Category Archives: authoritarian swine

Guns, Cars, and Airplanes: The Wisdom of American Gun Owners

There is a certain anti-gun meme making the rounds on the Internet – and in some broad sense, it no doubt predates the Internet. You have no doubt heard it before: “Why can’t we license guns like cars?”  It doesn’t necessarily have to refer to cars – the most modern iteration, put out by left-wing media darling John Oliver, refers to airplanes: “One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns.” Other versions of this meme refer to various consumer products – even teddy bears have been invoked – that are ostensibly regulated tighter than firearms. The point is the same: “We have accepted extensive government oversight of this aspect of our lives, but why not guns then?”

Of course, it’s possible – and quite reasonable – to make references to Constitutional law. One can point out, for instance, that driving a car on public roads is not considered a Constitutional right, unlike the right to bear arms. One can point out – reasonably enough – that in many ways cars are actually regulated far less than gun controllers would like us to regulate guns. One can point out that cars are far harder to use safely than guns. These will all be true. One can make many of the same points about air travel as well – that air travel is a privilege, for instance. And those will all be salient and possibly even be technically true. However they will all be missing the main point – and it is the wit of John Oliver that has finally brought home that main fallacy of those approaches.

The thing is, taking off shoes at the airport is actually an example of the worst in political decisionmaking. It is the epitome in the sort of worst-first thinking that has plagued the Western body politic for decades now – take a scary, freakish, rare occurrence (such as the shoe bombing), freak out about it beyond all measure, and then make decisions that both invade people’s freedom and take away their basic dignity based on that. It’s exactly this sort of decisionmaking that has turned the automobile from a wondrous invention that had made people freer, gave them both privacy and mobility, into an endless milking cow for police state intrusions – rolling “checkpoints” that easily turn a ‘seatbelt inspection’ into a search of your car, drunk-driving laws that set the BAC limits for ‘drunknenness’ so low they are below the margin of error of police breathalyzers, mandatory GPS devices in cars, and so forth.

Yet – we are told – we are to adopt the same kind of thinking in terms of guns. Why? Has forcing people to take their shoes off at airports stopped a single terrorist? This is the same sort of thinking that has led to the destruction of Buckyballs because several children ingested them (and apparently one child has died). John Oliver knows – and hopefully his fans know – that this thinking is flawed as applied to shoes and airports. It is flawed when it is applied to cars, or buckyballs. American gun owners are wise to not want the same sort of thinking applied to their guns.

Maybe the next time there’s a freak accident, or a terrorist attack, the American public will be able to react to it as wisely as the gun rights movement reacts to a school shooting. But I won’t be holding my breath.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

There they go again

For a while it’s seemed as if the anti-gunners have been staggering around without direction. Yes, they’ve won several billionaire-funded state-level victories on the issue of gun-owner registration universal background checks. But beyond those few determined mega-rich (we’re talking to you, Bloomberg, Hanauer, and your elitist Microsoft pals, and you, too, Ms. Wynn), the hoplophobes appear to be wandering lost.

No doubt the financial smackdown for the Brady Center’s frivolous lawsuits has had something to do with that.

But recently, the marching morons show signs of getting their feet back under them so they can go goose-stepping along their merry way.

To wit:

1. The influential Pew Research organization issued yet another poll claiming that darned near every American, of any party or philosophical stripe is just dying to impose more restrictions on gun ownership.

It doesn’t matter that poll questions can be carefully crafted to produce desired results. It doesn’t matter that the 85% supposedly in favor of forcing us to ask government permission to buy guns universal background checks almost certainly haven’t studied the matter at all, let alone studied it well enough to grok the ramifications. Pew helpfully produced a statistic for the antis to use. And use it they will.

2. The University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health (consider the source!) next drops a badly done “study” claiming the more guns in a given state, the more murdered cops.

3. Then Georgetown University (consider the source!) comes out with a report on “Lone Wolf Terrorism” that once again makes the laughable claim that “far-right extremists” (e.g. angry gun owners) are at least as big a threat as Islamic jihadis.

This isn’t new, of course. It’s a notion that the media and various alphabet agencies of the fedgov have been promoting for a long time. But there is a problem when it becomes acceptible (and even encouraged) to think of millions of fellow countrymen as the enemy — not just as people you might disagree with, not just as political opponents, not just as members of a different culture — but as enemies.

TZP_MollieIvans_EnemiesQuote

(And yes, it’s ironic that that excellent quote was tweeted by the wildly excessive, polarizing CSGV, who have been responsible for stirring endless hate against gun owners — to the point of calling on people to SWAT us and otherwise threaten our health and our lives.)

We already know what happens when propagandists turn an entire country against a portion of its population. Been there. Done that. Have the mass graves to show for it in country after country. Of course, not very often do Masters of Public Opinion choose well-armed millions as their target.

That could end up getting interesting if they push the issue.

—–

Do you value what you find here at The Zelman Partisans? If so, please join our wonderful supporters. You can: become a member; shop in our store for yarmulkes, custom knives, and cool morale patches (and targets to come soon); or purchase wearables and other stuff from our Queensboro or CafePress stores.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

No-brainer

San Francisco supervisor Mark Farrell says his new legislative proposal is a “no-brainer.” In the aftermath (no causative link intended) of the July 1 murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal alien scumbag, this gibbering yambag has decided to introduce a new gun control law in a city that already has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the country.

Under a proposal by Farrell, High Bridge and any other gun store that comes into town would have to videotape all gun and ammunition sales.

In addition, all ammunition sales records would have to be sent electronically to the San Francisco police department.

Never mind that the law would impact exactly one business, and that business already has what the owner describes as “high quality video cameras.”

Never mind there are some thorny privacy issues with sending ammunition purchase records to the SFPD.

Let’s put some more onerous requirements on the only business of its kind in the city and make it even more unattractive for others to begin operating there. That’s a great idea, Farrell, you jackass!

That’s how you paint a big, red target on the backs of your residents! Just make it impossible for them to make a legal, constitutionally-protected purchase of an effective tool of self defense.

Oh, and while you’re at it, make sure that you’re super-duper friendly to and welcome with open arms every illegal alien repeat felon scumbag that makes its way back into your city after being deported. Because DIVERSITY or something…

Oh, and by the way, did I mention that the gun said illegal alien repeat felon scumbag was wielding was stolen from the vehicle of a federal agent? Because they’re the only ones to be trusted with firearms, right?

Juan-Francisco-Lopez-Sanchez-jpg

Yeah, surely that camera in that lone San Francisco gun store and the idiotic ammunition sales requirement would have stopped Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez from not only getting the gun, but using it on an innocent woman! Not.

Here’s a no-brainer: stop welcoming and protecting every illegal alien felon who has been deported numerous times, and make it easier for your citizens to defend themselves against the ones who do sneak through!

But no… we couldn’t do that, because FEELINGS, and DIVERSITY, and for the CHILDREN, and SHUT UP, RACIST!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Good Gun Story Gets Better (Lynne Russell Rocks)

A follow-up to “A Good Gun Story” (a “drive-by,” as Claire calls it): Lynne Russell, the marvelous, good kind of survivor (because so strong) is loaded for bear about those who would deny that guns saved her life and the life of her spouse.

Former CNN anchor Lynne Russell and former reporter Chuck de Caro came back into the news cycle on June 30, after they worked together to use a concealed firearm to defend themselves from a robber. Russell later spoke about how having a gun “absolutely” saved their lives, and had some tough words for those who do not own guns, yet advocate for government control.

“If you don’t want to carry, please don’t.” Russell said. “Then, shut the f–k up about it. Make your own decisions.“

Russell went on to say that “the discussion over the debate to own a gun is just ridiculous. As Americans we have the right to bear arms and as humans the right to protect ourselves. I’m sure that the man who shot my husband did not have a gun permit.” …

MORE here and at Zelman’s.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

As If We Didn’t Know Already

Karl Rove is a jackass.

I know this is not news to most of us who have even the slightest knowledge of American politics. After all, Rove was one of the “geniuses” behind the eight years of Bush we were subjected to between 2001 and 2009. And now he’s dedicated himself to spearheading efforts to elect… um… “electable” candidates – and by “electable,” I mean having no morals, ethics, or strong views due to a passionate desire only to get elected, vice actually serve the populace.

Well, as if you needed more proof that Rove is a tool, he’s decided to up his cred as one of the most dangerous and pathetic humans in the political sphere. When Chris Wallace asked Rove in a Fox News interview about the Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, SC  how we can, “stop the violence,” dimwit sniveled that the only way to guarantee they will stop is to “remove guns from society.”

Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.

Well, of course that’s not going to happen! Because people like us stand up to people like Rove and his beloved compromisers! After all it’s Rove and crew that helped give us gun control-loving Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate in 2012.

But what Rove said is more dangerous and stupid than you might think. For one, it gives gun grabbers ammunition to claim, “Look! Here’s a conservative admitting that repealing the Second Amendment would dramatically reduce gun violence! BIPARTISANSHIP!

But it’s even more stupid, because it presents a false premise. Not only is it logistically and practically impossible to remove guns from society, but it allows the gun grabbers to set the rules of the playing field. GUN violence is not the problem. Violence writ large is.  And additionally, as the British experiment has proven after the UK all but banned firearms after the Dunblane massacre, removing guns from society does absolutely nothing to mitigate the problem.

Removing guns from society will not reduce violence. The Cumbria shooting still happened in the UK – even after the government instituted stringent gun control – resulting in 12 fatalities and 11 injuries. Terrorists still bombed the public transport system in London in 2005. Japan has virtually eliminated all shooting deaths by banning most firearms, but that doesn’t mean violence has gone away.

And yet, Rove stupidly allowed the gun grabbers to frame the narrative and put the right to keep and bear arms in the crosshairs, so to speak.

Perhaps if the gun grabbers stopped pushing for the disarmament of this nation’s most vulnerable potential victims and started promoting responsible gun ownership, personal responsibility, and self defense, we could drastically reduce violent rampages like the one that claimed the lives of churchgoers in South Carolina.

And as for Karl Rove… STOP TRYING TO HELP!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

You Heard That Where?

The attack in South Carolina was the latest in a series of horrors that have occurred in Gun Free Zones. And the roaches have been scurrying out of the woodwork. To no one’s great surprise Hillary said she still hates law abiding citizens and can’t wait to see them dead. Well, sort of, she might have phrased it more like a politician, but that’s the essence of it. Barry of course has been saying that for years. His name IS still barry this week, right?

But to the subject at hand. It has come out that the alleged killer (Lt. Col. Grossman says we do not use mass murders names, the name can fade to oblivion) chose the church because it was a gun free zone and didn’t have security. Like other mass killers, some of them elected politicians, they wants disarmed victims.

But the reporting on the incident is interesting. Actually reporting, chuckle, chuckle, is interesting. When the police HQ in Dallas were attacked a CNN anchor called it “brave”. Why yes, that is the same CNN that has been caught using footage of fully automatic weapons being fired while reporting on a story about semi-automatic weapons. More than once.

Then we have a guest on MSNBC who stated that had anyone there been able to defend themselves it would have been amazing if even three people had been left alive. Seriously. Disarmed, defenseless (now dead) people are safer. I’m sure MSNBC’s 11 viewers nodded along sagely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv5d2WyhIqk

So MSNBC and CNN both favor disarmed victims, and CNN thinks that an attack on Police is brave. Well, she is in great company. Hamas recently declared the death and wounding of a disarmed hiker and a friend as a “Heroic Operation”. Apparently Danny Gonen and a friend had been hiking were heading back when a peaceful Arab waved them down asking for help. They stopped and he asked for water. Then shot them.

So where did you hear that? If it was on CNN, or MSNBC (in case of it’s 11 viewers stumbled onto our site) you might mull over the view point with which it’s being reported. CNN thinks it’s brave to attack police and MSNBC thinks if you can defend yourself and have a chance to fight to live you are less safe. Which is probably why I’ve heard talk show host Mark Levin call them MSLSD. At least hamass is more honest in this case. They hate Israel and are happy to see innocent defenseless people slaughtered. What does that say about the mainstream news media. Seriously, if they can’t even report a news story that has already happened, why would you trust them with a weather forecast?

As a side note, the South Carolina shooter had a view on Jews as well.

Unlike many White nationalists, I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European Jews are White. In my opinion the issue with the Jews is not their blood, but their identity.  I think that if we somehow could destroy the Jewish identity, then they wouldnt [sic] cause much of a problem. The problem is that Jews look White, and in many cases are White, yet they see themselves as minorities. Just like niggers [sic], most jews [sic] are always thinking about the fact they are jewish [sic]. The other issue is that they network. If we could somehow turn every jew [sic] blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because people would be able to see plainly what is going on.

I do not pretend to understand why jews [sic] do what they do. They are enigma [sic].

Yes indeedy. That pesky Jewish identity…..must erase that pesky Jewish identity. Got news you piece of pond scum fish excrement, others have tried, others will try, others are trying now. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is not the answer. The old sticks and stones thing. Armed Synagogues, armed Churches now we are talking answers. There is one higher and greater that I believe will have something to say about erasing the Jewish identity.

Thank you Y.B. Love this one!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Why I’m not going to write about that dreadful mass murder in South Carolina

So some selfish little moron has blown away nine people in a church in South Carolina. And predictably every blood-dancer from Barack Obama to Stephen King has already gone on a crusade to blame the gun.

Never mind that the murderer was such a sociopathic creep that he killed those innocents despite observing that they were nice to him in the hour he sat praying with them. Never mind that the murderer was a racist pig. Never mind that he was a criminal with an existing record (nature of which is so far unknown). We’re about to be plunged into another one-sided “conversation” about how all “reasonable” people will now support “reasonable” victim disarmament gun control. And how anybody who doesn’t agree is a fanatic, a racist, the possessor of an undersized penis, a hater, etc. etc. so on.

And we who understand the lifesaving properties of firearms and the freedomsaving power that enables us to own them (with or without permission of government) will be expected to answer. To defend ourselves. To defend our weapons. To defend our rights.

Well, baloney.

Let those who want to speak on behalf of constitutionally guaranteed rights do so by all means. Let those who want to cite statistics do so. Let those who want to point out the history of blacks protecting themselves and their communities with firearms do so. Let those who want to point out the folly of gun-free zones do so. Let those who want to get in the trenches and fight the coming onslaught of anti-gun legislation do so.

All these things are valuable and I’m not saying otherwise. I’m only writing from my own partisan soul (and I suspect the other partisans here wouldn’t be far from agreeing). I’m saying I’m not going to address the bloody deeds of that arrogant cretin or the demands of his blood-dancing fan club. (And make no mistake, the Obamas, Bloombergs, Kings, Schumers, Feinsteins, and Wattses of the world are his fan club, since he and his fellow murderers enable everything they dream of imposing on the world.)

I’m not going to address him or them because they don’t matter.

Our freedom to own firearms and to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities stands beyond them all.

Pass a law demanding we submit to universal background checks? We will flout it.

Pass a law demanding that we turn in our standard-capacity magazines? Make us obey.

Pass a law insisting that we register whatever you consider the politically unpopular weapon of the moment? Come and find them.

Pass a law attempting to make the Second Amendment more conditional than it already is? We’ll laugh. Because we don’t get our freedom from any piece of paper and we won’t surrender any more of our freedom for some piece of paper, either.

Ban this or that type of ammo? More will slip through porous borders. More will be made in secret places. Ammo isn’t complicated.

Ban homemade guns or the increasingly marvellous tools to produce them? Oh my, you dream, you dream, you dream, you pathetic control freaks in legislatures and police departments everywhere. That genie is long out of its bottle.

Pass laws that punish us for the deeds of creeps like South Carolina’s church shooter or the nutcase of Aurora? The merely confirms what we already know: that you “controllers” consider us your enemy even when we are not — which ends up making us your enemy in fact.

You want to provoke violence? Then take more freedom. Or try to. Then blame the peaceable for the crimes of the wicked.

You only imagine — you dream — that you can stop us from owning the tools of self defense and home and community protection.

Go on and dream it, all you blood dancers. Dream on and leave us alone and all will be well. Dream — and try to impose your sick fantasies on us, and you’ll discover you’ve created yourself a nightmare.

Beyond that, the only answer to would-be murderers is to defend against them. And there’s no need to answer anybody in their blood-dancing, victim-disarming fan clubs because the only and ultimate answer is that we are free no matter what they try to do.

And that’s self-evident.

—–

Do posts like this at The Zelman Partisans inspire you? Inform you? Entertain you? Educate you? Encourage you? Then please join us or buy from our TZP store, our Queensboro apparel store, or our CafePress shop. We can do this only with your continuing support. Thank you!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Shannon Watts Drools Inanities… Again

No one can accuse demented Mommy Demanding Action Shannon Watts of not taking advantage of an opportunity. Over the weekend, a man planted pipe bombs outside the Dallas, TX  police headquarters before opening fire on the building. James Boulware apparently lost it and decided to go on a killing spree of police, because he blamed them for losing custody of his son.

Shannon decided, however, that the time was right to blame the passage of an open carry law in Texas for the act of a demented criminal. The open carry law that won’t go into effect until January 2016.

Any reasonable, sane person would read this and laugh, but Shannon’s supporters and the Mad Mommies Demanding Disarmament are re-Tweeting Shannon’s inanity, almost certainly without actually checking the facts of the story.

Hey, fact checking is HAAAAARD!

Just your latest in gun grabber stoopid brought to you by Twitter and the letter “D” for “Dolt.”

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Coffee and Conversation with Moshe Feiglin

Our readers are already familiar with this former member of the Israeli Knesset. He was mentioned in columns on 25 January 2015 and 7 January 2015. But for our readers to really get a flavor of what he thinks about gun control in Israel, someone needed to talk to him. I’m mean, really.

And so I did. In an effort to bring our TZP readers good investigation, I went to Israel. Ok, perhaps that’s baloney. I went because I love it and a really patient kind friend invited me to stay with her in her apartment. But as long as I was there….with a little help from a friend I landed a interview with Mr. Feiglin.

Didn’t quite go as I had hoped for a face to face interview, but when you’re only there for a few days and there is a huge list of things to do and see, you take what you can get. Yes, there was a phone interview, yes it took place in a coffee shop. In the Jerusalem bus station at the coffee shop. These babies are all over Israel, and I can do a column on my favorite coffee places in Israel if it become necessary, because man am I a happy camper over there. Along with, well, never mind, I’m digressing. So the interview took place in a coffee shop with a napkin stuck in my left ear to cut out the background noise. It was the best work around I could come up with since I was dealing with a narrow window of time.

Mr. Feiglin is very gracious. I had called his cell the day before to see about an interview. I interrupted him in a meeting. My Hebrew is good enough to apologize and ask when would be a good time I could call him. He gave me a time. I called from the bus en route to Jerusalem. Short version, I got the interview but it ended up taking place on the phone. I can roll with it.

Why do so many Israeli politicians not see that armed citizens would help with safety and security of all citizens? For example the attacks at Har Nof and bus stops? Note: for those not aware there have been several attacks where peaceful Palestinians “lost control” of their vehicles and said vehicles wound up plowing down citizens standing at bus stops and have killed some of them. And other instances where the huge knife they had hidden jumped into their hands and began to plunge itself into innocent bystanders.

His reply made my heart beat faster, probably will yours too, if you think like me. He began to explain that it has to do with the concept of freedom. That to give away freedom is a huge mistake. That disarming citizens can lead to tyranny and power grabs. That the more you centralize power the more vulnerable citizens are. He explained that every time there is a wave of violence that many politicians begin to call for increased gun control. At one time there were 300,000 Israelis that were licensed to carry weapons, today there are only 150,000 and politicians are trying to decrease that number.

Why would Israeli politicians want a disarming populace?

He replied that it is the basic concepts that they do not understand. Basic concepts such as freedom and life. Basic concepts of rights. I caught my jaw before it hit the table when he basically said that G-d gives rights, not politicians. I told him I had heard a Rabbi say that you could live by G-d’s law or die by man’s. He said that was exactly correct. He went on to explain that in the Knesset that a politician had stated that there were 13 case of licensed concealed carry holders shooting someone. I’m guessing he had a notion that statement was coming because when it did he refuted it by adding the information that of the 13, 12 of the cases were shootings by guards that had been hired by companies and schools. They were not using privately owned guns, but ones supplied by their company. What hit me on this one was apparently Israelis like their children and are willing to pursue even politically incorrect solutions to keeping them safe. As opposed to…oh well, you get the idea. He went on to state that with gangs and robbers the ceiling of security would be much better with more people carrying. Apparently the laws do not seem to stop Bedouins and Arabs from carrying weapons. My thought is they seem to use them with appalling frequency.

One thing that is different in Israel than America is the soldiers riding the buses and trains. Of course soldiers in America ride buses and trains. But in Israel they do so with their automatic weapons. And it’s a non-issue. In America politicians would have you believe that to allow a weapon on a bus or train is to invite mayhem. That those weapons will be breaking free of restraining hands and begin to fire at random, innocent targets. Israelis suffer under no such misconception. I felt just fine and dandy standing or sitting on those buses and trains. Should a terrorist be on the bus there would be something way different than disarmed victims to deal with.

Which led to my next question. Are soldiers allowed to carry concealed when they are off duty? I mean, they are the same trustworthy person they were in uniform as they are out of it.

To my somewhat surprise, they are not. He explained there is quite a chain of command question that comes into play when someone is going to discharge a weapon. The to use or not to use. Unfortunately by the time they get clearance it can be a bit late. I suggested perhaps it might be something to consider as if they were carrying the next peaceful Palestinian that aimed his car for a group that appeared to be plain civilians standing at a bus station. The budding terrorist might find quite a surprise when about 3 of the group turned out to be off duty soldiers that were carrying concealed.

While I was there a group of Ethiopians decided they would shut down Menachem Begin highway in Tel Aviv due to accusations of “racisim”. I told him about the riots of Ferguson and Baltimore where the Governor and Mayor chose not to protect the property of shop owners and lives of the Fire fighters and Police. Could Israelis defend their property and life?

Mr. Feiglin pulled back the lens even more than that. He replied that the entire world is losing the concept of freedom in the name of Democracy. He said Israel is losing it, and the younger generation will not know what they have lost. That they will not have a familiarity with what freedom really is to know they need to regain it. He is hoping that the upcoming generation of young Israelis can begin to turn this around and that Israel will come back from this. Our country? He wasn’t so hopeful. He said it may or may not come back. But he didn’t sound very optimistic. I told him that was compliments of our biased media and current educational system. He didn’t disagree.

I asked if the next time I came, would be all right to contact him for another interview. He said of course it would. And I intend to. Perhaps the next one will be the face to face interview.

The Coffee Shop Jerusalem Bus Station
The Coffee Shop
Jerusalem Bus Station
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

New assaults, old strategy

You know…

It seems that once again the gun grabbers are using the tried and true strategy of simply modifying, updating, or otherwise altering existing laws in order to relieve us of our rights. Since they couldn’t bully Congress into passing more restrictions on the Second Amendment after the Sandy Hook tragedy, they’ve engaged in outright assaults on our rights in other ways. This is in addition to the slew of new legislative proposals that have no hope of actual passage in Congress… we hope.

Carolyn Maloney (D-imwit, NY) proposed legislation to force gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine, claiming since we mandate car insurance, why not gun liability insurance. Of course, she’s ignoring the fact that there is no federal mandate to insure your vehicle, but hey… why spoil a good narrative with facts?

A New Jersey Democrat last month introduced an effort to stop online ammunition purchases.  Bonnie Watson’s bill would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of those wanting to purchase ammunition online by verifying photo identification in person and require ammunition vendors to report any sales of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days to the U.S. Attorney General, if the person purchasing ammunition is not a licensed dealer.

Carolyn Maloney, who introduced the insurance liability bill, also introduced this abortion of a bill that would require sellers to conduct background checks for all purchases at gun shows and require all purchases to be reported to the Attorney General. This time Maloney rages that “…more children die from gunshot wounds than cancer.” 

The American Cancer Society says cancer is the second leading cause of death in children (after accidents). About 1,250 children younger than 15 years old are expected to die from cancer in 2015.  Given advances in cancer research, I would think this number is actually on the decline.

In 2013, the last year for which data is available, according to the CDC, 193 children younger than 15 years of age died of firearm homicides, 69 died of accidental shootings, and 138 killed themselves using a firearm. If my calculator is correct, that makes 400, and that makes Maloney a liar. Again.

Plus, it’s not like dealers already don’t conduct background checks at gun shows! This is Maloney’s sneaky way to introduce background checks between private individuals – an effort that already has been rejected by legislators post Sandy Hook.

Last month, the State Department got into the gun-control fray with a proposal posted in the Federal Register that would require anyone who posts technical details about arms and ammunition online to first receive approval from the federal government or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

This is a threat to the free speech of gun owners and enthusiasts about which we should all be concerned.  State claims it’s merely clarifying some regulations that were passed prior to the advent of the Internet as a mass media tool. But when you threaten to penalize anyone posting technical information about firearms and ammunition online with outrageous fines and jail time, even the most ardent gun grabbers should take pause.

If you want to comment on this proposal, you can do so. The State Department will listen. No… really! Stop laughing!

Public comments are currently being accepted on the proposal. Comments can be made at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ”ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.” The deadline for comments is Aug. 3.

Seriously, a public outcry is the only way to stop this, and the more publicity it gets, the better. After all, how many of us read the Federal Register for pleasure? (OK – maybe me, but only sometimes! I swear!)

In all seriousness, this is an old strategy.

We’re not controlling guns! We’re simply requiring you to purchase liability insurance. Eventually the guns will be rendered cost-prohibitive. But hey, they’re not regulating guns, right?

We’re not controlling guns! We’re controlling ammunition! Nothing in the Second Amendment says your right to keep and bear ammo is sacrosanct!

We’re not controlling guns! We’re just limiting your right to discuss them in technical terms without government permission. And we’ll imprison you if you do. After all…

No gun owners… no guns.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail