Category Archives: gun control

Russia: History repeats itself

Cross-posted at the Liberty Zone with slight modifications.


I’ve been trying to find this article in English, but for some reason, all I find is really crappy translations of what is actually written. Those of you who read Russian can head over to the first link.

Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?
Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?

Bottom line: Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a “National Guard” (Нацгвардия), but it’s not like the National Guard we’re accustomed to. While Putin claims this armed force, which incorporates some of the Interior Ministry troops, is created specifically to address terrorism, transnational organized crime, and arms trafficking in the country, it as a way to continue consolidating power in the presidency. It is a ministry-level organization that falls directly under the control of the President.

“If you have noticed, this decision is not simply related to detaching the interior troops from the Interior Ministry. But this has been done so that this new structure will now concentrate all that is connected with firearms. This refers to various kinds of security provision and the authorization system [to get the right to possess firearms], ensure oversight of private security firms and this also refers to interior troops proper,” Putin said.

Yes, I know the translation sucks, but think about this for a moment. The Russian president, who already has been well on the path to grabbing power, censorship, stringent nationalism, and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country’s neighbors, is now creating himself a little army that’s focusing not just on terrorism and TOC, but also firearms trade. By the way, the Russian Federation in November 2014 eased firearms restrictions to allow its citizens to carry firearms for self defense, but now Putin is controlling some pretty powerful military troops who focus internally.

Call me crazy and untrusting, but I wouldn’t want any government – especially not an authoritarian crap weasel like Putin – having control of his own little army that can be used against the citizenry, and given Russia’s pivot back toward statism in the past few years, this Нацгвардия is more than concerning.

We view the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny. The fact that Putin has now created an armed entity, controlled solely by him, to focus on “all that is connected with firearms” should tell you everything you need to know about where that nation is headed internally. No, it is not becoming a free nation. Those of us who were mildly surprised and gratified when the Russian government loosened gun laws a year and a half ago can go back to being disgusted. Russia is still ruled by a cunning authoritarian with the aim of subjugating those around him to his will. And the best way to do that, is to use the military (I don’t care what you call them – internal troops, security troops, national guard, whatever) to ensure that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is tightly regulated and controlled.

Because as the Russian economy swirls the drain, and as Russia becomes a more and more aggressive force toward its neighbors, you can be sure that the regular people’s lives will be more controlled and more miserable. And the Russian government needs to ensure that the people don’t use their right to remove the source of their misery with armed force.

Everything old is new again.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Happy Patriots’ Day

Celebrating Americans resisting gun grabbers at Lexington-Concord.

minuteman-statute

Oh.

Wait.

Town of Lexington Voting To Ban Commonly Owned Firearms & Magazines
For the record. The basic premise of Rotberg’s Article 34 is an insult to all law abiding gun owners. His logic is also flawed in that he insinuates that a gun is inherently “dangerous”. A firearm is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything on its own. The only thing that has the potential for being dangerous is the person and there is nothing in any of the versions of Article 34 which addresses this. It’s just more bigotry, harassment and blame of lawful gun owners.

Never mind.

-sigh-

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Not statistically significant”

Oh, look. Another Johns Hopkins study examining the effects of recognizing human/civil rights.

Changes in state policies impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers
The researchers looked at the relationship between assault data involving law enforcement officers and changes in three policies at the state level: three-strikes laws, which impose mandatory decades-long sentences when a criminal is convicted of a third crime; right-to-carry or concealed-carry laws, which reduce restrictions for individuals to carry concealed firearms in public; and permit-to-purchase measures, which require prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a permit or license after passing a background check.

And what did they find?

The authors found that three-strikes laws were associated with a 33 percent increase in the risk of fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and a 62 percent increase in fatal non-handgun assaults.
[…]
“In the case of three-strikes laws, it appears that chronic offenders may be killing officers to evade capture and possible life imprisonment,” Crifasi says.

Surprise, surprise. Back when I was a peace officer, we predicted exactly that.

What about right to carry/concealed carry?

Previous research has examined the link between right-to-carry or concealed-carry gun laws on fatal assaults in the general population. The Bloomberg School study is believed to be the first to examine the effects of these laws on both fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and found no associations between the laws and either type of assault against officers.

Probably because lawful carriers are usually the type…

Oh. Wait.

“Many of those most likely to commit firearm violence are prohibited from possessing firearms and therefore unable to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun.”

Who’d a thunk it? People who go to all the trouble of background checks and licenses don’t attack cops.

And permits to purchase?

The number of officers who died in Missouri is too small to make any conclusions about fatal assaults.
[…]
[Connecticut’s] association was also not statistically significant due to the rarity of these deaths.

Again, the folks prone to shooting cops (see above re:three strikes) don’t bother with permits they couldn’t get anyway. Now, if they’d been honest and tried to correlate straw purchase prosecutions with officer attacks, they might’ve seen something. But probably “not statistically significant.”

For the anti-gun Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, even allowing for the spin, that’s an amazing admission. They can’t possibly leave it at that, right?

Right.

Although the rates of fatal assaults on law enforcement officers have declined over the past several decades, their homicide rates are consistently higher than that of the general population and higher compared with other public service occupations. Most of the fatal assaults against law enforcement officers are committed by firearm.

In fact, the civilian homicide rate for 2013 was 4.6 per 100K. The cops? 5.3 per 100K. As Reason notes, 3.3/100K if you exclude two accidental shootings. For 2014, the CDC says the overall homicide rate in the US was 5.19 per 100K. Frankly, any difference between civilian and LEO homicide rates is “not statistically significant.”

If Johns Hopkins was honest, that press release would have been titled,“Most changes in state policies DON’T impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers.” But being Johns Hopkins, they had to lump in restrictions on honest folk to demonize gun owners by association.

Your tax dollars at work.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear California – As if you already weren’t a national embarrassment…

What in the everloving blue Hades is a “bullet button” loophole? Seriously?

SECTION 1.

It is the intent of the Legislature to effectuate the intent of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and to close the bullet button loophole by redefining “detachable magazine,” as used in Section 30515 of the Penal Code, to include an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool.

The odious trolls in the California legislature have really outdone themselves on this one. With zero knowledge about firearms and zero comprehension of Constitutional rights, they are on a rampage to destroy the right to keep arms in that statist hole of a state.

(h/t Ammoland)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Constitutional carry and the art of skinning cats

On Friday, March 25, Governor Butch Otter signed SB 1389, making Idaho the ninth state to adopt constitutional carry (aka unrestricted carry or permitless carry).

Back in the day, we knew this as Vermont carry, after the one-and-only state whose residents were legally free to tuck guns in their pockets or purses or under their clothing without first asking their state government for permission. Vermont had been that way for generations. And for all those generations, they remained alone.

But now … oh my.

In some ways Idaho’s bill isn’t a huge change from its existing laws. Idaho residents already had constitutional carry outside city limits; SB 1389 merely extended it to cities — over the objections of police chiefs, Bloomberg’s Everytown, and the usual hoplophobes who cried the usual cry of “blood in the streets!”

In other ways, what a very, very big deal this is.

For one, the bill explicitly acknowledges the individual right to bear arms and that said people grant only limited powers to state governments:

The legislature hereby finds that the people of Idaho have reserved for themselves the right to keep and bear arms while granting the legislature the authority to regulate the carrying of weapons concealed. The provisions of this chapter regulating the carrying of weapons must be strictly construed so as to give maximum scope to the rights retained by the people.

Like all such bills, it’s full of legalisms that hardcore freedomistas won’t appreciate (for instance, permitless carry is only for those 21 or above; those 18 to 20 must still get permits, though those permits are “shall issue”).

But for some of us who’ve been around a long time … it’s a bloody miracle.

Let me take you back to the day

It was a dark day. 1993 and 1994. A rabidly anti-gun president held the White House. A Congress composed of rabidly anti-gun Democrats and wishy-washy Republican “leaders” like Bob Dole stood ready to give Bill Clinton more service than Monica Lewinski ever did.

Wham! They hit us with the Brady Law. Wham! They hit us with the Ugly Gun Ban. Over the next several years, they hit us with more laws to restrict guns, give more funding to anti-gun enforcement, and in general extend the powers of both the federal government and local police against We the People.

Dark days indeed.

In 1993, I used my smoking-hot 1200-baud modem to dial into a gun-rights bulletin board in Colorado — half the country away from my Pacific Northwest home. And for me, that’s where I first encountered hopeful change — though I didn’t recognize it at the time.

The Internet, though it existed in the scientific and academic communities, was not yet a thing for ordinary people. But we were reaching out to find each other, anyhow. Some via FidoNet bulletin boards (BBSes) like the one I mentioned, which had been set up by and for fans of writer and gun advocate L. Neil Smith. Or a bigger FidoNet operation, the Paul Revere Network (PRN — where I first met TZP co-founder Brad Alpert). Others gathered local friends and huddled around short-wave radios, where a handful of firebrands (some as crazy as moonbats, but that’s another story) were beginning to agitate against the looming federal takeover. Many began to gather in the real world to form militias.

I was soon running up $300-a-month phone bills dialing cross-country to various gun-rights and Bill of Rights bulletin boards. (My wallet and I were both so relieved when subscription Internet came along shortly thereafter.) But that first Colorado bulletin board remained my mainstay as long as FidoNet ruled the dawning e-world.

Quirky little Vermont and the people who saw bigger things

It was on those primitive BBSes that I first heard the term “Vermont carry.”

Maybe it was the term itself, which hinted at the quirk of one small and quirky state. Or maybe it was just the hopelessness of the times. But it never dawned on me that Vermont carry had a chance of slipping outside the boundaries of Vermont. If asked to give odds, I’d have put it at a thousand to one against.

The “shall issue” concealed carry permit movement was the only bright spot for guns at that moment. It had been gaining ground since the late 1980s. But for me that was no bright spot at all. I saw state-issued permits not only as unlawful government control, but worse, as a sneaky way to gather data on gun owners for eventual confiscation.

On that Colorado BBS, a Wyoming activist, Charles Curley, had a lively debate going on with L. Neil Smith. The two were friends, but on one issue they ardently differed. Charles was working with fellow activists to get shall-issue concealed carry permits in Wyoming, which Neil saw as a betrayal of true freedomista principles.

I was privately in Neil’s camp, but I liked Charles (with whom I soon had a seven-year romance) so I didn’t say much. But where Charles really made my head spin was with his claim — preposterous! — that he and his fellow Wyoming ccw activists were consciously and deliberately setting things up to move eventually from shall-issue to pure Vermont carry.

I simply didn’t see how giving state governments more control (as I viewed it) could ever result in less control, eventually. Just did not believe it possible. Especially in those dismal days.

But these steady, patient activists were beginning a major change. I just couldn’t see it. They worked. And they worked. And they got major court judgments in their favor. And they worked some more.

Now

Today, seven states have permitless concealed carry for every lawful gun owner and two (Idaho and Wyoming) have it for their own residents, though visitors still require permits from their home states.

It began in 2003 with Alaska, and continued through Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, and Maine. Successes were far between at first, but the pace is picking up. This month alone, both West Virginia and Idaho got on the freedom train. The West Virginia legislature had to override their governor’s veto. Although Idaho’s Butch Otter signed without quibble, both houses of the Idaho legislature passed the bill with impressively veto-proof margins (27 to 8 in the Senate and 54 to 15 in the House).

And there’s more. Oklahoma allows residents of constitutional carry states to carry discreetly within its borders. Puerto Rico has constitutional carry (following a lawsuit), though that’s being appealed. Other states have permitless concealed carry outside of city limits or allow it if the weapon is unloaded or in an “enclosed case” (and a woman’s purse or a man’s backpack counts as an enclosed case). Or on a motorcycle. Or on horseback.

Yes, the laws remain quirky and imperfect. (There’s no such thing as a perfect law.) But virtually every change has been in the right direction. And activists continue the march toward constitutional carry in many more states.

Are we likely to see constitutional carry in Massachusetts, New York, or California any time soon? Ha! But I can tell you that a lot of us who were around in the dark old days of 1993 and 1994 never thought we’d see even this much, ever, in so many places.

And “this much” is a lot. A hell of a lot. Better yet, we’re going to see more.

Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.

Back in the day — those dark old days of seemingly unstoppable federal overreach — I thought we’d have to fight (real “blood in the streets”) to restore our gun rights. Of course, we may yet have to fight to preserve our freedom.

But thanks to the new and expanded gun culture across the land — a culture in part built and normalized by the very activists I doubted — We the People are becoming an ever more formidable power.

I wouldn’t have thought it possible. I wasn’t a part of making it happen. In my eyes it will forever remain a mystery of darned-near miraculous proportions.

It definitely goes to show that there can be a lot of ways to skin the proverbial cat.

—–

This article appeared first on our weekly TZP alert. If you want to be among the first to see all articles, sign up!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Perfect Storm of Stupidity

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.

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - MARCH 22: A plume of smoke rises over Brussels airport after the controlled explosion of a third device in Zaventem Bruxelles International Airport after a terrorist attack on March 22, 2016 in Brussels, Belgium. At least 31 people are thought to have been killed after Brussels airport and a Metro station were targeted by explosions. The attacks come just days after a key suspect in the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was captured in Brussels. (Photo by Sylvain Lefevre/Getty Images)

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Merrick Garland on gun rights: Not just no, but HELL NO!

garlandThe Zelman Partisans strongly opposes President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court.

This is not just because a new Supreme Court Justice should be nominated by the next President of the United States – no matter who wins that office – and not someone who is committing a “hit-and-run” on the Supreme Court on his way out the door with the rest of the nation left to deal with the consequences for years to come.

This is not just because the American people should have the opportunity to express their views on the next Supreme Court Justice at the ballot box by their choice of POTUS.

This is because Merrick Garland would be a steadfast, true voice that would tip the nation’s highest court in the direction of total destruction of our gun rights.

Erich Pratt, executive director of the group Gun Owners of America, said Mr. Obama chose a “radical leftist” in Judge Garland despite promises to nominate a consensus candidate.

“He supported the D.C. gun ban in 2007, thereby showing he opposes self-defense and opposes the right to keep and bear arms,” Mr. Pratt said.

That 2007 case, Parker v. District of Columbia, ultimately became the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Before it reached the high court, it was heard in Judge Garland’s circuit, and a three-judge panel ruled that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. Judge Garland wasn’t part of that decision, but he did join three other judges in trying to have the full court get a chance to overturn the ruling.

National Review digs further into Garland’s anti-gun views.

Garland voted… to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but… the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland’s lack of respect for the people’s fundamental rights is unacceptable. The Obama Administration was obviously a failure at implementing much of the gun control plans it was pushing, even though it consistently used every tragedy to its advantage.

So now Barack Obama is trying to preserve his statist, anti-gun legacy by nominating a Supreme Court Justice who would do it for him.

No. Just no!

Barack Obama has already foisted one obviously biased Justice on the rest of us – a Justice whose support for ObamaCare was well known, and who did not recuse herself when King v. Burwell was argued in front of the Supreme Court.

We certainly don’t need another Justice whose grasp on the Constitution is tenuous and definition of “objectivity” only involves issues with which he agrees.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hate In America

I watched part of a TV show last night, reminding me why I seldom watch TV, that and lack of time.

The show was on Investigation Discovery, and out of the two stories covered, one of them was the shooting at the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park. The criminal was an American Nazi. There was a video clip in the show of him sitting in the back of a police car yelling “heil hootler”! Yeah, actually I did mean to misspell it. Petty, I know. Pictures of him doing the hootler salute, the nazi flag, clips of his speeches and the whole 9 yards. Did he hate Jews? Oh yeah. He was asked if he was sad none of the victims he shot were Jewish. No, he considered those he shot Jewish collaborators. Was he an insane madman? Darn skippy.

All sounds like a well covered show, right? You would be wrong.

The show was about lionizing something called the Southern Poverty Law Center, an evil institution run by your typical flaming liberal Morris Dees.

Let me tell you a little bit about the SPLC from something that was on the national radar a few years ago in 2009. It happened in the state of Missouri, but it made waves across the nation when people found out.

The Missouri Highway Patrol issued a report to their troopers called the MIAC report. It was issued by the Missouri Information and Analysis Center (MIAC), a branch of the state’s Highway Patrol. This scholarly paper warned their officers to be wary of the following people that represented a danger to the officers and the public in general.

Christians, political conservatives, patriots, pro-lifers, libertarians, gun owners, and constitutionalists and militia members. Those that display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material, such as bumper stickers. These members were usually supporters of former Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Any car sporting a pro-life, pro-free speech, pro-Second Amendment bumper sticker was to be viewed with extreme caution.

And where would the Missouri Highway Patrol get such a insane memorandum? Why, from the SPLC. Who never met a group of conservatives or conservative candidate they didn’t label as a threat or a hate group.

After a huge outcry from enraged conservatives and conservative lawmakers the MO HP retracted their report and the blame flinging session began.

Other states had reason to be concerned. The MO HP is part of a “fusion center”. They assimilate and disseminate information to state and local agencies. At the time, the federal Department of Homeland Security’s Web page entitled “State and Local Fusion Centers” said

Many states and larger cities have created state and local fusion centers to share information and intelligence within their jurisdictions as well as with the federal government….

In 2009 DHS “had deployed intelligence officers to state fusion centers in: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.

I’m sure there are more now.

It was the prelude to what happened a couple years later.

It started with a request from the Social Security Administration jointly with the ATF, for the entire list of Missouri Concealed Carry permit holders as part of an investigation. An investigation which was dropped the minute the ATF received the list of all Missouri CCW holders. The request was made of the Missouri Department of Revenue. The Mo Department of Revenue, which illegally as in against Missouri Law, but at the direction of Gov. Jay Nixon had begun implementing REAL ID. The Mo DOR attempted to mislead the legislature by not telling them the ATF had been part of the requesting agencies. It is against the law to supply a list of gun owners to the Federal Government.

So who would break the law like that? The Missouri Highway Patrol.

Testifying before a Senate committee, Highway Patrol Col. Ron Replogle said the concealed guns list was given to an investigator looking into potential fraud involving Social Security benefits for the disabled. But he said the investigator never was able to read the encrypted information and ultimately destroyed the computer discs.

Republicans expressed concern that the privacy rights of Missouri residents are being infringed, but members of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration insisted there was nothing wrong with the information sharing.

Now just a word about that encrypted disc that Replogle said they sent. It was NOT encrypted, it was in a password protected excel file. The password was included in the cover letter. The cover letter that was sent WITH the discs. The cover letter that was sent with the discs via REGULAR mail.

For fun you can listen to this interview with Sen. Kurt Schafer with Dana Loesch on The Dana Show.

Why would the Mo Highway Patrol do such a thing? Well, obama syncophant jay nixon directed them to, and after all, gun owners are the enemy, right?

So back to the TV show. The “courageous” Morris Dees who has armed security people at his home recounted an incident where intruders gained access to his grounds. He related the story of getting his guns, and his daughter had a .22 she was a good shot with, and they huddled together with their guns in their safe room till the danger had been resolved.

I kid you not.

I can’t make this stuff up. And now the SPLC is probably going to have this dam darn TV show telling uninformed people that this is a great group. Peachy, just swell.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Nuge – read before you judge

A week ago Second Amendment firebrand Ted Nugent posted an appalling graphic on his Facebook page, showing a dozen of America’s most famous gun grabbers with Israeli flags superimposed on their photos. The implication was clear – an obvious, disgusting claim that some kind of vast Jewish conspiracy was behind gun control efforts in the United States.

Fans of Ted’s music and his Second Amendment supporters were understandably upset. Was Ted implying that Jews were somehow responsible for the demise of our freedoms? Was he an anti-Semite? Is Ted prejudiced in some way against Jews? Has Ted become a liability to the gun rights movement?

Fast and furious calls for the NRA to cut ties with Ted. The National Review Online called Nugent a disgrace to the gun rights movement.  The usual suspects – everyone from the Huffington Post to Mother Jones to the Southern Poverty Law Center to Media Matters – screeched about Ted’s alleged anti-Semitism. Even Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership – the organization from which this group sprang – immediately jumped into action to condemn Ted for his alleged Jew hatred.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MICHAEL IVES Toting a guitar covered with camouflage pattern and a zebra-striped semi-automatic assault rifle, Ted Nugent is ready for an assault on the outdoors.
PHOTO COURTESY OF MICHAEL IVES Toting a guitar covered with camouflage pattern and a zebra-striped semi-automatic assault rifle, Ted Nugent is ready for an assault on the outdoors.

You know what these reactionary outrageatrons didn’t do? No one in the mainstream media or any major gun rights organizations contacted Ted Nugent for a comment. They didn’t try to find out what was going on. They just assumed that a longtime friend and supporter of our freedoms, who never had an anti-Semitic bone in his body all of a sudden became a Jew hater, and they tripped all over themselves to condemn him.

You know how I know this? Because on behalf of the Zelman Partisans, I spent time on the phone with Ted Nugent – quite a bit of time – discussing this issue, and he told me so. “It’s not like my contact information is hard to find,” he told me. But no one called him to get a statement or to find out what was up.

“I can’t believe that knowing my history, knowing how much I love freedom, and how much I’ve fought to protect it, that no one thought to call me!” he said.

Now, what I’m about to tell you is not an excuse for the use of the graphic in any way. The graphic was originally found in 2013 on an anti-Semitic site called “the Jewish Problem” (and no, I’m not linking to that fascist crap – find it yourselves if you’re curious), according to a TinEye search I did when I first saw the Facebook post. There’s no doubt about what this thing is. Ted used it. There’s no way around it.

Ted is known for some pretty outrageous comments and his blunter than blunt delivery. He’s got energy and fire, and he doesn’t have a whole lot of time for political correctness. But the one thing he has never been is a racist or a bigot, so what happened? Why did a steadfast friend of freedom – regardless of color, race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation – all of a sudden turn into an anti-Semitic jerk?

The answer is: he did NOT.

How do I know? Again, I asked him. Ted and I chatted on the phone first, texted, and then I asked him some questions via email. Apparently, that’s something every reactionary jackass who rushed to condemn him failed to do.

I simply asked, ” What happened? How did you wind up using this thing?”

“Can I say oy vey?” He replied. “I sincerely apologize for my irresponsible re-posting of such a nasty and offensive meme. In my rush between songwriting jams and musical recording frenzy, all I saw was the images of people dedicated to disarm us, I made no connection whatsoever to any religious affiliation. Everyone knows deep down that at 67 years of age I didn’t suddenly become anti-Semitic. That’s patently ridiculous, and those who rushed to such a mistaken condemning judgement should re-examine the system by which such equally irresponsible knee-jerk judgments are made.”

And you know what? Given his decades of commitment to freedom for every single person, regardless of race, color, or anything else, alarm bells should have gone off when Ted posted something so out of character. I was surprised to hear that no one, other than the Zelman Partisans (and one regional writer who put us in touch with Nugent), had made an attempt to contact him about the issue, and I asked him how he felt about supposed Second Amendment allies not bothering to contact him and clear the air.

“In a world of soulless political correctness and the dishonesty and denial that goes with it, I was not at all that surprised,” he told me. “The real tragedy is how many who claim to be on the side of freedom so viciously attacked me with zero effort to communicate with me directly as you so honorably did. For that I thank and salute you.”

I will say that as a former disc jockey for the American Forces Network, I blushed a bit at that. But you know what? That’s just good journalism, and I’m glad we got the chance to clear the air.

Ted Nugent’s real message that got lost in the outrage about the badly thought out use of that graphic? It was about Jewish people needing to defend their rights and freedoms, so that the horror of the Holocaust never happens again.

NEVER AGAIN! Plain and simple, the same powerful uniting message against freedom haters and gun banners that I have dedicated my entire adult life to in 1000s of concerts, numerous books, 1000s of articles, blogs, media interviews and constant speaking presentations. Period.

Oh, and our offer to Ted? He took us up on it. We’re sending him a Zelman Partisans membership packet, plus the yarmulke we promised, and he said he would wear the yarmulke on TV!

nugent membership

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Unintended Consequences

The title has been used, but victim disarming wanna-be tyrants seem deadset on providing an endless stream of appropriate legislation. One of the most recent is this:

The alarming phenomena of homemade firearms and their ease of access without any scrutiny, has led me to introduce two pieces of legislation in the House – the Homemade Firearms Accountability Act and Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act. These two bills would mandate anyone who intends on legally manufacturing their own firearm to obtain a registered serial number to be affixed on the firearm and would block the sale of any form of do-it-yourself firearms parts or kits – especially those currently being sold over the internet. It is my hope to draw attention to the too often overlooked issue of homemade firearms and include these firearms in the national discussion on gun control. For once we may be able to have a proactive approach in protecting the American people from an emerging threat rather than retroactively lashing out after great damage and loss has already been done.
 – Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.)

Starting with HR 376: Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act, the PRK’s ill-informed, ethically-challenged congresscreep wants to ban gun kits for home use. But kit being tough to define when one is that box-of-rocks dumb, he bans basically anything that could possibly be used to contruct a semiautomatic firearm.

Like… steel pipe, sheet metal, blocks of metal, nails, springs, rivets, iron oxide and aluminum,and even plastic bags.

Looks like Home Depot is going out of business. And I guess we will see the return of paper grocery bags. Finally. (Luckily, Honda only obsessed over semiautos, or paper would be gone, too, as I’ve seen single use paper shotguns which were confiscated from prison inmates.)

As an aside, 376 also prohibits marketing or advertising castings and blanks. Gotcha covered, dimwit. (Amazon has pulled that listing, but expect more elsewhere.)

Next up is Honda’s HR 377: Homemade Firearms Accountability Act, stripped to basics, requires all ‘homemade’ firearms be registered and serial numbered. It’s a repeat of ‘Ghost Gun’ Honda’s HR 5606 from the last session.

On the one hand, it assumes that gangbangers and thugs, who have been assembling gadgets like these…

… for pretty much since the dawn of firearms, will suddenly exclaim, “Oh, darn! I need to run down to my local FFL and register my crude zip gun.” C.R.I.M.I.N.A.L.

On the other hand – and here’s where consequences raise their little heads – up to now, a home-built firearm, like an AR built from an 80% lower blank, could not be sold. No record, no serial number, no sale. Under GG’s bill, your handicraft project can be sold down the line, if you need the cash to build a better gun. You can’t go into the manufacturing business, sans FFL, but this moves your little science project into the ‘occasional personal sale from collection category. If anything, this will get more 3D printed and CNC milled goodies out into the wild.

On the amusing side, Honda is mandating the individual FFLs issue their own ‘unique’ serial numbers,without specifying a format that identifies a serial number set by FFL. Assuming this managed to get passed, some 50,000 FFLs could all uniquely (in their shop, anyway) SN 1, SN 2… SN 51998.

You could see a lot of homebrewed ARs with the identical serial number 666.

Perhaps Honda should have thought of opening up the ATF’smanufacturers’ registry to personal builders, so those numbers would be unique.

Not satisfied with banning virtually all metallic and plastic materials in the world, our deeply paranoid compulsive bill sponsor wants to ban body armor. HR 378: Responsible Body Armor Possession Act bans ‘enhanced body armor.’

WTF is ‘enhanced body armor,’ you ask? It is any “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor”. Plain English: anything rated for rifle rounds. Since the vast majority of freelance criminals don’t bother with rifles (less than 2.5% of all firearm deaths, 2013 last year available), who is it that he wants to be sure can kill you?

Consequence of this one? A whole lot more citizen research into homemade ballistic plates. No doubt, the quivering mass of fear will sponsor yet another bill to ban that. (I should send him an email claiming that someone is 3D-printing armor.)

Honda is bound and determined to render you helpless, depriving you of active and passive defense. The real unintended consequence of these bills is that more and more people understand precisely that.

Added: Lest you think that the idea of common items getting caught up by Honda’s vague language, take a look across the pond in the UK.

Breaking: Policing and Crime Bill will criminalise possession of common tools
(a) the person has in his or her possession or under his or her control an article that is capable of being used (whether by itself or with other articles) to convert an imitation firearm into a firearm, and
(b) the person intends to use the article (whether by itself or with other articles) to convert an imitation firearm into a firearm.

Dremel, drill press, file…

Anyone believe the gun grabbers in DC are any smarter?


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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail