Category Archives: gun control

authoritarian swine, defense of others, gun control, gun grabbers, guns, hoplophobia, mindset, Politics, self defense, You can't fix stupid

Dear Aharon

I suppose during this time of year I am more given to introspection. But I’m seeing all these things that just don’t add up and make any sense to me. ֪ Conundrums if you will.

For example, why does it seem like “J Street” doesn’t really like Jews, or at least those Jews in Israel very much?

J Street
J Street

 

Another one, I have been thinking about the column Nicki wrote on Soccer Mom’s and the view I often hear expressed “If it saves just ONE life” in regards to why law abiding gun owners who have done nothing wrong should give up their rights. But then I read a story like the fourteen year old who used his .22 rifle to protect himself and his six year old sibling from home invaders who came in broad daylight.

Then I read this story about children even younger! This time it was an eleven year old who shot and killed at sixteen year old home intruder, the other intruder escaped but was later captured. He was protecting himself and his four year old little sister. I don’t think an eleven year old could have prevailed against two older teenagers without an defensive tool.

There are children alive today because they had access and training to defensive tools to help them. I then compare it to a story out of California several years ago. It’s so sad, it has always stuck with me.

Just a little over fifteen years ago, in Merced California a madman broke into the Carpenter farm house. The father was at work, the mom had taken the car to have the brakes looked at. She left fourteen year old Jessica in charge.

I was babysitting at twelve, I do not find this shocking.

For some reason we will never know a insane man broke into the farm house after cutting the phone lines. When Jessica heard a noise she came out of her room and found a naked man standing in the living room wielding a pitchfork. She fled to her room and tried to do what liberals say, she called the police. With the phone not working (the older version of no signal available) she had no success. So she crawled out the window to go get help.

The madman began stabbing little thirteen year old Anna first. Her younger sister Ashley was apparently born a sheepdog. And as such, she died. She yelled at the man not to hurt her sister. He left off stabbing Anna and killed Ashley aged nine years old.

Jessica had ran next door to neighbor Juan Fuentes and begged him to get a gun and “take care of this guy”. Juan was not inclined to save the children being murdered, though he did graciously allow Jessica to use the phone. She called police.

When they arrived he rushed them with the pitchfork, whereupon they shot him. Since they had guns, they could do that.

Jessica, Vanessa and Anna survived. The valiant little sheepdog Ashley, did not. Nor did her younger brother John who was stabbed in his sleep.

If this was not heinous enough, I will make it more so. It was most likely, preventable. Jessica KNEW how to shoot, she had earned a safety certificate when she was twelve. There WERE guns available, her father had at least a .357 and Jessica not only knew where it was, she knew well how to shoot it. So why didn’t she? Because California has MANDATORY safe storage. The gun was locked up, high on a shelf where Jessica couldn’t reach it. Even if she could, she would have needed to retrieve ammo from another spot and load it. I can only pity the poor Father, who had done everything else right, but was more afraid of the state, than a pitchfork wielding maniac. So doesn’t it seem like the soccer mom crowd and people like that silly Watts woman are partly responsible for their death?

I also do not understand how women that claim to be feminists can say that women shouldn’t have guns because they are “too weak”. After all these years of telling me “I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you’re a man”, you now tell me I’m too weak to handle a tool that could protect me, my family and my animals? Listen broad, what’s mine? I protect. As very best I can. I can get a 1,300 lb animal to go the direction I want him (most of the time) by pointing a finger, I can protect mine with a effective defensive tool. Sorry Aharon, I’ll stuff the cowgirl back down. But doesn’t this seem a bit hypocritical? Especially if it’s a politician that has taxpayer funded security? I can’t afford that!

So, I don’t know. I just don’t understand why some people say that citizens who have done nothing wrong will make us all safer if we give up rights and ability to protect ourselves. And why do the people that say that sometimes have the very tools they want to deny us? Although the NRA says he wasn’t that bad, I’m not sure what to think since they did endorse Harry Reid.

So, I’m just trying to make sense of some of this, and to reflect on my behavior and am I being consistent. Can you help with some advice?

Sincerely,

נצ

Dear נצ

Give it up, you are dealing with a mindset you should hope to NEVER understand. You’ll make yourself crazy with this stuff. Give it up and go have a nice cup of Israeli coffee. You’ll feel better.

Regards,

אַהֲרֹן

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

2 Comments

I initially posted this fisk at the Liberty Zone, but I thought that even though a renewed push for gun control is going on in my own state, it’s actually a nationwide problem, so I decided to post it here as well.

My husband got so angry with our local officials, he took his anger out in writing on the top Virginia political conservative blog. Angry Rob is angry. And he has every right to be. These gun-grabbing embarrassments are doing a blood dance on the corpses of innocent victims of violence!

But on top of all that, which would amount to a disgusting display by itself, they are flat out LYING. No, Del. Hope, buying a gun at a gun show is NOT “as easy as buying a pack of bubble gum at the 7-Eleven.” Purchases at a gun show of firearms happen the same way they do outside of gun shows, and Patrick Hope knows this. Dealers are required to perform background checks, private sellers are not. He also knows that the Smith Mountain Lake murderer, a disgruntled former co-worker of the two victims, passed a background check to purchase the gun he used. The fact that he and his cohorts got 30,000 signatures for their petition doesn’t matter, other than to demonstrate how easy it is to prey upon low-information folks to advance a cause.

Rob and I once had a very respectful, decent conversation with Del. Patrick Hope during Virginia Lobby Day. He spewed anti-Second Amendment platitudes, cited faulty information, and listened respectfully when I called him on it and corrected him. He also seemed genuinely interested in the facts I gave him about gun safety, background checks, etc.

Apparently, that was just lip service…

And his “guns are oh-so easy to get” mantra is being echoed by Shannon Watts wannabes in the Old Dominion. It is one of these ignorami that I fisk below.

 

Why is it that no matter how much you correct, inform, reason, and debate with gun grabbers, they continue to contend long-discredited, disingenuous crap in order to promote their odious agenda? It seems there’s a cabal of soccer mommies out there whose sole mission is to become the next Shannon Watts. Frankly, they’re unoriginal and uninformed, and yet some newspapers pick up their spew and run with it as if they’ve discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such is the case with the latest anti-gun mommy in my own backyard, who recently penned a column for The Roanoke Times entitled, “Why should it be easier to own and operate a gun than a car?”

Let’s put aside the obvious stupid of this question, and do a little fisking.

Melynda Dovel Wilcox lives in Alexandria, VA, and she’s the mommy of two high school students. Alexandria is in my backyard, so I take a keen interest in any kind of disinformation being spread “for the children.” She writes:

In no other country is driving and owning a car as quintessential to the culture and lifestyle as it is in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that, for Virginia teenagers, turning 16-plus-three-months is noteworthy because they can get their driver’s license. With two 17-year-olds in my household, I’m well-versed in the steps required for the commonwealth to grant this privilege. It’s an arduous process — rightly so — and as a citizen I’m grateful to the government for implementing these measures to better protect all drivers and pedestrians.

Here Wilcox makes an interesting statement. Driving on public roads is, in fact, a privilege. Many will confuse the right to travel with the right to drive, and that’s just not right. U.S. jurisprudence confirms this fact in Miller v. Reed. There is no right to drive a vehicle on public roads enumerated in the Constitution, and since driving a motor vehicle on public roads is, in fact, a privilege, the government is well within its right to regulate it.

Wilcox then goes through a litany of allegedly “arduous” steps one must take to become a legal driver in Virginia.

Personally, having had two kids go through the process, I don’t think it’s all that onerous, but then again I’m not a spoiled Alexandria mommy, who thinks attending a 90 minute session with her kid (twice)  to cover parental responsibilities of having a teenage driver in my house, is a terrible imposition.

First, all 10th-graders receive 36 hours of classroom driver education in their required health and physical education classes.

Students can apply for their learner’s permit at age 15 ½ and must produce original documents proving their identification and residency. They must also pass a knowledge exam and a vision screening.

Next, provisional drivers must log 45 hours of driving time with an adult passenger and take a behind-the-wheel course consisting of fourteen 50-minute in-car sessions from a commercial driving school. One program in Northern Virginia, I Drive Smart, costs $499 and is taught by current and retired police officers. During the final session, the instructor administers the driving test and issues a temporary license. Not counting time spent on homework for the classroom portion and studying for the Department of Motor Vehicles exam, that’s more than 82 hours of instruction and training.

It’s amazing how first world problems can impact one’s worldview! Eighty-two hours of instruction is a little more than 10 days. Ten days’ training to operate a complex machine made of steel, glass, and plastic, capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour – a machine that was involved in 32,719 deaths in 2013, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hey, Melynda! Know what it takes to gain the privilege to drive in Germany?

First, you have to pass an onerous theory test, which a full third of test-takers fail. You need a vision and a road test, as well as first aid training. That’s right – first aid – an eight-hour class. An actual license is handed out when the driver turns 18, by the way. None of this 16 and three months garbage. Oh, and by the way – you bitch about a $500 cost to train your precious snowflake to drive? It costs about €1400 in Germany. Still think that’s onerous?  You’ll need a minimum of twelve 90 minute on the road training sessions, four of which have to be on the Autobahn and at speed, and about three of those have to be at night. That’s a minimum By the way, if you take your training in an automatic transmission, you’ll only be licensed to drive that. Driving a manual transmission automobile when you’ve only qualified on an automatic is considered driving without a licence.

These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.

The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.

[…]

The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.

The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.

The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.

The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.

Still want to complain how hard it is, Melynda? Didn’t think so. Moving on.

To own a car in Virginia, you must register the vehicle in both the state and local jurisdictions, and registration must be renewed annually or bi-annually. The owner must carry liability insurance or pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee, and have annual safety inspections performed on the car, and in some areas, periodic emissions inspections.

Wrong. To DRIVE a car in Virginia, you must register it. You don’t need insurance to merely own it, and you don’t need to register it if it’s merely sitting on your property. There’s a difference.

The comparison between car ownership and gun ownership is remarkably apt.

No. It’s not. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the other is a car.

There were about 254 million cars registered in the U.S. in 2012, and varying estimates of 270 million to 310 million guns. In 2012, there were roughly 33,500 traffic fatalities and almost 32,000 people died from gun violence.

How many of these were suicides? Oh, two-thirds? You know what a suicide is? Intentional. Can we say “disingenuous comparison,” boys and girls? I knew you could!

But there are some startling differences: Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have been on a downward trend since 1963 due to safer cars, safer roads and better-trained drivers. In some states there are fewer highway deaths now than there were in the 1940s. By contrast, between 2000 and 2013, the number of mass shootings and resulting casualties rose dramatically, according to an FBI study released last fall. (There have been 135 school shootings since Newtown.)

I knew we would eventually get to the lies, obfuscations, and lies. Oh, did I say “lies” twice? Using Everytown’s misleading statistics doesn’t bolster your credibility, Melynda. Neither does quoting an FBI study which the media clubbed to death like a baby seal without actually understanding the misleading verbiage in the study.

And then there’s the vast difference in requirements to own and operate a gun. No permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia. No registration is required either, except for machine guns.

Guess what, Melynda! No permit is required to purchase a car either. You need a permit and a license to DRIVE a motor vehicle on a public road, but if I want to keep a vehicle in my garage, or drive it on my private property, I can! You obviously don’t know the difference between “drive” and “own.” Perhaps an English lesson is in order?

Gun sales at licensed gun dealers require a criminal background check, but private sales or sales at gun shows by private individuals do not, despite repeated efforts in the state legislature to change that law.

The law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else in Virginia, Melynda. Differentiating private sales at gun shows from anywhere else shows how ineptly you manipulate words.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no information about whether gun owners know how to safely store a gun and ammo, for example, how many guns they own, or whether they have committed a violent misdemeanor or have a history of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no business knowing how many guns one owns – or how many knives – or how many cars, for that matter. As we said previously, no one needs to register a car if they don’t plan to drive it on public roads. The state also doesn’t know how many motor vehicle accidents any given driver has had, UNLESS they were reported to police and the DMV. Care to guess how many Virginians commit hit and runs, or merely settle the cost of repairs among themselves?

One wonders how many mass shootings and other gun deaths could be prevented if prospective gun buyers were required to have just eight hours of training from police officers—one-tenth of that required for drivers;

Police officers such as this?

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Hate to tell you this, Cupcake, but you quite obviously don’t know most gun owners. Most gun owners train much more than just 8 hours with professionals much more skilled than the “professional enough” DEA agent giving a presentation on gun safety in that video. We shoot consistently. We practice, because shooting and handling firearms is a skill – a perishable one. Additionally, if you think a lack of training is responsible for mass shootings, you may want to check your facts.

Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista… you know what they had in common? Mental health issues. If you think registering firearms will somehow prevent violent acts by crazies, I have this bridge…

if they were required to register their guns each year (with a new background check performed each time); and if they were required to carry liability insurance, with insurance proceeds used to compensate victims of gun violence and their families.

You know how many are killed by accidental shootings? About 600 per year, according to the CDC. That’s what liability insurance covers. Since about 21,000 of the firearm fatalities are suicides, I doubt most insurance companies will cover that.

None of this would pose a significant burden on hunters or other recreational gun owners.

No? An average pistol costs several hundred dollars. Add to it registration fees, training fees, and insurance premiums, and you’ve just made a tool of self defense cost prohibitive for the people who need it most. People in not so nice neighborhoods that you and your shielded cohorts in Alexandria only tremble at the thought of entering. Those poor people, who want to protect their families, may not be able to afford to do so, because Melynda thinks that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to hunters and recreational shooters.

As much as the DMV is loathed and derided, certainly almost no one decides against buying a car because the registration process is too onerous. It’s likewise absurd to allow people to own and operate a gun without any safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens and innocent children.

You don’t allow me to exercise my rights, you pernicious, misinformed fascist! I protect my innocent children with that tool of self defense you think you and your petty tyrannical pals think you have the authority to allow me to keep.

Every year, legions of teenagers happily give up 82 hours of free time in exchange for the privilege of driving. It’s the price that our society has deemed appropriate and acceptable to advance the common good. Isn’t it time that we make the same trade-offs for guns as we do for cars?

I’ll make you a deal, Melinda. Let’s regulate cars the way we regulate guns, OK?

Your precious teenagers won’t be able to purchase a car until they are 18. Sorry, Punkins! You’ll have to wait. They will have to pass a criminal background check, and if they committed a crime, got caught with some dope, or aren’t able to prove their residency, they will not be able to make said purchase. They want to buy an extra fast sports car? They don’t need that, but they will have to get a special license to own one, and they will have to be 21 years of age to purchase one. Every time they purchase a vehicle, they will have to undergo a background check, fingerprints in some states, and fill out a form that will be kept on file with the auto dealership for the duration of that business’ existence. And if the State Police come back with an inconclusive check, or they have a record, or mental health issues, no-go on that car boys and girls! Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you’ll have to wait three days before purchasing said car.

Subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Are you 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Were you adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.) Sorry, you can’t buy that car.

Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received? Sorry, can’t buy that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner? Sorry, you aren’t purchasing that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member? No car for you!

So will you call for closing that car loophole that permits private individuals to sell motor vehicles to others without a background check?

I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, guns

“Shocking” Study: Criminals Don’t Buy Guns Legally

3 Comments

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

I know you’ll be shocked to know this, but apparently criminals don’t undergo background checks at shops or gun shows in order to purchase guns they use in crimes. I don’t know how this happened, but I, for one, am surprised beyond all belief! After all, don’t criminals get guns from evil gun dealers/gun shows/pawn shops/flea markets?

Apparently not. Believe me, I was just as shocked as you were to find out that criminals get guns from… well… mostly other criminals!

I don’t know about you all, but my worldview has now been shattered.

And if you think all that was easy to write with a straight face, trust me, it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, I kind of look like this now.

stressed

In all seriousness, researchers Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Parker found some interesting results about where criminals get guns – results gun rights advocates knew about: Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or theft.

[S]urvey evidence provides strong evidence that the gun market is sharply differentiated by the characteristics of the individual who is seeking a gun. Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms.

Translation: law-abiding citizens purchase guns legally. Criminals purchase their guns through illicit sources or personal connections.

The study discusses a social network – personal connections that allow criminals who would otherwise be ineligible to purchase guns to easily get them. Whether it’s addicts who get their hands on firearms and sell them to get a profit to buy drugs or someone in the “hood” that hasn’t been nabbed for a major crime, has a FOID card, and can legally purchase firearms and resell them to others in the hood who cannot, obtaining firearms illegally despite stringent laws doesn’t appear to be all that difficult based on this study.

Oh, and then I find this little tidbit interesting. The same gun grabbers who whine that only police and military should have access to firearms will find the following finding disturbing: two respondents in the survey mentioned that guns come from corrupt police.

Guns are from the “government” or corrupt police. R52. “Police take guns and put them back on the street.” R69: “Crooked officers put guns back on the streets.” 

A few things I get from this study:

  • Enhanced background checks will do nothing to stop criminals from using their social networks from procuring guns.
  • Government is part of the problem.
  • All it takes is one person who is not prohibited from owning guns to start distributing them to his buddies who are.

So what can be done?

Certainly more laws called for by feckless politicians won’t remedy the issue. Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they’re criminals. I was struck by the fact that many of these criminals were apparently purchasing firearms primarily for self defense. “Many gave some version of the phrase ‘I’d rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six.’ ” Pollack said.

These people live in rough neighborhoods. They don’t exactly have access to gated communities and armed guards. They are the ones who are more likely than not to need armed protection. Now, by saying this, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THIS IS A MITIGATING FACTOR. I’m certainly not an apologist. That said, I can also understand why the people in “the hood” would feel the need for armed protection more than your suburban soccer mom screeching for more gun control because of something she saw on the news. (Yes, I’m talking to you Shannon Watts!)

Given the fact that most of these criminals obtained guns from their connections in the hood, will any politician call for denials of gun purchases merely based on where the buyer lives? Cue screeches of RAAAACCCCCIIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMM!

Given that these connections are social in nature, will politicians call for limiting cell phone usage of people in “the hood”? Maybe preventing them from associating with one another? Or maybe deny certain individuals who legally are eligible to purchase a firearm the right to do so based on who their friends are? Yeah, can’t wait to see how that works out!

But in their zeal to appear as if they’re “doing something” some families of the victims demand,  they forget that doing something that would prove to be ineffective is akin to doing nothing at all. Well, nothing other than interfering with the rights of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

I suspect politicians know this, but the urge to get re-elected is much like the urge to mate during Pon Farr. Common sense pretty much flies out the window, and what’s left is this primal urge to remain in power. My own State Delegate Patrick Hope confirms this phenomenon. “People are angry,” Hope said. “People are angry by the inaction.”

So strong is the urge to remain in office, that politicians are even willing to lie. Yeah… I know you’re shocked by this phenomenon.

Currently, there is a loophole in Virginia that doesn’t require background checks for sales at gun shows. Hope said he went to a gun show and asked if he could get a gun without a background check. Instead of raising red flags, the vendors were more than happy to help him.

A) The majority of vendors at gun shows who sell guns are FFLs, which means they are required by law to run a background check! And they are meticulous. Know why? Because any discrepancy in records, any anomaly means they could lose their license and their livelihoods!

2) What Hope and other gun grabbers want isn’t background checks at gun shows, where the “loophole” is nonexistent. What they want is to stamp out private sales – to prevent people from legally selling their own property to others – an inexcusable infringement on property rights.

And here’s the thing. Nothing in these proposals would have stopped the shooting of two television station employees in Roanoke. The shooter had no criminal record, no mental health disqualification, nothing that should have prevented him from making that purchase.  The illegal alien who shot Kate Steinle got the gun from a careless law enforcement officer, who left his firearm in the car. The Islamic fundamentalist loon who shot up recruiting stations in Tennessee was also able to pass a background check. Would politicians now calling for more gun control advocate a denial of Second Amendment rights if one is a Muslim? I’d love to see the screeching from CAIR if that ever became a proposal!

Bottom line is this: the study above shows without a doubt that law abiding citizens are not the problem, and more laws are not the solution. As a sheriff I know once told me, laws are for the law-abiding.

Maybe politicians should focus on root causes of violence, rather than blaming the tool.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, guns, hatred of Jews, Jewish history

Never Forget

I don’t normally blog on Jewish history. I leave it to others, who are much better versed than I. However, when a friend posted this on Facebook, I simply couldn’t resist sharing.

jews

It’s a reminder. Never forget that once you cede that your rights are merely privileges granted at the whim of a government, they can be taken away at that same whim.

Carry on.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, guns, shooting

A Shooting in Virginia (UPDATED)

5 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what would Fast Terry suggest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
defense of others, genocide, gun control, mindset, self defense

A Traditional Young Man

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

Perfecting the world.

One corpse at a time.

Shahadah

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Elsewhere, gun control, gun grabbers

The Victims’ Mothers

3 Comments

Carolyn Loughton with a photograph of her daughter, Sarah Loughton

 

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

Citizen, remember!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Elsewhere, gun control, gun grabbers, self defense

What the Right to Bear Arms is All About

12 Comments

decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Media

There they go again

7 Comments

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

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

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

To wit:

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

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

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

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

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

TZP_MollieIvans_EnemiesQuote

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

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

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

—–

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Elsewhere, genocide, gun control, hatred of Jews, Jewish history, Political philosophy, Sellouts and traitors, spirit of rebellion

And Then…

I recently attended a lecture on the fate of the Sephardic Jews during WWII. Most people are familiar with what happened with the Ashkenazi Jews, as it was mainly the European Jews caught up in the brunt of hitler’s maniacal extermination plan. But the Sephardic Jews certainly shared their fate, but their stories are less well known.

Much of this came to light when US military forces invaded Iraq. On 6th May 2003 when US forces entered the military intelligence HQ of Saddam Hussein (as opposed to barak hussein). They found papers, prayer books, documents, office correspondence, and Hebrew calendars in about 4 feet of water. Astonishing! For more than one reason. It survived and is being preserved and restored and two, it shows the presence of a thriving Jewish community that existed in Iraq. Apparently the late Hussein, well, and the still living barak hussein wished to destroy any evidence of Jewish existence. I know, big yawn, what’s new. But some of the info the lecturer covered was very interesting. So, I’ll just give you a short report.

I suppose you could call the holocaust hitler’s muslim outreach pogrom, er, program. The Mufti of Jerusalem and hitler were buddies and allies in their desire to exterminate all Jewish life from planet earth. In 1941 Iraq had their pogrom. And while Achmadinajakerchooo denies the holocaust, he apparently doesn’t know his countries history. No, I mean he doesn’t know Iranian history. During the holocaust he denies, Iran was a safe way station for Jews going to the future Israel. He doesn’t know of the decency of “The Children of Tehran”. Apparently while Achmadinajakerchoo is brainless enough denying the holocaust, he is equally adept at exposing his ignorance of his own country. He thinks it has 57 stat…oops sorry, wrong dude.

The Island of Corfu. There Jews were craftsman and there was a small Jewish community. The mayor was a vicious anti-Semite and all but about 200 of the Jews were rounded up and shipped to Auschwitz. To get there, they had to go through 9 different countries, with 9 different currencies, and yet they were shipped. The 200 that did escape were sheltered by the local population of Corfu. The Greek Jews did not fare well at all in the concentration camps. They didn’t speak Yiddish, or German, Polish or any other language except Ladino. Therefore, where the other Jews in the camp could pass on life saving tips and tricks the Greek Jews were unable to understand the others, or to communicate with them.

In Salonika (Thessaloniki) the Jews were rounded up to be sent to Auschwitz. The community paid 2 billion drachmas for their freedom. And yet 50,000 were sent to Auschwitz, their Synagogues destroyed and cemeteries desecrated. Only 1,950 of them survived. Many of the Jews from Salonika were forced into being Sonderkommandos. I didn’t learn this in the lecture, but found it interesting. On 7 October 1944, the Sonderkommandos from Salonika joined with other Greek Jews in an uprising. They stormed the crematoria, killed 20 guards, fire-bombed the building and destroyed it before they were massacred by the Germans. Before they met their end they sang a song of the Greek Partisans and the Greek National anthem.

The Greek Jews that could escape being rounded up often joined up with the Greek Resistance and fought back.

I didn’t learn this in the lecture either, but I like it. When Mayor Carrer of Zakynthos was told by the Germans to give over the names of the 275 Jewish inhabitants of Zakynthos, the Metropolitan Bishop of Zakynthos turned over to the Germans a list of names. Two names. His and the Mayors. The island of Zakynthos then hid every single member of the Island’s Jewish population.

It was in Yugoslavia that the Germans developed their mobile execution chambers. They used moving trucks into which special flooring was put in. They then had the exhaust hoses fed to the inside of the truck. The special flooring was to deal with the body’s actions at time of death. It made it easier for the nazis to hose the trucks out.

Bulgaria. Bulgaria is interesting. Now while old Abe Foxman of the ADL is happy to laud Bulgaria for their courageous saving of the Bulgarian Jews, this article goes into even more detail than our lecture did about what a truly mixed bag the “saving” was. No, Bulgaria didn’t want to deport their Jews. Yes, there was a massive eruption from the writers, lawyers and other professionals when the nazis wanted to begin deportation of Bulgaria’s Jews. But this was after they had plenty of blood on their hands. They were fine with containing them in ghettos and seizing their property, making them wear a star and mark their homes with a star making them easy targets for thugs. In addition to which 20,000 were deported. Not to a concentration camp of course, you understand and all. They were transported to about 3 different cities, for 3 weeks. THEN they were deported to Treblinka. In the end, Archbishop Roncalli wrote to King Boris and told him if he did this his place in heaven would be denied. He wasn’t going, no way, no how. That apparently did it. Afterwards Archbishop Roncalli wrote King Boris III and told him his place in heaven was assured.

North Africa, the King of Monaco flat refused to deport the Jews of Monaco. In fact the Jews were better off living in Monaco than they were Vichy France. In case you don’t know how “helpful” Vichy France was to the Jews.

Tunisia had local concentration camps, but they were not death camps.

In Algeria the Jews led a unsuccessful resistance to the Germans, but luckily, the Americans were in the neighborhood for Operation Torch.

The Italians were fine with persecuting the Jews, but in GENERAL, it didn’t want to kill them.

In certain countries, the price paid was the entire country, the impact of WWII on Sephardic culture was severe.

These were people that were just going along, having a nice life. Living with their families, loving, raising children, going to Synagogues, doing their jobs, practicing their professions. Their communities had been there often for hundreds of years living with their neighbors. And everything was fine.

Everything was fine, until one day. And then it wasn’t.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail