Category Archives: gun grabbers

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!


They Just Keep Pushing

I don’t know if it’s because there are national elections next year, but the Democrats in Washington and nationwide just keep pushing gun control measure after gun control measure. It’s as if they think that tossing a ton of new legislative proposals at us is like tossing a pot of spaghetti at a wall – one or two are bound to stick, right?

The latest unconstitutional attempt to kick gun owners in the gut (or lower) comes from Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-imwit, Md.), who has decided that in order to exercise your fundamental rights to a) make a legitimate purchase and b) use the most effective tool to defend your family and your property, you must have a license – a permission from the federal government. No, it’s not the same as applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which is ineffective and unconstitutional in and of itself. The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act would require anyone wishing to purchase certain firearms to get permission from the feds first. In addition to that, the proposal bars anyone under the age of 21 (old enough to serve in the Armed Forces and protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but not old enough to protect themselves or their families against armed thugs) from buying a gun, and yank federal funding from states that refuse to implement this onerous legislation.

Now, there’s obviously no chance of this travesty ever passing Congress… unless Boehner and the other put-the-finger-in-the-wind-and-see-which-way-public-opinion-is-blowing legisleeches overdose on the gun grabber Kool-Aid. That said, Van Hollen and the other gun grabbing, authoritarian swine in Washington are wasting time and resources on proposals they know have no chance of passage.

My educated guess is that with the general election approaching next year, they have to show the hands that feed them (read: Bloomberg, Soros, et. al.) that they’re actually doing something. It may not be something realistic, constitutional, or even sane…

…but it’s something.

“Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur with a handgun,” Van Hollen said. “With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities.”

Of course, this is a lie – or as gun grabbers would claim after being debunked, a “hyperbole.”  The FBI Violent Crime Statistics show less than 70 percent of homicides in the United States in 2013 were committed with firearms – and that’s all firearms, not just handguns. And handguns comprised 68.4 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2013, according to the FBI’s expanded data set.

In other words, Van Hollen’s claims are so much garbage. And considering only a tiny percentage of all gun-related homicides are actually committed with legally-owned firearms, licensing law abiding citizens to make constitutional purchases will do next to nothing to reduce violence committed with handguns, but hey… they’re doing something, right?

Of course, I’m not addressing the more onerous agenda that could be present behind these efforts: disinformation.

We all know how hard it is to pull back information in the digital age. Once it’s out there, it’s out there, and no amount of retractions, debunking, and truth to counter said lies will help.

We also know that the majority of Americans do very little fact checking. They get their information via Internet memes, Twitter, and short snippets of news. I like to call it McNews – the fast food of journalism. Policy makers rely on this. So does the media. And putting wrong, inflated, erroneous, or outright false information out there ensures that at least a certain percentage of the population immediately assimilates it and propagates it.

The lies become part of the fabric of the Internet.

That’s why even if these measures have no chance of passage, those of us who know the facts must act to disseminate them and counter all the polluted information spread by those with an obvious political agenda.

That’s why even though I know Van Hollen’s and others’ lunatic proposals are so much crap, I will continue to point out their lies and spread the truth.

It’s not about ensuring the measures never pass. They wont.

It’s about ensuring that the truth gets out.


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.”



Dear Dr. Rosen…

I recently read your letter to the editor of the Greensboro News and Record.  In it you claim that since “physicians’ advice to patients routinely includes urging safe sex to protect against sexually transmitted diseases; using seat belts and child car seats; urging smokers to quit; and providing vaccines against flu and pneumonia,” you should be able to give your patients advice on firearms safety – advice I’m not sure you’re qualified to give.

So I tell ya what…

Why don’t you provide documentation of your qualifications to dispense firearms advice — and please include any hard copy certificates, proof of knowledge about the mechanics of firearms, your training as a safety expert in the field, etc. — and I’ll think about allowing you to dispense said advice to my family.

If you don’t have said training, I would propose you increase your malpractice insurance coverage to include advice you’re not even remotely qualified to give based on the following batch of stupid, “Inquiring if there are guns in the home, and whether they are locked, kept separate from ammunition and out of reach of children is basic.

a) It’s none of your business.

b) Teaching gun safety to children appropriately and keeping an eye on them if there are guns in the house is basic.

c) Will you pay for the medical costs of the rape or assault victim after a confrontation with an armed thug, who took advantage of the precious seconds his victim took to fumble with the gun lock, retrieve the ammunition, thanks to your advice?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Now, I’m not a big fan of legislating silence. I wouldn’t be thrilled with a North Carolina legislative proposal that would restrict doctors’ ability to discuss guns in the home. Except, from what I’m seeing, that’s not what the bill does.

Any written questionnaire or other written form a health care provider asks a patient or the patient’s  parent,  guardian,  or  custodian to  complete that  contains  any  question  regarding  the patient’s lawful  ownership,  possession,  handling,  storage,  maintenance  of, or  other  conduct involving firearms and ammunition shall clearly and conspicuously contain or have attached to it a notice that the patient is not required to answer any question related to those matters. The notice  shall  be  located  or  provided  in  a  manner that  is  clearly  visible  to  the  patient prior  to completion of any questionnaire or other written form containing a question about firearms and ammunition as provided in this section.

It merely makes sure that the patient understands he or she is under no obligation to answer your questions or bow to your paranoia.

I’m pretty sure it will also allow the patient to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to keep you as a physician, since you feel yourself qualified to dispense medical advice without proper training in firearms or their safe handling.

Heck, I’d be finding myself a new doctor right quick.

Maybe that’s what you’re worried about?


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 or via e-mail at 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.


Bloomberg: A heads-up

We can hope nothing comes of it. It might be just the media having a slow day. But gun owners (and anybody who cares about freedom) should be aware: there’s apparently a campaign to draft Michael Bloomberg as the Dem candidate for president.

(Pretty ironic in light of yesterday’s blog about the other man who fancies himself to be something like our first Jewish president.)

Of course, aside from no-hoper Jim Webb, every Dem in the race is an anti-gunner to one degree or another. But Bloomberg? Forget Judaism. Gun control — and people control — is his real religion. Uber authoritarian! And given that he’s probably a more effective executive than the whole scurvy Dem field, he’d be a truly terrifying presidential prospect.

The draft-Bloomberg plan is supposedly being pushed by Wall Streeters. So it’s potentially backed by big money but might not have either popular support or Bloomberg’s cooperation.


Armed Campus Lies

I woke up to some great news this morning. A Texas bill, restoring the fundamental right of faculty and students over the age of 21 with a concealed handgun permit to carry firearms inside classrooms on public and private college campuses, tentatively passed the Texas House the night before. It passed despite the sniveling objections of school administrators, although thanks to a last-minute amendment, schools are allowed to create “reasonable” regulations pertaining to the presence of firearms on school grounds.

What constitutes “reasonable,” is anyone’s guess.

The bill still has to be approved by the Texas state Senate before it’s signed into law by the governor, and you can be sure that the gun grabbers’ disinformation machine will kick into high gear before this happens.

The clueless, quivering bottom lip horde continue to bring up the specter of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre as justification for disarming law-abiding, innocent adults on America’s campuses, likely hoping you will ignore the fact that Virginia Tech was a “gun free” campus to begin with… well, gun free other than the gunman!

This year, a survivor of that shooting and another from the Virginia Tech massacre testified in a committee hearing that arming students wouldn’t make campuses safer. William H. McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System and a four-star admiral who led the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, argued that the policy would endanger students and teachers.

Arming students wouldn’t make campuses safer? Do the words: Appalachian School of Law ring a bell? Yeah, that’s the one where armed students actually stopped a gunman.

Oh, did we hope no one would bring that up?

Frankly, I’m appalled that McRaven – a retired flag officer and special ops expert who oversaw the mission that ended up in the death of Bin Ladin – would forget how critical firearms are to safety and security and outright lie by claiming that concealed carry would somehow make campuses “less safe.”

Worse, the gun grabbers are using his rank to bolster his credibility on this particular issue, and he appears only too happy to allow them to do it. Using your military rank to lend credence to your political views is abhorrent to me as a veteran.

Anti-gun claims that “ gun-free policies have helped to make our post-secondary education institutions some of the safest places in the country.”  McRaven must have been huffing their glue. 

While homicides on college campuses are relatively rare, I would submit that has more to do with the fact that college students and professors tend to be a less violent, more law-abiding bunch writ large, so it’s doubtful that “gun free” policies have had anything to do with that, despite the disingenuous claims of the group. Additionally, the states that do allow concealed carry on its college campuses – Idaho, Utah, and Colorado – have not been made less safe by the passage of concealed carry laws.

“Our parents, students, faculty, administrators, and law enforcement all continue to express their concerns that the presence of concealed handguns on campus would contribute to a less-safe environment, not a safer one,” McRaven wrote in a letter to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus.

The paranoid fantasies of cowards do not interest us.  We’ve seen time and time again that disarming the law-abiding does nothing to protect them from violence, and we’ve seen near daily reports of armed citizens stopping criminals.

Perhaps McRaven should spend a bit more time focusing on how better to educate America’s college students and a bit less time inventing excuses to render them defenseless.

After all there is a negative relationship between education and violent crime.


Well, sending money is a start. But …

A certain notoriously compromising gun-rights activist has begun what is billed as a brilliant new campaign to combat Michael Bloomberg, Obama, Hillary, et al. As far as we can tell, the campaign consists entirely of scare tactics to get other people to send him money.

Now, we at TZP are most certainly not opposed to receiving donations or memberships. We’re grateful for your contributions and we promise to put them to good use for freedom and gun rights (with emphasis, as always, on lifesaving, holocaust-preventing civil rights). Being funded is most definitely a good start!

However, we fail to see how “send us money” could ever be considered “the most important action you can take to protect your right to keep and bear arms.” Or how it could be construed, by itself, as being a powerful campaign against BloombergObamClintonian evil.

I hate to be cynical (and what follows is just my own personal view), but doesn’t it seem as if something more that “you give, we take” is required for a real campaign against gun grabbers?


Mother’s Day Musings

Mothers, most of us had or have one. There are some politicians that I’ve wondered if they weren’t perhaps hatched out of a dodo egg, but that’s another discussion for another day.


I just want to say thank you, thank you to the Mothers that actually love their children. Up front disclaimer, all my children have either 4 legs and fur, or 2 legs and feathers. And I love them all. And as challenging as it can be to be a Mother to them, I understand from those that have children with skin and two legs, they are even harder to raise. Ok, I won’t dispute that, but will take your word.


When I was growing up, I was one of the very lucky kids. By that I mean I didn’t really grow up needing to be afraid. I didn’t have dreams of monsters under the bed or the killer clowns breaking in. Why didn’t I? Because I knew that my Dad had a revolver in the underwear draw and a shotgun in the closet. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that if my Dad didn’t drop them with a punch, he had the means and motive to use defensive tools to sort the issue. Now, while I view my Dad as a combination of Roy Rogers and John Wayne, I knew that when it came to his children, our safety was not a negotiable issue. I would like to think a lot of Dads are protective of their families.


So why do I consider myself so blessed? Because not only was my Dad willing and able to take care of us kids, so was my Mom. My little 5’4” Mom was a tough little farm girl. Not a lot fazed her when it came to taking care of her kid’s safety. Mom was a good Southern Baptist, and she was all about turn the other cheek, peacemaking and treating your neighbor as you would want to be treated. But there was no doubt in my mind she would look out for her brood.


“Mom, what would happen if someone broke in one day?”


“Sheila, your Dad will handle it, don’t worry”.


“But Mom, what if Dad’s not home?”


“Then I’ll handle it.”


By then I was about as tall and big as my Mom, which isn’t saying much. Sorry Mom.


“Um, how Mom?”


“I’ll shoot them.”


“Um, Mom, do you know HOW to shoot?”


Actually as it turns out, my Mom is a crack shot. Growing up on a farm, hunting squirrels or anything else she needed to, with not a lot of ammo to spare makes one a very good markswoman.


My respect for my Mother grew that day. I knew she loved us enough that she would do whatever she needed to in the effort to protect us, and she wouldn’t hesitate. I’m a blessed woman.

I knew that rather than fight and die to protect us, she would most likely fight and live to raise us herself.


I think about the pressures facing responsible Mothers these days. You have people like Shannon Watts who make a habit of telling Mothers their children don’t matter. She is supported financially by people like gazillionaire Mickey Bloomberg who I’m sure has a staff of security people armed with massive tasers and pepper spray to keep their families safe. He can afford them. We couldn’t.


Hollyweird celebs like Rosie O’Donnell, Melissa Joan Hart, Prince and a cadre of others who have private security telling us little people we will be safer if we are defenseless.


Pediatricians asking parents if they own guns, and yes, this happened to a friend of mine.


Then you have the mainstream media presenting biased stories against firearms, and for some bizarre reason people still watch stuff like CNN and MSLSD.

So to all the Mothers that stand against the pressures that would keep them from being prepared and able to protect their children, I applaud you. It has always been a sense of horror to me that I am more prepared and willing to defend a flock of chickens from a coon, possum or fox than some Mothers are to protect their children. More than one predator has met his eternal reward measured in shot. I figure I bought the critters, 2 and 4 legged, they had no choice where they wound up, I took on responsibility for them. Part of that responsibility is food, water, shelter, companionship, education and safety. Then I hear women with children (not sure they should be called Moms) say they are scared of guns, they don’t want them in their house or anywhere around their children. If there was a threat they would just call the police. While I am more than willing to admit perhaps I’m being too judgmental, an occasional failing, I can’t help but think if you didn’t want them, why did you have them? You have a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher, the pediatrician and Domino’s Pizza on speed dial, but one of the most urgent situations you could ever face you are willing to wait till someone can get there to help you. And you assume help will always be able to get there on time do you? Wow. Awesome.

So on this Mother’s Day, thanks Mom, I applaud you, and your “True Grit”. One of the highest compliments in our family, True Grit. And she has it.

Hero Moms
Hero Moms
Happy Mothers Day
Happy Mothers Day

Block Party in Baltimore

I have watched with horror the carnage taking place in Baltimore. It brings back memories of the riots in the 60s in the area I lived at the time. My Dad drove into the city to get his Mom out and bring her out to our house in the suburbs where she would be safer. Scary stuff for a little kid. I was worried about my Dad and my Grandma.

I watched the breakdown of society in Baltimore. Do black businesses matter? Does black owned homes and property matter? Do human lives matter? Firefighters were fired on like they were in Ferguson, fire hose was cut. At night, when families are presumably asleep in their beds, row homes were set on fire. The police seemed powerless to stop the carnage.

Let’s compare and contrast shall we with the Rodney King riots in 1992?  Now I picked this particular video to illustrate two things. First, there was part of town that was untouched by the riots, and I think why will be very apparent. Two because the news readers are so darn stupid. I mean talk about missing the big picture. If you listen to what they are fixated on it’s mind numbing. A town is burning, one section of town is being left alone, it’s obvious why, and rather than discuss that and perhaps learn something they choose to chase the ideology. Well, they don’t call it the lamestream media for nothing I suppose.

But the government is usually there to protect life and property, right?


One of these things is not like the other. Is it?