All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Firearms Policy & Law Analyst at The Zelman Partisans Personal Blog: https://www.bussjaeger.us/blog/

A Walk On The Dark Side

April 5, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger

(Previously appeared at The Price of Liberty.)

Sally had worked much later than she intended, and hurried as she crossed the dimly lit lobby to the front. The old security guard shuffled toward her to unlock the door, wishing her a good evening and admonishing her to be careful. She stepped outside and listened to him lock the door behind her, wishing she could have requested an escort to her car a block away. He was too crippled, and couldn’t leave his post anyway, but she still wished someone was with her.

Standing in the small pool of light from the doorway, she looked carefully in all directions. The old fashioned street lights were close to the ground and gave only a warm glow, but she could see that many were no longer working. A full moon peeked out from behind scudding clouds now and then, but the moonlight seemed to result in more shadows than anything else. A damp wind carried a promise of rain, or snow.

The street to her left sloped down to the river and abandoned docks, where rumor had it gangs were hanging out these days. The whole area had deteriorated in the ten years she’d worked there, and she noticed especially that more buildings than ever were dark and closed tight. Looking to the right, she could only see about a hundred yards to where the street crested the rise and vanished over the other side.

Tucking her big purse firmly under her arm, under the good Berber coat she wore, she set off with far less confidence than she normally felt, trying to look in every direction and beginning to feel more apprehensive the farther she walked. Maybe she should have called a cab? But that seemed silly to go just a block, and she walked a little faster.

There were no restaurants or bars in this particular stretch of commercial and office buildings, and no traffic this time of the evening. She suddenly realized she was very alone, and far too vulnerable. Her stomach felt like a rock in her belly, and the hunger that had finally driven her to quit for the day was forgotten. They had just completed a very important project, one that would ultimately allow the company to find better quarters, and the deadline had been tight, but all that lost it’s importance as she contemplated the lonely walk to her car. She gave a fleeting thought to her decision not to use the company parking garage behind the building. The fact that it was dark and gave her an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia had been reason enough in the bright light of the morning. Not that it would have been much safer, of course. Several cars had been stolen there over the last few months, and one woman had been mugged early in the morning as she came to work.

Her footsteps echoed faintly from the concrete walls as she walked down the hill. She wished she’d brought a pair of walking shoes with her, since her stylish 2 inch heels had already reduced her toes to a painful mass over the long day. And then, contemplating a stretch before her with no streetlights, she wished she’d brought a flashlight as well. Coming closer, she could see in the moonlight the sparkle of broken glass on the roadway and sidewalk, telling her that the lights had been destroyed rather than just burned out.

Walking carefully, she watched her footing instead of looking around her, and was startled to feel something brush her leg from the rear. Absolutely unable to decide whether to stand still or run, she turned and saw a scruffy cat vanish into the gloom between two buildings. Her mind knew that the cat posed no danger to her, but her heart rate remained high and she began to sweat under the fine silk of her best blouse. Then she could feel it on her face and in her hair as the breeze freshened.

Her steps quickened, and she avoided the larger chunks of glass while the smaller ones grated under foot, once almost causing her to slip. She was fortunate to catch herself on a nearby bus bench, and scraped the glass off her shoe bottom on the curb. Only half a block to go to reach the municipal parking lot, but she was dismayed to see that only a few lights remained intact there either. She re-positioned her purse under her arm and discovered that her fingers were painful from the tight grip she’d held on it.

Suddenly aware of a police siren in the distance, she was dismayed to realize that it was at least a block or more away and fading fast. She thought about how she had always assumed that the police would be there to protect her if necessary. And then she knew that she needed to revisit that assumption soon, just as soon as she got to somewhere safe. She realized that she was the only person in the world right then who could do anything about it, and this was a very new and disturbing reality. She remembered all of the conversations her brother had tried to have with her about it, and how he had urged her to take some self defense classes, but she’d always put him off with assurances that she was perfectly safe in the city. It hurt her to admit it, but she had been wrong.

Sally had put her keys into her coat pocket before she left the building, and she was grateful that she didn’t have to fish in her purse for them as she approached her car. Unfortunately, it was parked under one of the broken lights and she peered anxiously into the back seat as she unlocked the driver’s door. Sudden shouting nearby made her hurry to get in and lock the door, but she hadn’t even gotten the key into the ignition before several young men rushed toward her. One had what appeared to be a baseball bat, and he swung it in a wide arc that ended with the smashing of the windshield of the car sitting next to her. Terrified, she twisted the key and the engine roared.

Grateful that the lot was mostly empty, she backed out of the slot wildly, changed gears and then floored the accelerator, trying hard to watch where she was going while not losing sight of the men who were obviously rushing toward her from several directions. The utter chaos of smashing windshields, screaming and cursing people, and the sudden downpour of rain had her reduced to near hysteria by the time she turned the car onto the road. Whatever shred of reason she retained caused her to turn up the hill rather than down toward the docks, her usual route. The presence of the gangs was obviously no longer merely a rumor.

Behind her she saw the flash of police lights and heard sirens again until she crested the hill and descended into an area with strip malls and more traffic. The sight of people and vehicles helped her to calm down some, and by the time she reached her own neighborhood nestled in the foothills, she was ready to think about her experience and do some serious reconsideration of long held beliefs about who was responsible for her safety and what she might do about it. She recognized fully that she had been incredibly lucky, and that if she’d left the office just a few moments later she might well be dead, or worse.

The apartment should have seemed warm and safe, she thought, but after hanging her coat and turning on the light in her home office, she looked out the window that overlooked a wide swath of the city below. For perhaps the first time, she truly noticed all of the areas that had gone dark in the last few years. She could see flashing police lights here and there, distorted by the rain, and a police helicopter hovered in the distance, quite possibly over the parking lot she’d come from. She had avoided listening to the “news” for a long time, immersing herself in her work and her narrow world of research. And now she realized that much of the world she’d thought she inhabited had never actually existed.

Booting her computer, she opened an email blank and began to type:

Dear Derrick,
I’m taking some vacation time next week and, if it’s ok, will fly down to stay a few days with you. I want to talk to you about this self defense thing, and I want you to take me to buy a gun and show me how to use it.

Your loving sister Sally

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

genocide, Politics, self defense, Terrorism

An Open Letter to Ted Nugent

March 29, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 15 Comments

Dear Mr. Nugent,

You recently wrote a column advocating the elimination of Islam in which you addressed the danger of allowing political correctness to stop the fight against Islamic terror. You finished with: “Never invite rats, mice or cockroaches into your home. Kill them all before they even get close. Exterminate them. Then let freedom ring for decades to come.”

While you are correct that PC “thinking” shouldn’t get in the way of doing the right thing, your invective gives the impression that you’re also willing to chuck out morals and common decency.

You pay brief lip service to the — correct, or we’d have already lost to 1.6 billion psychotic terrorists across the globe — idea that not all Muslims practice or support terrorism. And then you launch into a tirade that suggests wiping them all out: “As in a city dump, the world is infested with rabid rats. There is no cure for them, no turning them into civilized people. They need to be wiped out along with their devilish ideology.”

Genocide. And all the more troubling that you, an honorary member of The Zelman Partisans, the no compromise, no surrender Jewish RKBA organization, would use that “rat” imagery to promote such acts. As I recall, the Nazis demonized Jews during the Holocaust by referring to them as rats to be exterminated.

Humans are not rats. We shouldn’t be exterminating one another en masse. If not for moral reasons, then certainly for the pragmatic choice to avoid dangerous precedent. As David Codrea notes, demonizing an entire ethnic group is dangerous; something that a good TZP member must surely realize.

Self defense against radical Islamic aggresssion is another matter. Protection of life against predators is precisely why The Zelman Partisans advocates, promotes, and supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. Yamamoto’s apocryphal gun behind every blade of grass will work as well against freelance terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminals as it does against organized aggressors.

You speak of not letting “rats” into your home, and specifically state they should be killed first. Historically disturbing imagery aside, there is some limited truth in that. Islam does have a problem with violence. It’s at the root of Islam (at least partly dreamed up to justify raiding neighboring tribes). It’s something to which other faith systems have also been susceptible. Leslie Fish explains it thusly:

Just What’s Wrong With Islamophobia?
But just what is it that makes Islam such a danger to the world? Yes, its holy-book is full of really vicious commandments and examples, but the assorted gods know, and any Atheist can tell you, that the world’s other religions — especially the monotheistic ones — have plenty of traditions and holy-books full of vicious exhortations and bloodthirsty history, so why don’t they act on them the way Muslims feel obliged to do? Perhaps the answer lies in the religion’s relative youth. Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and 2000 years younger than Judaism. It never went through 2000 years of being kicked around half the world, always a powerless minority, as Judaism did. It never went through the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the secular revolutions as Christianity and Judaism did. In short, it never learned to criticize its own holy-book, never learned to accept the eternal presence of successful unbelievers, and never got the fundamentalist arrogance largely kicked out of it.

Based on my limited personal experience, the hypothetical average Middle Eastern Muslim is stuck, intellectually speaking, in an anti-technology Middle Ages (ironically, since Arabs were once noted for the pursuit of knowledge a la Al Gebra). This makes the more credulous among them susceptible to jihadist manipulation. Allowing them to immigrate to a modern and open culture, and assimilate into that culture would do far more to speed them towards the 21st century and a mature “Islamic Reformation,” than confirming their Koran-based fears that outsiders are the enemy by trying to exterminate them all.

In our existing American legal structure, legal immigration is limited, and a known demographic group with a notable subset prone to violence should be screened for those individuals who are a danger to Americans. You clearly, as do I, consider Muslims a potential risk pool. I prefer screening to the closed immigration and extermination which you ironically give the appearance of advocating. Advocating closed borders while supporting an advocate of open immigration can give casual readers the impression that you haven’t thought this through; the NRA board member isn’t the only energetic supporter of open immigration. I admit to certain concerns of my own about those illegals, seeking handouts rather than a hand up, suddenly gaining the ability to vote for victim-disarming Democrats. (In my personal view, eliminating the handouts would go far towards discouraging leeches, while allowing in those who want a chance to improve their own lot; in such an event, truly open borders would become a good thing for America.)

It is not all Muslims conducting, nor even condoning, violence. It is individuals and specific groups of individuals. Even in the Crusades, it wasn’t every single Christian in the world actively and willingly supporting the wars. It is not in our best interest to dehumanize the entire Muslim population; that was Al Qaeda’s own tactic in rallying support against America, largely starting the current phase of violent jihadism.

The Nazis demonized Jews (and other groups) to coalesce support for the party.

Americans demonized Hispanics to begin the War on Drugs (marijuana).

Americans demonized Blacks for the sake of gun control (“n—-rtown
Saturday night specials;” the media then stripped out the n-part as
being too obvious).

Armed individuals should deal with violent individuals, and Islam must grow up so it learns to follow that example.

And you, Mr. Nugent, must set that example yourself in actions and in careful choice of your words.

As for those who won’t learn, and turn to violence to abuse Americans’ hospitality…

We still have the right to keep and bear arms.

This article presents the personal opinions of Carl Bussjaeger and does not necessarily represent the views of The Zelman Partisans.

Politics, Terrorism

Excusing terrorism, and blaming those who didn’t do it

March 27, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

While the main focus of The Zelman Partisans is the right to keep and bear arms from a Jewish perspective, sometimes we just have to look a little further. Catholic Pope Francis is dancing in the blood of Brussels.

Pope Washes Feet of Refugees, Blames Brussels on Arms Industry
“Three days ago, there was a gesture of war, of destruction, in a city of Europe by people who don’t want to live in peace,” he said.

“Behind that gesture there were arms manufacturers, arms traffickers, who want blood, not peace, who want war, not brotherhood,” he said. (emphasis added-cb)

If I were still a practicing Catholic, I wouldn’t be anymore.

Oddly enough, I had the impression the Brussels attack was carried out by violent Islamic terrorists. Daesh certainly seems to think so. I stand corrected: It was Smith & Wesson, or something like that.

When did S&W, Ruger, Remington, or whoever go into the homemade TATP bomb business? It doesn’t seem like a profitable product, since it’s already easy to make from readily available precursors. And shipping it around the world is problematic, what with it being so unstable as to spontaneously detonate as it ages.

It’s true that there was an initial report of shots fired, and some sort of “Kalashnikov rifle” or two being found at the airport, but that seems to have been dropped from the narrative. For now, the reports of the airport and train station attacks are bombs only.

Homemade bombs.

While some may dispute it, the fact is that Francis is a socialist. And he’s simply using the Brussels horror as an — irrational — excuse to attack those “evil capitalists” selling stuff. Even when they weren’t involved. Francis’ embrace of socialism is more than a little ironic, since socialism tends to be hostile to other faiths.

Francis has abandoned his old Christian faith for one that conservatively killed more than 129 million people in less than a century. And here he is helping that along by deflecting blame for dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, from the terrorists who did it, to his real enemy: capitalism.

And naturally, as a pacifist-leaning blood-dancer (except when it comes to protecting his butt), he chose weapons manufacturers as his particular bugaboo in this case because socialism needs its victims disarmed.

Sadly, many Jews have also fallen for socialism and victim disarmament.

The Zelman Partisans have not.

gun control, Media, So Much Stupid!

A Perfect Storm of Stupidity

March 23, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

That’s what you get when a HuffPo editor asks an Atlantic editor questions on MSNBC. I’m surprised viewers’ television sets didn’t tip over to the left.

MSNBC Pundit Blames ‘Ease of Getting Guns’ for Brussels Bombing
Stein: “I guess that’s a bit of a surprise to us around the table because the city was on high alert owing to the arrest [of Salah Abdeslam] … why is Brussels and Belgium at large being the epicenter for this? What is it about that city that allows something like this to fester?”

Clemons: “I had wanted to ask him, ‘You know, why is it known that it’s so easy to access guns in Belgium than other of the major states in Europe, it’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market, that there is an ease of getting guns here. As compared to many other parts of Europe.'”

Admittedly, early reports claimed a few witnesses heard gunshots; likewise early reports claimed one or two “Kalashnikov rifles” were found on the scene (but not specifically linked to the terrorists). Now, firearms seem to have dropped out of the narrative altogether, with casualties inflicted solely by bombs. If any victim suffered a gunshot wound, the report hasn’t made it into any story I’ve found. Blaming firearms for this horrific bomb attack is typical victim disarmers dancing in the blood, gleeful over yet another invented excuse to ban defensive tools.

But that “ease of getting guns;” just how easy is it in Belgium to get a firearm?

Not very: “Belgium’s weapons law now places it among the group of countries that regard civilian firearm ownership as a restricted privilege rather than a basic, constitutionally protected right. The restrictive character of the Belgian gun law shows itself in the fact that access to weapons considered ill-suited for civilian use is restricted or even prohibited; that a ‘good cause’ for gun ownership is required; and that a series of checks on criminal record and mental fitness must be performed before an authorization can be issued.”

To own a firearm requires a license. To get a license, you have to provide proof that it is for an approved purpose (personal protection doesn’t count unless additional conditions exist). You undergo multiple background checks. You undergo a mental health examination. You have to pass knowledge and skill tests. The authorities can still decide you simply can’t have a firearm even if you pass all the checks.

If you get a license, you’re still limited in what you can own. Assault rifles? Right out; prohibited. That means the briefly alleged “Kalashnikov rifle(s)” were illegal, unlicensed.

An interesting side note: Current Belgian law with all its restrictions on firearms was prompted by a 2006 shooting in which the killer used a lever-action rifle, not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle. Belgian laws are considered to be more restrictive than required by the EU’s Firearms Directive 91/477. While America has a Second Amendment protecting our rights, the EU has substituted 91/477, which requires member countries to impose draconian restrictions on civilian firearms/ammunition possession. Such restrictions happen to include pretty much any “Kalashnikov rifle.”

Clemons continued to babble, “[I]t’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market.”

Not really. At one time, Belgium was a source for certain types of old weapons, manufactured before 1895; roughly analogous to America’s classification of firearms manufactured before 1899 to be antiques not considered firearms (and there was some confusion as whether firearms designed before 1895, but of more modern manufacture were allowed). Such guns could be possessed without a license, and people would come to Belgium to buy them and take them back to their home countries, bypassing local restrictions. But years ago, Begium changed their law on such arms. The only unlicensed antiques allowed are thoroughly deactivated guns and those that fire black powder only; any gun that can handle smokeless powder must be licensed. Or sold in a black market that is, by definition, illegal.

Unless some time-traveler took the blueprints for a Kalashnikov back to 1894 and built an AK-47 that runs on black powder, the hypothetical “Kalashnikov rifle” in the Brussels attack was quite illegal. It would have been smuggled in, possibly sold in a market far blacker than Belgium’s old market for antiques.

Such a black market might even carry the makings of the bombs the murderers actually used.

Belgium’s “lax” laws on firearms — more restrictive than EU guidelines, and more so than what American victim disarmers claim they want here — didn’t stop terrorists hell-bent on blowing up innocent people. And we’ll never know if Belgium’s restrictions disarmed someone who might have saved a life or two.

gun grabbers, You can't fix stupid

Rational Discussions

March 15, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 5 Comments

” If you carry a gun in public you are a terrorist. Period. There is no other way around it, because you are using the gun to intimidate in the name of feeling “safe.” But you know what? Your “safety” is a threat to every other person. Every other person. Shouldn’t that scare you? Oh, and they won’t be telling you when they are about to take you out.”
– Daniel Carr, commenting on the Moms Demand Victims F******k page, who has the most appropriate profile picture on FB

Armed = Terrorist. Period.

Like this guy. Or 8yo Alexis. Or this pregnant woman.

My “safety,” Mr. Carr, is only a “threat” to someone credibly threatening me with death or bodily injury. If you consider me a threat to you, I’d like you to explain why you’re planning to kill me.

The victim disarming rights-violators frequently claim that we need to have a rational discussion about guns, and whine that RKBA proponents won’t listen to them. This is why: their idea of “rational” is a display of a pathological fear of inanimate tools. They fail to realize that universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence backgrounds checks are not going to be conducted by the 70% of criminals who get their firearms through illicit transactions, nor that they cannot even be required to do so.

The victim disarmers cite research that claims to have studied the laws that best correlate with lowered gun deaths, and conclude that firearm identification (whether through ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping) would help lower deaths by 90%, even though only two states have even had ballistic fingerprinting databases, and one of those gave it up after 15 years of it never leading to a single arrest (and no one has microstamping yet). We are expectedly to “rationally” accept a study that literally cannot support the conclusions it drew because the data is nonexistent or directly contradicts the claim.

To the victim disarming blood dancers, it is rational to believe that surveys in Washington state showed that 90% of the people wanted universal PPYI checks, when less than 60% would actually vote for it.

We are to accept as “rational” the idea that a convicted felon on probation, under a restraining order, who obtained his gun via an illegal straw purchase, and killed 3, and injured 14 would have been stopped by universal PPYI checks.

Two blood dancers from Sandy Hook Promise gave statements to the New Hampshire legislature that it would be “rational” to believe that universal PPYI checks would have stopped that school killer, who obtained his weapons by killing his mother in her bed and stealing her guns.

It is supposed by the people-controlling gun grabbers to be “rational” to ban steel pipe, sheet metal, blocks of metal, nails, springs, rivets, iron oxide and aluminum, and even plastic bags to stop gun violence.

It would be “rational” to lift a nonexistent ban on gun violence research.

“Rational” discussion would accept that gun deaths are increasing, and are caused by the increasing number of guns, when the rate of gun deaths is at the lowest level in decades (while guns per capita is at a record level).

“Rational” discussion by the gun controllers’ standard means accepting delusion over reality.

Let’s have that rational discussion just as soon as your doctors get your medications balanced.

authoritarian swine, gun grabbers, Media, You can't fix stupid

“Hey, Moron”

March 9, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 8 Comments

EJ Montini hates it when people tell him the truth.

He is a moron, at least when he babbles about victim disarmament.

Montini: “Hey, moron, name one ‘common sense’ gun law”
“Hey, moron, name me one ‘common sense’ gun law, let alone a bunch. You can’t, can you? Because all you want to do is confiscate everybody’s weapons. That’s the only ‘common sense’ gun law liberal pissants like you want. Admit it! And by the way, I called you a moron earlier because I thought if I called you a (expletive) – which is what you are – you wouldn’t keep reading.”

Okay then.

Fisking time; let’s see how sensible his proposals are:

The one I mention most often is a universal, no loophole, no exception background check on every gun sale.
That isn’t sensible until he proposes a way to enforce that on criminals who bypass universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks by purchasing stolen guns on the street from other criminals. They don’t comply now. And they don’t have to.
It’s been shown in poll after poll that a vast majority of Americans – up to 90 percent – support it.
Except that when that 90+% claim was put to the test in an Washington [edited to correct state] referendum, only 60% voted for it. In New Hampshire, the claim was 94%, but the surveyors refused to release their raw data to prove it, and the folks there keep electing (and reelecting) folks who vote it down. (Oddly enough, I have never been polled on that subject, except by a couple of painfully obvious push polls in which I refused to participate. I never found anyone — not one, pro or anti — who claimed to have participated in the NH “survey.”)
We could ban the sale or possession of armor piercing and hollow-tip bullets, and we could limit magazines to 10 bullets.
So he doesn’t want rounds that penetrate too much, but he doesn’t want rounds that limit penetration. “Sensible.” As stated, that isn’t going to fly with anyone. Pretty much any rifle round is “armor penetrating” (unless you only count Level 4+), and armor penetrating handgun ammunition is already banned at the federal level and in several states; it doesn’t seem to have had much effect on crime rates. Defenders and hunters want expansion because it’s more effective, generally, than solid rounds.
We could codify in law a wider access to mental health records in order to prevent individuals with serious illness from buying weapons.
Oh, goody. Let’s start by looking at his health records. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear by putting his unredacted files on the Internet. In fact, we already have laws in place to handle the dangerously disturbed. Those who have been adjudicated a danger to self or others are prohibited persons. Or do you just want to do away with the due process part of depriving people of human/civil rights. Did he get a mental health exam before exercising his 1st Amendment right to write that column?
We could repeal the idiotic 1996 congressional budget amendment that prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from doing studies on firearms ownership and the effects on public health.
There is no such research ban to repeal. Wouldn’t it have been “sensible” for MorMontini to figure that out before spouting off?
We could expand gun-owning restrictions to more individuals convicted of crimes like domestic violence, stalking and more.
Those convicted of domestic violence (and any crime punishable by a sentence of more than a year in prison) are already prohibited persons. You know, like the recent Kansas shooter, who was a convicted felon, under a restraining order, who bypassed PPYI checks. “And more…” Maybe we could add “practicing journalism without a license” to that list.
We could establish a national waiting period for gun purchases.
Who could possibly object to that, right? Certainly not Ms. Bowne. Anymore. I wonder what Montini is planning to do, if he needs to be sure his friends and family can’t get a defensive tool quickly.
Finally, a law limiting angry impulse responses to news columnists might be helpful. At least to me.
Well, it’s clear that he wants violations of 1st Amendment free discourse, so I guess he’s cool with the journalist licensing plan.

So long as Montini is determined to sound like an uninformed moron intent on destroying individual human/civil rights (obviously starting with the First and Second Amendments) people are bound to keep thinking he is one.

No.

Your move, Montini.

mindset, resistance

My Line In The Sand

March 8, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 13 Comments

Guest Commentary
Exclusive to The Zelman Partisans
by PigPen51

The battle for our guns continues to grow, with no end in sight.
Although polls indicate most Americans support private gun ownership, there will always be an element that wants to usurp our right to keep and bear arms. That element is becoming more desperate and is showing its true nature: they’re not for “gun safety” or against handguns or “assault weapons” any more; they’re openly against us and our firearms, period.

I’m sure regular TZP readers have already thought, and perhaps made decisions, about how to handle any attempts to disarm you. I’ve made my own decision, as well. For me it was not easy. I want to share my decision-making process with you, partly to help you understand the thinking of someone who is not perhaps as strong-minded as you are.

First, I have to share where I come from. I’ve been around guns all my
life, growing up in rural Michigan, where small-game hunting and deer
hunting was just a fact of life. So rifles and shotguns held no mystery
for any of my brothers or me. We neither feared them nor treasured them. They were simply tools, like any others. In this respect, I guess I grew up like a good many of you.

The one thing I didn’t grow up around was handguns. We simply had no use for them.

I’ve always been a freedom supporter. I’m a follower of the
constitution, not liking it when the government takes away my rights. I was particularly appalled when the so-called Patriot Act passed. Then the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was when Barack Obama was elected president. It was then I first joined the NRA. I saw the real threat to my gun rights and this was a tangible way that I could express it.

When Michigan passed shall-issue concealed carry, I began saving money for the mandatory class and the fee, and soon became a CCW holder.

That, to make a long story short, brings us to my proverbial line in the
sand: what do I intend to do if the knock comes on my door and the
authorities ask me to turn in all my guns?

I know some of you would say, “I’ll just start a firefight the likes of
which the nation hasn’t seen since the Tet offensive. The police, or the
National Guard, would lie in the streets until the cows came home.” From my cold dead hands, or something like that.

I understand that. It sounds very Rambo-like and brave, until you factor in things like what if the knock on the door comes when your family is sitting down to breakfast on Sunday morning, with your daughter and son in their pj’s? Or if your brother-in-law is on the sheriff’s department and your niece is in the National Guard?

For me, these are the kind of things that make it real. They are the
issues that kept me up at night while I pondered where I would draw that line in the sand. Because, once I drew it, I wanted it to stay drawn
deep and unmoving. So I had to decide what sacrifices I was willing to
make, and honestly, which ones I knew I just could never make.

I knew in my heart I could never willingly sacrifice my family’s lives.
Call me weak, if you wish, but that’s simply who I am. That option was
completely off the table. If the call for disarming happened, my family
and their well being would have to be taken into account. Therefore, any “last stand” heroics would not happen near them.

I’m not saying I would surrender any guns, just that my family couldn’t be around if I expected a confrontation. But how do I avoid that situation?

I think the best way is to try and prevent confrontation in the first
place. That calls for planning. So part of my ultimate line in the sand
is proper preparation.

For instance, I don’t think it’s wise to keep all firearms in the same
location. Best to keep them well-secured and hidden in multiple places. But that’s easier for a well-off person than for someone poor like me.

A wealthy person who had a hunting lodge with his rifles locked in in a safe, could easily keep his other guns at home in his basement (with
ammo stored at each location, of course). That also gives this happy
guy the convenience of not carrying his guns each time he travels. But
even less rich gun owners have options for storing guns in different
locations (for example, keeping a few firearms at home and hiding others securely underground in the woods).

On the other hand, knowing guns could be confiscated at any time, some people might think it would be prudent to get rid of them, one way or another. After all, you would hate to get into any trouble with the authorities over some steel and wood, right?

Another part of preparation might involve sending family members away to stay with a trusted relative who would not allow guns anywhere near them in any shape or form. But this assumes knowing when the confiscation squads will arrive, and we’re unlikely to know that until and unless times have gotten truly desperate.

This all boils down to my line in the sand: I will not keep all my guns
at my home. I will not get into a gunfight with the authorities in the
presence of my family, period. But if pushed, when alone, I will defend
myself or join with other patriots to defend liberty. Given enough time, it may become necessary to “lose” most or all of my guns. I could always attempt to find them later. Finally, given enough time, and only in very extreme circumstances, my family may have to stay with someone close to me who is not known to own firearms.

There you have it. My particular plan might seem like a coward’s way to a great many of you. It might seem unrealistic to some of you,
particularly if you believe that there will never be a confiscation
order or squads going door-to-door, looking for guns. It may even seem unpatriotic. But to me, given my nature and circumstances, this is what I’m willing to do and not willing to do. Call it what you might; you can’t call it wrong.

What are your thoughts about potential firearm confiscation? And
what planning have you done to avoid being caught unprepared if it happens?

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would lik>e to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

gun grabbers

Mask of the Blood Dancers

March 3, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 7 Comments

In response to a convicted felon on probation, under a restraining order, killing 3, and injuring 14 “Gabrielle Giffords” is dancing in the blood:

Gabrielle Giffords ‏@GabbyGiffords: In just the last week, 11 mass shootings have brought terror and tragedy to our country. This is not the America we strive for. #Hesston

Yes. This is exactly what “you” are striving for: a world in which honest people have to preemptively prove their innocence just to hope to exercise their right to self defense against murderous thugs who recognize no such restrictions. Helpless targets, so bastards like Ford can victimize them in perfect safety. Unarmed people in magical gun free zones that never work.

But no doubt, every time the policies that “you” push enable another horrific incident like this, you can call for more action that somehow requires more people to donate more money to your little Criminals’ Workplace Safety organization.

So I guess “you’re” happy.

I actually feel sorry for Gabby Giffords. Unless she has recently made a miraculous recovery, it’s unlikely that she formed that thought and typed that tweet. Medical professionals who are familiar with the sort of bullet-induced brain trauma that Giffords suffered, and who have observed her public appearances, tell me — while carefully noting it’s only a general observation and not a valid diagnosis, since they haven’t examined her –that her behavior is consistent with extreme brain damage that she will never further recover from; that most likely her understanding of the world, much less victim disarmament, is that of a young, innocent child. And always will be.

Giffords is most likely perpetual child who just wants to please the nice people surrounding her. One being used by her own husband, Mark Kelly, and the gun people controlling puppeteers around her. Think on the utter lack of morals and ethics it takes to abuse and manipulate a trusting child like that. Contempt only begins to describe my thoughts about them.

Then consider what Mark Kelly et al would be willing to do to everyone else, whom they don’t obstensibly love and care for.

Gabby Giffords is the mask that the victim disarmers use to hide the true face of gun control.

gun grabbers, Sellouts and traitors

Traitorous Bagel-Brains Against Gun Victims

February 29, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 6 Comments

U.S. rabbis’ anti-gun violence group starts in Berkeley
Like many Americans, Creditor reached a boiling point on guns after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 young children and six adults were killed.

If Rabbi Creditor wants to reduce gun violence, it would be a fine thing for him to organize gun safety classes for the young people of his community. He could work to expand economic opportunities so fewer would resort to the illegal drug trade. He could perform direct outreach to at-risk kids. He could exercise the prime responsibilty of a rabbi by teaching these people the difference between aggression and defensive use of force.

But Creditor is a rabbi in name only. He doesn’t want to teach.

“Our vision is to amplify the work that’s being done, knowing that Congress has failed us so far,” Creditor said. “The ability that faith leaders have to marshal civic activism is unrivaled.”

More laws. More violations of the rights of honest people. The kind of laws that those honest people — and even Congress — have rejected.

Because, when violent crime rates are dropping to levels not seen for decades, some crazy minor murdered a woman to steal her guns and take them to a designated gun-free victim disarmament zone to murder more people…

…he wants to inflict more human/civil rights infringements on the people who didn’t do it. Because the gun laws didn’t work there, Rabbi Creditor wants to turn the entire nation into Sandy Hook.

For safety.

Because disarming Jews worked so well there, he wants to turn America into Nazi Germany.

For safety.

I think not. I strongly suspect his motivation is a little more crass.

Creditor also got Eileen Soffer, a Mountain View resident who had worked as the national deputy field director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, to come aboard as the full-time national coordinator.

That is the same Moms Demand Victims that is under the umbrella of Everytown for Gun Safety (along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns), which is chaired — and heavily funded — by billionaire Michael Bloomberg who never saw a gun in civilian hands that he liked (except his own bodyguards). Soffer undoubtedly brought along the promise of financial backing for yet another bloody-handed victim disarmament group.

Perhaps I’m being unfair; maybe he wants something other than restrictions on rights. But since he does want “further expanded background checks, public health research into gun violence“, I doubt it. The fact that he runs their F******k page as a closed group implies that they want to hide their agenda from those who appreciate civils rights.

I invite Rabbi Creditor to answer a few questions.

Have you ever read the complete Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights?
Do you comprehend the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy?
Exactly what gun laws do you propose to stop another Sandy Hook scenario (where the perpetrator violated a series of laws just to get the guns)?
How do you propose to protect the rights of those who didn’t do it?
How do you propose to enforce your laws on criminals (bearing in mind that criminals cannot be required to submit to a background check)?
If your agenda includes weapons bans, will you man up and conduct confiscations peronally?
Would any ban/confiscation recompense gun owners for the loss of property? Have you considered how much money that would be?
What will you do when the good guys just say, No”?
What will you do if the good guys say, “All righty, then“?

I await Rabbi Creditor’s response, though not with bated breath.

gun grabbers

Brady Center Files Lies Over 3D Printed Guns

February 23, 2016 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

Or, as the truth-challenged victim disarmers put it:

Brady Center Files Amicus Brief Over 3D Printed Guns
The government’s attempt to keep 3D printed guns out of the hands of terrorists got a boost Thursday with an amicus brief filed in support in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

That purports to be a Courthouse News article, but it appears from the text (including a “mission statement” for the BCPGV at the bottom) to be a press release. Let’s look it over.

“The U.S. Department of State ordered Texas-bases Defense Distributed to remove from the Internet what was essentially a do-it-yourself kit for making untraceable and undetectable guns.”
Nope. It was electronic data files. No tools, no materials.
“The kit included blueprints for 3D printed guns that could easily be carried through security checkpoints and used to wreck havoc.”
I might allow that one if by “security” they mean the TSA. But to date, there are no really concealable 3D printed firearms (unless you count those AR lowers, which require a great many other parts to function). Most are large, bulky. They require metallic firing pins and barrels, and often metallic springs. Current US law alrready requires a minimum amount of detectable metal, and the DD plans incorporate that.
“What happens when these new, untraceable and undetectable guns wind up in the wrong hands, or easily slip through metal detectors at airports?”
If they slip through metal detectors, it isn’t the fault of the metal-bearing gun, but of the sloppy security workers.
“Brady’s brief argues the Second Amendment does not give the right to make and publish plans for 3D printed guns”
Technically true. For one, the 2A doesn’t give any rights, but protects a preexisting right. For another, it’s the First Amendment that protects the speech expressed in those data files.
“This case shows just how far the corporate gun lobby will go – fighting for a supposed right to export blueprints”
Now that’s funny. Here’s a group working on the development of 3D printing technology that would allow individuals to make their firearms without having to get them from gun corporations. Eventually.
“undetectable plastic gun”
Except for all those metallic parts required for function and by law.
“[T]he United States has the right to regulate the export of firearms, and that Defense Distributed’s attempt to give detailed plan to print guns to anyone with an internet connection amounts to international firearms exportation.”
Yeah. Well, we saw how well that worked for encryption in the Crypto Wars. Now, if they’re claiming that these bulky, short-lived firearms are specifically designed for and used by the military, I wish they’d point to the units deploying with Shuttys and DD semiauto lowers.
“The mission of the Brady Center is to drastically cut the number of annual deaths from gun violence.”
Then they should get out of the rights-violation business and get trained as mental health counselors, since two-thirds of those gun deaths are suicides.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this amicus brief is more of a fund-raising appeal to cover the expenses incurred for wrongfully suing Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.