Category Archives: gun grabbers

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

I am WOMAN hear me whine?

November 4, 2015 Sheila Stokes 6 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA City Council Requires Tougher Storage Laws

October 28, 2015 Nicki 5 Comments

So the Lost Angeles (spelling intentional) City Council has decided to mandate tougher storage laws to ensure that no children accidentally shoot themselves in their fair city.

“I am tired and I know you all are too of reading of grieving parents who have lost their children through unintentional and totally preventable shootings,” said Laurie Saffian with Women Against Gun Violence.

Yes, do it for the children! Because we haven’t heard that well-worn trope before!

A violation will be a misdemeanor. Officials say there won’t be patrols checking homes to make sure the law is being obeyed, and they admit it will be difficult to know until after an incident occurs.

“Sadly, it will also come into play after tragedies occur or after near tragedies occur,” Krekorian said.

So the idiots can’t enforce it without massive violations of the Fourth Amendment, and they’ve essentially passed a new law that has no hope of reducing accidents – all to remedy a problem that pretty small, according to that bastion of conservative reporting, the Washington Post.

We know how many gun deaths were declared accidental (591 in 2011, the CDC says). And we know that 102 people killed in these accidental gun deaths in 2011 were younger than 18, according to Vernick, with half of these children younger than age 13.

In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, 59 children under the age of 13 died due to accidental gunfire. Compare this to the 577 in that same age bracket who drowned, and 51 and 55 who died of poisoning and falls respectively. Why is it that gun grabbers aren’t lobbying for swimming pool control?

This new law can’t be enforced, and it will more likely than not be completely useless at deterring accidental deaths.

But you know what it will do?

It will ensure that any armed thug who breaks into your home will have complete access to your body, your loved ones, and your property with impunity.

Unless, of course, you think your encounter with an armed intruder will go something like this:

DOOR FLIES OPEN, ARMED INTRUDER ENTERS

You: Oh, my goodness! You have a gun! How did you possibly get one with all the strict gun laws we have in Lost Angeles?

Intruder: Shut up and lie down.

You: Oh, NOES! What are you planning to do to me?

Intruder: Well, first I’m going to tie you up and rape you. And then I thought I’d walk around and help myself to your stuff. That OK with you?

You: No! As a matter of fact, I bought a gun to protect myself against just such an eventuality!

Intruder: Well, where is this mythical gun?

You: It’s locked up right now. City Council says I must.

Would you mind waiting right there while I run and fetch it?

Intruder: Oh, sure! I’ll wait here. After all, I’d like to afford you a level playing field before I rape and rob you! Go for it. I’ve got all the time in the world!

There's no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy! — There’s no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!

In what lunatic world do these imbeciles live?

What good is a tool of self defense if you cannot immediately use it in times of need?

And what good is a right, if you are forced to submit to idiot regulations that have no hope of preventing violence and serve to put you at a disadvantage in the face of an armed enemy?

Good luck, LA. You’ll need it.

Elsewhere, genocide, gun control, gun grabbers, hatred of Jews, Israel, mindset, Politics, self defense

NOT. ONE. INCH. NOT. ONE. INCH.

October 25, 2015 Sheila Stokes 1 Comment

France has helpfully drafted a proposal to the U.N. to internationalize the Temple Mount, Har ha-Beyit. They feel that seizing control of a section of Israel’s sovereign and most holy ground will somehow calm the violence. I never accused the U.N. of being clever, but I never thought them that stupid either.

UNESCO was planning to vote on making the Kotel, the western wall of King Solomon’s temple a islamic holy site. Mind you since it is a Jewish site now, Jews, Christians and muslims can and do go there to pray now. But if it’s changed to a muslim site, then it will be as the Temple Mount. Only muslims will be allowed to pray there.

Even more insane, barry urged Israel to hand over half of Jerusalem, the Kotel, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, and the tomb of Jesus to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist organizations.
Bibi’s response? Israel cannot accept the draft resolution of the council.

Damn skippy.

Appeasement does not, nor will it ever work.

The attacks against Jews are growing more violent and aimed at larger groups. (The escalating stages) The stabbing attacks are turning into attacks against a larger group. The bus attack in Jerusalem one week ago attacking the passengers.

“…Yisrael – the other driver, my friend – got out of the bus and ran towards my bus (shouting): ‘stop, stop, there’s a terrorist in the bus.’ …he shouted to me ‘he’s slaughtering them, he’s slaughtering them,’ and we had nothing we could do, we were trying to contact the police, there’s nothing we could do.”…..A senior security official told The Jerusalem Post that the series of attacks increasingly appears to be “a planned and timed assault.”

Damn skippy. They are.

The other bus attack was at the Be’er Sheba bus station, and came less than a week later. He was apparently financed by a new terrorist group that was recently established in the Gaza Strip by Iran and Hizballah, more hard core than Hamas. Good thing barry is releasing the monetary sanctions against Iran, huh? WOWZA, who could have seen that coming? A rise in terrorism against Israel with the release of sanctions money and financial aid?

What you may not be aware of and I haven’t heard it mentioned is something special about the Be’er Sheba bus station.

In Israel, Jewish history is everywhere. Literally. Under the floor of the Be’er Sheba bus station are Avraham’s wells. Right, the Avraham in Sepher Bereshit/Genesis. Avraham, the Patriarch.

There was an attack of another kind this week. Joseph’s tomb (article from 28 April, 2011). On the 16^th palestinians set fire to the tomb of one of the Patriarchs. And again, last week.

Seems the arabs have something against Jewish Patriarchs lately, again, always.

The so-called “Oslo Accords” signed between Israel and the Palestinians in 1995 stipulated that Joseph’s Tomb would remain an Israeli-controlled enclave open to Jewish worshippers and religious students.But at the start of the Al Aqsa Intifada in 2000, a Palestinian mob backed by Palestinian Authority police officers assaulted Joseph’s Tomb, killing an Israeli soldier in the process. Israel subsequently surrendered control of the site on the condition that the Palestinian Authority would protect and maintain it.

I ran across something very interesting the other day. A story about the number of times America has pressured Israel. What made it more interesting is what happened in America within days or hours of signing, but you can read that if you want to. But here are the times:

1991 30 October – The Oslo AccordPresident George H. Bush promoted and proudly signed the infamous Oslo Accord at the Madrid Peace Conference on October 30, 1991. The Oslo Accord was labeled a “Land for Peace” accord that demanded Israel award their land to the Palestinian murderers and terrorists in exchange for peace. The perverse Oslo proposition was simple: give us your land and we’ll stop killing you.

1992 23 August-A year later, President Bush literally picked up the pieces from Oslo attempting to rob Israel again. Meeting in Washington D.C. Bush and crew again attempted to “sell” the fictitious Madrid “Land for Peace” agreement.

1994 16 January-President Bill Clinton meets with terrorist and Israel hater Syria’s President Hafez el-Assad in Geneva. They talk about a peace agreement with Israel that includes Israel giving up the Golan Heights.

1998 28 September-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright finishes the final details of an agreement which requires Israel to surrender 13 percent of Yesha (Judah and Samaria). President Bill Clinton meets with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu at the White House to finalize another Israel “land for peace” hoodwink. Later, Arafat addresses the United Nations and declares an independent Palestinian state by May 1999.

1998 30 November-Arafat arrives in Washington again to meet with President Clinton to raise money for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital. A total of 42 other nations were represented in Washington. All the nations agreed to give Arafat $3 billion in aid. Clinton promised $400 million, and the European nations $1.7 billion.

1998 12 December-President Clinton arrives in the Palestinian-controlled section of Israel to discuss another “land for peace” fiasco.

2001 8 June-President George W. Bush sends Secretary Tenet to Jerusalem to promote his “Roadmap to Peace,” the continuation of the failed Oslo Accord.

2005 23 August-Israel completed the evacuation of the Gaza Strip and gave it to the Palestinians. The Gaza Strip evacuation came directly from President Bush’s “Roadmap to Peace.”

Every time Israel has ceded land for peace it doesn’t work, it will not work this time.

I think we know something about “reasonable compromise” and appeasement.

“An appeaser is one who keeps feeding the crocodile in the hope it will eat him last”~~ Winston Churchill

Israel and gunowners have both got to stand our ground this time. As the democrats debate on TV who can most proudly try to steal our G-d given rights, and the world tries to pressure Israel into ceding even more land, we can not give in. The results of what we have already given so far has cost us too dearly. We can not give in again.

NOT. ONE. INCH.

gun control, gun grabbers, guns

How Do Those Shackles Taste, Lawson?

October 21, 2015 Nicki 19 Comments

Lawson Clarke is an ad exec from Massachusetts and a “Gun Owner Who is Perfectly Comfortable With Gun Control.”

Translation: he’s a serf, who has no comprehension of the meaning of a right and thinks the Second Amendment protects his “right” to hunt.

In his article for NPR, he details the laborious process he underwent as a Massachusetts resident to get state permission to exercise his rights, and he apparently doesn’t mind the numerous forms, background checks, and exorbitant costs associated with being able to exercise a fundamental right, because MASS SHOOTINGS!

STEP 1: I enrolled in a four-hour firearms safety course registered with the state.

A safety course is always a good idea. Only four hours? Most gun owners I know train much more often and much longer with their self-defense tools. But when mandated by the state, it really becomes a perfunctory gesture. I won’t even get into the whole “registered with the state” thing!

STEP 2: I joined a properly licensed gun club to demonstrate I was merely interested in hunting and recreational shooting. While this was by no means mandatory, it was encouraged by my local police department.

I wonder how much the kickback is for said “encouragement.” And I wonder why this particular brand of stupid doesn’t consider paying to join a club “encouraged” by the police to “prove” that you are only interested in exercising your right to engage in activities that have little to do with the intent of the Second Amendment isn’t a gross violation of said right and a twisted perversion of freedom.

STEP 3: I then visited my local police station, where I presented my application for a license to carry, my firearm safety certificate and a letter from my gun club stating my membership was in good standing.

STEP 4: Along with my paperwork I had to pay a $100 application fee. NOTE: In Massachusetts a firearms license is only valid for six years, and the $100 application fee is due any time I reapply.

A $100 fee to exercise a right, eh? I have to wonder once again if this serf even understands the basic definition of a right.

I also have to wonder how poor people, who ostensibly don’t live in safe, often gated communities (unlike Boston ad executives), but want a means to protect their homes against armed thugs, can afford all these extra expenses in addition to the several hundred dollars for the purchase of the actual gun!

Why do you hate poor people, Lawson?

STEP 5: I sat through a face-to-face interview with a police officer and submitted to a preliminary background check.

STEP 6: My photo and fingerprints were taken and filed digitally with the Massachusetts State Police, along with the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and the national criminal records database.

Are you applying for a top secret clearance or begging the “authorities” to allow you to exercise a fundamental right?

STEP 7: I made an appointment at the police firing range on Moon Island in Boston Harbor to demonstrate my proficiency with a firearm in front of a state trooper.

Hopefully it wasn’t this guy.

A Massachusetts State Trooper is expected to survive after accidentally shooting himself in the leg, State Police said.

Ooops!

STEP 8: I waited approximately 30 days for my license to be approved.

STEP 9: My class A license to carry arrived in the mail.

I’m sure if you ask any assailant trying to victimize you really nicely to wait until you get your state-sanctioned permission to own a firearm, they’ll oblige. No. Really! Stop laughing!

STEP 10: I visit a nearby gun store, which by law is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau. After presenting my license to the clerk, I was then allowed to browse the store’s inventory.

It’s instructive that you need a license to even go shopping in the People’s State of Massachusetts! But apparently, that bit of statist ploddery doesn’t bother Lawson either.

STEP 11: I selected my very fist firearm: a 30/30 Winchester Model 94, a tried and true staple of New England deer hunting.

Because that’s what the Second Amendment is really about — deer hunting. It says so right there in the text. Wait… no? But… but… but… we in Massachusetts know what the Second Amendment is about! We KNOW freedom, darnit!

STEP 12: While in the store I submitted to yet another background check, this time over the phone with the FBI.

Sure! What’s another background check to make a constitutionally-protected purchase between master and slave?

STEP 13: I waited three days.

Luckily you weren’t a woman who was being stalked and needed a tool to protect herself, eh? But I’m sure if you asked very nicely, the stalker or a violent ex would wait for you to finally purchase your gun!

STEP 14: I returned to the store and picked up my Winchester 30/30, effectively adding my name to the list of over 250,000 legal gun owners in Massachusetts.

Good to know that you don’t mind being added to a state-maintained list of innocent people whose only crime was a desire to exercise their rights. How do those chains taste? Want a gold Star of David so you can be properly identified?

From start to finish, the entire process unfolded over the course of several months, but then again so did acquiring my driver’s license and first car. In fact, one could argue automobiles and firearms are equally lethal machines: each responsible for over 30,000 deaths per year in the United States; so perhaps there’s justification for requiring patience in this endeavor.

I’m willing to bet that acquiring your driver’s license took several months, because the state wanted to ensure that while you’re operating a machine weighing several tons on public roadways, that you are properly educated and trained to do so. I’m also fairly sure you didn’t have to sit down for an interview with law enforcement or undergo two background checks to buy a car or get a license to drive it.

Did you have to pass a background check to buy your car? Did you have to get fingerprinted like a common criminal? Did you have to wait several days before you could take your car home? I don’t think so, Sparky.

Don’t conflate purchasing a car with the months of bureaucratic hoops you had to jump through to purchase a gun. The auto purchase takes a couple of hours and the mere ownership of it does not require training, background checks, fingerprinting, or even a license! The mere purchase requires you have money or sufficient credit to pay for said vehicle. Purchase and operation of the vehicle are two separate things. Of course, I don’t expect someone who doesn’t comprehend or respect the plain language of the Second Amendment to understand that nuance.

As a gun owner, I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion of sensible gun control, and in the stark light of recent tragedies, I’d say the process of acquiring my first firearm in Massachusetts was exactly as difficult as it needed to be.

While we’re all thrilled that you’re “perfectly comfortable” – OK, we really don’t give a damn, but still… – let me ask you something, Lawson: Are the people who take the time to go through months of background checks, the training, the fingerprinting, and the waiting periods the ones committing violent acts with firearms? Are all these measures effective crime reduction techniques?

Nope.

Massachusetts has a national reputation as a bastion of gun control, but crimes and injuries related to firearms have risen — sometimes dramatically — since the state passed a comprehensive package of gun laws in 1998.

Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.

But… but… but… that’s because illegal guns are flowing from other states!

That’s not what I asked, Sparky. Are the people who are legally licensed to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts the ones committing the crimes?

Judging by the records kept in these states, nope! The majority of people willing to undergo all that rigamarole will, in fact, never commit a single crime with that gun, so how is it, exactly, you think you’re helping mitigate violence by subjecting yourself to statist regulations?

Some vocal conservatives are quick to accuse Massachusetts of being a bastion for the liberal elite who are grossly out of touch with the fundamentals of the Second Amendment. It seems they’ve forgotten this is where the “shot heard round the world” was fired in the name of Independence; where simple colonists in 1775 formed a militia and rose up in arms against a formidable force of British Army regulars.

Do you think those colonists registered their weapons? You think they paid some gold to be able to keep a simple defense tool in their homes? They would have probably slapped you stupid at the thought, you quivering-lipped coward! I would submit that given your ardent willingness to submit yourself to onerous infringements of your rights, you are the one who has forgotten Massachusetts’ history of liberty. Not only that, but you spit in its face!

You’re welcome, by the way.

Oh, please shut your ignorant yap! If it had been you and your fellow vassal colostomy bags fighting the war for Independence, begging the government’s permission to allow you to own a simple firearm, we’d still be a British colony!

Trust me, in Massachusetts we know our history and we know the significance of the Second Amendment. However, we also understand that owning firearms is an immense responsibility, and we have carefully balanced our right to keep and bear them with what I would argue are an appropriate amount of institutional safeguards.

You keep referring to that knowing the significance of the Second Amendment thingy… I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you know your history and the significance of the Second Amendment, then you should also know that responsibility has nothing to do with paying bribes to petty statists to allow you to exercise a fundamental right.

And no, I don’t trust you when you tell me how much you respect the right to keep and bear arms, even as you gleefully submit to noxious infringements on said right! Thanks for playing.

Is it a perfect system everyone can agree on? Certainly not. But in a time when contentious shouting has largely supplanted meaningful debate, perhaps that’s too much to hope for. However, there is data to suggest our state gun ownership laws are working. Well, that is to say, they seem to work better than the gun policies of most other states. In a recent study, Massachusetts stands out as having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to Hawaii, a state with a population one-fifth our size.

Actually, no. And the statistics you cite for only one year are deceptive at best. If you refer to the Boston Globe article I cited above, you will see that gun-related deaths have nearly doubled from 1998 when your state first ushered in its tyrannical infringements on people’s rights!

In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, a striking increase from the 65 in 1998, said Fox, the Northeastern professor. Nationwide, such murders increased only 3 percent from 1999 to 2010, the CDC says.

There were increases in other crimes involving guns in Massachusetts, too. From 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7 percent. Robberies with firearms increased 20.7 percent during that period, according to an FBI analysis conducted for the Globe.

So not only has gun-related violence increased in Massachusetts since the package of draconian gun control measures was passed, but said violence has increased at a higher rate than the rest of this country! How are those “gun ownership laws” working out for you, Lawson?

Clearly the epidemic of gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed on a national level. For any gun owner or gun rights advocate to suggest otherwise is not only stubbornly myopic, but inhumane.

And here we have the emotionalist rhetoric we’ve so grown accustomed to from gun-grabbing freaks and their obedient chattel.

If you don’t support tyrannical infringements on your rights, you’re heartless.

If you don’t useless bureaucracy to make your right to self defense cost-prohibitive, you’re stubborn.

If you aren’t willing to submit yourself to a metaphorical anal probe in order to exercise your fundamental rights – an anal probe that has no hope of actually reducing violence – you’re myopic and inhumane.

Clearly you haven’t heard the news that overall, violence has been on the decline in the United States. So maybe, before you decide to spew another load of nonsense into the Interwebz, you’ll do some research, and also look up the meaning of the word “epidemic.”

So if we’re earnestly looking to take steps towards reducing the number of gun-related deaths in the United States while respectfully preserving our Constitutional right to legally own firearms, perhaps the rest of the country should, once again, look to Massachusetts to lead the way.

And watch our gun-related violence nearly double, as it did in Massachusetts? You’ve got to be kidding me!

Please keep your statist mitts off my rights. I can see you obviously enjoy your shackles, but the rest of us are just a bit smarter than that! So just go back to licking the boots of your masters and leave the rest of us alone.

Stick to advertising, Lawson. Obviously logic, basic research, and policy are not your strong points!

gun control, gun grabbers, Politics

Idiots Trip Over themselves to Alienate Critical Voting Demographic

October 15, 2015 Nicki 3 Comments

I posted this at the Liberty Zone yesterday, but I felt a slightly different version of it needed to be posted here as well, just so you can further understand your adversary. I say “adversary,” because 4/5 of the idiots on the stage during the Democratic debate the other night actually named their fellow Americans as their “enemies,” and I want to be a bit more classy than that.

I’m not even kidding. Enemies.

…CNN’s Anderson Cooper noted that each of the candidates had made a number of enemies during their careers in politics and asked them which enemy they were most proud of.

Most of the Democrats at the debate gave predictably boring answers to Cooper’s question. Lincoln Chafee said he was proud that the coal industry disliked him. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said the National Rifle Association. Bernie Sanders said Wall Street. What about Hillary?

“Probably the Republicans,” Hillary responded, in the apparent belief that nearly half the country is her enemy.

So now you know and understand what Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, and Martin O’Malley think of you – whether you’re a Republican, a gun owner, someone who works in finance, or someone who toils in the coal mines, working to bring much needed energy to America. They don’t just disagree with you. They HATE you. They want to rule and control you, and they consider you their enemy.

Congratulations.

Actually, maybe they are the enemy. I report, you decide.

Nonetheless… I had to laugh at the concentrated effort all of the Democrat lunatics on that stage made to distance themselves from the NRA. This is where the NRA is actually useful. They are the boogie man. They are the 800 lb. gorilla feared by the gun grabbers. So they can go on compromising, while groups like the Zelman Partisans, GOA, and others do the actual work. I’m good with that.

However, like it or not, we have the Second Amendment. Like it or not, it protects an existing right. Like it or not, the majority of this nation respects the right to keep and bear arms and does not support additional federal gun control regulations. Like it or not, these are facts, and no amount of mewling from the gun control camp will change it.

That said, it’s interesting to me that last night’s ~~Democratic debate~~ socialist dumpster fire (thanks to my buddy Jason Pye for that quirky, but oh-so accurate, turn of phrase) featured four candidates who were tripping over themselves to portray themselves as the candidate most hated by the NRA!

I didn’t watch the debates, thank goodness. I was really too tired to be that angry on a work night. I did, however, pull up a transcript just to see how these four monkeys would try to out-Marxist one another. From what I read, the debate went pretty much how I expected it to go, but I did find it instructive that given the failing issue gun control has been over the years, these four would be so quick to alienate a broad swath of the American population. I guess they all think that they can count on frothing Bernie Sanders acolytes to supplement the loss in gun owner support?

Filthy hippies and star-struck children.

The first question posed by Anderson Cooper was predictably about gun control.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, you voted against the Brady bill that mandated background checks and a waiting period. You also supported allowing riders to bring guns in checked bags on Amtrak trains. For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Now, you say you’re reconsidering that. Which is it: shield the gun companies from lawsuits or not?

SANDERS: Let’s begin, Anderson, by understanding that Bernie Sanders has a D-minus voting rating (ph) from the NRA. Let’s also understand that back in 1988 when I first ran for the United States Congress, way back then, I told the gun owners of the state of Vermont and I told the people of the state of Vermont, a state which has virtually no gun control, that I supported a ban on assault weapons. And over the years, I have strongly avoided instant background checks, doing away with this terrible gun show loophole. And I think we’ve got to move aggressively at the federal level in dealing with the straw man purchasers.

Translation: No no no! I’m bad on freedom! Just like I’m bad on economic freedom, I’m bad on all the other types of freedom too!

By the way, what’s with the Bob Dole third-person weirdness?

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, is Bernie Sanders tough enough on guns?

CLINTON: No, not at all. I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do.

Translation: I’m Hillary Clinton, and I lie like a cheap rug. If I had bothered to look at statistics provided by the ever-so-biased in my favor Gun Violence Archive, I would have seen that I have nearly tripled my estimate of people lost per day to gun violence. I would have seen that 9,956 people died in firearm incidents through October 1, 2015, and that this number averages to 36, and not 90 people per day, as I claim. If I had done my research, I would also have seen that the majority of people (63 percent or 23 out of those 36 people, according to the CDC) who die in firearms incidents take their own lives, and there’s nothing the government can do about it. If I had done my research, I would have known this, because gun-free Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the United States.

(By the way, I note with no small amount of irony that while California toils to clamp down even more on the right to keep and bear arms, it has legalized suicide.)

Actually I probably did do my research, but it’s so much more effective to inflate firearm death figures, so that I can out-Sanders Sanders with his D- from the NRA!

COOPER: Governor O’Malley, you passed gun legislation as governor of Maryland, but you had a Democratic-controlled legislature. President Obama couldn’t convince Congress to pass gun legislation after the massacres in Aurora, in Newtown, and Charleston. How can you?

O’MALLEY: And, Anderson, I also had to overcome a lot of opposition in the leadership of my own party to get this done. Look, it’s fine to talk about all of these things — and I’m glad we’re talking about these things — but I’ve actually done them.

We passed comprehensive gun safety legislation, not by looking at the pollings or looking at what the polls said. We actually did it. And, Anderson, here tonight in our audience are two people that make this issue very, very real. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips are here from Colorado. And their daughter, Jessie, was one of those who lost their lives in that awful mass shooting in Aurora.

Now, to try to transform their grief, they went to court, where sometimes progress does happen when you file in court, but in this case, you want to talk about a — a rigged game, Senator? The game was rigged. A man had sold 4,000 rounds of military ammunition to this — this person that killed their daughter, riddled her body with five bullets, and he didn’t even ask where it was going.

And not only did their case get thrown out of court, they were slapped with $200,000 in court fees because of the way that the NRA gets its way in our Congress and we take a backseat. It’s time to stand up and pass comprehensive gun safety legislation as a nation.

Translation: I need to sound a bit more radical, so I won’t remind people that even though violent crime has been on the decline in the United States since 1993, Maryland, which has some of the most stringent gun controls in the nation, still comes in as one of the most violent states in the country. Because NRA! And I’m definitely not reminding the audience that Sandy and Lonnie Phillips have been manipulated by my buddies at the Brady Center to file a frivolous lawsuit, which they knew to be frivolous, but I will screech their sainthood from the top of my lungs, because violent crime in Maryland… Um… NRA BAD!

At this point, I have to chuckle, because the conversation between Sanders and O’Malley devolved into a contest about who has the smaller genitalia (translation: who has a lower rating from the NRA).

O’MALLEY: And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.

SANDERS: Well, as somebody who has a D-minus voting record…

O’MALLEY: And I have an F from the NRA, Senator.

It’s really quite amusing to see two twits arguing about who is more anti-freedom! Say what you will about the NRA – I know I have numerous times – but two guys arguing about who can more effectively alienate a huge chunk of the U.S. population is something akin to two monkeys having a contest to see who can fling a bigger turd. Frankly, in the poo department, I think O’Malley has it.

Of course, Lincoln Chafee (Who? The nitwit from Rhode Island, that’s who!), refusing to be outdone by his statist pals, is touting his F rating from the NRA as a badge of honor.

CHAFEE: Yes, I have a good record of voting for gun commonsense safety legislation, but the reality is, despite these tragedies that happen time and time again, when legislators step up to pass commonsense gun safety legislation, the gun lobby moves in and tells the people they’re coming to take away your guns.

Translation: Must. Use. As. Many. Gun. Grabber. Words. As. Possible. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. GUN LOBBY BAD!

Who the hell is this douche? — Who the hell is this tool?

The only candidate who didn’t trip over his own winky to screech for more gun control was Jim Webb, whom the NRA seems to like an awful lot. I haven’t seen any Gun Owners of America ratings for Webb, but he at the very least doesn’t seem to be backing away from America’s gun owners, and that makes him smarter than the rest of the barrel of monkeys who infested that stage, competing for who can pick the biggest louse off his/her opponent.

authoritarian swine, genocide, gun control, gun grabbers, self defense, Sellouts and traitors

Break the Spirit ~ Seize the Tools

October 13, 2015 Y.B. ben Avraham 6 Comments

About a year ago I related a story of attending a “Preparedness Show” wherein I was drawn into commenting on the Anti Defamation League’s stance on firearms and the State.

For as long as I can remember, like our ideological forebearer, Aaron Zelman, OBM, I have been frustrated and disgusted by the mainstream Jewish organizations and community leaders’ suicidal position on self defense.

Comedian Jackie Mason used to quip about the cultural differences between the typical American Jew and the Israeli “Sabra”, by suggesting that the latter were not really Jews, but Puerto Ricans.

So, in the past few days I see the ever- reliable organ of the Reich, the Huffington Post, trot out a truly vile piece under the pretense of attacking Dr. Ben Carson.

When Joshua ben Nun and his guerilla force entered the Land of Israel, they did something odd. Their overarching mission was to conquer the land and drive out the Canaanites and other pagan peoples from therein, establishing on the ground the title to that land, as promised to Abraham.

Yet, here they were before a disease-ridden pest-hole of a walled city called Jericho. So nasty was it, that Joshua absolutely forbade the Israelite Soldiers to loot, nor occupy, the place. It was to be destroyed, utterly.

Why?

Joshua knew that many far more difficult cities, kings, and armies had been watching the Israelites tarry for forty years just outside of their goal.

Memories of the incredible miracles wrought on their behalf, and the certainty that they were protected by an immeasurably awesome god had faded to doubtful legend among the peoples of Canaan and beyond. Perhaps their god had abandoned them?

So, the annihilation of Jericho was a psychological weapon. Strike fear into the enemy before they ever even see you. Sow doubt and they will be weakened. Perhaps they will even fold without fighting?

Before and since, manipulating the mind of an enemy is a crucial part of warfare.

Thus it is with those who seek to keep us quietly toiling on their plantation.

Segments of society decide to be savage murderers, rapists, and thieves? Well… entrust your very lives to the government (the most prolific of all murderers, rapists, and thieves) we are told.

Take measures to protect yourself, your loved ones, your neighbors from predation? Get scolded two-fold; first, that anything you do is futile, and second, that to do so it is morally equivalent to being a predator.

Spearheaded (this time) by Nick Baumann; Senior Enterprise Editor at HuffPo, we are scolded once again by our “leaders”, and our dutiful State-Safe academics. Gee, the Nazis ‘loosened’ the restrictions on firearms, especially for party members (Heh-heh. A subtle message to get with the ‘program’ there, right?)

They even trot out sad survivors of the Holocaust to say that suggesting that to claim disarmed people (erm…Psychologically? um… Physically?) might have saved lives had they not been in such straits is to BLAME THE VICTIM (!?)

Such arrogance. Such evil.

No.

Unless you have both the inner strength and the tools to defend your life, your liberty, and property, you are destined for chains, and when no longer useful to the bosses,… to the smokestack.

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

They’re Finally Being Honest

October 7, 2015 Nicki 10 Comments

The Washington Post editorial page editor is finally being honest about the liberals’ gun control agenda. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt has penned… or I should say spewed his uninformed opinion entitled, “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

This is how you know a leftard is about to soil his unmentionables – when he “courageously” challenges the big, bad NRA from the safety and comfort of his computer – while advocating what eventually would lead to civil war in this country.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thing doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

What, REALLY? You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your assertion that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie. And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large?

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

Tell us why you think that criminals will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn that gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go? And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013. Know now many drowned? 568. Know how many died in a fire? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances beat the 100,000 who Fred claims get shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

Perhaps we should, but you might want to sit out the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, So Much Stupid!

He’s anything but a “well-regulated” writer

October 7, 2015 Vladka Peltel 10 Comments

It seems that one Adam Gopnik, a distinctly artsy-craftsy type, has himself a long-time sinecure at the New Yorker.

It also seems he now considers himself qualified to sling bombast to the effect that “the second amendment is a gun control amendment.”

Further, it ~~seems~~ is absolutely obvious that he feels free to pontificate without any knowledge of what the words “well-regulated” meant to the 18th century writers of the Bill of Rights. AND he pompously blats his fetid opinions without even having a sufficient grasp of grammar to realize that the words “well-regulated” in the amendment don’t refer to firearms, but to the militia.

Must be nice to get and hold such a plumb job with such a high-status publication without actually having to know anything about your topic, or even about how to read a simple English phrase.

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

San Francisco’s Only Gun Shop to Close

October 1, 2015 Nicki 4 Comments

Remember when I wrote a few months ago about the “no brainer” legislation proposed by San Francisco’s own “no-brainer” Mark Farrell to make purchasing a gun in the city even more difficult than it already was?

The law would impact exactly one store – the only one left in the city – and that store is about to close its doors.

Under siege from an increasing amount of regulation from City Hall, “High Bridge Arms” is closing, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

Steven Alcairo, general manager of the modest storefront in San Francisco’s Mission District, says his business is being pushed out by a proposed city law that would require the store to videotape every gun sale, then turn in the footage to the police department.

Gun buyers already have to fill out a detailed form, go through a background check and a waiting period. But sending a videotape of the purchase to local police strikes Alcairo as one regulation too many.

Apparently, once the proposal was announced, the store’s sales dipped, and it decided it wasn’t worth sticking around in a place where they were nothing but vilified and targeted by authoritarian maggots intent on driving them out and ruining their business all for the purpose of looking like they’re doing something.

It’s not difficult to assess that this is part of the gun grabbers’ greater strategy. They’ve failed in the courts to ruin legitimate businesses. They’ve been unsuccessful in electing their minions based on this anti-freedom agenda. And Americans continue to reject more gun control as the answer to violence.

So what’s an enterprising gun grabber to do?

Well, apparently some are targeting legitimate businesses and bogging them down with so many regulations, that they are finding it impossible to operate within city limits. That’s right. They are targeting innocent business owners, threatening their livelihoods, and attacking their right to conduct legitimate business transactions.

This isn’t the first time a horde of economically illiterate, tyrannical swine have caused a company to shutter or relocate. Remember Remington Arms decision not to build a new factory in New York because of its hysterical, ridiculous unSAFE Act? How about Beretta’s decision to move production out of Maryland?

This appears to be the strategy folks. If you can’t beat them in the courts and in the legislature, choke off the supply by bogging them down with so many rules and regulations, they can’t operate. Who cares if jobs and livelihoods are impacted!

This is a sick, twisted strategy to attack property rights and Second Amendment rights all in one fell swoop, and while America focuses on the latest “outrage” that has escaped Trump’s maw, or whether or not crazy woman in Kentucky should have been held in contempt of court, some localities have been slowly destroying legitimate commerce in an effort to find a backdoor entrance to restrict your rights.

Keep watching reality TV and reading tabloid news, America. When you finally wake up and realize that your rights are gone, it will be too late.

gun grabbers, hoplophobia

Another Nicki fisk: “Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes”

September 30, 2015 Claire Wolfe 1 Comment

Read it all here.

A sample:

In 2012, a deranged loon shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. It was a tragedy in which 12 people were killed and 70 others injured. James Holmes fired 76 shots in the theater: six from a shotgun, 65 from a semi-automatic rifle, and five from a .40-caliber handgun. The shooting prompted the usual calls for more gun control, and Holmes this year was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision over sentencing him to death.

In the aftermath of the shooting, and in an obvious effort to take advantage of an opportunity, the Brady Center and its attorneys brought a pro bono lawsuit on behalf of the parents of one of the victims Jessica Ghawi against Lucky Gunner – the company that sold Holmes ammunition.

They lost.

Further, they were ordered to pay $203,000 in legal fees for this frivolous lawsuit. They’re now crying that they don’t have the money, while at the same time absolving the Brady Center of responsibility for paying this bill, even though they instigated the suit.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I hurt for Lonnie and Sandy Phillips. I know what it’s like to lose a child, and it’s an agony I don’t wish on anyone. But at the same time, when your reaction to such a tragic loss is to work to relieve others of their rights, abuse the legal system in order to punish lawful citizens for engaging in legal business, and then whine about the legal consequences of your actions, you deserve a fisk.

The Phillips couple (he apparently a paid operations manager for the Brady bunch) took their self-righteous and deceptive complaint to HuffPo. TZP’s Nicki Kenyon gives it the fisking it deserves.

Read the rest at Nicki’s personal blog.

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us

The Zelman Partisans