry the controversial microstamping technology. Backers argue that as much as 40 percent of murders go unsolved due to lack of evidence, which the bill is meant to address.”

You can see my mistake: microstamping is about as workable as as breakeven fusion power. Technically, both work a little in the lab, but not in the real world.

Microstamping would also be expensive (rather like fusion is expensive. But while governments — courtesy of taxpayers’ pockets — can dump billions into fusion research, individuals looking for affordable defensive solutions would be harder pressed to afford microstamping pistols. (But we all know that’s the real point.)

My imaginary fusion bill might halt the construction of new power plants, but it wouldn’t do anything about the 7,658+ existing plants. Nor would halting the sale of future pistols do a darned thing about the 265 million to 750 million guns already in civilian hands in America. Well, the Obama administration made a start on shutting down coal plants, no doubt these idiot Dim-ocrats have a similar plan for our guns.

You’d think that rational people would have learned their lesson about legislating that which cannot be. Oh. Wait.

My bad again; rational people.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Last week James Yeager made an argument against national concealed carry reciprocity based on “states’ rights.” That is, that federal legislation requiring states to give full faith and credit to licenses of other states violates states’ rights to self-determination.

Do you agree with Yeager that national concealed carry reciprocity (H.R. 38) should be stopped?


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

We Had That Conversation

Milwaukee NPR wonders…

Why Can’t We Talk About Guns?
An NRA video making the rounds online has been called everything from an open call to violence to protect white supremacy to a condemnation of violence.

“The only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” says NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch in the ad.

Subsequent NRA videos are more political but equally divisive.

The debate over guns in America has never been easy – but is it getting harder to keep it civil and useful?

We asked the NRA and Loesch to appear on this show, but did not hear back.

I expect they didn’t hear back from the NRA or Loesch because it’s extremely clear that WUWM’s anti-rights bias would make this, at best, an argument rather than a discussion. Stacking the deck with three anti-rights shills vs. one pro-rights activist, as well as WUWM’s false characterization of the Loesch video proves it.

And as a tool to reach any real understanding or agreement, it’s pointless. Those would disarm the honest demonstrably will not listen or learn. And they will lie. How do we know that (he asks rhetorically)?

Several years ago, I wrote a column for The Libertarian Enterprise. In light of this supposed call for “talk,” it seems appropriate to publish it again.


We Had That Conversation
In the wake of the Newtown murders, I see a meme popping up amongst the gun banners/victim disarmers. They say we need a “conversation” on guns in America. A common sub-argument is that pro-gun people need to stop saying “No” every time those who prefer a disarmed populace suggest more restrictions on the honest folks who didn’t kill any innocents in Newton.

We already had that conversation.

We had it in 1791, and settled the issue with the second amendment to the Constitution protecting a preexisting right to keep and bear arms. Gun banners being the whack-a-moles of civil rights violation, we had that conversation several times: Cruikshank and Presser come to mind.

More recently, we again had that conversation in 2008, when the Supreme Court pointed out that yes, the second amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller.

Chi-town pols didn’t like that, so we had the conversation yet again in 2010. The Supreme Court again pointed out that arms really are a right, and that it really is an individual right, in McDonald.

Victim disarmers are slow learners, forever doomed to riding the short bus through life, so we had the conversation yet-a-frickin’-gain in 2012: Moore v. Madigan, in which a federal judge had to lecture the poor, cognitively-challenged pols of Illinois (who have trouble even finding the short bus) in small words that, WHACK-upside the head “Pay attention, dipsticks; we told you it’s a right of the individual people, so stop screwing with it.”

And here we are: Once more, idiots who shouldn’t be on the streets without a guardian to wipe the drool off their faces, change their diapers, and keep them out of the road, are calling for the “conversation”. Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents over and over and over and over for a coveted-but-terribly-bad-for-you present, they keep ignoring the settled issue. “But China does it. Why can’t we make all the citizens helpless, too?” they pontificate petulantly. (Yeah, China does it. That’s why their lunatic had to cut up those 22 Chinese schoolchildren with a knife a few days before Newton. Guns bans sure solved China’s violence problems.)

We had that conversation, and explained in words that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size should have been able to comprehend: “the security of a free state”, the right to life and liberty, self defense. At this point, anyone who doesn’t—or won’t—get it probably falls into one or more of three categories:

  • whining mental incompetents
  • those with a “professional” need to ensure a steady supply of helpless victims for violent predators
  • and those with a more extensive agenda

You might abbreviate those as morons, criminals, and traitors. None of which are really interested in reasoned conversation.


Going on five years and we’re still hearing the same judicially-invalidated claims and demands from the victim-disarming whack-a-moles, reinforced with equally-disproved claims that 90+% of Americans want universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks (because — try not to laugh — they would have prevented the Newtown school killings), and debunked claims that gun owners are a shrinking minority.

If gun ownership is on the decline, why are firearms trainers still seeing new people coming in for voluntary classes? Why are more and more people getting CCW licenses even as more and more states are dropping license requirements?

We have facts. They have lies. Of course we don’t want to bother debating them, in a biased setting no less.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Motivations

I’m a bit late to the NRA “truth” video game, but having seen this today:

Gun rights group targeting its foes?
Are my rights to assemble and speak freely with whomever I please superseded by an assault rifle?

Do I deserve to be arrested or shot because I seek to peacefully dissent from and petition my government?

The National Rifle Association, in a video released last week (https://youtu.be/PrnIVVWtAag), seems to suggest that I should be targeted because my views run contrary to the NRA, its members, our elected president and most of Congress.

-sigh- Complete with the usual — false — “assault rifle” claim.

Interesting. I’m not an NRA member (I object to much of what it does), so I think I watched that video with sufficient objectivity. What I saw was Ms. Loesch saying that some people are manipulated into committing violent crimes and that we must fight this with truth.

Mr. Prescott speaks of nonviolent, peaceful dissent; yet the NRA video specifically addresses — verbally and visually — violent, and destructive criminal acts. Apparently that’s what what passes for “peaceful” in Prescott’s strange world.

If someone objects to ending violence with truth, I have to wonder what that person is doing, or might be planning to do.

Especially when he parrots the “assault rifle” lie. I guess it’s easier to inflict a little arson/assault “conversation” on the unarmed; which I why I don’t plan to ditch my tools of self defense.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“M-16”

Here we go again. Cue the calls for common sense “assault rifle” laws in three.. two… one…

Shooting at Bronx Lebanon Hospital in NYC, Multiple Injured
Authorities responded to the ‘active shooter’ situation just before 3 P.M. at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, which is about half an hour outside of Manhattan.

Police say the Bello was wearing a white lab coat, and was armed with an M-16 rifle when he opened fire on the 16th floor.

Another shooting, another — probably imaginary — machine gun.

Hmm… M16… where have we heard that before? Right; the Alexandria congresscritter shooting. Which out to be… not so much; a semi-auto SKS.

At this rate, I will not be surprised to — eventually — learn that the asshole used one of these.

But seriously: an M16? A machine gun? Not merely regulated in New York, but outright banned. If I took this report at face value, I’d be forced to conclude that regulation and bans don’t work at all.

Update: And it was apparently a New York legal AR, which means it isn’t even an “assault weapon” much less an assault rifle.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Parents, explain something to me, please

While browsing news this morning, I ran across this screed. It’s in response to a woman — with an admitted anxiety disorder requiring treatment — wondering if she should ask about the presence of guns before sending her child away to a play date.

Dear Abby Says Asking About Guns In Homes Is ‘Off-Putting’
It is astonishing that in this day and age, when guns are the third leading cause of death for American children and we hear stories seemingly every other day about children getting access to adult’s guns, that anyone — let alone someone whose job is to give advice — would recommend that a parent be more concerned about not making another parent uncomfortable than about making sure their child is safe.

TL;DR is that Bland is shocked that possibly offending an acquaintance might take precedence over child safety “when guns are the third leading cause of death for American children.” (Which happens to be one of the latest lies being pushed by gun ban bunnies. They have to include gangbangers up to 24 years of age to get there.) But this is where I need some input from parents, since I’ve never been one.

Do you parents normally send your kids — I mean those too young to understand that guns aren’t toys — off to the homes of people you don’t know well enough to have a feel for how safe they are?

Do parents typically not teach their children not to screw around with other people’s property — guns, in this case — without permission?

Do parents encourage their children to hang out with other children who lack respect for people’s property?

As a non-parent, my experience is limited to my own childhood, observing friends and relatives with their children. Bog knows, my parents told me to stay away from certain kids and homes. None of my nieces, nephew, grand-nieces, grand nephew have even tried to get my — secured — firearms.

Or, going to some friends for example: I used to spend a fair bit of time with a couple with two young children, the oldest a boy about three years old at the time. Any time they had guns out for cleaning, they’d let the boy watch. And handle guns and parts under supervision. And all the while telling him about the Four Rules; conversationally rather than as a lecture, in simple language a 3y/o could grasp.

And to make sure he understood that guns can destroy things and people, we took him to the range. We fitted him with hearing and eye protection (which he wanted anyway, since the grown-ups were putting on their own). I set up a milk jug full of water on the target line, and shot it with .45 ACP (I believe I was usually running 185 gr. Federal Hydra-Shoks back then), as our young student watched.

He was impressed. I didn’t know eyes could get that wide.

To the best of my knowledge, he never ever “played” with a gun. Because he knew what they could do.

In another case, I attended a camping event which included a lot of shooting: a pistol competition, pistol and rifle classes, and near-continuous informal target practice. The camping area was on elevated ground, and there was a trail leading down to the valley where the range was set up with the firing line facing the other side of the valley.

Much of the time there was a five year-old boy parked at the trail head. Small .22 rifle slung on his shoulder (Chipmunk, I think, but can’t swear to), and a belt with pouches for his muffs, safety glasses, targets, and ammunition. Any time an adult approached the trail head, the youngster would speak up very politely. “Excuse me, sir. Are you going to the range?”

“Yep.”

“Could I go with you? I want to shoot, but my parents say I can only go to the range with an adult.”

So I took him to the range, since I also happened to know his father and knew the drill. That boy was one of the safest shooters I’ve seen; strict adherence to the Rules (not positive, but I think he might have been muttering the Four Rules to himself as we walked to the firing line). Not a bad shot either,

Because his entirely reasonable and responsible parents had taught him firearms safety and shooting. Is the circle of friends, family, and acquaintances I hang out with really that much more safety-aware than most parents?

A more general example: I live in a state where an estimated one in three people own guns (I think that’s pretty low, but we’re not the sort to tell strangers on the phone a lot of details). In my small town rural area, the anecdotal rate is more like 90%; most of the exceptions are military and Yankee transplantees who haven’t bought anything yet (although some have asked me for help on deciding what to buy). It seems to me that if fears of kids grabbing guns were the huge problem Ms. Bland and Mrs. Anxiety-meds believe, this county would have depopulated itself decades ago. It hasn’t, it’s growing, and I can’t recall the last accidental shooting by a minor, nor does a web search turn up anything.

So, real parents; who better represents reality? My responsible friends, or fearful folks being treated for anxiety?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

GOP Baseball Shooting: “More Laws!”

If one were to take early reporting seriously (which I haven’t done for decades), some angry white guy — probably a right-wing white supremacist — shot a bunch of congressmen with a full-auto M4 assault rifle. The asshole took advantage of Virginia’s “lax” gun laws to get and carry his assault rifle.

Umm… Not so much. One, maybe two congressmen. One, maybe two cops. One, maybe two staffers. Maybe a lobbyist. Reports on that still vary.

CNN would have us believe the — oops, rabid left-wing Bernie supporter — used a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47.

Oops redux. Again, not so much. Now it was an SKS.


Note the subtle differences between this and the AK-47 and M4.

So he had an IL FOID (background check), possibly a CCW (background check), and bought his 3 guns from an Illinois FFL (background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period). He used a knock-off of a WW2-era semi-auto rifle (apparently with a 10-round fixed magazine, since it was Illinois legal. Heck, it might even still be California legal. Not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle.

I can hardly bear waiting for the calls for laws that wouldn’t have stopped this. Oh. Wait.

I didn’t have to wait.

But I apparently will have to wait on national reciprocal carry while Congress addresses DC reciprocal carry only for our betters masters congresscreeps

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

In League with Evil

Perusing the news, I ran across this:

Urban League Calls For Lawmakers To Reject Gun Crimes Legislation
The Chicago Urban League has urged lawmakers not to pass legislation that would increase sentences for repeat gun offenders, saying it would only lead to more black people in prison and cost taxpayers millions, while not helping reduce violent crime.

They don’t want gun control laws that target the people convicted of crimes. That’s unfair. Lighter sentences for actual criminals are clearly the way to go.

Who does the Urban League see as the crime problem in Chicago? YOU; the victims and honest folks trying to stay alive — and unrobbed — while obeying the laws that make it harder to do so.

Yes, I know it’s old news to anyone who’s been paying the slightest bit of attention for the past few decades. But this juxtaposition of stories illustrates so well how socialist politicians and “urban” support groups are deliberately aligned with violent criminals against their chosen prey: you.

When they whine for more restrictive “common sense gun laws” to end “gun violence” — restrictions that lawfully cannot be imposed on real criminals — remember which brand of violence worries them: their prey fighting back.

To be fair, they don’t all want you dead. Some of these predators are fully aware that you can only shear a dead sheep once.

But the stupid and cannibalistic carnivores want lamb chops.

And victim-disarming pols and Urban League hunting clubs are working to make sure they get them.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The ER Lost A Patient

I just spent the day at a hospital Emergency Room (for reasons worthy of another column, but this is the wrong venue for that one). What’s relevant to TZP is that while I was there, they lost a patient.

Don’t start with the sympathy yet. He didn’t die.

They lost him:

“Hey, have you seen [xyz]?”
“He went to the restroom.”
“I checked; he isn’t there.”
“Maybe he’s in the other one.”
{insert pitterpatter of sneakered feet}
“He’s not there either.”
“Where did he go?”
“I don’t know. Look.”

There’s garbled talk of hospital security (who eventually showed up to search) and the Sheriff’s department, who also showed up. People in scrubs running up and down the hall, looking in every room. Multiple times. Muttering which I took to be poorly suppressed profanities.

Mildly amusing, you may be thinking, along with, “What the heck does this have to do with self defense, the right to keep and bear arms, or any of the other things that interest The Zelman Partisans?”

Some of you might see where this is going, but I’ll explain anyway.

Thanks to HIPAA — not to mention hospital Public Relations — no one was going to tell me exactly what the fuss was. But I overheard some gossip between staffers and law enforcement.

It appears that Patient Werrdefuqdego was a transferee from the jail. Possibly a mentally disturbed transferee. An unrestrained transferee. -ding!-

And no one from the Sheriff’s department was watching him. -ding!-

Nor was the hospital staff keeping an eye him. -ding!-

In fact, they were letting him run around without a keeper — in a yellow gown, blanket worn like a skirt, and no shoes. -ding! ding!- (Yes, he was a peculiar sight, before dropping out of sight.)

Figured out the relevance yet? For visitors unfamiliar with the Constitution, but hooked on magical thinking: The hospital with an escaped loon — possibly dangerous — from the jail, who was left to roam at will, is a “gun-free” zone.

So with a potentially dangerous nut on the loose due to lack of give-a-sh!t on the part of the staff and LE, I was deprived of my usual defensive tool. True, I could have refused to leave my sidearm behind and told the hospital to blow it their appropriate orifice, or even refuse to go there in the first place. But for personal reasons (possibly appropriate for the aforementioned other column), not going, or getting busted for trespassing, wasn’t an option. I had to go, and under trespass law, I had to disarm myself.

“No problem,” might say the Constitutionally challenged magicians, “the cops and hospital security will protect you.”

Except they didn’t. They turned the loon loose. They didn’t warn me, nor did they hang around to guard me.

Tell me again how gun-free — helpless-target-rich — zones make me safer.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail