Reflections on/of Purim

Yes, I do realize Purim was a week ago, but we still need a column on Purim, because, well Purim is amazing. It does seem like a fairy tale. Kings, beautiful orphan girls becoming a queen (without needing a glass slipper) and a evil toad Amalekite, fancy dress balls and lots of chocolate.

Two easy fun ways you can become familiar with Purim if you don’t know what the big deal is. A cartoon, cartoons are usually good.

OR your can see this very cool memegillah. It’s the story of Ester told in memes,  like Facebook. I must say, the kitten ones are very cute, as are the squirrel ones. I thank Y.B. for steering me to this.

A couple of interesting points I learned from reading this year. When King Achashverosh commanded Queen Vashti to come to his six month long party celebrating that the temple would never be rebuilt, he didn’t just say, “Hey, it’s a happening party babe, come on over”. Nope, I just learned he commanded her to come wearing her royal crown. Nothing else, just the royal crown. I have sympathy for Vashti. Till I read further and find out she is the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar who had conquered Judea and destroyed the Holy Temple and convinced King Achashverkerchoo not to allow the Temple to be rebuilt. The party was to celebrate that the Temple would never be rebuilt. Sympathy for Vashti now =0.

Hamen, he was a decedent of the Amakalites. So there may be some historical reason behind evil Haman’s hatred of Mordachai. He initially offered King Achashverkerchoo money to be allowed to kill all the Jews. King Achashverkerchoo said “naw, good plan, you can do it for free”. The king is no hero.

The king can’t just “undo” his order to his kingdom to kill all the Jews and seize their property. No, that takes ANOTHER special memorandum. I chewed on that one. Without the government permission slip saying Jews were allowed to defend themselves they were just going to be slaughtered. Wow. Life was cheap to King Achashverkerchoo, at least Jewish life. The UN must be a descendant of King Achashverkerchoo because they don’t believe that self defense is a human right either.

So G-d worked through Mordachai and Esther to save the people because they were willing to do as he asked.

And the Temple? King Achashverkerchoo and Esther had a son, Daryavesh, (Darius). Daryavesh commanded the Temple be rebuilt. HAHAHAHA! Take that King Achashverkerchoo!

So that’s my reflections ON Purim.

But wait, there’s more.

In a recent newspaper column Hamass claimed murder of pieceful palestinians is part of Purim.

He added that the “settlers” celebrate their Jewish holidays by performing “horrible crimes of murder with the support of the occupation government and military commanders” and that there is a rabbinic “blessing” which “permits murdering and executing every Palestinian without discretion.”

The column tells us that the attacks in Ankara were committed by a terrorist that had followed the Israeli tourists from the time they left the hotel.

This column warns that Jews & Christians have been warned by Turkish police:

Jews and Christians are believed to be the target of the terror organization’s future terror attacks in the country. The warning comes just a week after three Israelis were murdered in a terror attack that took place in Istanbul, which was carried out by an ISIS terrorist.

And as we know now, there was a horrible bomb blast on Easter directed at children on a playground.

Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe and campuses across the US, often masquerading as Boycott Divest & Sanction.

Yes, the spirit of wicked Hamen is still alive and doing well, doing very well indeed.

A refection OF Purim I would say.

But it is a column about Purim, I don’t want to leave you on a down note. So think about your costume for next year, remember “They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat. “ and enjoy this.


Constitutional carry and the art of skinning cats

On Friday, March 25, Governor Butch Otter signed SB 1389, making Idaho the ninth state to adopt constitutional carry (aka unrestricted carry or permitless carry).

Back in the day, we knew this as Vermont carry, after the one-and-only state whose residents were legally free to tuck guns in their pockets or purses or under their clothing without first asking their state government for permission. Vermont had been that way for generations. And for all those generations, they remained alone.

But now … oh my.

In some ways Idaho’s bill isn’t a huge change from its existing laws. Idaho residents already had constitutional carry outside city limits; SB 1389 merely extended it to cities — over the objections of police chiefs, Bloomberg’s Everytown, and the usual hoplophobes who cried the usual cry of “blood in the streets!”

In other ways, what a very, very big deal this is.

For one, the bill explicitly acknowledges the individual right to bear arms and that said people grant only limited powers to state governments:

The legislature hereby finds that the people of Idaho have reserved for themselves the right to keep and bear arms while granting the legislature the authority to regulate the carrying of weapons concealed. The provisions of this chapter regulating the carrying of weapons must be strictly construed so as to give maximum scope to the rights retained by the people.

Like all such bills, it’s full of legalisms that hardcore freedomistas won’t appreciate (for instance, permitless carry is only for those 21 or above; those 18 to 20 must still get permits, though those permits are “shall issue”).

But for some of us who’ve been around a long time … it’s a bloody miracle.

Let me take you back to the day

It was a dark day. 1993 and 1994. A rabidly anti-gun president held the White House. A Congress composed of rabidly anti-gun Democrats and wishy-washy Republican “leaders” like Bob Dole stood ready to give Bill Clinton more service than Monica Lewinski ever did.

Wham! They hit us with the Brady Law. Wham! They hit us with the Ugly Gun Ban. Over the next several years, they hit us with more laws to restrict guns, give more funding to anti-gun enforcement, and in general extend the powers of both the federal government and local police against We the People.

Dark days indeed.

In 1993, I used my smoking-hot 1200-baud modem to dial into a gun-rights bulletin board in Colorado — half the country away from my Pacific Northwest home. And for me, that’s where I first encountered hopeful change — though I didn’t recognize it at the time.

The Internet, though it existed in the scientific and academic communities, was not yet a thing for ordinary people. But we were reaching out to find each other, anyhow. Some via FidoNet bulletin boards (BBSes) like the one I mentioned, which had been set up by and for fans of writer and gun advocate L. Neil Smith. Or a bigger FidoNet operation, the Paul Revere Network (PRN — where I first met TZP co-founder Brad Alpert). Others gathered local friends and huddled around short-wave radios, where a handful of firebrands (some as crazy as moonbats, but that’s another story) were beginning to agitate against the looming federal takeover. Many began to gather in the real world to form militias.

I was soon running up $300-a-month phone bills dialing cross-country to various gun-rights and Bill of Rights bulletin boards. (My wallet and I were both so relieved when subscription Internet came along shortly thereafter.) But that first Colorado bulletin board remained my mainstay as long as FidoNet ruled the dawning e-world.

Quirky little Vermont and the people who saw bigger things

It was on those primitive BBSes that I first heard the term “Vermont carry.”

Maybe it was the term itself, which hinted at the quirk of one small and quirky state. Or maybe it was just the hopelessness of the times. But it never dawned on me that Vermont carry had a chance of slipping outside the boundaries of Vermont. If asked to give odds, I’d have put it at a thousand to one against.

The “shall issue” concealed carry permit movement was the only bright spot for guns at that moment. It had been gaining ground since the late 1980s. But for me that was no bright spot at all. I saw state-issued permits not only as unlawful government control, but worse, as a sneaky way to gather data on gun owners for eventual confiscation.

On that Colorado BBS, a Wyoming activist, Charles Curley, had a lively debate going on with L. Neil Smith. The two were friends, but on one issue they ardently differed. Charles was working with fellow activists to get shall-issue concealed carry permits in Wyoming, which Neil saw as a betrayal of true freedomista principles.

I was privately in Neil’s camp, but I liked Charles (with whom I soon had a seven-year romance) so I didn’t say much. But where Charles really made my head spin was with his claim — preposterous! — that he and his fellow Wyoming ccw activists were consciously and deliberately setting things up to move eventually from shall-issue to pure Vermont carry.

I simply didn’t see how giving state governments more control (as I viewed it) could ever result in less control, eventually. Just did not believe it possible. Especially in those dismal days.

But these steady, patient activists were beginning a major change. I just couldn’t see it. They worked. And they worked. And they got major court judgments in their favor. And they worked some more.


Today, seven states have permitless concealed carry for every lawful gun owner and two (Idaho and Wyoming) have it for their own residents, though visitors still require permits from their home states.

It began in 2003 with Alaska, and continued through Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, and Maine. Successes were far between at first, but the pace is picking up. This month alone, both West Virginia and Idaho got on the freedom train. The West Virginia legislature had to override their governor’s veto. Although Idaho’s Butch Otter signed without quibble, both houses of the Idaho legislature passed the bill with impressively veto-proof margins (27 to 8 in the Senate and 54 to 15 in the House).

And there’s more. Oklahoma allows residents of constitutional carry states to carry discreetly within its borders. Puerto Rico has constitutional carry (following a lawsuit), though that’s being appealed. Other states have permitless concealed carry outside of city limits or allow it if the weapon is unloaded or in an “enclosed case” (and a woman’s purse or a man’s backpack counts as an enclosed case). Or on a motorcycle. Or on horseback.

Yes, the laws remain quirky and imperfect. (There’s no such thing as a perfect law.) But virtually every change has been in the right direction. And activists continue the march toward constitutional carry in many more states.

Are we likely to see constitutional carry in Massachusetts, New York, or California any time soon? Ha! But I can tell you that a lot of us who were around in the dark old days of 1993 and 1994 never thought we’d see even this much, ever, in so many places.

And “this much” is a lot. A hell of a lot. Better yet, we’re going to see more.

Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.

Back in the day — those dark old days of seemingly unstoppable federal overreach — I thought we’d have to fight (real “blood in the streets”) to restore our gun rights. Of course, we may yet have to fight to preserve our freedom.

But thanks to the new and expanded gun culture across the land — a culture in part built and normalized by the very activists I doubted — We the People are becoming an ever more formidable power.

I wouldn’t have thought it possible. I wasn’t a part of making it happen. In my eyes it will forever remain a mystery of darned-near miraculous proportions.

It definitely goes to show that there can be a lot of ways to skin the proverbial cat.


This article appeared first on our weekly TZP alert. If you want to be among the first to see all articles, sign up!


An Open Letter to Ted Nugent

Dear Mr. Nugent,

You recently wrote a column advocating the elimination of Islam in which you addressed the danger of allowing political correctness to stop the fight against Islamic terror. You finished with: “Never invite rats, mice or cockroaches into your home. Kill them all before they even get close. Exterminate them. Then let freedom ring for decades to come.

While you are correct that PC “thinking” shouldn’t get in the way of doing the right thing, your invective gives the impression that you’re also willing to chuck out morals and common decency.

You pay brief lip service to the — correct, or we’d have already lost to 1.6 billion psychotic terrorists across the globe — idea that not all Muslims practice or support terrorism. And then you launch into a tirade that suggests wiping them all out: “As in a city dump, the world is infested with rabid rats. There is no cure for them, no turning them into civilized people. They need to be wiped out along with their devilish ideology.”

Genocide. And all the more troubling that you, an honorary member of The Zelman Partisans, the no compromise, no surrender Jewish RKBA organization, would use that “rat” imagery to promote such acts. As I recall, the Nazis demonized Jews during the Holocaust by referring to them as rats to be exterminated.

Humans are not rats. We shouldn’t be exterminating one another en masse. If not for moral reasons, then certainly for the pragmatic choice to avoid dangerous precedent. As David Codrea notes, demonizing an entire ethnic group is dangerous; something that a good TZP member must surely realize.

Self defense against radical Islamic aggresssion is another matter. Protection of life against predators is precisely why The Zelman Partisans advocates, promotes, and supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. Yamamoto’s apocryphal gun behind every blade of grass will work as well against freelance terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminals as it does against organized aggressors.

You speak of not letting “rats” into your home, and specifically state they should be killed first. Historically disturbing imagery aside, there is some limited truth in that. Islam does have a problem with violence. It’s at the root of Islam (at least partly dreamed up to justify raiding neighboring tribes). It’s something to which other faith systems have also been susceptible. Leslie Fish explains it thusly:

Just What’s Wrong With Islamophobia?
But just what is it that makes Islam such a danger to the world? Yes, its holy-book is full of really vicious commandments and examples, but the assorted gods know, and any Atheist can tell you, that the world’s other religions — especially the monotheistic ones — have plenty of traditions and holy-books full of vicious exhortations and bloodthirsty history, so why don’t they act on them the way Muslims feel obliged to do? Perhaps the answer lies in the religion’s relative youth. Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and 2000 years younger than Judaism. It never went through 2000 years of being kicked around half the world, always a powerless minority, as Judaism did. It never went through the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the secular revolutions as Christianity and Judaism did. In short, it never learned to criticize its own holy-book, never learned to accept the eternal presence of successful unbelievers, and never got the fundamentalist arrogance largely kicked out of it.

Based on my limited personal experience, the hypothetical average Middle Eastern Muslim is stuck, intellectually speaking, in an anti-technology Middle Ages (ironically, since Arabs were once noted for the pursuit of knowledge a la Al Gebra). This makes the more credulous among them susceptible to jihadist manipulation. Allowing them to immigrate to a modern and open culture, and assimilate into that culture would do far more to speed them towards the 21st century and a mature “Islamic Reformation,” than confirming their Koran-based fears that outsiders are the enemy by trying to exterminate them all.

In our existing American legal structure, legal immigration is limited, and a known demographic group with a notable subset prone to violence should be screened for those individuals who are a danger to Americans. You clearly, as do I, consider Muslims a potential risk pool. I prefer screening to the closed immigration and extermination which you ironically give the appearance of advocating. Advocating closed borders while supporting an advocate of open immigration can give casual readers the impression that you haven’t thought this through; the NRA board member isn’t the only energetic supporter of open immigration. I admit to certain concerns of my own about those illegals, seeking handouts rather than a hand up, suddenly gaining the ability to vote for victim-disarming Democrats. (In my personal view, eliminating the handouts would go far towards discouraging leeches, while allowing in those who want a chance to improve their own lot; in such an event, truly open borders would become a good thing for America.)

It is not all Muslims conducting, nor even condoning, violence. It is individuals and specific groups of individuals. Even in the Crusades, it wasn’t every single Christian in the world actively and willingly supporting the wars. It is not in our best interest to dehumanize the entire Muslim population; that was Al Qaeda’s own tactic in rallying support against America, largely starting the current phase of violent jihadism.

The Nazis demonized Jews (and other groups) to coalesce support for the party.

Americans demonized Hispanics to begin the War on Drugs (marijuana).

Americans demonized Blacks for the sake of gun control (“n—-rtown
Saturday night specials
;” the media then stripped out the n-part as
being too obvious).

Armed individuals should deal with violent individuals, and Islam must grow up so it learns to follow that example.

And you, Mr. Nugent, must set that example yourself in actions and in careful choice of your words.

As for those who won’t learn, and turn to violence to abuse Americans’ hospitality…

We still have the right to keep and bear arms.

This article presents the personal opinions of Carl Bussjaeger and does not necessarily represent the views of The Zelman Partisans.


Pro-gun Fiction

freeholdThis week’s poll is a bit of fun. We’d like to know what you consider to be the best pro-gun novel. I’ve tried to select a good variety of fiction that I thought spanned the genres – everything from military sci-fi to urban fiction to historical fiction; Correia to Heinlein to Smith.

If you don’t see your favorite in the bunch, choose “other” and let us know which one. Let us know why you love the book you love. Maybe this poll will help expand some of our horizons and help find new literature we enjoy.heinlein
Let’s stick to fiction this week, and we’ll do non-fiction later.

Sound good?

Ready? Go!


Excusing terrorism, and blaming those who didn’t do it

While the main focus of The Zelman Partisans is the right to keep and bear arms from a Jewish perspective, sometimes we just have to look a little further.  Catholic Pope Francis is dancing in the blood of Brussels.

Pope Washes Feet of Refugees, Blames Brussels on Arms Industry
“Three days ago, there was a gesture of war, of destruction, in a city of Europe by people who don’t want to live in peace,” he said.

Behind that gesture there were arms manufacturers, arms traffickers, who want blood, not peace, who want war, not brotherhood,” he said. (emphasis added-cb)

If I were still a practicing Catholic, I wouldn’t be anymore.

Oddly enough, I had the impression the Brussels attack was carried out by violent Islamic terrorists. Daesh certainly seems to think so. I stand corrected: It was Smith & Wesson, or something like that.

When did S&W, Ruger, Remington, or whoever go into the homemade TATP bomb business? It doesn’t seem like a profitable product, since it’s already easy to make from readily available precursors. And shipping it around the world is problematic, what with it being so unstable as to spontaneously detonate as it ages.

It’s true that there was an initial report of shots fired, and some sort of “Kalashnikov rifle” or two being found at the airport, but that seems to have been dropped from the narrative. For now, the reports of the airport and train station attacks are bombs only.

Homemade bombs.

While some may dispute it, the fact is that Francis is a socialist. And he’s simply using the Brussels horror as an — irrational — excuse to attack those “evil capitalists” selling stuff. Even when they weren’t involved. Francis’ embrace of socialism is more than a little ironic, since socialism tends to be hostile to other faiths.

Francis has abandoned his old Christian faith for one that conservatively killed more than 129 million people in less than a century. And here he is helping that along by deflecting blame for dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, from the terrorists who did it, to his real enemy: capitalism.

And naturally, as a pacifist-leaning blood-dancer (except when it comes to protecting his butt), he chose weapons manufacturers as his particular bugaboo in this case because socialism needs its victims disarmed.

Sadly, many Jews have also fallen for socialism and victim disarmament.

The Zelman Partisans have not.


Dear Douchestick – Don’t quit your day job

I’m a science fiction geek. I love the Star Wars movies, the superhero comic movies, classic science fiction from Asimov, Heinlein, and Bradbury, and yes, even the Star Trek reboots (please don’t start throwing tomatoes at me)!

What makes me absolutely crazy is actors whom I otherwise admire, deciding to use their rather large soapbox to push odious political agendas. They have a mike. They have the influence by virtue of being famous, and by having numerous admirers. And they take advantage of these tools to spout about issues on which they are often ignorant. Ridiculously ignorant. So stupid…

Can you see why the sci-fi nerd in me wants to take Hamill’s light saber and stick it up his… ignorance?

Mark Hamill – a guy who played what essentially is a citizen warrior rebel against a powerful authority – is now telling us that we, peons, only have the right to keep and bear arms that existed at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights and promoting more government control over We the People!

I’m not even going to touch the whole “dumbass can’t spell ‘amendment'” issue!

The problem with celebrities promoting idiot causes is that many times, while their intentions may be good, their ignorance of the issue prevents them from seeing just how stupid their statements are!

If Hamill is convinced that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own a musket, then the First Amendment only protects his right to spew his lunacy using 18th Century writing implements. His right to spew on national television is not protected, and I’m pretty sure the Founders didn’t have Internet either!

And of course, the ever-present loons at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown, glommed onto Hamill’s douchery like dobermans on a tasty steak! Because there’s nothing these authoritarian tools love more than idiot celebrities who promote their causes for them!

Here’s a clue, Mr. Hamill: stick to your day job. You’re a decent actor, but constitutional law, philosophical discussions about natural rights, and history are not your strong suits.


A Perfect Storm of Stupidity

That’s what you get when a HuffPo editor asks an Atlantic editor questions on MSNBC. I’m surprised viewers’ television sets didn’t tip over to the left.

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - MARCH 22: A plume of smoke rises over Brussels airport after the controlled explosion of a third device in Zaventem Bruxelles International Airport after a terrorist attack on March 22, 2016 in Brussels, Belgium. At least 31 people are thought to have been killed after Brussels airport and a Metro station were targeted by explosions. The attacks come just days after a key suspect in the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was captured in Brussels. (Photo by Sylvain Lefevre/Getty Images)

MSNBC Pundit Blames ‘Ease of Getting Guns’ for Brussels Bombing
Stein: “I guess that’s a bit of a surprise to us around the table because the city was on high alert owing to the arrest [of Salah Abdeslam] … why is Brussels and Belgium at large being the epicenter for this? What is it about that city that allows something like this to fester?”

Clemons: “I had wanted to ask him, ‘You know, why is it known that it’s so easy to access guns in Belgium than other of the major states in Europe, it’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market, that there is an ease of getting guns here. As compared to many other parts of Europe.'”

Admittedly, early reports claimed a few witnesses heard gunshots; likewise early reports claimed one or two “Kalashnikov rifles” were found on the scene (but not specifically linked to the terrorists). Now, firearms seem to have dropped out of the narrative altogether, with casualties inflicted solely by bombs. If any victim suffered a gunshot wound, the report hasn’t made it into any story I’ve found. Blaming firearms for this horrific bomb attack is typical victim disarmers dancing in the blood, gleeful over yet another invented excuse to ban defensive tools.

But that “ease of getting guns;” just how easy is it in Belgium to get a firearm?

Not very: “Belgium’s weapons law now places it among the group of countries that regard civilian firearm ownership as a restricted privilege rather than a basic, constitutionally protected right. The restrictive character of the Belgian gun law shows itself in the fact that access to weapons considered ill-suited for civilian use is restricted or even prohibited; that a ‘good cause’ for gun ownership is required; and that a series of checks on criminal record and mental fitness must be performed before an authorization can be issued.”

To own a firearm requires a license. To get a license, you have to provide proof that it is for an approved purpose (personal protection doesn’t count unless additional conditions exist). You undergo multiple background checks. You undergo a mental health examination. You have to pass knowledge and skill tests. The authorities can still decide you simply can’t have a firearm even if you pass all the checks.

If you get a license, you’re still limited in what you can own. Assault rifles? Right out; prohibited. That means the briefly alleged “Kalashnikov rifle(s)” were illegal, unlicensed.

An interesting side note: Current Belgian law with all its restrictions on firearms was prompted by a 2006 shooting in which the killer used a lever-action rifle, not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle. Belgian laws are considered to be more restrictive than required by the EU’s Firearms Directive 91/477.  While America has a Second Amendment protecting our rights, the EU has substituted 91/477, which requires member countries to impose draconian restrictions on civilian firearms/ammunition possession. Such restrictions happen to include pretty much any “Kalashnikov rifle.”

Clemons continued to babble, “[I]t’s something that everybody knows here, that there is a black market.”

Not really. At one time, Belgium was a source for certain types of old weapons, manufactured before 1895; roughly analogous to America’s classification of firearms manufactured before 1899 to be antiques not considered firearms (and there was some confusion as whether firearms designed before 1895, but of more modern manufacture were allowed). Such guns could be possessed without a license, and people would come to Belgium to buy them and take them back to their home countries, bypassing local restrictions. But years ago, Begium changed their law on such arms. The only unlicensed antiques allowed are thoroughly deactivated guns and those that fire black powder only; any gun that can handle smokeless powder must be licensed. Or sold in a black market that is, by definition, illegal.

Unless some time-traveler took the blueprints for a Kalashnikov back to 1894 and built an AK-47 that runs on black powder, the hypothetical “Kalashnikov rifle” in the Brussels attack was quite illegal. It would have been smuggled in, possibly sold in a market far blacker than Belgium’s old market for antiques.

Such a black market might even carry the makings of the bombs the murderers actually used.

Belgium’s “lax” laws on firearms — more restrictive than EU guidelines, and more so than what American victim disarmers claim they want here — didn’t stop terrorists hell-bent on blowing up innocent people. And we’ll never know if Belgium’s restrictions disarmed someone who might have saved a life or two.


Poll: Your passion for our rights

gun rights historyIn today’s poll, we’d like to know about what drives you. Why did you get involved in gun rights? What made you passionate about your right to keep and bear arms? What drives you?

For me, personally, it was leaving the former USSR, helpless, disarmed and at the mercy of heartless Soviets, who felt the Jews were something to grind under their boots. You can read the story here.

But what was it for you? Was it a specific incident? Was it the realization that you alone are responsible for the safety of you and your loved ones? Was it a specific text? What inflamed your passions for this issue?

Poll question is below. Feel free to expound further in comments, especially if none of the choices fit.


Merrick Garland on gun rights: Not just no, but HELL NO!

garlandThe Zelman Partisans strongly opposes President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court.

This is not just because a new Supreme Court Justice should be nominated by the next President of the United States – no matter who wins that office – and not someone who is committing a “hit-and-run” on the Supreme Court on his way out the door with the rest of the nation left to deal with the consequences for years to come.

This is not just because the American people should have the opportunity to express their views on the next Supreme Court Justice at the ballot box by their choice of POTUS.

This is because Merrick Garland would be a steadfast, true voice that would tip the nation’s highest court in the direction of total destruction of our gun rights.

Erich Pratt, executive director of the group Gun Owners of America, said Mr. Obama chose a “radical leftist” in Judge Garland despite promises to nominate a consensus candidate.

“He supported the D.C. gun ban in 2007, thereby showing he opposes self-defense and opposes the right to keep and bear arms,” Mr. Pratt said.

That 2007 case, Parker v. District of Columbia, ultimately became the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Before it reached the high court, it was heard in Judge Garland’s circuit, and a three-judge panel ruled that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. Judge Garland wasn’t part of that decision, but he did join three other judges in trying to have the full court get a chance to overturn the ruling.

National Review digs further into Garland’s anti-gun views.

Garland voted… to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but… the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland’s lack of respect for the people’s fundamental rights is unacceptable. The Obama Administration was obviously a failure at implementing much of the gun control plans it was pushing, even though it consistently used every tragedy to its advantage.

So now Barack Obama is trying to preserve his statist, anti-gun legacy by nominating a Supreme Court Justice who would do it for him.

No. Just no!

Barack Obama has already foisted one obviously biased Justice on the rest of us – a Justice whose support for ObamaCare was well known, and who did not recuse herself when King v. Burwell was argued in front of the Supreme Court.

We certainly don’t need another Justice whose grasp on the Constitution is tenuous and definition of “objectivity” only involves issues with which he agrees.


Rational Discussions

” If you carry a gun in public you are a terrorist. Period. There is no other way around it, because you are using the gun to intimidate in the name of feeling “safe.” But you know what? Your “safety” is a threat to every other person. Every other person. Shouldn’t that scare you? Oh, and they won’t be telling you when they are about to take you out.”
Daniel Carr, commenting on the Moms Demand Victims F******k page, who has the most appropriate profile picture on FB

Armed = Terrorist. Period.

Like this guy. Or 8yo Alexis. Or this pregnant woman.

My “safety,” Mr. Carr, is only a “threat” to someone credibly threatening me with death or bodily injury. If you consider me a threat to you, I’d like you to explain why you’re planning to kill me.

The victim disarming rights-violators frequently claim that we need to have a rational discussion about guns, and whine that RKBA proponents won’t listen to them. This is why: their idea of “rational” is a display of a pathological fear of inanimate tools. They fail to realize that universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence backgrounds checks are not going to be conducted by the 70% of criminals who get their firearms through illicit transactions, nor that they cannot even be required to do so.

The victim disarmers cite research that claims to have studied the laws that best correlate with lowered gun deaths, and conclude that firearm identification (whether through ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping) would help lower deaths by 90%, even though only two states have even had ballistic fingerprinting databases, and one of those gave it up after 15 years of it never leading to a single arrest (and no one has microstamping yet). We are expectedly to “rationally” accept a study that literally cannot support the conclusions it drew because the data is nonexistent or directly contradicts the claim.

To the victim disarming blood dancers, it is rational to believe that surveys in Washington state showed that 90% of the people wanted universal PPYI checks, when less than 60% would actually vote for it.

We are to accept as “rational” the idea that a convicted felon on probation, under a restraining order, who obtained his gun via an illegal straw purchase, and killed 3, and injured 14 would have been stopped by universal PPYI checks.

Two blood dancers from Sandy Hook Promise gave statements to the New Hampshire legislature that it would be “rational” to believe that universal PPYI checks would have stopped that school killer, who obtained his weapons by killing his mother in her bed and stealing her guns.

It is supposed by the people-controlling gun grabbers to be “rational” to ban steel pipe, sheet metal, blocks of metal, nails, springs, rivets, iron oxide and aluminum, and even plastic bags to stop gun violence.

It would be “rational” to lift a nonexistent ban on gun violence research.

“Rational” discussion would accept that gun deaths are increasing, and are caused by the increasing number of guns, when the rate of gun deaths is at the lowest level in decades (while guns per capita is at a record level).

“Rational” discussion by the gun controllers’ standard means accepting delusion over reality.

Let’s have that rational discussion just as soon as your doctors get your medications balanced.

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!