Tag Archives: gun control

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers

Door Kickers

1 Comment

I’ve noted the theoretical problems with door-to-door weapons searches. Let’s see how that works in the real world.

Firearms Recovery Operation Held In Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz County law enforcement agencies teamed up with agents from the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms for a two-day operation on Tuesday and Wednesday to recover guns owned by individuals who are prohibited from possessing them, according to the Santa Cruz County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association.

In this case, California started with a gun owner database, which they compared to other databases to see who suddenly became a prohibited person. So, unlike my worst-case (for the cops) “belling the cat” scenario, they should have a good firearms hit rate. Right?

So how did it go? Multi-agency teams. Two days. 47 addresses.

One bust. For one gun.

At that rate, it’s going to take them 426 days just to clear the current backlog of 10,000 newly prohibited persons they think they know about. Never mind all the folks continually being added to the list even as they work.

But — as the infomercial says — Wait! There’s more.

One bust. For one gun. Perhaps that means that Californians are just really compliant with gun people control laws, unlike the old days of 20 years past when the state saw a whopping 2.33% compliance rate with registration, and those prohibited folks properly disposed of their firearms. Except…

California does have registration. And universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. If they properly disposed of their guns, that should have been in the state’s records and there’d be no reason to send the confiscation squads.

Are state records that bad? Did 46 out of 47 people lawfully transport their firearms out of state? Did 46 out of 47 unlawfully transfer them within the state? Did the cops simply not try very hard?

Was 1 out 47 simply a slow learner? Or maybe he didn’t even know about that protective order.

If it took California 2 days to not find 46 registered weapons in the hands of 46 registered gun owners, how long will it take to fail the other 9,953 (and counting) times?

On the bright side, this may identify another challenge to California’s obscene gun laws. You may recall that New York City was forced to end their warrantless “stop and frisk” program not merely because it was unconstitutional. Courts have long upheld unconstitutional practices if the government could demonstrate an overriding need for the sake of public safety. The judge in the NYC case tossed “stop and frisk” because, according to the city’s own data, it didn’t work, obliviating their “public safety” argument.

California’s restrictions and confiscation attempts don’t work either.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

Correlation? Causation?

6 Comments

The latest gun people control argument making the rounds is a “report” from the Violence Promotion I-mean-Policy Center that purports to show:

U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller Decision Affirming Right to Own a Handgun for Self-Defense

Oh, dear. Heller is killing people.

Not. Let’s take a look at the VPC’s own chart demonstrating that dramatic jump post-Heller.

Hmm. Modest increases through 2012; but nothing dramatic. Still well below the long-term average and part of a long term decline in firearms-related deaths. But look where we do see a dramatic jump: 2015 and 2016. That starts 7 years after Heller.

You’d think that if Heller were the cause, we’d see that big increase a little sooner. My uneducated, troglodytic gun owner guess would be that something changed in 2014 or 2015; maybe 2013 or 2016. But what?

2013:

  • New York passes “NY SAFE” act )assorted bans, registration, licensing, universal firearms PPYI, ammo PPYI, and more).
  • Colorado launches universal PPYI checks, “high capacity” magazines bans, mental health reporting requirements.
  • Maryland passes its “Firearm Safety Act,” called “one of the strictest gun laws in the nation.” (Sure helped Baltimore reach its goal of one of the highest homicide rates in the world, eh?)

2014:

  • California begins keeping more firearms sales records and bans “high capacity” magazine sales.
  • Connecticut begins “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine registration.
  • Obama launched his “Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions;” 23 new executive orders intended to restrict honest folk.
  • Obama announces his intent to expand DACA protections for illegals.
    Washington passes I-594 PPYI checks.

2015:

  • Oregon launches universal PPYI.
  • California somehow found something about guns not already regulated to their taste and added several more restrictions, including confiscations.
  • Alabama prohibited more people possessing firearms, and required more reporting.
  • Obama ordered the ATF to increase FFL licensing requirements, increase hiring, boost NICS reporting, and make many SS disability recipients prohibited persons.
  • Virginia’s AG reneged on reciprocal carry agreements.

2016:

  • California expands firearms seizures, blocks campus carry, imposes ERPOs

And much more.

Granted, none of that establishes causation, but at least the temporal correlation is a lot closer than a SCOTUS decision years back. And about that decision…

Heller was specifically about District of Columbia firearms restrictions. Not national laws. It was important at the national level because everyone expected it — correctly — to be used as a precedent in future. But to blame Heller itself for an increase in deaths indicates a simplistic… nay, simple-minded understanding of law and precedent.

It wasn’t until the SCOTUS McDonald decision two years later that Heller‘s precedent was applied to all the states. Funny that the VPC report doesn’t even mention that case.

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

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Poll

[UPDATE 2] Survey: Support for New Gun Control Laws

Leave a comment

Update: For some reason, my questions have disappeared.
Had to reenter all but one question. Seems to be working now.
—

I’m presenting another survey. Unlike past polls, this one is not directed at the RKBA/Firearms community, although anyone and everyone is welcome to participate.

But I would very much appreciate it if you distributed it far and wide, to the general population. Specifically those who allegedly poll in favor of new “gun” control laws.

START THE SURVEY

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

How to End “Gun” Violence in Three Easy Lessons

4 Comments

After every high profile shooting, the usual suspects dance in the blood and cry out for a solution to “gun” violence. Somehow, knife, baseball, and fist violence don’t rate.

The proferred “solutions” always involve more rules and laws that restrict the rights of people who didn’t do it. Laws that, oddly enough, won’t apply to the folks perpetrating the violence. They specifically blame the innocent for the acts of criminals.

Laws that regulate things that had nothing to do with the shooting.

Laws that already don’t work.

When rational people point that out, the gun people controlling victim disarmers plug their ears and run around chanting, “Nyah, nyah; can’t hear you!” and claim we don’t have any better ideas.

Yes. I do. I’ve mentioned them a time or two over the decades. And for the disarmers’ convenience, here they are. Three basic reforms that would fix most of the “gun” (and other weapons) violence: incarceration, education, and defense.

Incarceration

End catch and release sentencing policies for violent criminals. If they’re that dangerous, you don’t need to be putting them back on the street. Repeat felons would not be eligible for plea bargains. Victim restitution must be included.

End “3 strikes” style sentencing guidelines that actually encourage criminals to escalate (i.e.- two time loser kills next victim to eliminate witnesses).

Reform sentencing guidelines to promote rehabilitation. Regardless of sentence length, the criminal will not be eligible for parole or release until he has successfully completed a course of study. For first offenders without a high school diploma, that can be a General Equivalency Diploma program. For repeat offenders and those who have a high school diploma or GED, it will be a trade school such as welding, machinist, mechanic. Also acceptable will be a college degree program in hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) or engineering. Soft sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.) or liberal arts that prepare one for a career as a minimum wage barista will not qualify. Some industries or businesses might sponsor training programs, for a source of skilled workers who they’ve had a chance to observe improving their lot.

Instead of eliminating questions about criminal history from job applications, we could add, “And what new useful skill are you bringing me from that experience?”

Divert money from victim disarming “gun” control programs to increase staffing and training in parole offices, if we keep that. The goal there is to have sufficient parole and probation officers to properly supervise and counsel their subjects. Parole/probation should require gainful employment or continuing — successful — education (maintain C average, for instance).

Education

The public school system is broken. Taken over by education majors who’ve rewritten the rules to require an education major to be a teacher, rather than a degree in the subject(s) taught. Schools focus on socialization over learning. They’re full of the latest, ever-evolving theories of teaching subjects they do not understand The result is high school graduates who are not literate enough to fill out a job application or capable of balancing a check book. Too often those people — otherwise unemployable — fail at boring unskilled labor and turn to lucrative crime like drug dealing.

Schools must abandon social justice, and teach basic skills: reading (to the point of reading a novel and comprehending it), writing (to the point of drafting a comprehensible resume cover letter), mathematics (balancing a check book and estimating whether you’ve got enough gas in the tank to reach your destination), basic science (basic laws of motion, enough biology to under what allosomes do in mammals, enough chemistry to understand why mixing vinegar and baking soda doesn’t make a great cleaning product, and why there’s no such thing as chemical-free food). I had a science teacher who believed that potatoes have zero calories.

Classes that teach actual life skills like old style home economics, shop, and basic firearms safety are good.

English. English. English. Classes must teach and be taught in English. English has been the defacto majority language in the US for a very long time. If a person cannot function in English, she’ll be severely limited in employment and life opportunities.

America does not have the educational resources to hire qualified teachers in every subject for every possible at-home language. We cannot have parallel English/Spanish/Somali/Arabic/whatever curricula. If a student does not function at an age appropriate level in English, that student should be placed in a remedial English class until she achieves a level which allows her to successfully participate in the regular curriculum.

I knew two women at a company whose first language was Spanish. One woman only had a few words of English and had worked in her section for years. She could not get promoted up. As a new hire, I had to read instructions for her and show her how to do her job. She was not stupid; she simply never bothered learning English.

The other woman was fluent in spoken and written English. Since she was able to read technical manuals and parts diagrams, she was immediately hired in another department at a much higher wage.

If a Somali won’t learn English, he’ll most likely be restricted to his local Somalian community, with limited employment opportunities. Perhaps all he’ll be able to do for a living is sell drugs to his neighbors, in competition with folks who will shoot it out over turf.

End peer promotion. You aren’t protecting someone’s self-esteem by promoting him to a higher level where he’s going to fail again. Hold him back until he learns. If he’s ashamed to share a class with younger folks, he can work harder.

If he works hard enough, he can test to see if he is ready to rejoin his former classmates in the more advanced class. He can be proud that he accomplished something himself, instead of it being given to him. Maybe he’ll learn to appreciate that over a sense of entitlement.

For that matter, any student who believes herself to be ready can take the tests for high school graduation; if she passes — regardless of age — she gets her diploma and walks out.

It wouldn’t break my heart to see it made a felony to graduate a person who is functionally illiterate after twelve years of “schooling.” My sisters — 2 and 4 years older than I — taught me to read before I started school. We have “teachers” far less effective than a couple of untrained little girls.

Self Defense

The last time a nuclear weapon was used in combat on this planet was fifteen years before I was born. Like it or not, one reason for that was deterrence. Mutual Assured Destruction was… ahem, overkill, but no one dropped nukes because they didn’t want anyone replying in kind.

Criminals, being human, too, also realize this. There have been multiple surveys of inmates which showed that, given a choice of targets, criminals will choose to avoid a potential victim they believe may be armed. I have personally heard convicted felons state that flatly.

I also saw a dayroom full of inmates who were watching a news report on “gun control.” Their consensus was that gun control, and firearms bans in particular, would be a good thing. One inmate gleefully noted how helpful it would be to disarm victims, and “I’ll always be able to get a gun when I’m out anyway.”

Please note that “studies” allegedly showing lower rates of violence or crime in places with stronger “gun” control typically lump in suicide with real crime, exclude violence with other implements, or use artificial — nonexistent, that is — “synthetic states” for comparisons. Cherry-picking time frames is also popular.

The reality is otherwise. Baltimore has strong “gun” control laws, and the highest murder rate in the country at more than 55 per 100,000 people. That’s worse than Venezuela or cartel-ridden Mexico. For that matter both Venezuela and Mexico have very restrictive gun laws.

Licenseless New Hampshire and Vermont generally vie for the last nationwide slot for homicides and violent crime.

So the ability of noncriminals to defend themselves will reduce violent crime; through deterrence and — if widespread — Darwinian selection. Dead would-be killers are rarely recidivists.

So…

National reciprocal carry is a good idea. National “constitutional carry” is better.

A national Stand Your Ground (SYG) law that places the burden of proving guilt on prosecution, rather than requiring an honest defender to prove his innocence, is good. If a criminal killer says, “I didn’t do it.” the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If a lawful gun owner says, “I did it in self defense.” the burden shifts to him sans SYG.

The police must stop regarding a holstered or slung weapon as probable cause for stopping, questioning, and too often shooting noncriminals. Particularly when they, ironically, have holstered or slung weapons. Lawful gun owners make up such a tiny fraction of a percent of firearms-wielding murderers that being in possession of a car is as much an indicator of criminal intent as gun possession.

Divert money from useless gun “buybacks” to free firearms classes for the community. More people trained will mean more honest people carrying (deterring criminals who’ll probably have to move to Baltimore), and even fewer firearms accidents.

Kill the National Instant Check System (NICS). It doesn’t work. Really, they don’t. Mostly because criminals usually get their guns from their own social networks. Not even at gun shows or online sales.

But lawful gun owners who want protection from bad guys, don’t really want to inadvertently sell guns to bad guys. So put the thumb-twiddlers at NICS to work on “Blind Identification Database System” (BIDS). Either allow private sellers access to the system, or pay dealers to run the checks without paperwork (unless someone fails, maybe).

Establish “firearms assistance” programs for poor but honest folks who can’t afford guns, ammunition, and practice. If abortion, nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, is a right worthy of subsidy, certainly protection should be supported.

We need more ranges, too.

Local and state governments could promote self defense, and raise money for it, by running gun lotteries. Pow’R Ball, if you will. Prizes could be high end defensive tools, ammunition, accessories, gift cards, and range memberships.

There you have it the — already declining — problem of “gun” violence (all criminal violence) largely solved.

1. Teaching people the things they need to function in an honest society.
2. Providing second chances and skills to those who slip and survive.
3. Providing skills and equipment to those who want to stop the real violence.

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

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

By the Numbers

3 Comments

In recent years, victim disarmament advocates have been making more use of international firearms homicide rate comparisons. The United Kingdom used to be their go-to example, but that’s largely fallen by the wayside since, not only has its crime rate been growing as America’s has dropped, but they were outed for faking their low numbers.

These days, the line is, “The United States has the highest firearms murder rate of any developed nation,” along with assorted variations on the theme. Typically, they also throw in the fact that we have far more guns per person than any other country (I see that as a point of pride). When they want a specific example, they point to Australia and its post-Port Arthur confiscation and proclaim, “Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since,” carefully ignoring at least four mass shootings (using the anti-rights Gun Violence Archive’s definition of 4+ people shot, not counting the shooter). And then there’s the low confiscation compliance rate which has caused them to hold multiple “amnesties.”

Now, it’s true that Australia’s firearm-related homicide rate is only 0.16/100K, compared to the United States at 3.60/100K. But we’re allegedly talking about developed nations.

The United States is ranked first in the world by Gross Domestic Product. Australia comes in at number 13. Australia’s GDP is roughly one-fifteenth of the United States, less than 7% of ours. Peaceful Sweden is another country that the gun people controllers like to point to, with its 0.19/100K firearm homicide rate. But we’re talking economics, too. Sweden’s GDP ranks 23rd, well behind even Australia, and is just one thirty-sixth that of the US.

Instead, let’s try a country quite close by which is closer to Australia’s GDP than Sweden’s.

Our southern neighbor Mexico ranks 15th, with a GDP 83% of Australia’s. For that matter, there’s Brazil in the #9 slot. If Sweden is economically developed surely Brazil counts. But the gun grabbers don’t like to talk about them for some reason.

Said reason being:

Firearms-related homicide rates per 100K

Australia (13) 0.16
Sweden (23) 0.19
United States (1) 3.60
Mexico (15) 6.34
Brazil (9) 19.99

At this, the controllers are screeching that GDP is meaningless, that GDP per capita is the indicator of development. Well, no; that’s more an indicator of average wealth than development. And by per capita GDP Mexico does trail the US’s #7 ranking at #70. I think that says more about wealth distribution than development.

With Chinese made goods filling most department stores, I think we can agree that China is an industrially developed nation. They are producing that stuff we’re importing.

So is Mexico. Let’s look at our imports from various countries. We get $14.3 billion worth of vehicles from China. But we get $75.2 billion worth of vehicles from Mexico. That’s more than than we import from Japan, Korea, Germany, or any other country.

For total imports, Mexico is our second largest provider, behind China and ahead of Canada.

Yes, they’re developed. And with 15 guns per 100 people they have a firearms homicide rate almost double that of the US with 101 guns per hundred people. Brazil, with a mere 8 guns per 100 people, still manages a firearms homicide rate 5.5 times ours.

If guns and gun ownership were the problem, the United States would have depopulated itself decades ago.

Louisiana ranks 13th in gun ownership, but #1 in murder rate. Maryland is 43rd in gun ownership, but #5 in murder rate. Baltimore alone has a murder rate of 55.4/100K (and note that Maryland has strong gun control laws).

It isn’t the guns or the honest owners.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

5 Comments

As mentioned last week, the ATF has proposed a rule which would render bump-fire stocks, and trigger assist devices, “machineguns.”

The Zelman Partisans opposed this when legislation was introduced to do the same thing, and we opposed doing it via bureaucratic fiat.

Comments are now being accepted on “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” You may submit comments online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

I have submitted my personal comments already. This what I sent.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
Docket No. 2017R-22

I oppose classifying as machineguns “bump-fire” stocks or any other external device or accessory which does not alter the internal action of a firearm.

In effect, this proposed rule would make any firearm a machinegun if a well trained person can pull the trigger faster than your arbitrary threshold.

EXPLANATION:

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine its acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready position and is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

A machinegun is designed to fire multiple rounds per trigger operation. Bump-fire stocks in no way affect that operation/rounds relationship. If you put a bump-fire stock on a semiautomatic rifle, you still individually operate the trigger for each round fired. Bump-fire stocks do not make the weapon fire faster. The theoretical rate of fire of the rifle is determined by the physics of the internal parts, as described above.

To fire a rifle with reasonable expectation that the round will hit the target, you normally hold the rifle firmly with both hands, and pull it against your shoulder. This provides a stable shooting stance.

A rifle has recoil. When fired, it pushes against your shoulder.

But let’s trying hold that rifle a little differently. With your off hand (the hand you don’t use to pull the trigger) grip the rifle. Your trigger hand does not grip the rifle. Nor do you pull the rifle butt snug against your shoulder. It isn’t a stable stance, and accuracy will suffer.

When your rifle is on target, extend your trigger finger into the guard. Now, with your off hand grip, push the rifle forward until your trigger finger pulls the trigger.

The rifle fires. Recoil pushes the rifle back so your finger disengages the trigger. Your rifle-gripping off hand acts like a spring and pulls the rifle forward again. If your shooting finger was held steady, the trigger is pushed against the finger again, firing.

The bump-fire stock is simply a device that can be pulled snugly to the shoulder, and provides a grip to help keep the trigger finger in position. The rifle proper just recoils back in a channel into the stock. It is training wheels for folks who have trouble bump-firing. And since it’s a bit more stable, it helps with accuracy compared to normal bump-fire. However, accuracy even with the stock is poor compared to conventional stance with conventional stock.

Considering bump-fire stocks, and other accessories, to be machineguns would not simply regulate a physical device. It effectively outlaws the bump-fire TECHNIQUE, and even pulling the trigger faster than some arbitrary threshold.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

Liars, and the lied-to

1 Comment

On a recent post, a commenter noted that anti-RKBA groups must have trouble recruiting workers given the conflicting skill sets of credentials and experience and the reasoning skills of a toddler. I had to disagree; since the goal of groups like Moms Demand Deaths Action isn’t reducing violence, poor logical skills aren’t needed.

Just a willingness to lie. Like Shannon “I’m just a stay at home mom” Watts, the professional public relations manager paid by Bloomberg.

Sometimes I’m willing to allow that a person is ignorant, rather than maliciously lying, when advocating for victim disarmament. That’s because there are — at least — two types of gun control advocates.

The first are those for whom the goal is a disarmed citizenry — for the sake of people control — rather than a reduction in violence.

The second is their targeted demographic: those who didn’t care enough about the subject to have already educated themselves using readily available data. The first group lies to the second to instill panic so that they will begin to care. But the targeted demographic will be operating on the dramatic lies and blood-dancing they accepted passively.

How do you tell the ignorantly well-intentioned — who might be capable of grasping reality once it’s presented — from the outright liars? Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.

Some horrible murder occurs. A group forms saying they want to prevent that happening again. They create a Facebook page to present facts about guns and violence, including a graphic that purports to show that having a gun is more likely to be a danger to you and yours, than to useful for protection. Someone else notes that they’ve referenced the debunked Kellerman study.

At this point, the gun control group could do a few things. They could ask what the Kellerman study is, suggesting they work from simple ignorance. They could stand up for the Kellerman study, which might be ignorance or lying; could go either way.

Or, they might claim that graphic doesn’t represent the Kellerman study, indicating they know what the Kellerman paper is, and that it isn’t worth using as a reference.

So let’s say they did the latter. And our observant commenter points out that the graphic specifically includes text saying it’s from the Kellerman paper. A few other people jump in to tell them the same thing. And the next time our fearless commenter visits the page, his comments have been deleted, as have the others supporting his position. The Kellerman graphic remains now unchallenged. That would be a group of liars, not well-intentioned ignoramuses.

Oh. Wait. That situation wasn’t hypothetical. That’s exactly what Watts’ Moms Demand Action did.

Maybe another hypothetical.

Let’s say that a state legislature is considering a bill to impose universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint background checks for firearms purchases. And let’s say that another group formed in response to the above mentioned mass shooting testify in a public hearing that universal background checks would have stopped the asshole who killed the children at Sandy Hook. Since the murderer obtained his weapons by first murdering his mother and stealing her guns, it’s hard to imagine him then stopping for a background check. But hey.

So someone contacts the group to point out the little problem with the claim. The possible responses could tell us how we should view them.

They could say that their reps were overwhelmed by emotion and misspoke, and offer a correction.

Or they could lie, and claim their reps actually said PPYI would not have stopped the Sandy Hook killer.

Oh. Darn it. This one wasn’t hypothetical either. It happened. I was there in the hearing in New Hampshire in 2014 when the Sandy Hook Promise representatives definitely said PPYI would have stopped him. I laughed out loud. So did several hundred other people, who also muttered enough about the outlandish claim that the committee chairwoman had to call for silence. And when I contacted SHP, they did lie about what their reps testified to.

In fact, I got two lies for the price of one.

“Sandy Hook Promise is firmly rooted in constitutional values and as such does not support policy or legislation that poses a burden on anyone’s rights.”

Except when they send representatives to another state to demand just such burdensome legislation. (Frankly, I’m amazed they got there. They said that Connecticut borders on New Hampshire.)

Once you’ve determined which type you’re dealing with — lying SOBs, or their knowledged challenged targets — deal with them appropriately. Call out the liars like Moms Demand Action, Sandy Hook Promise, and Giffords; especially in a manner that theirs targets can see so they’ll know they’ve been lied to. Admittedly, that’s touigh when the media are the allies of the liars (and generally liars themselves).

The knowledge-challenged you can try to educate directly. But you have to work past the false “knowledge” they’ve been suckered with.

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!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
defense of others, genocide, hatred of Jews, Inspiration, Israel, Jewish history, Media, mindset, Political philosophy, resistance, self defense, spirit of rebellion

At This Time

2 Comments

I’ve made no secret that I love Hanukkah. I always find miracles humbling, amazing and awe inspiring. And what is Hanukkah but the time of miracles? This year, there are some big ones.

This is the second prayer for the candle lighting of the Hanukkiah

Hebrew
Barukh atah Adonai, Eloheinu, melekh ha’olam
Blessed are you, Lord, our God, sovereign of the universe
Hebrew
she’asah nisim la’avoteinu bayamim haheim baziman hazeh. (Amein)
Who performed miracles for our ancestors in those days at this time

And I guess that’s one of the things I’ve been thinking about. “In those days, at this time.”

This year is the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. It’s been 70 years since the U.N. voted Israel a nation, just a note, G-d had voted it long before that. It’s been 22 years since the Jerusalem Embassy act was passed in the US with bi-partisan support saying that the US would move their embassy to Jerusalem, where Israel has the seat of their government. There is no other nation on earth that has not designated their capitol and other countries have told them “No, it’s not”. And for 22 years for reasons of “security” Presidents have signed the loophole waiver, from Bill Clintoon until….President Trump.

The claim was always “security”. It would be discussed and the arabs would threaten “Days of Rage” “Day of Hissy fits” “Days of Pique” “Days of Temper Tantrum”. Here’s a helpful desk calendar from IsraellyCool.

Helpful to schedule your day of “Hissy fit”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the world and the US President would cave. I listened to a radio show in this last week when Rabbi Chaim pointed out “Do you really want to live under the threat of terrorism? Where your lives are controlled by a threat?”. His co-host Yitzach told about a email he received from a friend in the US who asked him his opinion on President Trump’s actions. It was very clear the friend didn’t like President Trump and was very critical of the action. Yitzach told him it was about time, and it was the right thing to do. The friend answered back that he guessed it was, he just didn’t like President Trump and couldn’t believe he could ever do the right thing, and didn’t want to think he had. AND he guzzles Diet Coca Cola!! Classic Trump derangement syndrome. Probably listens to cnn or mslsd (both #FakeNews). May I just point out that Oslo was suppose to bring peace, and how’s that worked out?? Um, not so well. And the media has yammered on and on about how President Trump broke the status quo. By finally implementing a LAW passed 22 YEARS ago?

And that brings me to Hanukkah. Hanukkah is different from Purim. With Purim we celebrate the very survival of the Jewish nation. Haman had decreed all were to be killed. Dead, met, מת

With Hanukkah, I think the case could be made it was something even worse, the Greek Antiochus had decreed that Jews would not allowed to be, well, Jews. He wanted to kill their souls, not just their bodies. They couldn’t observe feasts, Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, or anything really that G-d had instructed. The Greeks worshiped the physical form, logic and Antiochus, never the most stable of rulers couldn’t abide that the Jews, well at least the backwards ones in flyover country would defy him. The more “enlightened” of the Jews worshiped at the alter of the demoncrats and Hellenism and were fine with casting off the chains of duty to G-d.

But then there was the Maccabees. Mattathias and his sons, his warrior son Judah who most assuredly were not going to “coexist”. They had no illusions as to what that would result in. There’s actually a bit of a pattern in this area. This is actually a T-shirt:

The fate of nations that have come against Israel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s available here.

Chronology of the Jewish People and Hanukkah

To read more about the specifics of Hanukkah, TZP has some columns.

Some things are worth fighting for

It’s The Most MACCABEE Time of the Year!

My little attempt at poetry, Twas a Night During Hanukkah

Cleaning the Menorah for Next Year

And so, President Trump, and his recent speech about Hanukkah and Jerusalem.

Predictably, some of the arabs living in Israel (sometimes known as Falestinians by me) had reacted with ________ depending on the day. They are so miffed that Abu Mazen has refused to meet with Vice-President Pence and are threatening to cut ties with the U.S. No word if they will continue to take our money yet though.

And from the other loony toon spectrum Hamass is planning to “liberate occupied Tel Aviv”. No, I’m not making that up, I couldn’t.

You see, with the arabs living in Israel, it really isn’t about Jerusalem or the Alka Seltzer Mollusk. It never was. When they pray they face Mecca, they turn their Hamasses towards the Mollusk, not usually sign of reverence. More a sign of a 15 year old boy mooning a teacher he doesn’t like.

Remember I said The Maccabees didn’t live with illusions? There should be no illusions that giving in to arab terrorism will result in peace, it will not. There should be no illusions that “compromising” with anti-gun people or politicians will result in good gun laws. It will not. Like the Maccabees, we need to live with no illusions about people or situations.

In those days, at this time. The Maccabees were raised up, and were there to fight for Jewish life, Torah and Israel.

I don’t know about you, but there are times I’ve felt compelled to do something when it really didn’t make a lot of sense to me. I couldn’t think of a good reason, but I felt like I was suppose to do it, and so I did. Only later it might become apparent why I need to do, buy or learn whatever. But I was very glad I had heeded the urging.

In those days, at this time. Remember last week when I talked about Jacob going back for the tupperware of oil? He had just struggled with the angel, his hip had been wounded, he has a new name, he’s headed to face off with his brother who has sworn to kill him and he goes back for a tupperware of oil?

On the Chabad web site, From the Talmud:

Rabbi Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, suggests that these jugs contained the oil that Jacob had designated for anointing the monument he had set up many years earlier during his flight to Haran.3 This was holy oil, then, so Jacob did not want to leave it behind.4

Interestingly, these jugs may be linked to the miracle of Chanukah. According to Tzeidah la-Derech, “G‑d said to Jacob: You risked your life for a small jug of oil for My sake. In return, I will repay your descendants, the Hasmoneans, when a miracle will happen for them with a small jug of oil.”

In those days, at this time. We too are here in these days at this time for a purpose. We all are blessed with one, and we all fit together like a jig saw puzzle. The staff at Zelman’s Partisans, the people in the Second Amendment community, the people who take the kids out and give them their first experience safely learning to shoot, pro-freedom politicians, Second Amendment activists of all kinds, all of us fit and work together. May we all be blessed with knowing our purpose, and enjoying the blessings of Hanukkah and Christmas.

I’ll leave you with this humorous little video clip a good friend of mine from Israel shared with me a few days ago.

And how could I not give you a Hanukkah video?? It has English subtitles and it’s beautiful. I love it because they say Nes Gadol Haya POH!! Not Sham. That’s because they are in Israel, not anywhere else.

My Favorite Hanukkiah

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chag Hanukkah Samach

חג חנוכה שמח

Merry Christmas too!!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun grabbers, You can't fix stupid

[Update] OK, I tried to have that conversation.

5 Comments

The gun grabbers always say they want a conversation, but somehow that rarely seems to work out.

Ms. Lori N. DiPersio, Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Center in Rhode Island has a solution to the domestic violence problem. Referencing the Sutherland Springs asshole, a prohibited person able to purchase weapons because the Air Force failed to obey the law, she wrote:

Despite all of these warning signs and a well-documented dark past for such a young person, he was able to amass a gun collection that he used to kill dozens of innocent souls – including those of a pregnant woman, her unborn child and numerous children. If you knew what you now know about this shooter, would you have in good conscience had any part in selling him a gun? If he could beat up a puppy and an infant with his bare hands, what would he have done with a gun in his possession? Unfortunately, we – and the 26 dead, the numerous injured, their families and our grieving nation – know the answer.

It’s time we stop putting guns into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Support gun legislation to stop the violence and protect innocent lives, before it happens again.

Right off the bat, she violated Rule 1a: If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.

You might also note the lack of a specific… heck, any proposed solution; just “gun legislation.” I figured an “Executive Director” ought to know how to get things done. Maybe her letter just got edited down for space. So I asked her. To start that conversation.

What gun legislation are you proposing; a new law requiring agencies to report convictions as the law already requires?

True, a little sarcastic; but I’d already hit “send.” But really; I want to see if she’s come up with something workable.

An answer!

I’m not proposing a specific gun legislation but would totally support whatever can be done (current or future legislation) to prohibit guns from getting into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Any legislation that can keep guns away from those who would use it senselessly in a domestic violence situation is great!

So that would be totally (whatever, is she a 16yo Valley Girl?)… No.

So much for the conversation.

So basically you have no idea what current laws are, or how effective they might be, or what news laws you want, but you do want more of what you don’t know.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I’ve had more profound discussions with a cat.

And bless your heart, Lori; that confidentiality disclaimer on your email? Pretty useless. You’re not my attorney, I’m not your client, and we have no contractual relationship. But I can certainly understand why your employer might want your… carefully considered thoughts on issues kept quiet.

Update: I waited for another reply before I posted this, but not quite long enough.

I do know what the new laws are and how they still are not strong enough. Our local government is still trying to figure it out as well.

I dunno… if they don’t work, maybe it isn’t that they aren’t strong enough. Perhaps, they’re 1) the wrong laws, and 2) targeting the 99.9814% of millions of gun owners who aren’t the problem.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Politics

Vegas Questions; and why they matter

3 Comments

The Mandalay Bay shooting has left more questions unanswered than answered. And yes, it matters.

It matter because numerous — and gross — violations of Constitutionally “protected” rights are being proposed to “fix” the problems that let that happen.

1. “‘Silencers’ must not be deregulated; they must be banned because what if the Mandalay Bay asshole had used them and nobody knew they were being shot?

2. “More preemptivly-prove-your-innocence prior restraint “background checks” because they were good enough to catch this guy when he passed them.”

3. “Ban bump-fire stocks because they turn any gun into a machine gun.”

4. “Ban all semiautomatic firearms because ‘military grade weapons of war’!”

5. “Stop reciprocal carry because that guy might’ve gotten a carry license.”

6. “Register all gun owners and all their guns because… we don’t know, but do it for Vegas.”

7. “Ban all guns because no murderer will ever figure out how to kill without a gun.”

And the list goes on. Mandalay Bay has become the rationalization for human civil rights violations on a scale not seen in this country since slavery was outlawed. Hyperbole?

Consider that anti-gunners are screaming that gun owners have no right to speak on the subject. Bans and confiscations deprive people of property. Finding the owners and guns will involve mass warrantless searches. Privacy will be invaded as authorities scour email and social media for ownership indications. Bank records will be searched for firearms (and accessories) purchases and sales. Failure to comply fast enough will get you dead or jailed.

Or somebody dead.

It isn’t just the Second Amendment violations; it’s everything else they have to violate just to accomplish them. That’s some serious stuff to be doing based on near total ignorance of the facts of the incident.

And, since the authorities claim the shooter acted alone, and they aren’t searching for anyone else in the matter, there’s no reason for the ignorance; there’s supposedly no real ongoing investigation to compromise unless they’ve lied about looking for accomplices.

So before any more rights violations advance, let’s get answers.

1. Several media outlets reported early on that, in addition to bump-fire stock-equipped weapons, the shooter had AR-pattern rifles converted to full auto. Fox reported that the full auto conversions were chambered in both .223 and .308.

Those reports were never walked backed or corrected. They just stopped talking about the weapons, leaving the anti-gunners free to whine about bump stocks.

I’m not a mass murderer, so I could be missing something. But if he had fully automatic weapons, why bother using bump-fire while the automatic weapons were available? C’mon, you’ve had months to do ballistics testing; you know what weapons were actually fired.

2. If no automatic weapons were used, why does at least one recording of the incident have a burst with two simultaneous rapid fire gunshot audio signatures, one a steady boom, and the other a sharper crack, at different rates of fire?

A wannabe Rambo could grab two fully automatic weapons and fire them at the same time. Poorly and inaccurately, but it’s doable if you don’t mind a face full of brass. But not bump-fired rifles; you need both hands with a bump-fire stock: one for the trigger, and one to provide the tension to pull the rifle forward.

If the weapons were bump-fired, it raises the question of how one guy fired two guns at the same time.

3. Las Vegas is one of the most surveilled cities in the world; possibly the most when you include all the casino and hotel interior cameras. Where is the video of the asshole bringing in his guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition? Sitting in a restaurant? Playing video poker? Walking down halls? He doesn’t even show up in the background in some tourist’s iPhone footage?

Did he carry everything himself, or did someone help him with all that stuff? Maybe an innocent valet, who could at least add to the timeline. Where’s the video?

4. When people spotted a “note” in crime scene photos and speculated that it was a suicide note or explanation of motive, authorities said it was actually “ballistic calculations” to better target his victims. Why would he need such ballistics calculations?

Calculations of that nature would involve wind speed for bullet drift, and more importantly bullet drop for shooting from an elevation at a given range. Except he didn’t need that, and relatively few shooters know how to do it on a scrap of paper. He didn’t need it because such precision is to hit a specific — often relatively small — target accurately. Our asshole wouldn’t be concerned about hitting a torso or head on one person. He was hosing down a mass of tens of thousands of people, a crowd the size of football fields. Unless there’s something else they haven’t told us.

And this brings us back to bump-fire. Bump-fire is inaccurate. What’s the point of careful calculations of the most accurate way to aim a firehose? An automatic rifle in most people’s hands wouldn’t be much better.

Can we see a legible image of that note/calculations?

5. Authorities said the asshole had an escape plan. What was it, and why did he abandon it for suicide?

6. Where is the computer hard drive? Law enforcement said the drive from the computer in the hotel room was missing; where did it go and when?

Would video answer that question, too? Speaking of video, the shooter had his own cameras which are implied to have been wireless computer types; where’s that video? On the perambulating hard drive?

7. Why did the shooter stop after 9-10 minutes with thousands of rounds of ammunition left over?

Is that when he killed himself?

7. So when did the asshole die?

Just body temperature should give them a rough idea of how long he’d been dead when they finally entered the room. Perhaps that would shed light on why spent brass appeared to be sitting on top of coagulated blood in crime scene photos. Or how he shot himself in the head and fell down, extending one leg under a rifle on a bipod without knocking it over.

9. Within a day or two, authorities were rummaging through the shooter’s financials enough to figure out that he’d purchased software, and been shipping cash out of the country by the pallet. Why did it take another month and a half — when folks were getting antsy over motive — to discover he was despondent over massive gambling losses, when they totally ruled out “terrorism” in less than a day?

How much had he lost? When? Was it significantly higher than previous losses? Victims and families suing the estate would probably like to know how much is left.

10. Why did the most valuable material witness leave the country, and did the authorities know before he left?

Seriously; no one told him, “Don’t go leaving town. Keep yourself available for more questions while we sort out the latest version of the timeline.”?

11. Why did the police wait until roughly an hour and twenty minutes after the last shot was fired to enter the room? Was the shooter still alive, did he communicate with them? For that matter, we don’t know why it allegedly took them so long to figure out what room the shooter was in. Two witnesses claim they reported it.

Oh well. It isn’t as if I don’t know about plenty of “armed standoffs” with empty houses, or sleeping drunks who didn’t know the cops were there.

Until investigators will explain what guns the asshole used, and how, along with other pertinent facts, imposing more infringements of human/civil rights based on “we have to prevent another Mandalay Bay” makes as much sense as banning automobiles because the shooter owned one of those, too. Or houses. Or boats. Airplanes. Clothing. Suitcases.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail