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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, it’s different in America.

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Cause or Effect

“Shoulder thing that goes up.”

“Bullet-piercing bullets.”

“TEC-9 rifle.”

“Heat-seeking .50 caliber bullets.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nose, meet mess. Now clean it up.

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

This Week’s New Poll: The Zombie Apocalypse

Plants-vs-Zombies-2-14We decided to have a little fun with this week’s Zelman Partisans poll, and let you use your imagination a bit.

Picture yourself in a zombie apocalypse, a la “The Walking Dead.” Zombies surround you, and the only way to kill them is to destroy their brains. You’re in it for the long haul. Survival is key. They can come at you in crowds, or one at a time. They’re slow, but fairly strong, and one bite means death. What kind of weapon will you choose?

Have fun!


 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Protector

After the 2012 massacre in Newtown, gun grabbers have consistently pushed for more gun control. Schools are already “gun-free” zones, where teachers and kids are easy prey for the armed psychotics roaming among us, but more and more colleges and universities are considering allowing armed students and professors to carry on campus.

My son’s school is better than most, but still not good enough. Those licensed to carry concealed can keep their firearms in their cars on campus, but cannot carry to class. If there’s an incident, students and professors must run to their cars – on a very vast campus – grab their tools of self defense and maybe make it back in time to stop the assailants. Most of the time, that wouldn’t be the case on a campus that large.

A serious conversation needs to be held about guns on school grounds and on campuses.

bacha khanA chemistry professor at the Bacha Khan university near Peshawar, Pakistan a few days ago shielded his students by opening fire on a horde of militant Taliban scum after they opened fire at the school.

The father-of-two opened fire, giving them time to flee before he was cut down by gunfire as male and female students ran for their lives.

He was known to his pupils as ‘The Protector’ because he was a keen hunter and kept a 9mm pistol at school, possibly in light of previous militant attacks.

He was known as “The Protector.”

The majority of this country hands children over to schools – whether public, private, religious, etc. – on a daily basis every day. Those who homeschool can certainly take responsibility for their own kids and protect them should the excrement hit the oscillating blades. As for the rest…

Teachers, school administrators, armed officers, and the rest take responsibility for other people’s children every day. They should be accountable for their safety. They should be the protectors! And yet, our society disarms them and renders them completely worthless in the performance of that duty!

Locking children in a classroom, and praying that the armed derelict won’t be able to get in is not protection.

Having them cower under their desks is not protection.

Waiting on armed police to arrive, while the armed lunatic roams the halls is not protection.

Making the predator look like a bloody colander as soon as he steps in your line of fire? That’s protection.

Assistant chemistry professor Syed Hamid Husain at Bacha Khan University ordered his pupils to stay inside as he confronted the attackers with his own pistol. He died saving his students’ lives.

Teachers in that region of Pakistan were given permission to carry firearms in the classroom after Taliban militants massacred more than 150 people, the majority of them children, at a school in the city of Peshawar in 2014, according to the report.

Pakistan got it. Shouldn’t we?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Second Amendment Dreams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just for a bit of levity.

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Whispers from the Nabiloka

Guest commentary
Exclusive to The Zelman Partisans
by Historian

During the Second World War, a variety of partisan groups arose in the territories occupied by Nazi Germany. In the East, Poland, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and into Russia itself, some of these partisan organizations were partially or primarily composed of Jews who had fled German attempts to concentrate them into ghettos or who had fled the ghettos themselves. One of these was made famous by the movie Defiance, starring Daniel Craig as Tuvia Bielski, the leader of this partisan group. This fictionalized account of the Bielski Otryad, which hid in the Nabiloka forest in what is now western Byelorussia I found compelling, and it awoke an ongoing interest in the history of the partisan groups that arose from the German invasion.

These groups varied considerably, as one might expect. Some were comprised of mainly young more or less healthy males, and geared towards military action against the Germans. Other groups, such as the Bielski Otryad, were more inclusive, taking in any Jew that wished to join, regardless of their fitness or prior employment. I was impressed at the survival of Bielski’s group in the face of both anti-semitism from the Soviets and ongoing attacks from the Germans, but I found it surprising to learn that partisan groups composed almost exclusively of young strong males, dedicated to fighting the Germans and resisting the invaders, fared much worse than groups like the Bielski Otryad whose members had widely varied backgrounds, and whose primary goal was survival.

Most of those young fit men died and their groups were wiped out, while the Bielski Otryad survived the war, growing even as the Nazis chased them through the Nabiloka forest. Some of the Bielski Otryad members died during the war, but when they were met by advancing Russian troops, they numbered 1200 Jews, the largest number of Jews saved by Jews during the war. Two of the three Bielski brothers (Tuvia and Zus; Asael was killed in 1944 fighting for the Soviets) survived also, traveling to Israel and ultimately emigrating to these presently united States in 1956.

It appears that there were two key factors at play; one was that the primary goal of the Bielski Otryad was not to kill Germans, but to help Jews survive. The other was that even deep in the taiga, there was survival value in having a wide range of skills available to the group. A wide range of outlook, experience and opinion allowed the group to better cope when conditions or circumstances changed.

There is a lesson in this for the Liberty Movement.

Today, I see a wide range of opinion about the path forward for individual freedom. Many of those espousing these various opinions bitterly attack others in the Liberty movement for their ‘impure’ or ‘imperfect’ ideas, or slather acid criticism on those who disagree in one particular or another. Topics ranging from the ideal caliber for pistols or rifles to whether or not we need or should have a Constitution and everything in between are viciously debated, and barbed words fly back and forth growing more heated with each exchange.

To what end? Cui Bono?

What is the goal of the Liberty Movement? More personally, what is YOUR goal, in the pursuit of freedom? Each one of you will have to answer that question for yourself, but my goal is: to create a system that allows each person to do as they wish, to speak as they wish, to do with their bodies, their lives and the fruits of their labors as they choose, as long as they grant others the right to do the same. As Enlightenment philosophers put it- Life, liberty and property. If someone who shares this goal with you disagrees with you as to how best to accomplish that, so what? Isn’t the whole point to allow others their otherness? Aren’t we trying to help individual Liberty survive?

Or are we?

Tuvia Bielski made his goal the survival of Jews. He did not cast out the old, the infirm or those whose politics differed from his, and as a result, a community of 1200 Jews, anarchists, socialists, communists and individualists survived the Holocaust. He made a place for a wide range of opinion, and the Jewish community he built in the Nabiloka forest was stronger and more resilient as a result.

There is much to be said for earnest discussions about the paths forward for individual Liberty. This is, after all, a war of ideas. There is no doubt that the American experiment is in trouble and we need to carefully consider how we went wrong, and what must be done to make things better. But are the paths leading to the restoration of American Liberty to be found in the stifling of dissent, or in bitter vituperation among those who agree on the big issues? This country was founded on dissent and disagreement; rather than weakness, it may be our greatest strength.

Put it another way. If this is a war of ideas, and ideas are weapons, don’t we want the forces of tyranny to have to face as many different threats as possible? Don’t we want to see statism attacked on as many fronts as we can manage? Do we want to let the perfect become the enemy of the good?

Tuvia Bielski welcomed Jews of all social classes, ideologies, ages or abilities. They followed different paths through the Nabiloka forest to reach their refuge with other Jews, and this was again, part of their protection. Imagine how easy it would have been for the Nazis to exterminate them all if they had all followed one path. Regardless of how they got there, where they came from, or what baggage they carried, they were all welcomed. As far as I can tell from my reading, Tuvia Bielski only asked that each person work as they could to support the goal of the group, which was to ensure that the Jews survive. And they did. He won.

What is your goal, gentle reader?

Will you be like Tuvia Bielski, and make your goal the survival of Liberty, welcoming and protecting all those who love individual freedom, benefiting from each person’s unique outlook?

Or will you conduct intellectual auto-da-fé against all who disagree with you, seeking to crush disagreement and to force all to goosestep to the truth as you see it?

Do you view differing opinions within the Liberty movement as a threat, or as an opportunity?

I wonder what Tuvia Bielski’s Jewish partisans would say to the enraged ideologues among us?

Can you hear the whispers from the Nabiloka forest?

With regard to all who serve the Light,

Historian

—–

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on 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

Poll: What gun groups do you support?

This week’s poll: Which gun groups do you support? And something a little different this time; we’re inviting any anti-gunners who might be lurking about to tell what anti-gun groups they volunteer for or send money to. No, there probably aren’t a lot of antis browsing TZP, but all it takes is one to show up and put the word out to her friends. Then we might get some pretty odd results.

—–

As usual, last week’s poll remains open until tomorrow evening.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

That cars vs. guns regulation argument again

Guns and Their Users Should Be Regulated Like Cars and Drivers Are
As a car enthusiast, the parallels between automobiles and guns — both of which are beloved objects that become lethal weapons when used in malice or handled incorrectly – strike me as obvious. They ought to be regulated similarly.

Sure, let’s regulate them the same way:

  • Manufacturers would have to submit samples of each model equipped with all factory options to the ATF to make sure it couldn’t go too fast or too far.
  • Car manufacturers would be sued when anyone uses a stolen vehicle in a DUI, hit&run, bank robbery, or speeding, despite laws that limit law suits to cases where the manufacturer actually did something wrong.
  • Dealers would have to run criminal background checks on all buyers.
  • The dealer would lose his Federal Automobile License if a customer filled out the ATF form 4473 incorrectly.
  • When buying a car from a dealer, you would have to disclose your race.
  • Some states would require you to obtain a license to buy a car, separate from the driver license.
  • You wouldn’t be able to drive your car to the post office, many restaurants and bars, or past schools.
  • Several states would require you conceal your car while driving.
  • MADD would encourage people to “swat” you if they see your car.
  • Some states would limit your car to a ten gallon tank, and require another background check when you refuel.
  • New York would limit you to 20 gallons of gas every 60 days.
  • California would require that your car be designed to be difficult to refuel without tools.
  • Your driver license might not be recognized by other states.
  • High capacity vans and buses would be banned in several states. Ditto large pickups.
  • You would lose your right to own a vehicle if you have a financial manager to help you with your money.
  • You wouldn’t be allowed to purchase a small economy car unless you are at least 21 years old, but you could buy a truck at 18. Congresscreeps would argue for raising the purchasing age for everything to 25.
  • Racing stripes would be banned, along with a host of other cosmetic features.
  • If anyone in your household got a DUI, your car would be confiscated.
  • Cities would have their own car ownership and driver license laws that differ from others within the same state.
  • NYC would only issue 37,000 driver licenses in the entire city of 8.5 million people, and only if you are rich or politically connected.
  • Driving your car in town would be prohibited.
  • In many areas, you would be required to drain your gas tank, lock your steering wheel, and store your car in a locked garage when not in use. The gasoline would have to be in a separate locked room.
  • Many states would allow the sheriff to deny you a driver license without cause.
  • Mufflers would be heavily taxed and registered, and outright banned in many areas. Where you can get a muffler, the process could take as much as 18 months.
  • The ATF would periodically flip-flop on whether your brakes are mufflers.
  • The ATF would also classify your shoelaces as high capacity buses, and charge you $200 dollars per lace.
  • When driving cross-country, you’d actually be required to drain your fuel tank and lock your car up in a shipping container. Get a large handtruck.
  • If you want to sell your old junker, the ATF will consider you a dealer, requiring hundreds of dollars in fees and months of waiting for approval. Then you’d be subject to random inspections of all your property.

Shall I go on?

And this:

More than a little eerily, roughly as many people die from automobile-related deaths in America each year as from guns.

There are an estimated 253 million automobiles on the road vs. an estimated 336-750 million guns in civilian hands. Despite being much less numerous, vehicles are used to kill more people than are guns. I don’t think the problem here is guns and their owners.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

It isn’t the gun people’s loophole

The “gun show loophole.” You’ve heard about it over and over and over and…

If you’re a gun guy, you get annoyed and explain that there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” that lets unlicensed dealers sell guns at shows without background checks. After all, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) says that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns must be licensed (and thus must run background checks). It doesn’t matter whether that FFL sold the gun in his store, at a gun show, online, or in a back alley at midnight.

So… No loophole, right? The victim disarmers are simply lying to confuse the ignorant about occasional private sellers and dealers. Yes, but…

There is a loophole. But it’s the government’s loophole. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21) defines “engaged in the business”: a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

If you’re making repetitive sales to make money, you’re a dealer and must get a license no matter where you conduct your business. Occasional sales, liquidation of a personal collection, maintaing and tuning a hobbyist’s collection… none of that requires an FFL because you clearly aren’t a dealer.

Where’s the “loophole” that lets a dealer skip background checks?

In the 1990s Prez Billy Jeff Clinton decided there were too many Federal Firearms Licensees. In short, a bunch of folks who would normally be considered hobbyists or collectors had gotten FFLs so that if the occasion arose, they could make a little profit, and because it made interstate shipping easier. Note that they still had to do all the record-keeping, reporting, and checking as any FFL with a store on main street.

But Cigar-Boy and the ATF didn’t like that situation: 250,000 FFLs meant it was convenient (and competitive) for honest people to lawfully purchase arms. So they changed the definition of “engaged in the business” to “engaged in enough business, and in the right places.”

Worked out of your home? Scratch that FFL. The ATF began coordinating with local zoning authorities and you had to prove your home was zoned (or a variance granted) for a business, even if you only did business at gun shows.

Didn’t sell enough guns in a year to make a profit? You’re just a lowly collector, not really in the business. There’s goes another FFL.

And that’s when the ATF started with the insane form 4473 enforcement: wrong color pen used to fill it out? Lose your license. Customer wrote “Y” instead of “Yes”? Lose your license. Bound book got updated the next morning rather than at closing in the evening? Yep, another FFL bites the dust.

We went from roughly 250,000 FFLs in the 1990s to approximately 50,000 today.

FFL-chart

But let’s say you got a zoning variance for your home business. You do a lot of business; in fact, you make a decent fortune every year selling guns at shows across the midwest. Your paperwork is perfect. You won’t even release a firearm after the three-day background check hold if you don’t hear back positively. Sure was a good thing you got that FFL, eh?

Nope. Because you got trapped by the ATF’s loophole.

ATFform7-Gun-Show-Loophole

Yes, take a look at item 18a on the ATF form 7. Despite doing business, the ATF will not issue you a license. They pulled out of their asses invented a new condition not in law: a physical store front.

Gun shows don’t count. Except when they do, when people whom the ATF told weren’t really dealers got busted anyway. For doing what the ATF said was okay.

The Gun Show Loophole: ATF: “You’re a dealer any time we need some publicity and arrests for promotion points.”
Now, after decades of the Clinton rules on dealers, President TelePrompter says he’s going to make those terrible “gun show dealers” get FFLs so they have to run background checks. I hope he remembers to tell the ATF to take that restriction off of 18a, and start accepting those applications.

If so, I’ll think about getting a license myself. I’ve run across some particularly good deals on guns that I could have turned around for a profit. It might be nice to be able to take advantage of that without the ATF busting me. History suggests that 200,000 other people would also consider it.

Somehow, when if the number of FFLs increases five-fold, I don’t think the extra 230 NICS workers are going to be sufficient.

FBI background checks Dec 2015_0

A five-fold FFL increase probably won’t translate into a five-fold NICS traffic increase, but somehow I don’t think they be able to keep up. (Something to bear in mind when you hear about bills to increase the NICS-delay time to 25 days and beyond.)

In fact, I don’t think the ATF will issue those licenses. Instead of letting people operate legally as they wished to do, it’s far more likely that they’ll crack down further on the honest folks they’ve been denying FFLs. That’s why Barrycade is authorizing an additional 200 ATF goons, instead of clerks to process applications.

Obama’s self-admitted goal is not to get more dealers licensed and into compliance. Clerks would do that. He’s just looking to crack down on honest sales.

“It’s a little bit harder to get a gun.”
[…]
“It may be a little more diffult and a little more expensive. And the laws of supply and demand mean that if something’s harder to get and a little more expensive to get then fewer people get them.”

Barry, allowing me to introduce you to another little economic tidbit:

The black market
When he makes transactions difficult and expensive, he makes the black market cost effective. It worked for the War On (Some) Drugs. Fortunately for honest people who want defensive tools, the black market for firearms is already well established.

Now there’s a loophole.

“Smitty,what do you think of these trick rules the new Head has thought up? Should we knuckle under, or make a squawk”?

“Squawk? What for?” Smythe gathered up his tools. “There’s a brand-new business opportunity in each one, if you only had the wit to see it. When in doubt, come see Smythe — special services at all hours.”
Robert A. Heinlein, Red Planet

If he’s crazy enough to reverse the Clinton rules, we can make him look darned silly. Not just salesman of the year, but FFL recruiter of the century.

Sadly, he won’t. That’s talk. The real clue is: 200 new agents, not 200 clerks.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Well, bye!

Has anyone ever seen any problem at a gun show that required a mass police presence? Me neither. There have been a few accidents here and there, but nothing criminal that required an armed police response in recent memory.

That’s why a Pennsylvania Mayor’s hilariously impotent temper tantrum in response to an upcoming NRA-sponsored gun show’s refusal to fork over a 60 percent increase extortion in fees to hold the show in Harrisburg is so perplexing. Specifically, Mayor Eric Papenfuse is refusing to provide police security for the show.

Harrisburg police have provided security for the annual Great American Outdoors Show, scheduled this year for February 6-14, in the past. Mayor Eric Papenfuse said that the decision not to offer the department’s services this year was motivated in part by the NRA’s opposition to the city’s gun control policies.

“We have an epidemic of gun violence,” Papenfuse told WHTM. “It’s no secret that the NRA has worked against the city’s interests repeatedly over the past year causing us to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend common sense gun ordinances. We don’t need to be doing them any favors.”

The NRA has already been paying Harrisburg $600,000, but Papenfuse wanted more ostensibly to provide police protection for the gun show. Police protection from what? Your guess is as good as mine. It’s probably Papenfuse’s passive/aggressive effort to close down the gun show by refusing to offer armed security. As if anyone really cares…

This is equally hysterical coming from a guy who in December 2012 pled guilty to exceeding the speed limit by 15 mph in a 25 mph zone – probably a residential one.

MDJCourtSummaryReport

Hey, Eric! Did you know that nearly 34,000 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2014? That makes your speeding through what was probably a residential neighborhood much more dangerous than the gun shows with their handful of 2014 accidents! It also makes your histrionic claim about children’s safety just a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

Ooops!

In any case, I doubt that police presence at the gun show in Harrisburg will be needed.

Nice try, dimwit.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail