Category Archives: gun grabbers

Maryland’s Scary Black Gun Law: Back to the Drawing Board

scary black gunsRemember when former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who during a Democratic debate (his pathetic campaign has thankfully and quietly faded into the annals of historical obscurity) got into a screeching argument with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton about who among them is the biggest enemy of American gun owners?

Remember how O’Malley and his gun-grabbing monkeys in the Maryland legislature rammed though the “Firearms Safety Act” assault weapons ban, which had nothing to do with actual safety?

That’s the one upheld by an activist judge last year, because she soiled her frilly, pink panties at the thought of scary, black guns being legal in the state, even though they were almost never used to commit crimes.

That judge has been issued a slap on the judicial nuggets by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Maryland’s assault weapons ban implicates its citizens’ core Second Amendment rights and must be reviewed under a more rigorous judicial standard than the one used by a judge who upheld the law’s constitutionality, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

[…]

The appeals court said Maryland’s law affects the constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and home protection by banning virtually an entire class of weapons commonly owned by law-abiding citizens. In 2012, the number of semi-automatic rifles manufactured and imported into the United States – and banned by the Maryland law – was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the appeals court said.

I want to stress that the court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of said law, but did say that the judge who issued the ruling on the Scary Black Guns ban issued a ruling that “conflicts sharply with rulings of other federal appellate courts.”

What? You mean to tell me that standards pulled randomly out of a petty statist Clinton appointee judge’s fourth point of contact, influenced by her own  prejudices without any knowledge about these guns, and armed with nothing but an uninformed opinion, don’t represent sufficient reason to deprive Americans of their rights?

You mean “Well, I think these guns are scary, so I’m upholding their ban” is not sufficient legal standing to shred the Constitution?

Look at my shocked face!

Of course the gun-grabbing authoritarians in Maryland aren’t done yet. There’s a chance they will appeal this case to the Supreme Court. There’s no length to which they will not go to infringe on the People’s right to keep and bear arms!

But for now, at the very least, we have a ruling that recognizes that bigotry and ignorance are not standards by which the constitutionality of a law should be judged.

The entire decision is here (h/t This Ain’t Hell) if you want to read it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Never Again? Well, That Didn’t Take Long.

Holocaust Remembrance Day is observed on January 27th, according to the U(seless)N, Germany and many parts of the world. It’s observed on 27th of Nisan which is usually in April or May in Israel. I went to a Holocaust Remembrance service at Ben Gurion University a couple years ago. Phrases you hear often are “Never Again”. The date was chosen because it was the day that the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau occurred. January 27, 1945.

For Germany, “Never Again” didn’t take long. The Munich massacre was September 1972. I can still remember waking up that morning and hearing the news on the radio. I didn’t understand why someone didn’t shoot the terrorists. Young and naive wasn’t I? It just made no sense! The Israelis had a shooting team and a coach. So it was a span of about 27 years before Jews were bound and herded helplessly into the cattle cars of the helicopters.

There are many kinds of hot mess around this additional shameful saga of Germany’s history. Israeli delegation head Shmuel Lalkin had warning bells going off like crazy when he saw the accommodations for the Israeli athletes. Ground floor, no armed guards, anyone could access the hallway, it led to a garage. He howled to the West Germans and the Israelis about it. He begged to be allowed to carry his sidearm, he was recently out of the IDF as a Major. Denied. The West Germans didn’t have any armed guards anywhere in the olympic village. It might make people “feel bad”. They wanted everything to “feel friendly”. So, no armed guards, no moving the Israelis to a higher floor. Nothing that he wanted that would have been sensible preventative safety precautions was done. It might “look bad”. In addition to all this, Der Speigel ran a article in 2012 that said the German authorities had been tipped off something was going to happen.

After the Israelis were taken hostage the “negotiations” such as they were, began to take place. Finally the Germans assembled their crack hostage rescue team. They didn’t have one actually, so candidates were selected by asking them “have you ever fired a gun before?” Not have you ever fired THIS type of gun before, but just sort of asked the willing police officers, “have you ever fired a gun before”. This was after they turned down Golda Meir’s request/beg to be allowed to send an actual Israeli hostage rescue team that did know very well what the heck they were about and what to do. So these Germans are crawling around on the top of the building trying to figure out how to break in and listening for the code word which never came. Probably a good thing. The terrorists peaceful Palestinians who just wanted to liberate their friends and relatives unfairly imprisoned for killing people and blowing up things watched the whole thing on TV, live. TV cameras were set up across from the building and broadcast everything.

Eventually the hostages were bound, herded onto a bus and taken to Fürstenfeldbruck air force base. Where the German rescue attempt continued to exhibit the same finely tuned precision as at the Olympic Village. The police had miscounted the terrorists, they had no night vision equipment, or training and had never worked together before. One terrorist mowed the hostages in his helicopter down with his gun as they sat helpless tied together. The other terrorist threw a grenade into his.

The German government then proceeded to lie and cover up information for many many years. The only reason much of it came to light was Ankie Spitzer who had been married to Israeli fencing coach Andre about a year and a half is a bulldog. The woman never stopped. She kept pressing and going at them and finally an anonymous source called her lawyer and the delivery of information began to flow in. Ankie is amazing. Andre married well.

In the documentary One Day In September, Jamal Al-Jishey, the only surviving terrorist of the attack gave an interview. He was proud of the work he did, the peaceful palestinians did a great thing.

Now we have the shocking news coming from Angela Merkel’s government that Antisemitism is on the rise.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday admitted that anti-Semitism is “more widespread” in Germany than some believe.Speaking in her weekly podcast and quoted by Haaretz, Merkel called for action to “deal with [anti-Semitism] – especially among young people… from countries where hatred of Israel and the hatred of Jews is widespread.”Anti-Semitism, she stressed, is more “widespread than we imagine, and that’s why we have to make intensive efforts against it.” The Chancellor noted the negative effects of anti-Semitic propaganda online and attempts to combat it.

Shocker that. Who could have possibly foreseen that bringing in millions upon millions of people that hate Jews would result in a rise in Antisemitism in a country that has a long proud history of it’s tolerance towards Jews. So ALL possible efforts to combat Antisemitism will be used. Well, except of course re-examining that open door “refugee” policy thingy.

In Israel the stabbing attacks are indiscriminate. Against men women and children. Out in public and in front of their homes, where they die fighting like a tigress to stop the terrorist from going after her children. If you don’t know the name Dafna Meir H”YD, she deserves 2 minutes of your time. Amazing woman.

This has nothing to do with frustration, repression or any other garbage. This is how the peaceful palestinians are brought up. The father of the murderer of Dafna said he is proud of his 15 year old son who stabbed the mother of 6 to death.

Jews in France aren’t especially safe, or Sweden (or Swedish women either for that matter) but at least in America it’s different.  Abe Foxman of the ADL will be quick enough to tear you a new one for something said, but be prepared to defend yourself or family against a life threatening attack? With a GUN??? Perish the thought! Same for the congressional professional victim creation class.

Still, it’s different in America.

Well, except in Michigan. Where former state department employee Lina Allan defended the stabbing of Jews as killing animals and was miffed at muslim who aren’t doing so. She’s talking about killing Jews, Israel didn’t really come into it.

According to MEMRI, Allan claims to have represented the State Department’s U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in the Jameed Festival in Jordan. 

Considering Abu Mazen head of the Palestinian Authority financed a chunk of the Munich Massacre, you would think we would examine links a bit more closely, but apparently, no.

At least in America our own government will never attack unarmed defenseless citizens. Countries that have embarrassing records when it comes to protecting a certain ethnic group charged with spreading Torah will certainly learn from their mistakes and correct lapses in the future exercising all vigilance.

And now I’m going to go pet my unicorn and go to sleep!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Cause or Effect

“Shoulder thing that goes up.”

“Bullet-piercing bullets.”

“TEC-9 rifle.”

“Heat-seeking .50 caliber bullets.”

Semi-automatic assault rifles, high-power .223 Remington, .9 mm and 40 caliber bullets, flash hiders that make guns invisible to the target… And I’m sure you can add plenty more stupidities to the list of things victim disarmers say. It’s hard to find a news report on an anti-RKBA proposal that isn’t stuffed full of such absurdities, and harder to find a reporter who’ll call out the speaker on it. I used to make a hobby of contacting reporters to explain why that “submachinegun” wasn’t a submachinegun. I gave it up because I couldn’t keep up, and because never even once would the media whore make the correction.

I recently challenged a NYC congresscritter to identify a national army — anywhere in the world — that issues semi-auto AK or AR variants instead of the auto-capable assault rifles. Rather than correct his mistake, he settled for silence.

Moms Demand Action, as one of their early Facebook entries, posted a chart supporting the Kellerman “43 times more likely” claim. I commented, noting that that particular study had been thoroughly debunked (even by pro-gun control types). Shannon Watts (or more likely some intern) replied that they weren’t referencing the Kellerman paper, that it came from a different study, to which I pointed to their chart and noted that it was labeled with the Kellerman paper reference.

I became one of the first people banned by MDA, and my comments disappeared. The chart stayed. Since Watts has a habit of shoving both feet into her mouth clear up to the knees, you probably can think of similar examples.

Does stupidity cause gun control, or does gun control cause stupidity?

In all honesty, the most vocal gun grabbers cannot seem to get the most basic facts right. Sometimes it’s intentional, as in Sugarman’s desire to equate cosmetic “assault weapons” with select-fire assault rifles in people’s minds. Sometimes it’s sheer stupidity (-cough- McCarthy).

And it hurts their cause. On more than one occasion, I’ve been able to explain some actual facts to a victim disarmament supporter, and seen that person become outraged at having been lied to. One took up shooting herself. Another simply refused to take the Bradys seriously again, and called me to confirm or deny stuff she saw in the news after that.

So why do the disarmers do it? Are they stupid? Is that why they promote mass violation of human and civil rights, and create safe work places for violent criminals?

Or do they deliberately create outrageous, clearly false statements as a sort of social engineering filter? Like “Nigerian scammers:”

“Finally, this approach suggests an answer to the question in the title. Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor.”

If Nigerian bankers can filter to ensure they’re dealing with the most gullible, why not anti-gun pollsters? That would account for the “90% of Americans want universal background checks” results. That would be 90% of everyone who didn’t say, “Are you [********] me? Take me off your call list,” and hang up.

“Shoulder Thing” McCarthy is clearly stupid, but Schumer is pretty darned smart; evil, but smart. When he calls a pistol a rifle, he knows the difference; he is sifting for gullible folks he can manipulate.

So, despite their words and actions, the victim disarmament leadership are not stupid. Nor do they truly hate firearms (else Schumer and Watts wouldn’t surround themselves with armed guards). They do have an over-arching agenda that causes them to fear guns out of their control.

The gun control foot soldiers — MMM attendees, writers of letters to the editor, silly petition signers — often are stupid, or at least gullible. Others are not really either, but haven’t looked into issues closely, for assorted reasons. They aren’t really gullible, but may not realize how blatantly the Schumers, Watts, and Bloombergs of the world are willingly to lie to them. The Große Lüge has a long history of effectiveness.

Aaron Zelman understood this. And he understood that propaganda of this sort is best countered with education. Thus, his informative Grandpa Jack comic series that explained issues in a down-to-earth simplified style, and documentaries on the true origins of gun control. If No Guns for Negroes could run just once on a major mainstream media channel, race-baiting gun banners would lose their poor, urban constituency over night.

Education comes in many forms, and is best tailored to the specific demographic.

Bloombergian Plotters: They aren’t stupid. They don’t expect gun control to solve problems of violence. For them, it is merely a tool of manipulation. They are best countered with ridicule. Every time one appears in public with an armed guard, photographs should suck up Internet bandwidth. Point out their hypocrisy and falsehoods. Laugh at them. Their lesson is that we are onto them, watching.

The Ignorant: These are the ones who bought the Big Lie. They need the Big Truth. If I had the funds, I would buy ad space in major outlets; whole page ads showing the functionally identical, but cosmetically differing, AR-15 and Aries SCR,noting that no national military has ever replaced their assault rifles with either. Below that would be the actual M-16A2 assault rifle. The text for that one would be: “Confused? That’s exactly what [insert name of local/national gun grabber] wanted. Learn more at www.zelmanpartisans.com.” Comparison charts of firearms deaths by country would be good, too. Chart 1: the usual showing the US at the top. Chart 2: the real raw numbers that show the middle ranking. Caption: “What else did they lie about? Learn more at…”

The Gullible: To some extent, the Big Truth will work with this group. But… they will often have a vested emotional interest in not admitting that they were used so cynically, that they were wrong. Like a puppy who won’t admit his mess, we have to rub their noses in it. Most often, I have found that works best one on one.

For instance, victim disarmers are real proud of that “if it saves just one life” meme. Recently, someone threw that at me during a discussion of prohibited persons. I responded with this:

“And how about if but one person is _killed_ by baseless restrictions? My brother died because immoral idiots prevented him having a defensive tool when he needed it, based on _one_ incident, not involving weapons, thirty years before.”

Presented with a hypothetical life, I countered with a real, personal to me, death directly blamed on the Lautenberg Amendment. Suddenly the troll shut up.

“No good guy with a gun…” My counter there is three personal incidents in which I did just that against multiple assailants.

“A woman is safer without weapons…” I tell them about my friend who was attacked on a gun-free campus. She stopped the sexual predator in his tracks with the pepper spray we gave her (and trained her on).

The gullible, with guilty consciences, won’t respond well to simple impersonal numbers, or news reports that run counter to their belief. Hit them with personal anecdotes and facts.

Nose, meet mess. Now clean it up.

None of this will be easy. To personally address every gullible fool requires every honest gun owner to step up and talk to them. Paying your annual TZP or GOA membership dues can help with media ads, but you still need to act personally.

Ad placement will be difficult, as the well-financed NRA has learned, with Comcast refusing to run ads that show firearms or a gun show vendor area even in the background. To start, I would probably try local print papers that cannot afford to turn down revenue. And niche magazines (truckers, cars, gardening and such, as opposed to big circulation general interest magazines like Time, People, or Cosmo).

If you have more cash on hand, try short local spots. Some might even run them at low/no cost to meet their public service requirements.

If inherent stupidity causes gun control, there is only so much we can do. But where gun controllers are trying to inflict stupidity, we can fight back.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Second Amendment Dreams

I see so many stories coming out now about the ever increasing federal leviathans hopes of eliminating the Second Amendment. Crazy old Joe Biden even thinks the Second Amendment is about who can be prohibited from owning guns. And while Dimocrats and liberals say they don’t want to eliminate the Second Amendment, they just want to add background checks, and a few “common sense” restrictions, etc. etc., they are, well, lying.

Some do want to eliminate the Second Amendment, and I usually wonder “what it is that a Politician wants to do to me and my family that they can not do, unless we are disarmed and defenseless?” Of course many of those self same politicians will have armed body guards paid for out of our ever shrinking salary. Some will be do gooders, and really really really do believe in their hearts of hearts that if we just outlaw _____________________ A) scary black guns B) 30 round magazines C) rifles with pistol grips D) Guns with the shoulder thingy that goes up E) Fill in with whatever else they can come up with, that gun crime will cease and the world will now be a safe place, unicorns will roam freely and rainbow stew will be served fresh everyday with lightly buttered no calorie croissants. They also voted for obama because he was the best man for the job and believed him when he told them their health insurance would go down by $2,500 a year and they could keep their doctor and their insurance, but that’s another story.

You can see the legislative footprint if you will, of these types in things like the soviet style legislation like the turn in your family and neighbors you don’t like in California. Of course, California has a interesting history of showing up and confiscating guns (from safe people anyway, thugs not so much) already.

I, like they, have my idea of legislation that will keep us all safer too. Granted the direction of my legislative dreams is a bit different than their legislative dreams.

In my legislative dreams for some time, dwelt something called The Firearms Freedom Act. The first one was passed by Montana in 2009. It stated basically, that guns made in Montana, stamped on a large part of the central part of the gun “Made in Montana” would not be entered into the federal system of gun control. But, the gun could not leave the state. It couldn’t be sold over the internet or to someone out of the state. Therefore, they would not be interstate commerce. Wyoming came out with an even yummier version of this in 2010. Wyoming’s version had some pretty good sized teeth for federal agents that attempted to attack Wyoming citizens. Several states passed Firearms Freedom Acts, and several more tried to. This site hasn’t been updated since 2010, but you can see how many states were working on this. You can also see which ones weren’t, mostly the high crimes states.

I’m sure no one was shocked to know that a federal court ruled that the Firearms Freedom Acts didn’t matter.

“the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally.”~~Wikipedia

I know, I know, I just said the firearms couldn’t leave Montana, that was part of the law. But it is the NINETH circuit court, and I always kind of wonder what they’ve been smoking. The guns weren’t going to cross state lines, but like the ATF, laws are what the courts make them to be, eh?

But it’s the toothy part that I’m heading for. The court says Firearms Freedom Acts aren’t legal? What to do as the government grows ever larger like the plant in Little Shop of Horrors, what to do?

Several states have responded by trying to pass a Second Amendment preservation act. In the last few days Arizona, Indiana and South Carolina have introduced bills in their state legislature. Missouri tried to pass one a couple years ago. The NRA helped squash that one, and gave Florida trouble trying to get theirs through as well. The Second Amendment preservation acts are really sort of anti-cooperation, anti-commandeering measure. For gun control to really succeed to it’s evil goal is going to require the use of each state’s law enforcement agencies. I still recall the ATF harassing the people at a Henrico Co. gunshow in 2006. It couldn’t have been done without the help of local law enforcement. Part of the BATFE’s “War on Women”, no doubt. And shoestrings.

Bob at Bearing Arms had some helpful suggestions along the lines of Firearms Freedoms Act type things that could be done to help the ATF as well. It involves removing some things from their jurisdiction so that perhaps with a narrower focus they won’t need to suffer the embarrassment of having their own weapons show up in Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s stash, cause I’m sure that’s just embarrassing. No word yet, from Erik Holder, El Chapo’s gun dealer.

This type of legislation says that the law enforcement agencies in that state will not co-operate with federal agencies. It dramatically weakens the bully power. Since I’ve seen quite a few stories lately where police chiefs and sheriffs are urging their citizens to obtain arms and concealed carry I suspect the law enforcement agencies in many states would be happy to see this pass.

For those that say Federal law trumps State law I found this great little Tom, Dick and Harry story. IF you are old enough to remember Tom, Dick and Harry, better yet, they’re grown up too.

So, while I may never get a firearm stamped with “Made in fill in your state name”,I continue to dream of Second Amendment protection acts being passed all across these United States. Because the soft fight is so much better than the hard fight. And despite what crazy old Joe Biden says, sometimes a girl just might NEED a tank, though this isn’t the model I hope for.

Just for a bit of levity.

Here’s a little booklet on the act if you want more information.

SHALL NOT: The State Level Plan to Protect the 2nd Amendment

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Just follow the money

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

Well, we could have had Mark Obenshain…

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

NYT uses front page to spout inanities

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

Trump is a tyrannical weasel, part 2,434

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, there’s been a lot of talk about terrorism, how to prevent it, how to fight it, and how to protect Americans. Even the DC Dominatrix Cathy Lanier has accidentally acknowledged that the citizens are the first line of defense against an attack. Of course, she continues to keep them disarmed, but admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, right?

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has placed himself square in the middle of the conversation with another idiotic statement on guns. This time, he stepped on his own winky with golf cleats by claiming that those on the terrorism watchlist should be denied their right to keep and bear arms.

shrug_chart_final1Now, I’ve always thought Trump was a fascist uber douche. Now, that has been confirmed. While I agree terrorists should be prevented from purchasing firearms (also caught and clubbed to death with spiked cricket bats), many of the people on the watchlist are hardly terrorists.

Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database—a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists” that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments—more than 40 percent are described by the government as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” That category—280,000 people—dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.

These are people who have been convicted of nothing. They have been placed on this list, because according to the source, the standard the government uses to put people on a watchlist is “reasonable suspicion” to determine whether someone is a possible threat.

Because the government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,” individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.

These are the people Trump wants to deprive of their rights. These are the people Trump would disarm and render vulnerable to everyone from terrorist to marauding thug. These are the people whom Trump wants to label as “enemies of the state” without due process, and without so much as an official set of charges.

Trump needs to go away. Far away. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House or anywhere near government service writ large. He’s a national embarrassment, who doesn’t understand policy and is merely running for president to stroke his own violently large ego.

It’s hard for me to believe that roughly a quarter of Republicans think this narcissistic weasel somehow deserves to be president! But then again, I think he appeals to the meathead faction of the GOP – you know – the ones who sit in their trailers, drinking cheap beer, scratching their shriveled raisins and screaming about how illegal aliens are taking their jobs, while the meth cooks on the stove.

Yes, I’m being intentionally inflammatory. That said, would anyone in all seriousness consider casting their vote for someone who is proud of his desire to stomp on people’s rights without due process?

So much FAIL!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Take them out with what?

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