Traitorous Bagel-Brains Against Gun Victims


U.S. rabbis’ anti-gun violence group starts in Berkeley
Like many Americans, Creditor reached a boiling point on guns after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 young children and six adults were killed.

If Rabbi Creditor wants to reduce gun violence, it would be a fine thing for him to organize gun safety classes for the young people of his community. He could work to expand economic opportunities so fewer would resort to the illegal drug trade. He could perform direct outreach to at-risk kids. He could exercise the prime responsibilty of a rabbi by teaching these people the difference between aggression and defensive use of force.

But Creditor is a rabbi in name only. He doesn’t want to teach.

“Our vision is to amplify the work that’s being done, knowing that Congress has failed us so far,” Creditor said. “The ability that faith leaders have to marshal civic activism is unrivaled.”

More laws. More violations of the rights of honest people. The kind of laws that those honest people — and even Congress — have rejected.

Because, when violent crime rates are dropping to levels not seen for decades, some crazy minor murdered a woman to steal her guns and take them to a designated gun-free victim disarmament zone to murder more people…

…he wants to inflict more human/civil rights infringements on the people who didn’t do it. Because the gun laws didn’t work there, Rabbi Creditor wants to turn the entire nation into Sandy Hook.

For safety.

Because disarming Jews worked so well there, he wants to turn America into Nazi Germany.

For safety.

I think not. I strongly suspect his motivation is a little more crass.

Creditor also got Eileen Soffer, a Mountain View resident who had worked as the national deputy field director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, to come aboard as the full-time national coordinator.

That is the same Moms Demand Victims that is under the umbrella of Everytown for Gun Safety (along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns), which is chaired — and heavily funded — by billionaire Michael Bloomberg who never saw a gun in civilian hands that he liked (except his own bodyguards). Soffer undoubtedly brought along the promise of financial backing for yet another bloody-handed victim disarmament group.

Perhaps I’m being unfair; maybe he wants something other than restrictions on rights. But since he does want “further expanded background checks, public health research into gun violence, I doubt it. The fact that he runs their F******k page as a closed group implies that they want to hide their agenda from those who appreciate civils rights.

I invite Rabbi Creditor to answer a few questions.

  1. Have you ever read the complete Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights?
  2. Do you comprehend the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy?
  3. Exactly what gun laws do you propose to stop another Sandy Hook scenario (where the perpetrator violated a series of laws just to get the guns)?
  4. How do you propose to protect the rights of those who didn’t do it?
  5. How do you propose to enforce your laws on criminals (bearing in mind that criminals cannot be required to submit to a background check)?
  6. If your agenda includes weapons bans, will you man up and conduct confiscations peronally?
  7. Would any ban/confiscation recompense gun owners for the loss of property? Have you considered how much money that would be?
  8. What will you do when the good guys just say, No”?
  9. What will you do if the good guys say, “All righty, then“?

I await Rabbi Creditor’s response, though not with bated breath.


Poll: Your first experience with firearms?

We’re waxing a bit nostalgic this week. Many of us learned how to shoot when we were really young. Others were lucky enough to have shooting be part of a family tradition. Others didn’t learn until they were much older.

chi-gun-training-kids-video-20150327 (1)Tell us about your experiences!

Were you just a little tyke with your first Henry rifle?

Did you go plinking with a parent?

Did you learn when you were older? Did a drill instructor put that first rifle in your hands in Basic Combat Training?

Give us your story in the comments, if you’d like. We’d love to see it!



I know, it’s usually kerfluffle, but it this case, kerfl-APPLE seems more appropriate. I realize it’s not strictly gun related, but considering privacy is a part of freedom, this bothers me. I have certain things in life, just like we all do that we consider our private information. It seems daily what the government will allow us to keep private shrinks. Of course, there is always a “good reason” for the need to violate our privacy. I’m still miffed that when I buy a phone now there are presidential alerts that I can not unsubscribe from. Barry didn’t buy my phone, he doesn’t pay my phone bill, and yet, there is that stupid Presidential alerts so he can address me any time he feels the need. Frankly, I doubt there is anything of interest he could say thatI would find it worth having this feature. Well, except “I resign, effective now”.

So back to Apple and the iPhone. I don’t have an iPhone, so I don’t really have a horse in this race. But as I understand it Apple’s iPhone has a reputation of security. The San Bernadino terrorist ***** (I’m not giving the name, let it be lost to time) had a government issued iPhone.

The FBI wants to crack it. The problem is, after ten attempts to access the iPhone, it automatically wipes clean. This particular iPhone the FBI wants to explore? The FBI has now admitted they’re the ones that directed the Police to change the password to the iCloud back-up, and they have access to all the data in the iCloud which had been recently updated. But as there is more info on the phone than in the cloud, they want the phone cracked. They want Apple to create a “backdoor” to their software. They want a version of the OS that will allow the FBI to use their brute force software to get into a phone without causing it to erase.

This does not bode well for the Americans with an iPhone.

According to TechCrunch, the government is asking for three things from Apple:

  • Disable or bypass the auto-erase function of iOS. This erases your phone if too many wrong passwords are input. A commonly enabled setting on corporate phones — which the iPhone 5c owned by the government agency for which ****** worked — is.
  • Remove the delay on password inputs so that the FBI can ‘guess’ the passcode on the phone quicker, without it locking them out for minutes or hours, which is what iOS does to stop any random thief from doing this kind of thing. The inputs would be lowered to around 80 milliseconds, which would allow the password to be guessed in under an hour if it were 4 digits and significantly longer if it were more.
  • Allow the FBI to submit passcode via the physical port on the phone, or a wireless protocol like Bluetooth or WiFi.

So once Apple has built the new OS with the backdoor, the government can access people’s iPhones if they need to, or have a good reason, or want to.

But so can a good hacker.

As Wired pointed out, after Edward Snowden’s bombshells, the American people that care about this sort of thing really sat up and took notice. They wanted better encryption and better safeguards for the privacy and security of their personal data. The later iPhones no longer even have the capability of being opened by Apple. The earlier ones did have a keyhole, and Apple had the key, not so with the newer ones. Apple threw away the key. Sort of like Ladar Levison, owner of Lavabit trashing his own servers and destroying all his work to protect the privacy of his email customers who paid the princely sum of $8 a year for a secure email account.

Wired also pointed out FBI director James Comey’s claims that if Apple doesn’t cave the US is “no longer a country governed by the rule of law.” is well, crAPPLE.

A former head of the NSA and the CIA is also saying Apple shouldn’t give in to the FBI, and why.

What I think it boils down to? The FBI is using the one iPhone of ***** to demand Apple weaken it’s security, leaving owners of it’s product at risk of government intrusion, as well as vulnerable to hackers, and making the pricy phone a bigger target for theft. Not to mention, as one of the article pointed out

the fact that the government would be weakening the security of a private company’s product, potentially impacting the civil liberties of American citizens and foreign nationals worldwide that use those products.

That’s always good for a companies reputation and profitability, right?

But not to worry, we can trust the US government not to break their word not to spy on Americans! They would never, rarely, seldom, not without a good reason, likely spy on people they have promised not to spy on.

Knowledge is power, the more knowledge they have of people and their private information the greater the leverage, right?

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”~~ Benjamin Franklin. Wise man Ben.

Some of our great comments on this brought this little video back to the front of my mind.


Brady Center Files Lies Over 3D Printed Guns

Or, as the truth-challenged victim disarmers put it:

Brady Center Files Amicus Brief Over 3D Printed Guns
The government’s attempt to keep 3D printed guns out of the hands of terrorists got a boost Thursday with an amicus brief filed in support in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

That purports to be a Courthouse News article, but it appears from the text (including a “mission statement” for the BCPGV at the bottom) to be a press release. Let’s look it over.

  • “The U.S. Department of State ordered Texas-bases Defense Distributed to remove from the Internet what was essentially a do-it-yourself kit for making untraceable and undetectable guns.”
    Nope. It was electronic data files. No tools, no materials. 
  • “The kit included blueprints for 3D printed guns that could easily be carried through security checkpoints and used to wreck havoc.”
    I might allow that one if by “security” they mean the TSA. But to date, there are no really concealable 3D printed firearms (unless you count those AR lowers, which require a great many other parts to function). Most are large, bulky. They require metallic firing pins and barrels, and often metallic springs. Current US law alrready requires a minimum amount of detectable metal, and the DD plans incorporate that.
  • “What happens when these new, untraceable and undetectable guns wind up in the wrong hands, or easily slip through metal detectors at airports?”
    If they slip through metal detectors, it isn’t the fault of the metal-bearing gun, but of the sloppy security workers.
  • “Brady’s brief argues the Second Amendment does not give the right to make and publish plans for 3D printed guns”
    Technically true. For one, the 2A doesn’t give any rights, but protects a preexisting right. For another, it’s the First Amendment that protects the speech expressed in those data files.
  • “This case shows just how far the corporate gun lobby will go – fighting for a supposed right to export blueprints”
    Now that’s funny. Here’s a group working on the development of 3D printing technology that would allow individuals to make their firearms without having to get them from gun corporations. Eventually.
  • “undetectable plastic gun”
    Except for all those metallic parts required for function and by law.
  • “[T]he United States has the right to regulate the export of firearms, and that Defense Distributed’s attempt to give detailed plan to print guns to anyone with an internet connection amounts to international firearms exportation.”
    Yeah. Well, we saw how well that worked for encryption in the Crypto Wars. Now, if they’re claiming that these bulky, short-lived firearms are specifically designed for and used by the military, I wish they’d point to the units deploying with Shuttys and DD semiauto lowers.
  • “The mission of the Brady Center is to drastically cut the number of annual deaths from gun violence.”
    Then they should get out of the rights-violation business and get trained as mental health counselors, since two-thirds of those gun deaths are suicides.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this amicus brief is more of a fund-raising appeal to cover the expenses incurred for wrongfully suing Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.

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!


Gadsden Kippot

TZP’s custom kippot (aka yarmulkas or kippahs) have been a big hit, thank you very much. Looks as if we’ll be carrying those in the store for a good long time.

We recently learned about somebody else who’s selling Gadsden kippot to raise money for a trip to Israel. Thought our faithful readers and members would like to know about those, too.


You can go here to learn more or contact the seller: davidhunt -@- outdrs –period– net.

His price, as he notes, is a bit “chai” because he’s raising funds. But it looks like a nice item. No financial interest on our part. Just helping a fellow freedomista.


Poll: GOP a danger to your gun rights?

republican_debate002_16x9Hey, all! It’s time for another fun Zelman Partisans poll. Today we are asking you which remaining GOP candidate would be the most dangerous for your gun rights.

We previously asked you who in the GOP clown car would best protect your right to keep and bear arms. Now, that the field has narrowed, we want to know who would be the worst.

What I tried to do in parentheses is give you guys a taste of each candidate’s Second Amendment views. It’s not a complete report card, and I’ve tried to include Gun Owners of America ratings where appropriate.

Now, go vote!


Democracy is dead. Long live the dictator.


More and more, I believe that a lot of universities should close their doors forever, their buildings be razed, and salt sown in the earth. It might be a good idea to go over the ruins with a flame-thrower, just to sure.

From Oxford University Press:

Bang, bang — democracy’s dead: Obama and the politics of gun control
When it comes to gun control and American politics then maybe – just maybe – could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets, just like guns and safety, just don’t mix?

No. There isn’t.

I carry a gun for safety, as do at least 14,134,740 other Americans (that doesn’t count those who lawfully carry without a license). It seems to work since the American violent crime rates are at their lowest in decades, unlike the UK, where you have to fudge your allegedly low crime rates by failing to report 20% of the crimes, and by not even counting a murder until after an investigation, arrest, trial, and conviction; under the UK system, if a killer is never caught, they never add the death to their statistics. Given that their cops had to cede entire ‘no-go zones’ to the criminals, it seems justifiable to think the real crimes are astonomical.

And I might add that America is not a straight democracy. This is a representative constitutional republic. That means that unless you gin up the votes to amend the Constitution, there are some things you cannot do even if a ‘majority’ supposedly want it. As a British subject, who “was once, for a very short time, a member of the British Army but had to leave because he did not like guns or loud bangs,” I wouldn’t expect Flanders Flinders to grasp that subtle difference. As a “Professor of Politics,” writing on American politics, he certainly should.

What doesn’t mix is a ‘benevolent’ dictator and guns in the hands of the people. We set it up that way deliberately.

Given that Flinders wants to impose another dictator on America, I think we should hang on to our guns. We certainly should not send them to quivering cowards frightened of loud noises the next time their victim disarmament policies get the best of them.

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!


“Did your French gun control stop a single f****** person from dying at the Bataclan?”

On November 13, 2015 a terrorist attack in Paris killed 130 people – 89 of them at the Bataclan concert hall where the band Eagles of Death Metal was performing that night.

The band felt it was a sacred duty to return to Paris and perform as a sign of defiance – not allowing “the bad guys to win.”

And while you may not be familiar with their music, or may not even like it all that much, Eagles of Death Metal’s Jesse Hughes told  French channel iTELE that firearms were the equalizer that day.

“Did your French gun control stop a single f****** person from dying at the Bataclan? And if anyone can answer yes, I’d like to hear it, because I don’t think so. I think the only thing that stopped it was some of the bravest men that I’ve ever seen in my life charging headfirst into the face of death with their firearms.”

The interview is below. You can watch the entire thing if you want.