Category Archives: authoritarian swine

Gun Culture Genocide

Or call it cultural terraforming. Either way, the intent is to indoctrinate children with the idea that guns are evil. John Dewey would be proud of them.

Police called to New Haven magnet school for child making toy Lego gun
School officials said a child built a toy gun out of Lego at the Jepsen Magnet School in New Haven Thursday.

School administrators called police to the school after the child made the gun and started pointing it at the other kids.

The school’s behavioral rules do forbid toy weapons, but somehow I don’t think that’s a criminal offense, even in Connecticut. So why were the police called to enforce a school rule?

To ensure that uppity kid understands that the authorities will stomp on his rights. To expect it. To accept it.

To ensure the culture of self responsibility — expressed through firearms ownership — becomes extinct, by terrifying a small child, young enough to be playing with Legos in school, with cops.

Now, I could accept some restrictions on toy guns in school. Popping off Nerf projectiles during lessons could certainly be disruptive. And you wouldn’t want a child to be beating other children with a plastic bludgeon. But neither was a case here. The child made an inert gun-shaped assembly of plastic blocks. He allegedly pointed it at other students.

Great Ghu, did they think the Legos were going to go off?

In a sane world, the teacher might have told the child, “Johnny, that’s very creative, but you should never point even toy guns at other people. And you’re disrupting class. Put that away until recess.” End of story. It would have been a good time to start the class on the basic rules of safe firearms handling.

Nope. Someone panicked. The police were called. The police responded… to a toy gun call. Even they though they had to know there was not a criminal violation.

Where’s the investigation of school personnel filing a false report with the police? That is a crime. Even in Connecticut.

Better yet…

“School leaders and local police partners were able to investigate and resolve the issue internally with use of restorative practices.

How did the police investigate the issue? Did the police question the child? Were his parents informed and present, or other adult counsel? There is a lot of court precedent for children knowing their Miranda rights and having proper representation during questioning. In a rational world, the New Haven Police Department could be in serious legal trouble for playing the school’s game.*

And then there’s the potential for a lawsuit against the teacher, and whomever else was involved in bringing in the police. If I were the parent, that would include the pricipal and school board.

Just maybe we could culturally terraform Connecticut back into respect for the Bill of Rights. And people. Even small children.


* I sent an email to the NHPD, asking for clarification on their role. I wanted to email the school, but they’ve scrubbed every active contact link for their web site (“contact us” buttons still appear, but link to nothing).


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Open Letter: Fudds Against Freedom

Generally, I avoid columns at HuffPo, but I clicked the link before I realized where it was (I really need to watch URLs more closely). In this case, I discovered an “open letter” from associates of the Outdoors Writers Association of America, who apparently never heard of Jim Zumbo. They want gun control.

Lots of it.

As is my habit, I wrote an email to Daniel Ashe, the bylined writer of the letter, and former FWS director (an Obama appointee). I couldn’t find an email for him, so I sent it to OWAA, as all the co-signers are affiliated with that group. I waited for a response.

-crickets- Funny how that happens when I challenged victim disarmers with facts.

As is also my habit, I’m now sharing my letter with the world.

Dear Mr. Ashe (and co-signers),

RE: An Open Letter From Hunters About Gun Reform
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-ashe-guns-hunting_us_5af04b20e4b041fd2d28bd88

I’m not sure you’ve thought through your gun control proposals. Allow me to explain.

“We see the need and opportunity to frame compromise between the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment’s right to life and liberty.”

That would be the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property” part, I presume. I think you need to read the whole Fifth Amendment, rather than cherry-pick one clause:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Please note that this is a set of restriction on government, meant to protect individuals from said government. Let’s focus on that partial clause you like:

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Shall not be deprived of property without due process. Like taking, or preventing the acquisition of firearms. That’s rather important, as I hope you’ll come to understand.

“Here’s where we would begin:

“1. An age minimum of 21 years to purchase any gun;”

Any other constitutionally guaranteed rights you want to restrict? Perhaps the First Amendment right to… write? Vote? That whole Fifth Amendment thing?

“2. Anyone on the Terrorist Screening Center’s “no-fly list” may not purchase or possess firearms;”

I’m not a fan of denial of human/civil rights without due process. I think you’re advocating an 8 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights violation.

The problem is that politicians discovered an investigative tool (lists of suspects — many with insufficient evidence to arrest — and possible associates to be watched) and mistook it for a list of actual known bad guys. Well… they did ID the late Senator Ted Kennedy, so some of them were bad guys. But the elderly nun? The inconvenient wife who the federal worker added to no-fly to be rid of her? And several others?

“3. Anyone on Social Security disability due to mental illness may not purchase or possess firearms;”

There’s that due process — or lack thereof — problem again. Based on experience with the Obama administration, I’m guessing that you mean you want his old no-due- process rule reinstated.

“4. Prohibit new sales of semiautomatic assault or tactical-style weapons;”

Why? You never actually explain that. I’m reasonably certain that the Second Amendment doesn’t mention hunting, while it does mention arms being necessary to security and freedom. Pesky thing, eh?

“5. Prohibit new sales of semiautomatic shotguns or rifles (except .22-caliber rim fire) that can hold more than 10 rounds;”

Ditto. Not that such a limit would have deterred some of the recent school shooters (Parkland, FL, ten-round magazines; Ocala, FL, double-barreled shotgun — whoa, a hunting weapon — Dalton, Ga, revolver)

“6. Prohibit any accessory designed or mechanical modification intended a) to increase the rate at which any firearm may be discharged; or b) to increase the magazine capacity of a semiautomatic rifle beyond 10 rounds (except .22-caliber rim fire);”

Can you give me an example of such a device? Metallic self-contained cartridges raised the rate of fire over that of non-case muzzleloaders. The Revolutionary War era Ferguson rifle also had a higher rate of fire over muzzleloaders. Double-barreled shotguns can fire faster than single-shots. Polished trigger groups can increase the rate of fire (along with replacement springs and bolt assemblies).

At a guess, I suspect you have bump-fire stocks (and possibly trigger cranks) in mind. Funny thing: neither increases the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm; that’s inherent in the physics of the firearm’s internal parts. In fact, since a bump-fire stock bleeds off recoil energy to allow the trigger to reset for the next manual operation, that can decrease the theoretical maximum rate of fire.

“7. Mandatory and universal background checks for all firearm sales;”

There’s an idea. How about starting with the 64% of murderers with prior felony convictions who use stolen firearms 88% of the time (and even more with other disqualifying conditions like mental health adjudications, misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, unlawful residency status, and the rest)? Roughly 90% of them get their firearms from friends and family who could be presumed to be aware of their prohibited person status, and from blackmarket — i.e.- already unlawful — sales.

If you can get them to go through background checks, you might be on to something. I’m not sure how you’ll get around the HAYNES ruling on self-incrimination, though.

“8. Prohibit sales of firearms except through registered/licensed dealers (no direct private sales);”

You’ve already specified mandatory universal background checks (more accurately: a prior restraint on the exercise of a right through preemptive proof of innocence). Why also require owners/buyers to go through an FFL dealer unless you want a permanent 4473 and bound book record of who owns what? And you still have the prior felon issue; get them to buy through dealers. Such an insistence on a paper trail is why many gun owners fear you have backdoor registration in mind.

“9. Enact gun violence restraining order authorities allowing courts to temporarily prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing firearms when a family member, community welfare expert or law enforcement officer presents evidence of a threat; and”

You have a serious jones for violating due process, don’t you? Such restraining orders mandate violating human/civil rights with process coming only after the fact; UNDUE process. And if the person is so dangerous that his property must be taken preemptively, why wouldn’t he be arrested and and charged with a crime? Or do you mean that rights — like the First Amendment right to pen silly columns — should be violated without probable cause?

“10. Repeal the “Dickey ban” on scientific research in the area of gun violence and implement the Institute of Medicine’s 2013 gun violence research agenda.”

There is no such ban. The Dickey Amendment forbade the CDC to “advocate or promote gun control.” They could — and did — continue with research (as are other federal agencies). The amendment did take away certain research funding: the amount that the CDC diverted away from research, proving they didn’t need it for said research. And you seem to have missed recent legislation clarifying that: an explicit statement that such research is allowed.

“These suggestions are simple to implement and enforce.”

If they are so simple, then start with the unlawfully armed criminals before inflicting them on the folks who didn’t do it. You know, the…

“They do limit the rights of honest and law-abiding citizens, but they are responsible limitations that do not infringe the ability of Americans to hunt, shoot, or protect themselves and their families.”

They limit the rights of INNOCENT “honest and law-abiding citizens,” but ignore the prior felons who are the vast majority of the problem.

And if have to wait for government permission to purchase only less-effective defensive arms, then, yes; my right to protect myself has been infringed. I seem to recall a wise man speaking of a right delayed being a right denied.

Oh well; it’s not as if you have to run your open letter through a Federal Literature Licensee and undergo a prior restraint background check before exercising your right to speak up.

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
Writer, The Zelman Partisans
zelmanpartisans.com

About Us: Jews. Guns. No compromise. No Surrender.
A group of Jews and friends who stand uncompromisingly for the right to
keep and bear arms — and the entire Bill of Rights.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Bump-Fire Rule: If you have not commented, do so

The Brady Campaign to Protect Violent Criminals plans some late comment period “ballot stuffing.” If comments mean anything — which I doubt, or this would not have been proposed — you should make sure your thoughts are known.

Pro-gun voices dominate in debate over Trump’s bump-stock ban
Of the more than 17,000 public comments received so far by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a review by Reuters of 4,200 turned up only 10 favoring the bump stock ban. Almost all the rest criticized the proposal as heavy-handed, unnecessary or unconstitutional.
[…]
“We are rallying our members and we will be putting in a whole additional series of comments,” said Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington-based group dedicated to reducing gun deaths.

“The numbers will shift,” Gardiner said.

99.762 against, with logical, legal, and constitutional reasoning. 0.238% in favor, with… feelz. Therefore it will be implemented, is my guess.

It won’t help when the gun controllers start their commenting campaign. Expect to see a lot of last minute identically-worded rants about machineguns, probably from bots.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Trump: Never?

So Trump spoke to the NRAAM…

“Your second amendment rights … will never, ever be under siege as long as I am president.

Please note that the NRA leadership has supported all these (except raising age limits to 21), too. LaPierre and Cox still seem to be there, so don’t tell me about the new Board.

“Never.” I wonder…


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Swallowing his words

Congresscreep Eric Swallow Swalwell [CA-15] is a coward. A not-very-bright coward.

Not bright, based upon his little confiscation screed:

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

I say he is a coward because he hides from criticism. I attempted to write to his office with some pointed questions about his grand plan to disarm America. I had to look up a zip code within his district to get past his filter (he doesn’t want to hear from nonconstituents). But because I want answers to my questions, I gave my real — non-California-because-I’m-sane — address.

Rejected. He really doesn’t want to hear from nonconstituents. I’ve written to a lot of congresscritters for other states, and this is the first time I couldn’t get through at all.  If he’s going to call for national human/civil rights violations, he should man up and take national feedback.

So if any of our readers are still trapped in his district in Occupied California, please send this to him. And feel free to give him my email address.

Mr. Swalwell,

RE: Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress, May 3, 2018
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.”

A few questions:

1. “Military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.” Can you name a single country on the planet that uses semiautomatic rifles as standard issue to its regular troops? It’s something of a hobby of mine, and I haven’t been able to find a nation with standard issue semiautomatic rifles since the 1990s. In fact, other than some specialty cases (snipers, for instance), semiautomatic rifles are not considered suitable for combat by national militaries. So what makes these “military-style”?

2. Darned few people are going to be willing to give up firearms, costing up to several thousand dollars, for a paltry $200-$1000. I seem to recall a Fifth Amendment that mentions something about “just compensation.” But hey, post-Kelo, who cares about justice, right?

3. Have you floated your little confiscation plan by working cops? Not political appointees, or other chairwarmers, but the working guys who would have to go kicking in millions* of doors BECAUSE the occupants are well-armed?
(* 60,000,000 is a conservative estimate of gun owners; if only 90% complied, you’d have to send your jackboots after 6,000,000 — six million — noncompliant sonsabitches with guns. When the California legislature considered this in the 1990s, the head of one police union predicted the largest outbreak of blue-flu in history.)

4. Will you personally lead an entry team on confiscation raids, or are you too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is? Put up, or shut up.

You talk a brave game, but HOW do you plan to do this?

There are, by varying estimates, 55,000,000 to 120,000,000 million gun owners in America. Estimates of the firearms they hold range from 265,000,000 to 750,000,000 — three quarters of a billion. No one knows who all those owners are, much less where. Ditto with the guns (estimates of AR-pattern rifles alone, manufactured since the end of the “Assault Weapon Ban”, are in the neighborhood of 16,000,000; just one type of “assault weapon” by the usual politician definition).

You’re from California; you should know what happened when the state merely mandated registration (not confiscation): a whopping 2.33% compliance rate. Connecticut got 13.44%.

Again using that 60,000,000 number, imagine you reverse the compliance ratios and get 90%, leaving those 6,000,000 pesky noncompliant SOBs. Heavily armed SOBs.

The FBI estimates the number of law enforcement personnel in America (local, state, federal) at 698,460. You’re outnumbered by almost 9 to 1. So you toss in all military personnel (who also tend to be gun owners… oops); active, reserve, guard…

And you’re still outnumbered by more than 2 to 1.

5. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE your little police state wet dream? With what?

You like the Australian example. You might note that after 22 years and multiple amnesties, the Australian government now estimates compliance at 20%. And they have more guns now, than before the grab.

6. Are you crazy, stupid, or both?

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more
www.bussjaeger.org
NRA delenda est
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=4493


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

BREAKING NEWS, BREAKING NEWS!!!!

This is a guest contribution from one of our TZP Facebook followers, Erik Johnson, who is also a friend and darn fine Viking.

It was all over the news. The radio reporter read how the United States had finally come to its senses; the time for knife control had arrived. London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave a speech to a joint session of congress repeating his words of great wisdom “No one needs to carry a knife!” Former comedians touted on their late night shows the fact that you don’t need a 10” meat cleaver to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Moms who don’t get action President Whannon Satts declared “No child should ever have to walk into a kitchen and see a weapon.” Nancy Pelosi proposed legislation banning high capacity assault knives with features similar to knives used by the military such as pliers and screwdrivers and those plastic tooth pickey thingies. Chuck Todd on Face the Nation held up a knife made by the Victorinox Corporation and asked “Who would ever need such a thing? It is clearly made for the army.” Joe Biden pointed out in a speech given to students at Berkley that in America more people are killed every year by knives than with AR-15s. Then his handlers tackled him to the ground and promptly shoved a sock in his mouth. A child who attended a school where a knife attack occurred, although he was truant on that day, Jesse Pig, waxed poetically on The View, “Our f—–g parents don’t f—–g know how f—–g to use a f—–g knife!”, then spit out the tide pod he was choking on. Of course the usual suspects gave the typical straw man arguments. National Rapier Association President Wayne LaThereThere called a press conference to ask, “How the hell are we supposed to cut a steak or even butter toast? Really people this is nuts!” Former President Obama was first to respond to the NRA’s claims saying, “Now let me be clear. No one needs a cut steak”, as a member of his secret service detail portioned a $2000 piece of kobe beef for him which he had pilfered from the White House kitchen prior to leaving office. Then my alarm went off. I looked at the pen knife I laid on the nightstand just before going to bed. “No”, I said to it, “This country will never become so insane we will try to ban knives.” The clock radio wailed as loud as it possibly could. The radio reporter read how the United States had finally come to its senses…..

Practical and commemorative. Because no one should be left defenseless!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“[T]he riffle was a friend of his.”

The bravery of the Broward SO is exceeded only by their linguistic skills. [/sarc]

Uhm…
1) the video is still up
2) what’s a “riffle”?
3) they used my dad’s name as my mom’s
4) why did I need to tell you I didn’t threaten anyone, why didn’t you bother to look up the Tweet before?

I sent Mr. Kashuv a message earlier, hoping to clarify some points. I haven’t received a response, but I think this answers some of the questions:

Mr. Pittman, it was an illegal and unconstitutional detainment. See U.S. Code § 1983 and JDB v. North Carolina
1) the derogatory mentions of poliical beliefs.
2) the LEO in back of me holding my chair.
3) not contacting my parents prior
4) Calling me into a locked office

Taken to an office and the door locked, deputy holding his chair behind him. Sounds like “custody” to me, and questioning without parental or legal representation. Still no mention of Miranda being read to him.

Broward County taxpayers are not going to be happy about the inevitable settlement.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Broward County grabs shovel, digs deeper

The Broward County Sheriff’s office and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School seem determined to cost taxpayers millions in legal settlements.

I found this report today:

BREAKING: Anti-Gun Control Parkland Survivor Kyle Kashuv Questioned By School Security For Visiting Gun Range With His Father
Near the end of third period, my teacher got a call from the office saying I need to go down and see a Mr. Greenleaf. I didn’t know Mr. Greenleaf, but it turned out that he was an armed school resource officer. I went down and found him, and he escorted me to his office. Then a second security officer walked in and sat behind me. Both began questioning me intensely. First, they began berating my tweet, although neither of them had read it; then they began aggressively asking questions about who I went to the range with, whose gun we used, about my father, etc. They were incredibly condescending and rude.

Then a third officer from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office walked in, and began asking me the same questions again. At that point, I asked whether I could record the interview. They said no. I asked if I had done anything wrong. Again, they answered no. I asked why I was there. One said, “Don’t get snappy with me, do you not remember what happened here a few months ago?”

They continued to question me aggressively, though they could cite nothing I had done wrong. They kept calling me “the pro-Second Amendment kid.” I was shocked and honestly, scared. It definitely felt like they were attempting to intimidate me.

This is only one side of the story. As yet, I haven’t seen responses from the school or sheriff.

On the one hand, the authorities might well say that they are acting in a new abundance of caution in the aftermath of their previous massive collection of failures. That could even be reasonable.

They’ll still have to explain in court why a person who assaulted people and damaged property at school, who put guns to people’s heads and threatened to kill them, who vandalized property, who killed animals maliciously, who credibly threatened to shoot up his school — et cetera and so forth — warranted less of an investigation than a pro-rights kid who appears on national TV, meets with Senators, goes to the White House, and has never threatened anyone.

Working with Kashuv’s account, we have a kid who posted nonthreatening accounts of learning shoot with his father and an instructor, with pro-Second Amendment statements (i.e.- political speech outside of school). His principal tells him some students didn’t like his posts, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong.

Apparently Kashuv was considered so nonthreatening that he continued on to multiple classes without incident.

Until after noon, when he was sent to see “Mr. Greenleaf.”


Aside: Kashuv refers to Greenleaf a an “armed school resource officer.” Earlier reports identify a “Kevin Greenleaf” as a “civilian security monitor” and a “security specialist at the high school”. If he is a civilian and armed on school property, isn’t that a violation of Florida Statute 790.06? If he is a law enforcement officer — a sheriff’s school resource officer — why do multiple reports refer to him otherwise?


Kashuv says he met Greenleaf who, rather than speaking to him informally where they met, specifically took him to an office, where they were joined by a “second security officer walked in and sat behind me.”

If I was surrounded by armed people, I’d consider myself to be in custody. Oh, wait; I did consider myself in custody. And that wasn’t even in a private office.

Then a third officer from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office walked in, and began asking me the same questions again.

“Third officer” reinforces the concept of custody. And it raises the question of whether a civilian “security monitor” or “security specialist” presented himself as a law enforcement officer. I would very much like to see Greenleaf’s status clarified.

I’ve mentioned “custody” a few times for a good reason. A person in custody must be read his Miranda rights and allowed to stop talking without legal representation. A minor has additional protections because the courts assume that a minor can reasonably believe he is in custody under conditions that would not necessarily apply to an adult.

Kyle Kashuv was sixteen at the time of the shooting, and is still a legal minor. He was taken to a private office, apparently by an armed person, and questioned there by two, and then three, armed people whom Kashuv identified as “officers.” I am not a lawyer, but that sounds a lot like a situation in which he would believe himself to be in “custody.”

So Kashuv’s account raises questions that need answering by the school and sheriff’s office:

  • If the questioners said Kashuv had done nothing wrong, was this harassment purely for his out-of-school free political speech in support of Second Amendment rights?
  • Is Greenleaf a civilian unlawfully armed in a school?
  • If Greenleaf is a civilian, is he presenting himself in a way that would cause a reasonable person — especially a minor — to believe he is a law enforcement officer; that is, impersonating an officer?
  • Was Kashuv in custody and questioned without Miranda rights to parental or legal representation?

If Greenleaf is an armed civilian in the school, I expect we’ll see the school throw him under the bus. “Oh, we didn’t know he was carrying a gun in school. We’ll fire him immediately.” To cover their own asses, the sheriff’s office may have to arrest him.

I’m looking forward to statements from the BCoward Sheriff’s Office and the school.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Gated Community

I’m at risk of turning this into my personal blog, so I really meant to cut back on posts.* But sometimes I see something that needs to be shared.

These are the people working to disarm America.

Because it worked so well in other places and times.

‘Stunning’: Holocaust Museum tour by lawmaker who said Jews control weather does not go well
The photo, taken in 1935, depicts a woman in a dark dress shuffling down a street in Norden, Germany. A large sign hangs from her neck: “I am a German girl and allowed myself to be defiled by a Jew.” She is surrounded by Nazi storm troopers.

D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8) studied the image. “Are they protecting her?”

Lynn Williams, an expert on educational programs at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and White’s tour guide for the day, stared at the photo.

“No,” she said. “They’re marching her through.”

“Marching through is protecting,” White said.
[…]
… Seven of White’s staff members stayed with the guide, who soon was showing them an exhibit on the Warsaw Ghetto. As she explained the walling in of Polish Jews, one aide asked whether it was similar to “a gated community.”

[Rabbi Batya] Glazer spoke up.

“Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a gated community,” she said. “More like a prison.”

In case you’ve forgotten, Councilman Trayon White is the lunatic who thinks Jews are Interociter-armed fiends controlling the weather.


* We are always looking for new writers. If you have something you think is worth sharing on TZP, email me or use our contact form to submit a column.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Then and Now

According to my various newsfeeds, students across the country plan to skip school again today to shamelessly dance in 19 year-old Columbine blood to demand more gun control. After all, it’s been nearly twenty years and we still haven’t stopped school shootings.

Let’s look at what they want:

Raise firearms purchase age limit to 21.
The Columbine shooters obtained their firearms unlawfully, through a combination of straw purchases and illegal sales to 17yos.

They broke age limit laws.

“Assault weapon ban.
The Columbine shooters only had one “assault weapon” (TEC-9; illegally obtained: see above) and that was smack in the middle of the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapon ban.

That one didn’t work.

Universal background checks.
See above, re: illegal and straw purchases.

They broke laws to get around background checks.

“High capacity” magazine ban.
The Columbine shooters used a carbine with 10-round magazines, a pump-action shotgun (illegally sawed-off), a double-barrel shotgun (illegally sawed-off, and just try to jam a magazine in there), and — yes — a TEC-9 (see above) with likewise banned “high capacity” magazines

And another one doesn’t work.

Bump-fire stock ban.
Well, commercial bump-fire stocks didn’t exist yet. But they weren’t used in Parkland either. In fact, we don’t really know of any crime committed with a “bump stock;” the recent “bump-stock-type device” proposed rule claims that the Mandalay Bay chumbucket used them, but…

Search for it: find a single instance where anyone connected to the investigation said they were used. The GAO, in a recent report, carefully noted that bump stocked rifles were found, but did not say they were used. The FOIA bump stock/Mandalay Bay ATF data dump redacted anything that indicated which guns were used and which were not. More than six months, and they won’t say what was used, even as “bump stocks were used” is the rallying cry for idiots wanting them banned by law and rule.

The shooters were prohibited persons (a judge ordered them into mental health treatment). That law didn’t stop them either.

But some other things certainly haven’t changed since Columbine.

The shooters, just a few months before the shooting, produced a school project video… in which they acted out killing fellow students in the halls of their school.

The shooters were known to the police, both for prior criminal arrests, and from an investigation of videos they’d posted in which they tested the illegal bombs they manufactured. The type of bombs they planted in the school. The police declined to apply for warrants, and dropped the matter.

Continuing with the theme of cops not doing their jobs, the police did not enter the school until the shooters had finished the job (on themselves). Although a couple of officers did engage the shooters outside, which is more than Coward County’s Finest would do.

The laws these ill-informed children are demanding already failed to stop mass shootings, even as they succeeded in violating the rights of tens of millions of people who didn’t do it.

Reality is not their forte. None have — or can — explained why the laws would work this time on people bent on evading those laws. Nor have they explained how laws against an unknown number — but definitely in the millions — of guns in unknown hands in unknown locations would be enforced, let alone deal with malicious “compliance”.

How many of these wanna-be future leaders are volunteering to lead confiscation raid teams because the targets are well-armed?

Maybe they’ll require gun owners to carry their illicit arms in clear plastic backpacks to make them easily detected, so the violators can be summarily hanged at their convenience.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail