Category Archives: authoritarian swine

Take them out with what?

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

Take them out for what? Coffee? A drink?

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

No sense of history? Or just no sense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Break the Spirit ~ Seize the Tools

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?

BattleofJericho

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.

Human Smoke

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

They’re Finally Being Honest

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

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

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Am I a Calzone?

No, I don’t mean the food thingy, I mean the person, as in Ron Calzone.

Ron Calzone is a citizen, a mere mortal citizen. Well, a regular citizen with an incredible energy level. He raises horses and cattle and has a small manufacturing business. And then there is his side line. In his “spare” time Ron goes to Jefferson City to talk to legislators. Ron talks to them from a Constitutional viewpoint. He opposes things like eminent domain, and about anything that gives government more control over people lives or their property. He talks to legislators about having good firearms laws, that protect ownership and their owners. And he is very good at it. He is part of a group in Missouri called Missouri First. Ron is often in Jefferson City at the Capitol wearing down the leather on his shoes. Now not every citizen can get off work to go to Jefferson City to testify before a committee when the bills they are most interested in either seeing go through or stopped dead are to be heard. In those cases Missouri First has come up with something very ingenious, called Liberty Tools. People that are subscribed to their mailing list will be sent a notice when a bill of interest is about to be heard, and if you can’t go, you can fill out your witness statement online, MoFirst will print it off and take it to the hearing FOR YOU. Then your Representatives and Senators can get online and see which of their constituents weighed in on it. Either for or against, doesn’t matter, the choice you made, your comments will be there in the liberty tools section. Even if your vote and comment go the opposite of what Missouri First is recommending, it will be there. Pretty nifty huh? I heard from a very reliable source who was in a hearing for a Missouri Firearms Freedom act bill that Ron showed with a stack of witness forms about 18 inches or so high from people in Missouri who were in favor of it. That is a LOT of input.

So what’s the problem? Sounds like a stand up guy, right? I mean he takes time off from his own business, farm and family to go to Jefferson City and do what groups are always urging their members to do, get involved, go talk to legislators, send emails, write letters, make phone calls. He represents those that can’t be there but want their voice heard with piles of witness forms at hearings. Good stuff for citizens right? What could go wrong?

Well, he is good at being heard. And that has resulted in angering some politicians. Let’s look at a couple things.

When Sen. Kevin Engler thought he was a shoe in for position of the Senate’s President pro tem.

In 2010, along with multitude of Tea Party and Patriot group members, I also quite vocally opposed the election of Senator Engler, who was the majority floor leader, to the position of the Senate’s president pro tem. For the first time in decades, the Senate declined to make the majority floor leader their next president pro tem.

Right, Engler didn’t get it, and he was livid.

Now let’s uncover just a couple more skeletons. This one named Ron Richards. Ron was Floor Majority leader in the house at one time. That time would be 2013 and what was at stake was a fabulous bill called the Second Amendment Protection act. Now Ronnie has proudly proclaimed his pro Second Amendment status. He demonstrated this by running away from this bill screaming like a little girl. Actually I’ve seen some girls with bigger, never mind. Anyway, apparently Ron was upset that the bill would prevent newspapers from being able to publish the names of gun owners, you know, like they have in other states. But he promised he would sponsor an even better bill and get it passed. What can you say, he’s a RINO in Missouri. It’s two years later, and still not done. Then there was that time back in 2010 when Ron fought a bill that then Speaker of the house Ron Richards wanted, later the Missouri Supreme court struck it down, so guess Mr. Calzone was correct after all.

Then just recently, Rep. John Diehl was up to be Speaker of the House. Missouri First took the position that he would not be a good speaker, and set his legislation contact list to calling their elected Representatives to ask that they pick someone else other than a “bad Diehl”. The people did the contacting but the House still elected him speaker. Though they did get rid of him after he was caught in a big sex scandal. Oh well.

So what does all this have to do with the price of Israeli coffee in America?

Well this is where it gets really interesting.

A little more background. The Governor of Missouri is Jay Nixon, anti-gun. He’s the one that did the best barry impersonation “The police acted stupidly” when the Police officer shot thug Michael Brown. Jay promised swift justice for Michael. Actually, I think justice had probably already been done, but that was Jay’s first response. His second was to prevent the National guard from stopping the rioting after he illegally called them in before the riot started. So that’s Jay.

Governor Jay is the one who appointed the six members of the Missouri ethics commission. I’m sure they are all up to Jay’s demanding “standards”. Chuckle.

From the MoFirst website:

MEC says about their mission: “The MEC serves the public interest by promoting and maintaining transparency, accountability, and compliance with campaign finance, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.”The Ethics Commission claims they have no responsibility to consider constitutional arguments that might otherwise be presented in a defense against complaints.While it’s true that MEC has no authority to declare a statute unconstitutional like a real court of law would, they do have a responsibility to support the Constitution, so they should actually at least be considering the constitutional implications of various interpretations of statutes relating to a complaint. In other words, if there are two possible ways to interpret a statute – one is constitutional and the other is not – they should feel obligated to choose the constitutional approach. They do not feel thus constrained, however, and that does not bode well for our free speech rights.

Ready for the juicy stuff?

At the September 3, 2015, hearing before the Missouri Ethics Commission, a witness called by the Commission’s own attorney revealed during sworn testimony a very interesting and very telling fact. The testimony was that Representative Kevin Engler and Senator Ron Richard had talked to the Missouri Society of Governmental Consultants (MSGC), asking them if they had any interest in my status as a lobbyist. After that, MSGC filed a complaint against me with the Ethics Commission.

Only natural persons are allowed to file with the Ethics (guffaw) commission. And within five days they were to have told Ron who his accusers were. So SEVENTY-FOUR DAYS later the Missouri Ethics (yes, I am having trouble typing that with a straight face) commission told Mr. Calzone who had filed the complaint against him. And it wasn’t a person. In fact the lawyer that drew up the complaint made it clear that the filing entity wasn’t a person.

What is the fallout? Ron has been accused of being a lobbyist. That he hasn’t registered and paid the $10 fee, and hasn’t filled out the necessary paperwork. So that results in a thousand dollar fine. If he persists, he could face jail time.

Ready for the punch line? Ron isn’t a lobbyist. He is a citizen, working with other citizens and with other freedom minded groups. He is paid NO money for going to Jefferson City, and he buys the legislators no gifts, no meals. If he’s a lobbyist? He stinks at it.

That’s what makes this so ugly to me. This is an attempt to keep mere citizens from suiting up and showing up to speak to legislators. At one time this was something I did, and not long ago, I was one of two people tapped to be the citizens showing up to talk to legislators on behalf of a group of combined Second Amendment groups. I could have been in Ron’s boots. This is an attempt to stifle free speech and shut out influence of mere citizens from bothering the elected officials. That and some ugly political payback.

At a time when more than ever citizens need to be involved in the political process in an effort to protect our rights this is a very bad thing. If other states should begin to consider such actions? Citizens need to have access to their elected officials, whether it’s showing up themselves, or if they can’t, filling out a online form to be presented at a hearing, they need to be involved. We all need to be suiting up and showing up in whatever capacity we can.

Am I a Calzone? I hope so.

Politics always take an interest in you
Politics always take an interest in you

 

Who rules over you?
Who rules over you?
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Four of the best comments on the Oregon campus shooting

Forget the pathetic little mama’s-boy murderer and remember Chris Mintz, the man who charged straight at him.

—–

Stop pretending that your “commonsense” anti-gunnery will end mass shootings. Although this piece by Trevor Burrus advocates paying more attention to mental illness — a dubious proposition when applied to gun owners in this age when 25% of the population is considered “mentally ill” — it also contains some questions we should ask everybody who wants more gun laws:

Perhaps you think all guns should be confiscated. Okay, tell us how you will do that without stormtroopers roaming the country systematically violating our Fourth Amendment rights in a way that makes Donald Trump’s call for the mass deportation of illegal immigrants look like taking a census. …

Perhaps you think that all guns should be registered and licensed. Again, explain how you will do that without a battalion of stormtroopers kicking down doors. Sure, some people will voluntarily register their guns, but they are unlikely to be criminals or would-be mass shooters.

—–

Time to talk about gun-free zones.

As details emerge, it’s clear some that Umpqua Community College students did, in fact, carry firearms despite the school’s weasel-worded anti-weapons policies. But too few — and none of them in that classroom where the little creep chose his victims.

—–

If there were no guns by Joe Huffman. Huffman doesn’t directly address the Oregon killings (though clearly his post was inspired by them).

He says, “Because of this change from a society of force to a society of reason one could, and should, go so far as to say the gun is civilization. Those who claim ‘civilized countries’ are disarmed have it exactly backward.”

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

San Francisco’s Only Gun Shop to Close

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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear Aharon

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

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

J Street
J Street

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

נצ

Dear נצ

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

Regards,

אַהֲרֹן

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

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

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

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

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

Apparently, that was just lip service…

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


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police officers such as this?

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail