Tag Archives: gun control

Illegal Marketing?

I’m virtually certain that our regular readers know about the current lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families against Remington/Bushmaster. Their odd little legal theory — and seemingly bought by the judge — is that Remington is liable for the actions of Some Asshole because the company improperly marketed a military weapon to civilians (and precognitively knew that regions that buy guns may see thieves stealing them from honest folk).

Sensible people with some grasp of the law know that suit should have been immediately dismissed with prejudice under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA protects firearms business from imaginary liability for the misuse of a weapon by some end user…

…so long as the company obeyed all the myriad rules, regulations, and laws that govern the manufacture and sale of firearms. Companies are still liable for defective products and unlawful actions.

These misinformed moneygrubbers claim that marketing an arm commissioned by the military to civilians is “negligent entrustment,” another exception to PLCA immunity.

We could note that the military didn’t exactly “commission” the weapon design. It was marketed to the military some years after it was designed, and it was a heck of an uphill battle for the military to finally adopt it. So to speak.

[Informed folk can skip a paragraph or two.]

In fact, the military variant, the M16 family, is not the same as the AR family of semiautomatic arms sold to civilians. The military version has some specified modifications not in the original AR, and is is fully-automatic (legally speaking; some variants fired bursts, which the feds still class as “machine gun”).

Every time some ignorant, victim disarming crime-enabler calls semi-auto ARs weapons designed for soldiers in war theaters, I ask them to show the army that deliberately chooses to generally arm its troops with semiauto AR-15s instead of assault rifles or battle rifles.

And every time… –crickets–

Back to the lawsuit. Part of the plaintiffs’ claim is that Remington deliberately marketed ARs to teenage boys. (This ignore the fact that The Asshole didn’t buy the AR he used. He murdered the lawful owner, an middle-aged woman, and stole her gun.

Nonetheless, a moronic Yalie thinks she can prove that claim.

This historian just made it likelier that Sandy Hook parents will be able to take Remington to court
To support sales Winchester embarked on what it characterized as the “greatest commercial venture in the history of this country, probably in the history of the world.” They never lacked for ambition. In 1920 alone, they spent close to a million dollars on advertising.

A centerpiece of this effort was the company’s boy plan. Winchester prepared a letter about the .22 caliber rifle to send to boys between the ages of ten and sixteen. They asked retailers to send a list of the names of boys in their towns, so the company could send the letter to them under the retailer’s name. The company intended to reach precisely 3,363,537 boys this way.

Yes. You read that correctly. TL;DR: The Sandy Hook Asshole was driven to murder, theft, and more murder by the fact that nearly a century ago Winchester did market firearms to boys (back when it was perfectly legal for boys to buy guns, generally unlike today’s legal environment.

Since children cannot purchase firearms from FFLs, it would be silly for Remington to spend millions marketing to them. In 1920, it made sense, but no longer. Much better, more profitable, to market to parents.

Once upon a time, Remington lawfully marketed to a profitable demographic. Now they don’t because that demographic is no longer lawfully accessible.

Can you think of an industry whose products are being provided to children legally too young to use the products as intended? And who is doing it?

Hint: Condoms, and other birth control products. By schools. To children below the age of consent.

I guess it’s OK to protect victims of statuatory rape from the consequences, but not right to allow them to defend themselves against the rape in the first place.

Cui bono?


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

here’s what the nra just endorsed for president

The NRA just endorsed Donald Trump for president at its national convention.

This is what they endorsed.

 

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

A: This is something to look into–people with mental health problems are on the streets who shouldn’t be. — Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

Donald_Trump_GunSo the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.

America’s first freedom, indeed.

Nauseating.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Statistics”

You’ve heard that “polls show that 90% of Americans want…” garbage; usually universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, but often any other infringement of your human/civil rights the gun grabbers can dream up. And you’ve wondered where the heck they found that many idiots.

In New Hampshire, the claim by UNH was 93% in favor of UPPYI checks. But I could never find a single person who would admit to participating in the survey. At all. Responding pro or con. The university refused to release their raw polling data. Actual voting (as in electing pro-gun politicians) doesn’t reflect that claim.

In Washington, the Bloomberg Ban Bunnies trotted out the same 90% claim. Granted, when it went to referendum, the infringement passed.

By slightly under 60 percent, as I recall. So where did the the other 30% disappear to?

Yes, the 90% claim has consistently been shown to be low-grade, poorly composted bovine ejecta. Real “polls” — votes — don’t support the numbers, so…

Katie Couric: ‘Silent Majority’ of Gun Owners Want More Gun Control
“The NRA only represents five percent of gun owners, so there’s this huge silent majority, and they represent common ground.”

[Digression: By that logic, the Bloomberg BBs represent — maybe — a few hundred people, so 99.999999999% percent of Americans must want everyone to be heavily armed at all times. -psst- Couric; I’m not NRA, but I’m pro-RKBA.]

See that? Now that the polls are clearly biased, manipulated, and maybe in the NH case, where no data exist, even made up, they have to fall back on the “silent majority” who huddle fearfully under their beds, refusing to voice what they truly want. A silent majority that can’t be verified because they run and hide form pollsters. But who transmit psychic emanations to Couric so she can discern their hidden desires.

Well, that got weird and creepy pretty quick. But that “silent majority” obviously has a thing for submission.

There’s the BBB playbook: Fake the polls; when that doesn’t work, lie. When that still doesn’t work, claim you’re speaking up for those who won’t speak up, or vote, for themselves.

How convenient.


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

Yom Ha’Shoah

Today is Yom Ha’Shoah, holocaust remembrance day.  A few thoughts and some more information for you on Yom Ha’Shoah.  This is quite a good little article.

Politics always take an interest in you
Politics always take an interest in you
Only a moment.
Only a moment.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

In a word…

Will President Obama Regulate Guns Out Of Existence?
When he was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a ban on the sale of handguns and all semi-automatic guns as well as a ban on selling guns within five miles of a school or a park. While the president obviously can’t just ban them, he can use regulations to make their lives more difficult.

… Nope.

Lott never really answers his own question. Being an economist, he examines the reasons Obama’s proposed FFL rule changes are unnecessary and pointless: FFL losses to theft are as much as 51 times less than other retail businesses overall, firearms stolen from FFLs are a miniscule fraction of those used to commit crimes. He finally notes the painfully obvious point that Obama simply looks to regulate the ever-lovin’ bejeezus out of FFLs; to eliminate them by the death of a billion bureaucratic paper cuts.

But he doesn’t answer the question: Will — can — the president regulate guns out of existence?

Alcohol Prohibition and the War on (Some) Drugs come to mind. Even in theory (assuming a continuingly complacent Congress and judicial branch, a suitable Constitutional Amendment, and a Putinesque civilian national security force) at most he can regulate lawful commerce in defensive arms into oblivion.

Just like heroin and prescription opioids.

The black markets in weapons would thrive as they do in the gunless Australian paradise. Probably to the point that Mexican cartels would start shipping guns back north of the border.

But that’s merely commerce. Let’s pretend he somehow accomplished what no one has ever managed with a complete ban on weapons or anything else. All commerce — while, gray, and black — goes away.

The existing guns won’t go away, if New York’s attempt to merely register “assault weapons” is an indicator. Australia’s approximately 20% compliance rate should be another hint.

America has the highest number of firearms per capita in the world. Conservative estimates put the number over 350 million firearms in civilian hands. Higher estimates put the number closer to 750 million two decades ago. Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between on the higher end of the range.

Still pretending, let’s say Americans generally are more like Aussies than New Yorkers in being compliant. Twenty percent of guns turned in leaves anywhere from 280 million to 600 million firearms in the hands where they belong. Without a black market bringing in more.

The gun grabbers who want to believe that the number of firearms owners is decreasing would have us believe (despite record sales for years) that only 30% of households have guns. (Clearly they’ve never been to Georgia or New Hampshire.) Call it 94 million armed citizens. Twenty percent compliance leaves around 75 million armed citizens. 75 million who won’t turn in their guns, so someone will have to come take them.

You’re going to need a bigger civilian national security force, Barry.

Maybe of those 75 million, only Three Percent(ers) will actively resist. That’s only two and quarter million armed and pissed off folks. They would probably get one or two jackbooted thugs apiece before going down.

Hell, Barry, you may need a draft for your civilian national security force. And Obamacare isn’t going to handle the medical needs of the survivors.

Odds are, ATF kitty-stompers would lead the confiscation teams. Given tactics like that, how long would it take for IIIpers to take the battle to the thugs? Why, some of the (previously) nonviolent resistors might be motivated to participate. That 1 resistor:2 thugs ratio is going to go a lot higher.

The heck with the brownshirts, Barry; you’d need to call out the active military.

Of course, taking the famous Twenty-nine Palms Survey at face value, only around 26% of the troops would participate. Of 2.1 million active and reserve troops, that will hypothetically yield 546,000 thousand door-kicking oathbreakers.

Versus at least two and quarter million pissed-off shooters.

One might wonder what our NATO and other allies are going to do when Obama pulls a Trump and withdraws all those troops to steal guns back home. One needn’t wonder what North Korea’s Kim Jong-un would think, though: “A united Korea!” Daesh now…

No, Obama can’t regulate guns out of existence. But with enough psychotic enablers he can regulate civil war and world conflict into existence.  Because some of us will never forget.


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

Russia: History repeats itself

Cross-posted at the Liberty Zone with slight modifications.


I’ve been trying to find this article in English, but for some reason, all I find is really crappy translations of what is actually written. Those of you who read Russian can head over to the first link.

Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?
Does this look a bit Big Brother-ish to you?

Bottom line: Russian President Vladimir Putin has created a “National Guard” (Нацгвардия), but it’s not like the National Guard we’re accustomed to. While Putin claims this armed force, which incorporates some of the Interior Ministry troops, is created specifically to address terrorism, transnational organized crime, and arms trafficking in the country, it as a way to continue consolidating power in the presidency. It is a ministry-level organization that falls directly under the control of the President.

“If you have noticed, this decision is not simply related to detaching the interior troops from the Interior Ministry. But this has been done so that this new structure will now concentrate all that is connected with firearms. This refers to various kinds of security provision and the authorization system [to get the right to possess firearms], ensure oversight of private security firms and this also refers to interior troops proper,” Putin said.

Yes, I know the translation sucks, but think about this for a moment. The Russian president, who already has been well on the path to grabbing power, censorship, stringent nationalism, and violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country’s neighbors, is now creating himself a little army that’s focusing not just on terrorism and TOC, but also firearms trade. By the way, the Russian Federation in November 2014 eased firearms restrictions to allow its citizens to carry firearms for self defense, but now Putin is controlling some pretty powerful military troops who focus internally.

Call me crazy and untrusting, but I wouldn’t want any government – especially not an authoritarian crap weasel like Putin – having control of his own little army that can be used against the citizenry, and given Russia’s pivot back toward statism in the past few years, this Нацгвардия is more than concerning.

We view the right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against tyranny. The fact that Putin has now created an armed entity, controlled solely by him, to focus on “all that is connected with firearms” should tell you everything you need to know about where that nation is headed internally. No, it is not becoming a free nation. Those of us who were mildly surprised and gratified when the Russian government loosened gun laws a year and a half ago can go back to being disgusted. Russia is still ruled by a cunning authoritarian with the aim of subjugating those around him to his will. And the best way to do that, is to use the military (I don’t care what you call them – internal troops, security troops, national guard, whatever) to ensure that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is tightly regulated and controlled.

Because as the Russian economy swirls the drain, and as Russia becomes a more and more aggressive force toward its neighbors, you can be sure that the regular people’s lives will be more controlled and more miserable. And the Russian government needs to ensure that the people don’t use their right to remove the source of their misery with armed force.

Everything old is new again.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Happy Patriots’ Day

Celebrating Americans resisting gun grabbers at Lexington-Concord.

minuteman-statute

Oh.

Wait.

Town of Lexington Voting To Ban Commonly Owned Firearms & Magazines
For the record. The basic premise of Rotberg’s Article 34 is an insult to all law abiding gun owners. His logic is also flawed in that he insinuates that a gun is inherently “dangerous”. A firearm is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything on its own. The only thing that has the potential for being dangerous is the person and there is nothing in any of the versions of Article 34 which addresses this. It’s just more bigotry, harassment and blame of lawful gun owners.

Never mind.

-sigh-

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Not statistically significant”

Oh, look. Another Johns Hopkins study examining the effects of recognizing human/civil rights.

Changes in state policies impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers
The researchers looked at the relationship between assault data involving law enforcement officers and changes in three policies at the state level: three-strikes laws, which impose mandatory decades-long sentences when a criminal is convicted of a third crime; right-to-carry or concealed-carry laws, which reduce restrictions for individuals to carry concealed firearms in public; and permit-to-purchase measures, which require prospective handgun purchasers to obtain a permit or license after passing a background check.

And what did they find?

The authors found that three-strikes laws were associated with a 33 percent increase in the risk of fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and a 62 percent increase in fatal non-handgun assaults.
[…]
“In the case of three-strikes laws, it appears that chronic offenders may be killing officers to evade capture and possible life imprisonment,” Crifasi says.

Surprise, surprise. Back when I was a peace officer, we predicted exactly that.

What about right to carry/concealed carry?

Previous research has examined the link between right-to-carry or concealed-carry gun laws on fatal assaults in the general population. The Bloomberg School study is believed to be the first to examine the effects of these laws on both fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers and found no associations between the laws and either type of assault against officers.

Probably because lawful carriers are usually the type…

Oh. Wait.

“Many of those most likely to commit firearm violence are prohibited from possessing firearms and therefore unable to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun.”

Who’d a thunk it? People who go to all the trouble of background checks and licenses don’t attack cops.

And permits to purchase?

The number of officers who died in Missouri is too small to make any conclusions about fatal assaults.
[…]
[Connecticut’s] association was also not statistically significant due to the rarity of these deaths.

Again, the folks prone to shooting cops (see above re:three strikes) don’t bother with permits they couldn’t get anyway. Now, if they’d been honest and tried to correlate straw purchase prosecutions with officer attacks, they might’ve seen something. But probably “not statistically significant.”

For the anti-gun Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, even allowing for the spin, that’s an amazing admission. They can’t possibly leave it at that, right?

Right.

Although the rates of fatal assaults on law enforcement officers have declined over the past several decades, their homicide rates are consistently higher than that of the general population and higher compared with other public service occupations. Most of the fatal assaults against law enforcement officers are committed by firearm.

In fact, the civilian homicide rate for 2013 was 4.6 per 100K. The cops? 5.3 per 100K. As Reason notes, 3.3/100K if you exclude two accidental shootings. For 2014, the CDC says the overall homicide rate in the US was 5.19 per 100K. Frankly, any difference between civilian and LEO homicide rates is “not statistically significant.”

If Johns Hopkins was honest, that press release would have been titled,“Most changes in state policies DON’T impact fatal and non-fatal assaults of law enforcement officers.” But being Johns Hopkins, they had to lump in restrictions on honest folk to demonize gun owners by association.

Your tax dollars at work.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Update 3] – I’m fairly sure that “iPhone gun” is a hoax

You’ve seen the hype over the Ideal Conceal “phone gun.” Who hasn’t?

But I’ll bet you haven’t seen a photograph of it. Every picture I can find is a computer-rendered image taken from the company web site.

Like this one:

ic-pocket-street

Now look closely at that hand gripping the “gun.”

ic-pocket-street-closeup

Try it yourself. Hold your phone (or paperback book, or any rectangular thingie) by the corner like that. It’s a poor photoshop. Even the street scene.

stock-photo-dark-street-in-tel-aviv-israel-38249383

Look familiar?

I emailed Ideal Conceal (and why do you suppose he’s using Gmail, instead of a more professional-apppearing idealconceal.com email address?) to ask for a photograph of the actual prototype; the idea being to establish that a real, physical product exists. Or not.

Kjellberg sent two more renderings. No photographs. Interestingly, the two image files are named “phun-gun-img-003e.jpg” and “phun-gun-img-004b.png.”

Phun = Fun? How professional.

When I pointed out that I wanted a photograph as a response to those who doubt the existence of the Ideal Conceal, he replied:

Unfortunately we don’t have a prototype that we are showing to the public. I have told every news agency and persons who contact us that info.

We will be releasing video etc when it is ready.

Doubters with doubt….

Thanks Kirk Kjellberg

Kjellberg  claims he’ll be building these guns. That’s real interesting, because the ATF only shows Ideal Conceal having a Type 01 dealer license. More interesting is the address given for Ideal Conceal: 4300 SCHOOL BOULEVARD

It’s currently up for sale, according to that link. An office building, not a factory.

A whois on the domain idealconceal.com shows:

Updated Date: 29-jan-2016
Creation Date: 16-aug-2015
Expiration Date: 16-aug-2016

A one year registration? Expiring before he plans to start shipping in October?

Whois also shows a different street address than that in the ATF records: 9127 Highway 25. I doubt that he’s manufacturing an oversized, stupidly designed derringer there, either. Since he claims he’s already taken 4,000 preorders, he’d better find — and equip… and man — a factory fast.

Especially if he’s taken money in advance on those preorders, someone might want to talk to the Minnesota Attorney General about potential fraud.

Or not. Maybe he isn’t accepting payments yet.

So if it isn’t a financial scam, what might be motivating the guy?

kjellberg-fb

Thanks to Mitchell Boone for finding that F******k post. If you’re having trouble reading that, it says:


Kirk Ennis Kjellburg
December 19, 2012
Dear Gun Lovers, let me introduce you to playground rules. When enough stupid kids can’t play say king of the hill nicely, they take away the hill. Use your brain, somehow this has to stop. Shouting for gun rights when the bodies of 20 children lay dead is about as selfish as it gets…

Yep. He wants to punish everyone who didn’t do it for the actions of Some Asshole who killed his mother and stole her guns to go on a rampage. Some pro-gun advocate.

I think we’re looking at the same sort of anti-RKBA action as the bogus RNC open carry petition. An attempt to embarrass gun owners and make us look bad.

Perhaps my guess is incorrect. If Kjellberg wishes to correct any misconceptions, I’d like him to answer some questions, and provide a little data.

Unless and until we hear from Kjellberg, I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone to preorder an Ideal Conceal pistol.

Update, 4/12/16: Aha! I found an article that I missed in the last round.

“Right now there isn’t a firing prototype all I have is a plastic model of it so once there’s a firing prototype people will feel more comfortable about how it deploys, how it shoots and that kind of stuff”, said Kjellberg.

I was right: No prototype; just a nonfunctional plastic model. Since he claims he’ll be shipping in five or six months, that motivational speaker/claims adjuster/microwave salesman better hurry up and get a manufacturer’s license, not to mention someone capable of designing a working gun since his LinkedIn page doesn’t suggest any engineering experience or training.

And no, Kjellberg has not contacted me to answer any of the above questions.

Update 2, 4/14/16: Kjellberg is now admitting that he is not a licensed manufacturer.The current story is:

“He isn’t properly licensed to manufacture such a weapon, though, so he connected with a friend at a Big Lake engineering company that has federal clearance for weapon design.”

I see three type 07 FFLs in Big Lake:

Interestingly, Bondhus Arms is marketing its own .380 concealment pistol, the CL380.

bondhus-arms-cl380

While there does seem to be a working prototype, and they have a real approved patent, it doesn’t seem to be for sale yet (“later this year”). I wonder if Bondhus Arms would actually build its competitor’s .380.

I’ve sent messages to MPI and Bondhus asking if they are the manufacturer Kjellberg mentions. I’ve also contacted the ATF with some general inquiries (AOW, etc.).

Nope; nothing from Kjellberg yet.

Update 3, 4/15/16: Still nothing from Kjellberg. But the ATF responded. A company has problems when it’s response time is worse than a federal bureaucracy.

Basically, since Kjellberg doesn’t have even a prototype, and apparently hasn’t submitted anything to the ATF, they couldn’t answer most of my questions. I got the extremely vague answer I expected.

Mr. Bussjaeger: Thank you for your inquiry and concern in regards to the pistol that appears to be a cellphone. As ATF understands it, the proposed manufacturer of this firearm does not even yet have an operable prototype. If the company chooses, it can submit to ATF for determination the classification of the firearm. The ATF enforces two primary Federal firearms laws: the Gun Control Act (GCA) and the National Firearms Act (NFA). Based on the information ATF currently has on this proposed firearm, it would be lawful to manufacture under the Gun Control Act (GCA). So, to address your concerns: Based on what ATF knows of this proposed firearm at this time, it would be both lawful to manufacture and own/possess under Federal firearms laws. Again, ATF’s responsibility is to enforce Federal firearms laws as they exist and as stated, based on what ATF currently knows about the proposed firearm it would be lawful under current Federal firearms laws. Thank you.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail