If they have a case, why do victim disarmers have to lie?

As you may have noticed from previous number-crunching, I’m quite analytically inclined. When I see or hear something that doesn’t sound right, it gnaws at me until I check it out. Like this:

Emotions run high during Politech’s gun control forum
“So it’s really a touchy issue on a sense of security. Also if you want to go to domestic violence, most women who are around guns, 50 percent of the time will be shot using their own weapon,” Gavran said. “So there are a lot of challenges with that.”

Really? 50% of women around guns will be shot with their own weapon?

My guess is that emotions ran high because lies like that were allowed.

According to a MarieClaire.com and Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey 32% of women live in households with firearm. I think that counts as being “around” guns. 32% of 162,000,000 women would be 51,840,000. 50% of those would be 25,920,000 women shot.

The FBI’s 2016 Uniform Crime Report says there were only 1,217,400 violent crimes (male and female; murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) last year. Yet ditz Gavran claims that just women shot is more than 21 times that.

But maybe Gavran meant 50% of the MC/HIRC reported 12% of women who own guns. That gets us down to 9,720,000 to about 8 times the number of total violent crimes for males and females alike.

Let’s stroll over to the CDC’s WISQARS and see what they say about it. 6,368 total nonfatal firearms assaults, and 1,950 fatal firearms assaults, for a total of 8,318. A far cry from 25,920,000 or even 9,720,000.

OK, I’ll be generous. Rather than what she said, maybe she meant to limit the population strictly to domestic violence cases; so 50% of female domestic violence victims.

Uh oh. It says here that females are the victims in 85% of 960,000 estimated annual domestic violent incidents, giving us 816,000 victims, half of which would be firearms by Gavran’s claim: 408,000. Only 49 times the number of fatal and nonfatal female firearms injuries the CDC reports.

Wait. 12% of women own guns. So .12 times 816,000 is 97,920. Half of that is 48,960. Only six times as many as the total the CDC reports.

Pure. Effing. B. S.

But as the man said, there’s more.

Perry was able to speak on what he considered naivety in regards to fears of students carrying guns around the campus. Gavran responded to Perry, saying there were accidental discharges around some universities in Texas.

She went on to say there is no way of knowing all of the effects of Campus Carry because the Clery Act legislation does not require reporting of accidental discharges.

I searched. I found one. More than a year ago. If the ditz has better data, she should cite it.

Or STFU.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Complicity?

Complicity of current gun laws makes people guilty of slaughter
Are you complicit?

Re: the mindless slaughter of men, women and children in a church in Texas, at a hotel in Las Vegas and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct. plus many others too numerous to mention.

You are complicit if you are an elected official voting to block adequate gun control laws! You have the blood of innocent individuals on your hands.

I should like to note that, by his peculiar standard of law, Mr. Blank is complicit in the murder of my brother who was disarmed by the sort of retroactive — ex post facto — gun control he likes.

By his standard, Blank is complicit in the murder of Carol Bowne, killed while waiting for her lawfully purchased defensive tool; mandatory waiting period gun control.

By his standard, Blank is complicit in the murders of 23 people in Luby’s Diner, where gun control had disarmed Dr. Suzanna Gratia.

Considering that Sandy Hook Elementary School was a “gun-free zone” by federal gun control, with lawfully possessed defensive arms banned, by his standard, Blank is complicit in those murders as well.

I’m sure guilt-stricken Blank will be contacting his representatives immediately to call for an end to victim disarmament.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Die-Anne Feinswine’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 is out. It’s worth a read. In some respects it’s much like its 1994 predecessor, only more so. Particularly in that it isn’t a ban. Hang on to that thought.

The first section sets up definitions. “Assault weapons” become pretty much any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and any 1 of several other features: pistol grip, pistol grip (specifically includes thumbhole stocks), forward grip, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, shoulder thing that goes up, threaded barrel, and so forth. Pistols specifically have their own characteristics, which you can guess from Feinstein’s previous ranting.

She got smart on one point. Back in the ’90s, manufacturers simply redesigned platforms to conform to the law (which she fein-whined was taking advantage of a “loophole”). This time she remembered to ban any variant of pages of specified firearms. So gun makers can’t take an AR-15 and saw off the pistol grip or weld the magazine in place and call it an AR-15PB (post-ban).

They’ll have to give it a new model number series. I suggest the UYDF-17. You can figure it out.

Then she gets to the ban-that-isn’t.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.

Yes, existing gear is grandfathered. As before, her “assault weapon ban” doesn’t ban a single firearm, and — gun owners having learned the lesson of her last attempt — have far more “assault weapons” on hand than they did in 1994.

Standard capacity magazines are next to not-go, with similar language merely banning future manufacture or importation of detachable magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, existing magazines grandfathered.

Government entities are all exempted, of course.

Up next, “safe storage.” Yeah, if you aren’t carrying it, or have it within arms reach, lock it up. Unloaded. Ammunition elsewhere. Feinstein really hates children.

“High capacity” magazines for government are going to get more expensive, but hey: taxpayers have deep pockets. New “assault weapons” and magazines must be serial-numbered and marked with date of manufacture.

She then inserts 90-some pages of specific firearms that are exempted from this law’s restrictions, which strikes me as stupid because the ones I recognize don’t fit her “assault weapon” definition anyway. She never was that bright.

Transfers of grandfathered “assault weapons” would have to go through an FFL. A private seller has to turn it over to the FFL, who has to enter it into his inventory records. The buyer will have to fill out a 4473, just as if the firearm were being purchased from the FFL, and be run through NICS. There is no exemption for gifts or loans, even between family members.

She’ll graciously allow you to let the buyer handle it for pre-purchase inspection without the FFL and NICS check. Oh, goody.

Now back to that thought I started with; why a ban that isn’t a ban? She did that before, and we know how that turned out.

  • Strictly by the numbers, crimes committed with firearms fitting the ’94 definition of “assault weapon” did go down. But it was statistically meaningless because those firearms were always rarely used by criminals. It’s like a town that saw one case of measles one year, then had 100% percent increase the next when two siblings get the measles. Statistically meaningless in a town of a couple hundred thousand or more.
  • Overall, firearms crime remained roughly the same. A few more hand gun crimes compensated for “assault weapons.”
  • A frickin’ huge number of evil, wicked “assault weapons” were transferred in panic-buying before the ’94 ban went into effect. So the imminent law had the effect of a subsidy for firearm manufacturers and dealers.If Feinstein — or her staffers/handlers — have a brain amongst them, they know this. They know every time someone makes serious banning noises (Obama election sound familiar?) sales skyrocket. “Gun Salesman of the Year.” Prices go through the roof.

    We know Feinstein isn’t bright. But is she crazy? Or is she taking brib campaign contributions from the evil gun industry?


    Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

    paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

We don’ need no steenkin’ due process

“Extreme risk protective orders” (ERPO) are the latest fad of the victim disarmers who snidely assure that one more law will save us from “gun violence.”

They don’t care about violence inflicted by any other means.

The TL;DR if you didn’t follow those links is that ERPOs allow — variously in assorted state implementations; typically family, friends, co-workers, cops — people to petition the courts to have someone’s firearms taken away because they fear that person is at risk of harming herself or others. And who could possibly be in favor of hurting people?

What they don’t tell you is that protective orders are already available. The tricky part is “due process.” Now, a judge can issue an order for a potentially violent person to stay away from the allegedly threatened person. A judge can call the potentially violent person in to see if, just maybe, he should be sent in for a mental health evaluation. The first isn’t too big a deal, and the second incorporates constitutional due process because the one who may be confined is in court to have his say.

As I said, ERPOs lack that due process, by deliberate intent. The accused isn’t told about the hearing until afterwards, when the cops show up to confiscate firearms. Conventional initial protective order hearings may or may not include the accused; ERPOs codify that lack in law.

Ex parte is a legal fiction that claims that, in certain emergency situations, there’s no time for due process, or that tipping off the accused could allow her to do something bad before she’s served with the order. That’s a good thing, right?

No. A conventional protective order amounts to a preliminary emergency injunction, and the accused will get a hearing. ERPOs make no allowance for hearings until after property is taken, and then the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. No due process; problem.

But it’s a terrible emergency. The guy is dangerous. Really, really so dangerous we don’t have time for due process, or to worry about prior restraint.

But apparently not so dangerous as to justify taking him into custody. A judge could require that in his order. Or not.

And there’s my problem: if the accused is so dangerous that he must be preemptively disarmed of firearms without notice, then he shouldn’t left free to walk the streets…

…say, with a crowbar, to the home of his accuser, who is now relying on a shield of paper. But who cares about crowbar — or knife — violence? After all, it’s a lot tougher to take out an oath-breaking, bodyguarded politician with a crowbar — or knife — than with a rifle at a distance.

Or maybe the — improperly? — accused is left on the street weaponless to defend himself against a — baseless? — accuser with a grudge, who manipulated the system into rendering his victim harmless. Maybe ERPOs should disarm both parties until it’s sorted out.

Rights and property should never be taken without real due process.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Ancient Mysteries

While the current news cycle churns out reports about multiple bills to ban bump-fire stocks and other accessories, or to ban nearly all semiautomatic rifles, let us cast our minds back to the ancient — in lamestream media time — history to the event that prompted this round of Second Amendment infringements.

Mandalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas, where the uninformed world discovered “bump-fire.” You know the narrative: A multimillionnaire dragged a couple dozen semiautomatic weapons to his 32nd floor suite. A dozen of them were equipped with evil bump-fire stocks. He broke out two windows and used those bump-fire “fully automatic” weapons of mass destruction to hose down a crowd of 20,000+ country music fans who probably deserved it because they’re nasty NRA gun owners themselves.

So our heroes in Washington, DC were forced to protect us by offering legislation to deny stuff to the 55 to 120 million gun owners who didn’t do it. “Bump stocks” must go! Bump stock manufacturers must pay for their crimes!

Whoa. Like I said, cast your minds back in time. To… say, October 2, 2017.

Did you see that? At least one fully automatic weapon and weapons equipped with bumpstocks.

The LA Times reported that other weapons were being examined to determine if they had been converted to full auto.

The Weekly Standard reported at least fully automatic weapon as well.

Dennis Michael Lynch noted it, too.

But the automatic weapon(s?) vanished from the narrative. Perhaps I overlooked it, but my searches turn up no “correction” that, “Oh, we didn’t mean full auto,” or, “That person was mistaken; we were talking about two different bump-fire devices and he thought we meant bump-fire and full.”

They just stopped talking about it.

Then they just stopped talking.

Well, why not, when you have powerful senators and congresscritters who need a lawful accessory to demonize in the interest of creating a gun control slippery slope?

Was one (or more) of the shooter’s weapon fully automatic? Personally, I thought at least one recorded burst sounded so regular (as opposed to other stuttering bursts) that I took it for full-auto fire.

The shooter had a clean record, so he’d have been eligible to purchase an NFA item. Certainly a multimillionnaire could afford one even at the inflated prices driven by the FOPA of 1986. But if he’d bought one legally, that would be just another example of the law not working as advertised. If he purchased one unlawfully, or converted a semiautomatic to full, well, then he’s just another criminal. Our protectors need something unregulated to… regulate. Gotta get that slippery slope.

So our ancient media mysteries are:

  • Was there one or more fully automatic weapons as reported in multiple outlets?
  • Did inspection of the weapons found in the hotel suite show which had been fired?
  • Has ballistics testing determined which were used to kill and wound the victims?

This is fairly important, really. The Mandalay Bay massacre is being used to justify a whole new set of infringements of human/civil rights, starting with bump-fire. Are they justifying legislation by something that didn’t happen per the script? (Note to nutcases: I’m not saying the incident was staged/faked; I’m questioning which weapon(s) was used.)

But shooters — aside from a few Mom’s Basement Army keyboard commandos and mall ninjas — consider bump-fire stocks to be nothing more than fun ammo-wasters. Granted, I can’t really wrap my head around mass murder, but it seems to me that if I were a wealthy guy intent on the murder of as many people as possible in ten minutes, and I had one or more automatic weapons handy, I don’t think I’d look over the selection and say, “Nah, the toy is the better tool for the job.”

I might transition to a bump-fired weapon if everything else jammed or broke, but who would start with that?

The cable news attention span has expired, so we may never learn the answers to my questions.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

And Then

Today I was listening to the radio while I was driving. One of the topics was the attack on Sen. Rand Paul. The host discussed when it first happened the mainstream media (#FakeNews) more or less laughed it off. The assailant IS a Doctor at Bowling Green hospital, man they must be hurting for staff there, don’t think I’d go there regardless of the reason. Then the media said it was over “grass clippings” “landscaping”, apparently the statement given by the assailant’s lawyer. But then a spokesman for Sen. Paul released a tweet (love how there are ways to get around the msm) that made a few people begin to question the excuse given. Breitbart and I believe, the Washington Examiner actually did this old-fashioned thing called “journalism”. They didn’t accept the lawyers word, they went and talked to the neighbors. All of whom said the Pauls were wonderful neighbors, kept their place immaculate, and unlike everyone else who has a lawn care service, Sen. Paul does his own. The “doctor” who is the inventor of a QVC product in 2005. The neighbors reached out to Breitbart because what they were reading in the msm was so wrong. The media reported it as “minor injuries”. The man has six broken ribs and a pleural effusion. Check out the x-ray picture! Minor my ….. foot. The media did everything it could to cover for the liberal Bernie supporter and conservative hating “doctor” and QVC maven.

But this is not the first legislator attacked by a supporter of the communist Bernie Sanders. No, Republican Representative Steve Scalise was shot along with four others before a good guy with a gun, the Capitol police, showed up to end it.

In fact, a lot of the shootings have actually been the peaceful, tolerant, liberal left.

But it seems in the left has stepped up their game in terms of shooting people. Now they have decided riots are a form of free speech.

For instance Charlottesville, to protest, um, why exactly? Some naughty words in this.

Attacking someone physically that believes differently than you do is perfectly acceptable. Remember what I said about the media covering for Sen. Paul’s attacker, and what Paul Joseph Watson said about how the media reported the “peaceful protests”.

And let’s say, what if the police, or campus security were told to stand down, not to help those being attacked. And some of the campus security were ticked, they were told by the college STAFF that everything was “ok”. Sounds like University of Missouri. Who now rents the empty dorm rooms to the 5 people that come to the football games.

If you live in a blue area, I’m sure this makes you really anxious for the next patriotic event, parade or speech perhaps, by someone you would like to hear. Except that to the thugs, many of them Soros funded, free speech only applies to them.

College campuses a safe space? Only the liberals are safe on college campuses. If you are conservative, or want to hear a conservative, not so much “safe space”.

A conservative, gay, Jewish speaker Milo was suppose to speak at Berkeley, yes, this is old news, but it’s going somewhere.

Milo is gay, normally not a group attacked by the left. Milo is Jewish, in the past, not a group attacked by the left. But Milo is a conservative, and no matter what else he is, it means he has no right to say things that college students don’t want to hear and expose them to thoughts they’ve never heard in class except to hear them derided.

And this is going somewhere. Here. Hate Spaces on American campuses

This documentary portrays a horrific picture of anti-Semitism at a number of American campuses. Much takes the form of extreme anti-Israelism, yet also manifestations of intense hatred toward Jews are shown. Under the cover of the First Amendment of the US constitution, which does not permit limitation of free speech, far-reaching hate mongering against Jews and Israel is carried out and considered protected speech. In the American contemporary academic reality this movie can only be called contrarian.

…….

Another question is why has the Department of Education failed to intervene against this ongoing bigotry? Why has it not systematically investigated the breach of academic integrity by biased teachers at institutions of higher learning. Is it not a national interest that university administrations have a moral compass? All this is not only a Jewish issue but also one which indicates that there is a great deal wrong with the American university system.

Protected speech policies allow extreme hatred. Politically correct administrators and professors teaching one-sided biased views reflect academic degeneration. The probability that there is much more wrong on campuses beyond biased teaching and anti-Semitic hate speech is high. This is the more important issue because some students infected by their teachers may eventually come to hold senior positions in the country.

A mob of people going after people that they don’t like. They don’t agree with how they think, and they’ve been told by the media that those people aren’t really even human. So you don’t have to treat them as such. They’re vile, they’re deplorable. What happens when you have large groups of people that think that way? They believe it’s ok to attack? Because we have that now….And then

Today is November 9th. The anniversary of the start of Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Timing is everything, but one more gun law will fix it

The First Baptist Church shooter had an interesting history. Pulling this together from assorted news reports:

  • He was reportedly on “high doses of ‘psych’ meds” in 6th through 9th grade.
  • As an adult, he dated a 13 year-old girl.
  • The police were called because he stalked the girl when she dropped him.
  • In the Air Force, while in pre-trial detention, he was committed to a psychiatric hospital (from which he escaped) because he was deemed a threat to himself and others. Somehow, the Air Force never reported the committal to NICS.
  • In a General Court Martial, he was convicted of multiple counts of domestic violence (including cracking a child’s skull). Somehow the Air Force failed to report the felony-equivalent domestic violence conviction to NICS.
  • There was an open sexual assault investigation of him that police dropped in late 2013 because they thought he’d left the state.
  • Then the police responded to another complaint against him (domestic abuse) at the same address in early 2014. Yet somehow the police couldn’t figure out that he was still in state.

That an adult was dating a 13yo is concerning enough (and where were her parents?). Was it a sexual relationship? If so, then he committed sexual assault. Where were the police?

But one more gun control law will fix it.

The timing of the asshole‘s military and civilian legal interactions raises more questions. In June 2012, he was facing charges in the at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. He was committed to a New Mexico psychiatric hospital in June. He escaped — that’s desertion –and was recaptured on June 13, 2012. He was sent to a Miramar Navy brig for pre-trial confinement, presumably after his escape and recapture; otherwise I have to wonder why he’d be sent from California back to New Mexico for committal.

In November 2012, he was convicted and sentenced to a year confinement, which he served in the Miramar brig until June 2013. Clearly, he was credited with pre-trial time served despite having escaped custody. For three counts of felony-equivalent assault, including breaking a child’s skull?

An appeals court upheld the conviction in 2013. When in 2013 isn’t clear.

Upon release from the brig “in early June of 2013”, he was placed on unpaid leave, apparently through the end of his term of enlistment in early 2014. Well, it’s not like the Air Force wanted him back (and oddly enough, I was stationed at Holloman AFB in the ’80s, and was detailed to maintain custody of another deserter, whom we didn’t want either).

Almost immediately — June 17, 2013, just seven months after his initial conviction — he was under investigation in New Braunfels, Texas for alleged rape. I would expect the police to run a background check on him, but since his committal and conviction were never logged, he would come up clean. Perhaps if the Air Force had done its job, the police would have seen a history of violence towards women and taken this case more seriously and arrested him.

In early 2014, the police were called to the same address again, on a complaint against him. They failed to notice that he was the same person they assumed had fled the state during another investigation. Since the Air Force never reported his committal and conviction, and the police hadn’t arrested him for the rape complaint, apparently he still looked clean. So he was allowed to roam the streets.

On August 1, 2014 he was cited for animal cruelty. With no other apparent criminal record (thanks, USAF and New Braunfels PD) a judge fined him and gave him deferred probation.

On November 13, 2014, he registered to vote in Colorado. He was able to do this because no one had bothered to record his committal and felony-equivalent crimes.

All we know about the next few years is that he lived in Texas and Colorado and bought guns. Because no one recorded his committal and conviction in NICS, or investigated other complaints more carefully… because he seemed to have a clean record each time. He tried to get a Texas carry license but was denied because they apparently noticed his Bad Conduct Discharge (my reading of Texas law is that anyone with less than an Honorable discharge is ineligible). At least someone did his job.

On November 5, 2017 — reportedly angry with yet another woman — killed 26 men, women, and children, and wounded 20 more. Because various authorities failed to apply the laws they expect all of us — who didn’t commit these crimes — to obey. The authorities failed to notice his criminal record, mental health record, and his history of of disturbing and criminal behavior with women.

But more bans, limits, and background checks for us — who didn’t commit these crimes — will fix it.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear “Common Sense Gun Safety” Advocate,

You say you want “common sense gun safety” laws. Fine. Propose them. Specifically.

Specifically. Don’t issue vague wishes about “mental health,” and “safety.” Don’t use the term “assault weapon” unless you live in a state that has defined that term in law. Know the differences between “assault weapon” (where such exists), “assault rifle,” and “machine gun;” and do not use the wrong term in discussion; it makes you look ignorant at best.

Do tell us exactly what you intend; preferably by providing the text of law you propose. Be prepared to address the following points:

  • If your rationale for a law refers to semiautomatic firearms as “military-grade,” “military-style,” or “weapons of war,” identify the nation which uses semiautomatic rifles as standard issue to regular troops.
  • If your rationale is based on “90% or (whatever number you like today) of Americans want,” please show where that number was proven in an actual referendum.
  • If your rationale references “militia,” please know what the militia is, and the legal differences between the militia, national guard, and standing army.
  • If your rational includes “if it saves a single child/person,” explain why the converse — if it results in a single innocent’s harm — does not count.
  • If you are banning and/or confiscating any firearms, explain how you will locate the items when you don’t even know how many there are.
  • If you are licensing gun owners, explain how you will identify them when you don’t know to the nearest ten million how many of them are out there.
  • If your law purports to address “gun violence,” explain why it would be imposed on the 99.9814% of gun owners who aren’t the problem.
  • Similarly, explain how a restriction will not be a prior restraint, nor violate due process.
  • Explain how you will induce criminals to comply with the law, when they don’t comply now.
  • Given the low compliance rates with other firearms laws, explain why people will comply with this one. Explain how you will deal with malicious compliance.
  • If you are reinstating something that failed to reduce gun violence in the past, explain why it would be different this time.
  • If you are expanding a restriction, explain how it will improve the situation.
  • If you are expanding the definition of “prohibited person,” please research existing law to see if those people are already prohibited.
  • In any case, please understand your own law.
  • Your law must include a stated goal and metrics to determine if it is accomplishing that goal, and an automatic sunset clause to end the law if it does not work by its own metrics.
  • If your law involves federal employee action such as adding a prohibited person to NICS or conducting a NICS check, include penalties for failing to do the job properly, with particular penalties those who act maliciously. Individual penalties.
  • If your proposed law conflicts with other laws, explain how you will resolve the conflict.

That’s a starting point. TL;DR: know the subject and honestly address all aspects you can think of. If you cannot address those points intelligently and honestly, there is no reason why gun owners should take you seriously as anything but a threat to constitutionally-guaranteed human/civil rights.

If you propose something in reaction to a specific event, do not whine when someone questions how your proposal would have prevented that event. In wake of The Sandy Hook, Mandalay Bay, and Sutherland Springs church shootings, I have heard “gun safety” advocates call for “expanded” background checks; in these cases “expanded” means requiring privates sales to go through NICS as FFL dealers already do.

Both of the Mandalay Bay and Sutherland Springs shooters went through — and passed — multiple NICS checks. The Sandy Hook killer bypassed checks by killing his mother and stealing her guns. This causes knowledgeable gun owners to wonder what the advocates’ real agenda and goals are. Or if they are simply ignorant.

Many of those advocates also decry the elimination of the Obama administration rule that placed thousands of Social Security disability recipients on the prohibited persons list used by NICS. Congress blocked that rule because it violated federal laws (yes, plural) regarding adjudication and due process, not because they want crazy people to have guns. Such claims — again — cause informed people to question the advocates’ agenda or intelligence.

Sadly, at this point, having given a gun controller facts, the response devolves into, “You’re a heartless person who doesn’t care about people — CHILDREN! — being killed and hurt!”

I care enough to spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on defensive firearms, ammunition, training, practice, maintenance, licensing, and studying rules and laws in order to protect myself, family, and friends. I’ve trained other people in how to protect themselves, and occasionally provided one with a firearm or other tool until they could afford their own.

So what have the gun controllers done, other than trying to pass laws to stop me?

Tell me again about those common sense gun laws you want. Intelligently and honestly.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.