Category Archives: gun control

gun control, resistance

Malicious ‘Compliance’

33 Comments

While the Obamas remain on their tax-funded ‘free’ tropical vacation, Internet chatter drones on over what form his reported gun control by imperial diktat will take. Based on unsourced leaks, the most likely initial act will be to redefine those in the business of selling firearms to include darned near everyone. I myself have suggested that ― as the FAA did with toy drones, and the EPA did with CO2 ― he might even redefine some firearms to include them as NFA items. After all, the ATF once did that very thing with a shoelace.

Possibly the best way to deal with such efforts to render more honest people helpless is simple noncompliance: No. Your move.

And there is malicious compliance. These are just some idle thoughts of my own on the best way to ensure you’ve complied with all the possible rules; certainly not official TZP policy (it isn’t as if I’m an officer of the company).

You’re suddenly a ‘dealer’ in the eyes of the law(less)? You’ll need a six month supply of those free 4473s from the ATF. Naturally, all of you anticipate Cabela’s-scale business, right?

You’ll need to phone in your NICS checks, too. 1-877-FBI-NICS (1-877-324-6427) and selecting Menu Option 2, then Option 5, or by fax at (888) 550-6427. Better safe than sorry; you should call it in every time a ‘customer’ wants to handle a gun (you’ll need to know if he’s a felon before he touches it, you know). And call yourself in when he hands it back. And remember, you’re doing Cabela’s-scale business. Constantly. From “8 a.m. and 1 a.m. ET, 7 days a week”. All of you.

If some devices get reclassified as NFA, it might be a good idea for every single gun owner in America (absurdly lowball estimates of 60 million to a hopeful 120 million) to ensure none of their property is affected. Remember that shoestring.

Send letters demanding clarification to the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division 244 Needy Road Martinsburg, Suite 1600 West Virginia 25405 USA, E-mail address: fire_tech@atf.gov, Voice: 304-616-4300, Fax number: 304-616-4301). One item per letter; you’ll want separate files should you be inspected, to match paperwork with item. Probably you should check on each of your individual magazines, too. Airguns, blowpipes, bows, your potato cannon. Junior’s Nerf guns. All of them. It would be a shame if you made typos so that you had to send multiple letters per item; just timestamp them so the FTB boys can sort out the most recent version.

Stick to snailmail to ensure a legal paper trail.  Keep copies.

All 60-120 million of you. As an extra benefit, imagine the coituscluster at the Martinsburg Post Office; you’re providing job security for USPS workers.

Registration is another bugaboo that never quite seems to go away; California, New York, Connecticut… And now we have HR 4269 (the new ‘assault weapon’ ban bill). That one grandfathers some weapons. It isn’t hard to imagine a registration mandate being added by amendment. How else can they be sure that AK-15 you have is one of the legal ones?

Register. Register early. Register often. See typos above, danr my clumys fingesr. Possibly you even own 544,000 of those buggers. With standard capacity magazines in proportion. Don’t forget shoestrings.

GIGO.

Of course, you’ll have to give them your address on all those classification (and maybe registration) letters. If you’re like me, you may get mixed up on your home address. This tool can help you with that.

Heck, while you’re at it, go ahead and register a couple million potentially existent drones with the FAA.

“No. Your move,” is easier, but compliance might be more fun.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

Just follow the money

18 Comments

I wrote recently about Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s unilateral move to ban reciprocity. Virginia, according to Herring’s diktat, will no longer recognize concealed carry permits from 25 other states.

The reaction from pro-rights advocates has been vicious, and in retaliation, the Virginia GOP has moved to defund Terry McAwful’s executive protection unit. Virginia state senator Bill Carrico proposed a budget amendment that could strip the anti-gun McAwful, who apparently has no problem working to disarm the very people who are the source of his power, and who has no problem using those same taxpayers’ money to protect his own worthless hide, of his protective detail. “If he’s so afraid of guns,”Carrico said, “then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”

However, it is instructive to see to whom McAwful and Herring are truly beholden, and John Richardson at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money did just that.

Would it surprise anyone to know that both McAwful and Herring are beholden in no small part to former New York mayor and statist imbecile Michael Bloomberg? I didn’t think so.

Lo and behold the top donor to his campaign for Attorney General was none other than Independence USA PAC. They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations to his campaign. The money went for media production and advertising buys. To put this into perspective, the next two highest donors gave approximately half this amount each. The only candidate to get more money from that PAC was Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA).

Bloomberg-2-777x437And would it surprise anyone to know that Independence USA PAC is Bloomberg’s personal vendetta against our Second Amendment rights, and is dedicated to helping to elect candidates who support stricter gun-control laws? It was founded in October 2012 by Michael Bloomberg, and, so far, has been entirely funded by the former New York City mayor, according to FactCheck.org.

When your politicians are paid for by nosy, authoritarian, meddling nanny statists this is what you can expect. Bloomberg bought himself Virginia’s governor and attorney general. Now all he needs to do is say the word, and they will bend over.

Meanwhile, criminals will continue to carry Glocks in their sagging pants, while law-abiding citizens from out of state will simply switch to open carry, as is legal all over the Commonwealth.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

Well, we could have had Mark Obenshain…

4 Comments

Mark Obenshain ran for Virginia’s Attorney General in 2013 and lost by a tiny, slim margin to a leftist, anti-Second Amendment authoritarian tool named Mark Herring, because apparently Virginia’s voters were somehow scared that their lady parts would be under the control of the EEEEVILLLL Republicans.

I know Obenshain personally, and he’s a solid pro-gun politician and a decent guy. Herring, on the other hand, is a statist nutbag who hasn’t met an anti-gun regulation he didn’t like. It is under his and Terry McAuliffe’s reign (Thanks, Trump, you buffoon, for giving thousands to elect that Clinton crony in my state!) that Virginia will no longer honor concealed carry permits from 25 other states.

Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced Tuesday that Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry handgun permits from 25 states that have reciprocity agreements with the commonwealth.

Under the policy, Virginians with a history of stalking, drug dealing or inpatient mental-health treatment cannot obtain a permit in a state with comparatively lax laws and carry a handgun legally at home.

Herring said severing the out-of-state agreements can prevent people who may be dangerous or irresponsible from carrying a concealed handgun.

Note the severe amount of stupid in that last statement. Herring actually thinks (if it can be called that) criminals who don’t obey laws in other states will miraculously obey Virginia’s.

Thanks a lot, vagina voters! You’ve given us authoritarian swine, for whom this is likely only the beginning! If they have their way, Virginia will soon be getting an “A” from the Brady Center, and you will be defending your giblets from armed thug invasion using only a spork and a cell phone.

I guess out-of-staters will simply open carry, as is legal all over the state.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

Precedent

6 Comments

FAA Finally Admits Names And Home Addresses In Drone Registry Will Be Publicly Available
The FAA finally confirmed this afternoon that model aircraft registrants’ names and home addresses will be public. In an email message, the FAA stated: “Until the drone registry system is modified, the FAA will not release names and address. When the drone registry system is modified to permit public searches of registration numbers, names and addresses will be revealed through those searches.”

“Wait, what’s that got to do with RKBA, or Jews, or whatever?” I pretend to hear you mutter.

Let’s take it a step at a time. The Federal Aviation Administration, in response to a few incidents involving RC drones near aircraft — none of which caused deaths, injuries, nor even an aircraft crash — issued a new, retroactive rule requiring a national registration database of nearly all drone owners. [ding]

Lacking new legislation to authorize this, the FAA simply, and arbitrarily, redefined toys to be aircraft requiring registration. [ding ding]

Despite telling prospectively compliant drone owners that their personal data (name, address) would be kept private, in fact, they plan a publicly searchable database. [ding ding ding]

“So what?” you might wonder. Hopefully not though, since I’d expect regular TZP visitors to be ahead of me here.

President Barrycade has stated his intent to issue executive orders to implement gun control, since he lacks legislation to do so.

Reportedly, one element of this will be to — again, lacking new enabling legislation — simply redefine occasional sellers as “dealers”. Bound books, 4473s, NICS checks, ATF inspections, and all. [ding]

Hey, it worked for the FAA, and they don’t even have an executive order. [ding ding]

The ATF already has their searchable FFL database. [ding ding ding]

Since Obama and other blood-dancers have stated publicly that they wish to crack down on private sales, it seems safe to assume this will be in one EO or another. But what if he emulates the FAA a little more closely?

Imagine “redefining” all firearms as NFA items. Just like toys became airplanes. Or how atmospheric plant food became a pollutant.

Or how a shoe string became an NFA machine gun.

Registration. Permission slips. Inspections. And maybe that database would become publicly searchable, too. Oh, well; for once we might be glad of ATF incompetence.

There is precedent for registering undesirables.

Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to any such moves.

No.

Your move.

Backing up those brave words might be a little harder, but let me leave you with two quotes.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?”
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every government thug out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.
– Carl Bussjaeger

When the law is twisted by arbitrary, unilateral redefinitions, there is no law to break.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, hoplophobia, Politics

Executive Orders, Watchlists, and Rights Violations — Oh My!

8 Comments

So in the wake of the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Obama’s curiously limp Oval Office speech, the latest call — by everyone from (pardon me while I laugh) “conservative” Donald Trump to “progressive” Big O himself — is to deny gun rights to anyone on the no-fly list.

Or is it the terrorist watch list? Even the politicians screeching most stridently in favor of this latest political fad don’t seem to have any idea that the no-fly list and the terrorist watch list are two different things.

Two very similar things, granted. Two lists created arbitrarily out of the fears and fantasies of bureaucrats. Two lists filled with flawed, incomplete, and often irrational data. Two lists that often produce laughably awful injustices.* Two lists it’s nearly impossible to get removed from. Two lists that are maintained in undemocratic secrecy. Two lists that are worlds removed from the due process protections of the Bill of Rights.

But different. Really.

One state governor — unsurprisingly it’s Dannel Malloy of Connecticut — has even vowed to issue an executive order ensuring that none of those pesky terrorists in his state can buy guns. Which list of terrorists he plans to use remains muddled.

Malloy is, of course, not the only one promising to sling orders about. Valerie Jarrett reports that Obama is finalizing his long-awaited executive order on guns. That should be exciting. And ineffective.

Because that’s the thing

All these faddish measures won’t work. You know that. But it’s the ways in which they won’t work that are fascinating.

They won’t work to prevent terrorist attacks of course. (The San Bernardino murderers weren’t on these lists, and the female of the pair had even been vetted and passed by immigration officials despite the fact that she and her future hubby were already merrily chatting away about jihad and mayhem before the fedgov welcomed her to the USA.) But they also won’t work for their real purpose, which is to keep us from buying guns.

AND — most telling of all, I think — they won’t even work for their political/PR purpose, which is to display the peacock feathers or sound the rooster crows of politicians.

Other than a few diehard fanbois and grrls is anybody — anybody? — the least bit impressed with Obama or Malloy? In your wanderings about town (or about the Internet) do you hear anybody saying, “Yeah, boy, they’re really gonna stop those dirty, rotten gun owning terrorists now?” or do you hear gun owners lamenting, “Oh no, this time my guns and I are really done for! I’m so scared!”

Riiiight.

Sure, all this order-slinging is anti-constitutional, dictatorial, and in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Sure, arbitrarily putting people on government lists to be punished is creepy. Sure, using those lists to deny basic rights is everything bad you might ever want to say about it. And potentially dangerous.

If politicians get away with this, it will inspire them to treat us even more ill. Conceivably, there would be very little, at some future moment, to stop an anti-gun politician or bureaucrat from data-dumping the whole U.S. census into some list and declare in the fashion of the Soup Nazi, “No rights for you!”

All true. And effectively already in process.

But they’re only doing it because they’ve already lost. Not only lost the gun-rights battle (because, if nothing else, 3D printers are about to nullify every gun law on the planet). But because they’ve lost us. Our respect. Their credibility. Our belief that governments “represent” us or even can represent us. Their power to control us. This is increasingly true on both right and left. It’s been true in the libertarian center for decades.

We are watching not political peacocks displaying their grand feathers or roosters strutting about the chicken yard. We are watching political fish flopping about on a dock, hooks in their mouths, eyes wide with panic.

—–

* Although it’s sadly not true that 72 employees of the Department of (Achtung!) Homeland Security are on the lists. Because surely thousands of these agents are a greater danger to both our liberty and our security than many of the people who actually are on the lists.

—–

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
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, So Much Stupid!, You can't fix stupid

NYT uses front page to spout inanities

14 Comments

Okay, it’s not exactly news that the New York Times spouts nonsense, especially when it comes to guns and gun rights. But when the senile old hag venerable Gray Lady prints an editorial on its front page for the first time in 95 years — and that editorial (obviously sparked by this week’s jihadi-team murders in California) is 100% dedicated to spewing obvious silliness on guns — it’s worthy of note.

TZPNYTFrontPageEditorial_121415

Here are a few selected gems from the editorial:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

Yes, confusing plain old semi-auto with full-auto again just based on the scary appearance of the rifles shown in media photos.

No mention of the emerging information that the murdering jihadis in San Bernardino may have broken the law both attempting to modify their weapons and, of course, in going out and slaughtering people. As if they’d ever care what “civilians” are legally allowed or not allowed to do.

So what do you want, NYT? Another ugly-gun ban like the one we already had for 10 years, which didn’t accomplish one thing except to create new criminals out of the formerly law abiding?

Well, yes, that appears to be precisely what the NYT wants, because they then go on to say (emphasis mine):

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

“At least those countries are trying.” So let me get this straight. As long as you make a really sincere try at things that deprive people of freedom while doing absolutely zero, nothing, nada, zip, bupkis to protect lives … it’s okeydokey. It’s good.

Take even more freedom. Leave people vulnerable to even more death. It’s all to the good as long as you do something.

The shrieking old bat Gray Lady continues:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

As usual no plan is outlined for drastically reducing numbers and eliminating large categories.

That this is a) impossible and b) would require stormtroopers bearing large numbers of those very categories of scary weapons (even for a vain attempt) is a fact too untidy for the front page of the New York Times. So no, let us delicately sidestep any actual thinking about any actual plan for “reducing” and “eliminating.” We don’t want to consider what would actually end up being reduced and eliminated, now do we?

But not to worry! Because you see, no untidiness would be required:

It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Yes, despite the fact that the censorious, dried-up old biddy Gray Lady opens and closes her editorial by implying that Americans who support gun rights and own ugly guns are “indecent,” we nasty folk would simply turn over our weapons for the good of humanity.

I can envision us now, patiently lined up outside our local police stations or firearm melting centers by the thousands, little American flags waving from the barrels of our Evil Black Rifles, patriotic gleams in our eyes as we wait to surrender these indecent, macho, insurrectionist arms for destruction.

TZP_Poster-The-German-Student-Fights-for-the-Fuhrer-and-the-People

Yes, there we are, converted into Times believers simply by passage of yet another law. Because of course this law, unlike all other laws the world has ever known, has shown us in a “clear and effective” way the evil that we have been harboring in our gun cabinets and in our hearts. So we have repented and with the fervor of new converts are delighting in “giving up” all that the Times dictates we should give.

And a new day dawns in which nobody — nobody! — ever again commits mass violence because the tools to do so have been made clearly and effectively illegal!

Hooray and hallelujah for our glowing future! The sun will shine upon us forever, its pure radiance never again dimmed by the blood of innocents. Our Glorious Leaders will protect us with their Great Wisdom. And we are proud — proud! — to surrender our evil, knowing we will forever be protected and kindly led by those Above Us.

TZP_Stalinist-youth

—–

It must be so, right? Because the NYT thought their words were brilliant enough, original enough, revelatory enough, and necessary enough to write a front-page editorial for the first time since 1920. Surely they wouldn’t have resorted to such drama merely to spout cliched and bloody nonsense.

(H/T Jim Bovard for the inspiration)

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, self defense

Complicity: Accessories before, during, and after the fact

1 Comment

In reaction to known terrorists using illegally obtained automatic weapons, grenades, and improvised explosives, the EU wants to crack down on honest people possessing semiauto firearms. That includes national registries of all firearms and firearms owners (i.e.- the honest folk who obtained their defensive arms lawfully), and collating the national registries into an EU-wide registry. Where have we heard that before?

These ‘leaders’ not only cannot protect their people, they want to ensure their people can’t protect themselves. Call it bureaucratic job security. G-d forbid people should realize they don’t need government ‘protectors’.

In the Paris attacks, the stadium was a gun-free zone which somehow failed to repel explosives. The Bataclan concert hall was a gun-free zone which again failed to repel psychotic goons with guns and explosives. In America, some 92% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, or what the more knowledgeable call ‘target-rich environments’.

Which is more evil? Terrorists who kill innocents, or the politicians and bureaucrats who knowingly and deliberately make it easier and safer for the terrorists to commit atrocities?

In a sane world, any politician who imposed any gun-free zone, claiming it will magically repel bullets with a Star Trekish deflector field, would be tried and convicted of terrorism. He’d spend the rest of his life making restitution to the victims of his policy.

Anyone who would impose a defense-free zone on an entire continent should be executed for war crimes.

This commentary first appeared in the November 23, 2015 TZP Alerts newsletter. Subscribe to the newsletter (see left sidebar, or scroll down if you’re using a smart phone) for more first-look exclusive content, and for news links you don’t see here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

Take them out with what?

4 Comments

During an interview on “60 Minutes” recently, Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said something surprising – at least to those of us who have followed her anti-freedom, gun-grabbery over the years. When asked about what DC citizens should do if an active shooter threatens them during a siege like the one that took place in Paris a couple of weeks ago, Lanier, whom I have previously described as the DC Dominatrix due to her heavy-handed hatred of gun rights and Second Amendment freedoms, replied “If you’re in a position to try to take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there,”

Take them out for what? Coffee? A drink?

Despite being spanked in the courts several times, DC still has some of the nation’s most stringent gun control laws. Fox News reports that of 233 applications sent for review since the Metropolitan Police Department began accepting permits on Oct. 23, 2014, 185 licenses had been denied as of Nov. 14.

GettyImages-474248390-e1434470938562Lanier has the final say about who can have guns in the city, and it looks like there are exactly 48 people in the entire city who have been granted permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Open carry is prohibited, and concealed carry is nearly nonexistent, with only 44 concealed carry applications having been approved since October 23, 2014.  Virginia residents certainly can’t legally carry their tools of self defense in the city, and if they do, they risk arrest and having their lives destroyed by the very same police force whose head is now claiming that citizens need to be the ones who stand up to the horror!

So whom does Lanier expect to take up arms against terrorists until the cops can get there?

She certainly seems to be admitting that armed citizens are the first line of defense against attacks, and yet she refuses to free the residents of the nation’s capital to exercise their rights.

Such shocking cognitive dissonance from someone who is responsible for the safety and security of America’s capital! I wonder if the attacks in Paris were a wake-up call for Lanier, but somehow I doubt it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, hatred of Jews, hoplophobia, Jewish history, mindset, self defense, So Much Stupid!, You can't fix stupid

No sense of history? Or just no sense?

6 Comments

It’s funny. If he lived in the U.S., Rabbi Menachem Margolin would be considered more or less a wimp on gun rights. In Europe, he’s a most radical voice.

Since the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher massacres at least, he’s been calling for Jews to take up arms. That is, to be “allowed” to take up arms. And only “selected” Jews. Jews chosen, trained, and constantly overseen by the state (the very state that’s content to leave the Jews and everyone else disarmed in the face of both terrorism an regular, independent crime).

You see what I mean about wimpy. Still, in disarmed Europe, he’s the loudest voice calling for Jewish self defense.

Margolin is based in Belgium. So naturally, the country’s chief rabbi Abraham Guigui (I didn’t know countries had chief rabbis, but so this article says) and other prominent Jewish leaders simply must denounce him and his mad, wild, crazy, wild-west plan. According to the Jerusalem Post:

Over the weekend, Guigui issued a statement blasting what he called marginal elements and stating that calls for the arming of Jews were “a real danger and unacceptable.”

Calling for Jewish gun ownership would be tantamount to an admission that the Jews are outside of mainstream European society and that their governments are unable to provide for their security, he explained. [Pardon me for interrupting the article, but no sh*t Sherlock, it’s time to admit that “governments are unable to provide for their security.”]

Such a view is considered unacceptable to the vast majority of Belgian Jews, he said, calling on the government to defend every Belgian no matter his religious creed.

“If every one who is in danger requests a gun, today that’s the Jews, tomorrow it’s the imams… it will be a land of anarchy.”

The Coordination Committee of Belgian Jewish Organizations also decried Margolin’s call to arms, issuing a statement calling it ridiculous and asserting that the EJA was “in no way representative of the Belgian Jewish Community.”

“He [Margolin] is not connected at all with the Belgian- Jewish [umbrella] organizations,” said Baron Julien Klener, the president of the Jewish Central Consistory of Belgium, joining his voice to other organizations alarmed at the idea of arming Jews.

Margolin, of course, being a true European, rushed to have an underling explain that he really, really, really didn’t mean what those other guys thought he meant.

All I can say, guys, is it’s your funeral. I hope not literally.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
defense of others, gun control, gun grabbers, guns, hoplophobia, mindset, Political philosophy, Schools and campuses, Sellouts and traitors, So Much Stupid!

I am WOMAN hear me whine?

6 Comments

I saw a column a few days ago about a University of Miami Law Professor who was opposed to a campus carry bill making it’s way through the Florida senate.

MA Franks, another self-defense expert, urged lawmaker to reject the legislation. Franks is a law professor at the University of Miami who specializes in self-defense law and is also an instructor in Krav Maga, a Israeli form of hand-to-hand self-defense.“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.Franks also rebutted the argument that concealed weapons could prevent rape, noting most assault victims know their attackers. “Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Apparently unmoved by the victims of rape that testified in favor of the bill, Franks believes that a woman would be unable to use a gun to defend herself.

WOW. A Professor of law, but, but the degree came from Harvard so that could be part of the problem.

I had a conversation with my Mom this morning, we were just reminiscing about my Dad, and things I had wanted to be “when I grew up”. At one time I considered lawyer, or perhaps open a auto repair shop staffed by women. A place where women could come and not feel intimidated. Dad didn’t like either of those. At the time those conversations took place women weren’t really in either of those fields. Back then there were still some jobs that were considered “men’s work”.

I remember the women’s liberation movement. Fairly well. Women were fighting to be accepted into fields that typically weren’t open. They wanted equal pay for equal work.

The first female police officer (actually functioning as a regular officer) was 1972. The academies didn’t make it easy for them to get through and often their teammates didn’t want them on the team.

The first female fire fighter to work solely as a paid fire fighter was in 1974. There were women who were volunteer fire fighters in the 1800s. There had also been BLM crews made up of solely women, but the first regular fire fighter if you will, was 1974.

The first integrated unit where men and women served together in the military in a war zone was the 1991 Gulf War. Prior to that women had been in the military, but usually as support staff, medical or clerical jobs. Going back to the War for Independence and the un-Civil War women did serve in combat units, but they disguised themselves as men. It was a process not an event. In 1974 the first six women became Air Force pilots, in 1976 the military academies became co-educational.

Women fought hard to have the opportunity to have these non-traditional jobs. If I had a daughter attending an expensive college and had one of her professors telling her that she was incapable of using an effective tool to defend herself I would be appalled and outraged, and she would be out of there and into a good school in a Miami minute. If I were alumni of the school and had a professor telling women such things I would drop support. I realize colleges are a hotbed of liberalism and progress and so to return to such an outdated and false sterotype is despicable.

So who is this ancient crocodile that is so threatened by a woman being able to defend herself against someone or a group bigger and stronger than herself?

Well, this is where it gets really sad. MA Franks, is Mary Ann Franks. A woman. Sadder still? She is a Krav Maga instructor. She recognizes the importance of self-defense but would deny her sisters the use of one of the most, if not the most effective tool to do so.

She is young now, she can do Krav Maga, but is she foolish enough to think that ALL women can? I realize she earns money teaching a way cool martial arts form, and kudos to her for that. But she lives in la-la land (sorry, forgot about the Harvard thing) if she thinks that there are no older students or students with physical disabilities. The most vulnerable do not need an effective form of self-defense? And they are every bit as deserving to live safely as the people that can afford to take her classes or have her physical abilities.

To have someone who has worked to be in a role that at one time would have been dominated by men telling others that women are incapable of using a gun is allowing her liberal ideology to damage lives. Perhaps she needs to get off the campus and into the real world where she could begin to use her mind and begin to think.

What a shame. What a selfish, silly, ungrateful child.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail