Tag Archives: gun control

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, resistance, spirit of rebellion

Belling the cat

22 Comments

As seen at Slate:

Two Guns Per Person
Why is this legal? I’m not talking about why we don’t require reporting multiple sales of long guns to federal authorities (which we don’t). I’m not talking about the bump stocks the shooter used to make his semi-automatic weapons fire like machine guns. I’m talking about why people are allowed to own more than, say, two firearms without a really good reason.

TL;DR: The Second Amendment doesn’t say how many guns you can have. Nobody needs more than two guns. If someone wants a third gun, it’s full NFA procedures and taxes.

Doug Pennington notably does not address how to figure who might have more than two firearms. Nor does he explain how the powers that be will go about collecting the extant extras. Certainly he isn’t volunteering to collect them; possibly he’s seen my observation regarding the wisdom of kicking in millions of door because the occupants are well-armed.

Perhaps he believes all the government has to do is pass a law and everyone will meekly “turn them all in”.

That doesn’t seem to be working in Chicago where repeat felons — prohibited persons who lawfully shouldn’t have any guns — are found with… guns. It’s almost as if they don’t obey laws.

In 1990, California instituted “assault weapon” registration and got a whopping 2.33% compliance rate.

The NY SAFE Act yielded a slightly better 4.45% compliance rate.

Connecticut gun owners are a little more obedient. That state saw a huge “assault weapon” registration 13.44% compliance rate, although they must have been disappointed with the “high capacity magazine registration 4% compliance rate.

Come on, Pennington; you can’t even get people to comply with universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks.

“Conclusions The enactment of CBC policies was associated with an overall increase in firearm background checks only in Delaware. Data external to the study suggest that Washington experienced a modest, but consistent, increase in background checks for private party sales, and Colorado experienced a similar increase in checks for sales not at gun shows. Non-compliance may explain the lack of an overall increase in background checks in Washington and Colorado.”

(That was funded in part by the anti-rights Joyce Foundation and they still couldn’t show compliance.)

If blue states like California, New York, and Connecticut have such poor participation rates with simple registration, imagine how places like Georgia will respond to door to door confiscation.

So, Mr. Pennington; who is going to bell your cat? You haven’t volunteered. When California toyed with the idea, a police union spokesman declared that if confiscation were ordered they’d see the largest outbreak of blue flu in history. And we bloody well won’t kick in our doors.

Let’s pretend law enforcement will play. Consider:

  • The FBI estimates a total of 698,460 law enforcement officers in America (federal, state, local).
  • Estimates of gun owners range from 60 million to 120 million.

Let’s use the conservative gun owners number: 60,000,000. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that The Pennington Edict magically reverses the usual compliance ratios and only 10% don’t turn in their extra guns.

6,000,000 vs. 698,460

The cops are going after heavily armed Americans, so they’ll use SWAT teams. This suggests a typical team size of 12, for 58,205 teams (sure, we’ll also pretend every cop is put on this, ignoring all real crime).

Each team will have to conduct 103 raids. Figure 8 hours for the standoff (remember, you’re going after cantankerous curmudgeons already proven to be uncooperative), and another shift to do the paperwork: 16 hours per raid. 16 x 6,000,000 = 96,000,000 man hours. Better give the guys time to sleep, another 8 hours. So each team runs a one raid per day

Assuming 58,205 teams (-giggle-), the snatch and grab is going to run well over three months. With 8 hours of overtime per day per 698,460 officers. This not only going to take a while, it going to be expensive.

And that doesn’t even factor in attrition, funeral costs, and death benefits. In reality the Pennington Patrols are kicking in doors of heavily armed, noncompliant SOBs. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an average of one officer lost per raid. Which means Pennington runs out of suckers before the HANSOBS run out of people and guns.

Fewer door-kickers, fewer teams, more raids per team… Suddenly this is taking longer than projected. Oh, well. At least there’ll be fewer officer drawing expensive overtime. Those pensions and death benefits though…

Maybe Pennington can bring in the military, too. Activate the Reserves alongside the active duty folks, add them to the cops…

And they’re still outnumbered by HANSOBs by more than 2 to 1.

I wonder how many of those LEOs and mil-folk are multiple gun owners. And how compliant they are.

That’s a best case scenario for the Pennington Proposal. What if there are 100 million gun gun owners, and they have a compliance rate closer to historical rates of 10%?

Now the 2,791,360 police and military are outnumbered by 90 million pissed off, noncompliant heroes. They’ll be outnumbered 32 to 1.

Sure, a lot of hold-outs will fold when the cops show up. But a lot won’t. The average won’t be pretty, or conducive to long-term police survival. Blue flu, Pennington; try to keep up.

If even one-half of one percent of the noncompliant shoot back, that’s 30,000 to 450,000 shooters (depending on the scenarios above).

Please recall that Pennington’s little trip down Tyranny Lane started with — as of latest claims — a single shooter killing 58 and wounding hundreds — in approximately ten minutes.

So tell us: How will you achieve your two-gun goal?

Who will bell the cat?

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, Politics, The Zelman Partisans

The Zelman Partisans Statement on Proposed Legislation to Ban “Bump-Fire Stocks” and other accessories.

5 Comments

Senator Dianne Feinstein, long a foe of free and armed people, is introducing legislation (PDF) to ban “bump-fire stocks.”

“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,” the bill states.”

Since The Zelman Partisans do value free and armed people, having an understanding of history when wanna-be tyrants like Feinstein succeeded, we utterly oppose this legislation.

We oppose it for the usual RKBA philosophical reasons. It is yet another infringement on the very right to life, as expressed through self defense.

We oppose it for practical reasons as well.

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.

Old-timers know the trick of pushing your rifle forward with your grip on the stock or barrel shroud as you fire. Recoil pushes the rifle back, and your hand acts as a spring to pull it forward driving the trigger into your finger. The mechanicals have typically cycled already, so the rifle fires again. It’s a fun trick, but wasteful of ammunition, and very inaccurate.

Thus were born “bump-fire” stocks. They merely provide a way to hold the rifle a little steadier while you perform the same silly stunt. They absolutely in no way increase the theoretical rate of fire. They help folks with slower fingers get a little closer to the theoretical.

Should Feinstein’s bill pass, it would necessitate outlawing holding the rifle by the stock like we did in the old days. I suppose possession of an off hand would be a felony.

In fact, this bill is so broadly written that far more than “bump-fire” stocks would be banned. Light-weight after-market bolts can increase the rate of fire, as can different replacement buffer springs. Likewise nicely polished and sensitive trigger groups.

Polishing the parts in the stock trigger group would be illegal.

Basically this Constitution-shredding Senator wants to redefine “machine gun” by how fast you can make something fire, rather than being designed to fire automatically as long as the trigger is depressed. Apparently Jerry Miculek is going to be outlawed.

We understand that other people are reacting in shock and grief to the horrible incident in Las Vegas. But if we are to ban every fun or useful thing that has ever been misused, we will have to eliminate microwave ovens, sandpaper, fire extinguishers, doctors, and senators, among many other things.

The Zelman Partisans opposes this, and any other legislation with similar Bill of Rights violating intent, on the grounds that it is both wrong and stupid. We urge Senator Feinstein — clearly in her dotage — to withdraw it and to retire in ignominy.

We urge anyone with a lick of sense to also oppose it.

Please contact your Senators and House Representative to voice your opposition.

We also note that the National Rifle Association has issued a statement in support of further regulating or banning fun stuff, saying, “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” We disagree, and urge principled members of the NRA to consider quitting and joining a real pro-RKBA organization.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers

Mandalay Misconceptions

4 Comments

Or outright lies, in some cases.

As yet, very few hard facts about the Las Vegas shooting are available to the public.

The alleged shooter, Some Asshole (whose name I refuse to use) had — per nearly all current reports — a clean record. He could — and did, according to the gun store that sold him three firearms, pass background checks. Per that one store, he passed multiple checks.

There is much speculation that he used one or more fully-automatic weapons. Based on the sounds of fire in a video, I subscribe to that theory. Fox News has an anonymous source that claims the shooter had ARs converted to full auto. Plural. Allegedly in .223 and .308.

Automatic weapons are highly regulated. To legally own one, you must pay a $200 tax above and beyond any sales taxes, undergo a background check, get approval from local law enforcement, and the ATF’s permission.

The shooter’s local PD says they had no contact with him, so he didn’t have Local LE approval, and thus did not lawfully buy a machine gun. The asshole’s brother claims his psycho sibling had no automatic weapons when he helped him move to Nevada a couple of years ago, so the killer would have had to contact Mesquite PD to lawfully obtain one. The shooter is not on the ATF’s list of Federal Firearms Licensees, so he did not lawfully convert semi-autos to full auto.

Nonetheless, at least Dimwitocrat senator claims universal background checks would have prevented this shooting. The shooter passed background checks, and proceeded to violate enough laws to spend most of the rest of his life in Club Fed just on NFA ’34 related charges.

Felonia Von Pantsuit claims the shooting proves why the Hearing Protection Act should not pass. The HPA would remove suppressors from NFA regulation, leaving them treated as mere firearms. Clinton says a suppressor would have prevented victims from hearing the shots and running away. Clinton being Clinton, I assume she’s lying rather than suffering a misconception. .223 — and especially .308 — is quite audible even with a suppressor. Enough Arkancide cases involved shootings so I expect her to know.

As noted above, machine guns — full auto weapons — are heavily regulated, and have been since 1934. Despite brain-dead babbling in the lamestream muddia, the 1994 “assault weapons ban” had nothing to do with NFA machine guns. The sunsetted ’94 law was only a ban on sales to civilians of semi-automatic firearms with arbitrary cosmetic features manufactured or imported after that date. NFA weapons continued to be heavily regulated before, during, and after the so-called AWB.

I’m also seeing Twitter twits tweeting about “high capacity magazines.” However, I note two points:

1) Someone did an audio analysis of shooting video and determined that 280 shots were fired in 31 seconds. I am unaware of any 280 round AR magazines; if you have a source for them, let me know.

2) A former US Army SAW gunner claims that is what he heard in video. Belt-fed, NFA-regulated machine guns are largely immune to hi-cap magazine bans.

But let’s say the asshole used an illegally modified AR-pattern rifle with magazines.

The shooter took his room days before the shooting. He reportedly brought in as many as twenty firearms and ammunition for same. With days to prepare (even assuming he did it in the hotel room), he could have pre-loaded an awful lot of… say, California-legal 10 round magazines. With a mag swap time of seconds, he could have run through said awful lot in the 72 reported minutes from the first 911 call to the cops breaking down his door.

Hi-cap mag limits are bullshit.

I haven’t seen this brought up yet, but let’s nip it before it buds. Seattle imposed a punitive firearms and ammunition tax to reduce “gun violence.” It hasn’t worked, and it wouldn’t have here either. According to asshole’s bro, he was a multi-millionnaire. Reports say he owned a $400,000 home, two automobiles, two airplanes, and routinely gambled away $10,000-$20,000 a day in casinos. He could afford a gun tax.

Licensing didn’t work.

Registration didn’t work.

Background checks didn’t work.

Magazine limits wouldn’t have worked.

Suppressor taxes and registration didn’t apply and wouldn’t have worked.

Taxes wouldn’t have worked.

So what’s left? Complete confiscation? As your parent or grandparents how well that worked when FDR banned private possession of gold in 1934. Ask your local drug dealer how well drug bans work.

You know what else didn’t work? Gun free zones. According to internal security documents and web site guidelines, firearms aren’t allowed in Mandalay facilities. I’m sure the asshole felt real bad about breaking that rule, too.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, mindset, So Much Stupid!

Childish Things

3 Comments

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis

When I was a child, I believed some — in retrospect — silly things. Things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

One Easter morning I happened to wake up unusually early, and caught my parents loading the Easter baskets. I’m no genius, but neither am I an idiot. I told them I knew.

And then I generalized… and asked if they were also Santa Claus. Nailed it. To be honest, I’d had suspicions about him for a while; how did he manage to work so many stores simultaneously? How did he have time to make toys when spending so much doing photoshoots at said stores? Why did he sometimes have a real beard, and sometimes a fake? Sheesh, the excuses my parents came up with to explain discrepancies…

I don’t recall just how old I was; maybe five years old; I don’t think I’d started school yet. I know I’d broken the conspiracy well before a lot of kids my age (some of whom, at school, professed to still believe in Santa until the third or fourth grade).

Another childish thing I believed back then was “gun control”. “Saturday Night Special” was a big part of that. When I heard that propaganda news about how they were just cheap pieces of junk not good for anything but killing, I just knew they were terrible and should be banned. And, just of course, “criminals” shouldn’t have guns.

I believed that into my teens. But, as with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, it was observation and reasoning that led to disbelief, beginning with “Saturday Night Specials”.

Reasoning: If a SNS works well enough to fire offensively, why won’t it work defensively? “Cheap POS not good for anything” doesn’t make sense.

OK, maybe there are some guns that are just plain Pieces of Sh garbage. The Clerke 1st revolver I once encountered was so poorly made that I wouldn’t fire it with Hillary Clinton’s hand.* Well… All right; maybe hers, but not yours. But how many Clerkes would be out there after the first use/failure? I kept hearing about recovered guns linked to multiple shootings. Those couldn’t be Clerkes.

Observation: I kept seeing news reports of guns labeled “Saturday Night Specials” which even I recognized as Smith & Wessons. It appeared the defining characteristic of an SNS was price: if you got a new Smith at full retail price, it was all good. If you bought a used model at a price that someone on a budget could afford, it’s evil.

How’s that again?.

Remember how I extrapolated from “Easter Bunny isn’t real” to Santa Claus? I kept thinking: If affordable guns are bad, doesn’t that mean only financially well off folks can have “good” guns by definition? Rich = Good, Poor = Evil? Not being wealthy, but knowing my parents — just example — were decent people, I could see right through that once I bothered to consider it.

And that whole “prohibited person” thing to keep crooks from buying guns… C’mon, even as a kid I saw the “crook buys stolen gun in back alley” trope in cop and detective shows, movies, and books. Sometimes a stereotype reflects reality. I saw that same “trope” in a lot of news stories, so I knew it was real.

So if crooks didn’t get their “Saturday Night Specials” through lawful channels anyway, didn’t that suggest the law targeted honest people, and not criminals?

That was my “slippery slope”. Before long I was wondering why kids used to safely carry .22 rifles across their bike handlebars, but suddenly couldn’t be trusted to have a gun. So far as I knew, none of my .22-toting friends had ever robbed anyone.

Being an aspiring writer even then, I figured words had to have meaning. Like “infringe”, as in

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:

  1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
  2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon)

“Breach,” “infraction,” “encroach.” It seemed pretty clear: You can’t encroach on that right. Not even a little bit. Not just major infractions, minor infractions are out, too. Words have meaning because if they don’t, no two people can communicate. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be revoke in its entirety, but encroachments are dandy.” It doesn’t say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it’s convenient for the government.”

I was a kid of maybe thirteen or fourteen and I figured it out. I guess gun controllers never grew up.

Case in point: Dana C. Jones’ column Gun obsession is an issue of a nation, not just a male one

The pandemic of guns in the United States is the problem of a nation, not a particular sex.

Says there that Jones is a journalism junior, which suggests a minimum age of twenty years. Jones still has trouble with the “words have meaning” thing at a point years past where I’d figured it out (and at an age where I was already
an E-4 Senior Airman in the USAF).

“Pandemic of guns.” Prevalent, general, universal. Maybe Jones knows something we don’t know. America has the most armed civilian population in the world by a large margin, yet most estimates of American gun owners range from sixty million to a a hundred-twenty million, which makes us a minority. A heavily armed minority, but still not “prevalent” or universal.

If you keep reading (and try not to giggle too much) you’ll see that Jones really alleges to be concerned about gun violence. ‘Cause that’s… not so prevalent either.

Let’s say that there are a mere — chortle — sixty million gun owners out there.

According to this, there are approximately twenty million felons in America, including those incarcerated, paroled, on probation, or whose time is done. Bureau of Justice statistics suggest that around 3% of those are weapons offenses; let’s pretend all the weapons were firearms, just for discussion. 3% of 20,000,000 is 600,000. This isn’t six hundred thousand per year; it’s six hundred thousand cumulative total. That can include someone convicted of underage possession — not a crime of violence — and never committed another crime in his life for decades.

But pretend. 600,000 is just 1% of of sixty million gun owners. Not “prevalent” or “universal”.

Did you see what I did there? I pretended the groups actually overlap. But felons can’t lawfully own guns, so they shouldn’t be included in the group of admitted gun owners. So they’d be less than even the 1%.

You know… 600,000 total felons. That’s less than two-tenths of one percent of the total American population. Hardly “pandemic”. (Heh; given an average life expectancy of 79.3 years, that could potentially mean an average of 7,566 firearms felons — including nonviolent offenses — per year for the past eight decades. Still not “prevalent” or “universal”.

Apparently Jones childishly failed to observe that.

Back to the junior journalist’s panty-twisting.

The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms…

A little study of American history, not to mention Supreme Court rulings, could have shown Jones that the Second Amendment does not “grant[s] citizens the right to bear arms.” It is a pre-existing right, and the Second Amendment was intended to protect it from government meddling. (Since Jones failed to notice it, I’ll provide a recent SCOTUS hint: Heller.)

Words. Meaning. Grants vs. Protects.

Norway, for instance, has a low gun homicide rate and has stricter, more reasonable gun laws. Norwegians need a hunting or sporting license, which can only be acquired by completing a “nine-session, 30-hour course on guns, wildlife and environmental protection.” A sports shooting license is issued only upon completion of a firearms safety course of at least nine hours.

True, Norway has a low murder rate and restrictive gun laws. But Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela have far more restrictive laws — of the sort that would make California socialists swoon with delight — and murder rates that dwarf that of the USA. Jones fails the  “observation” test, not to mention confusing a Norwegian hunting license with a firearms license. That ““nine-session, 30-hour course on guns, wildlife and environmental protection” isn’t the requirement for a Våpenkort. That’s the requirement for a hunting license; a hunting license is merely ONE of the possible qualifiers for a Våpenkort. Words. Meaning. Great Ghu, this person expects to be a reporter and is less capable of observation and reasoning than a thirteen year old.

Gun control is not synonymous with annexing the Second Amendment, but it does mean protecting the people who live in this country.

As a humorous Internet meme notes, if Jones likes gun control so much, why not move to the south side of Chicago? It’s worked so well there. Gun-controlled Baltimore might be another good choice for Jones. But… “annexing” the Second Amendment? Words. Meaning.

I’ve piled on Dana Jones here, but only for a convenient example. Consider Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts, or pretty much any gun controller and ask yourself if that person appears to display adult-level observation and reasoning abilities. Or do their whines for control — ignoring the fact of generally fall violent crime rates (outside of gun control Paradises like Chicago and Baltimore) — sound more like a child crying because she can’t bring her freshly dug hole into the house?

In the past, I’ve accused gun controllers of rejecting reality. Perhaps that was unfair. Maybe they just aren’t grown up enough to recognize it. They still operating at a pre-teen mental level.

Hey! That explains why they always want to “do this for the children”. They meant themselves.

* Several years ago, a friend showed me a Clerke 1st he’d somehow acquired. I looked it over. Then I wiped it down to be sure I didn’t leave any fingerprints behind. I suggested that he clean it very carefully, with forensics in mind, and load it with a single round (likewise forensically sterilized), mount it in a clamp, and fire it with a long string. He should then — still wearing gloves — load one more cleaned cartridge, leaving the fired case in place. He should then put the thing in a sealed envelope labeled “For Emergency Use Only,” and save it in case he ever shot someone in dubious circumstances and needed to plant exculpating evidence. I was joking, but I wanted to reinforce the idea that he should never ever try to use that thing.

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
authoritarian swine, defense of others, Elsewhere, genocide, gun control, gun grabbers, hatred of Jews, Israel, Jewish philosophy, mindset, Politics, So Much Stupid!, Terrorism

Compassion

2 Comments

“If you save just one life, it is as though you have saved the whole world.” I’ve been informed of this, more than once. I understand the concept, really, I do. And it’s not that I am always totally uncaring or always lack compassion. I have some from time to time, if the occasion calls for it.

The problem stems from the difference in the issues and people I think are deserving of compassion. The country seems to be so divided, and the folks on the other side of the fence have several public outlets showing sad children, grandma being thrown off a cliff in a wheelchair and any other issue you care to throw into the mix. But I have my own ideas of who I feel compassion towards, and perhaps I’m not alone in this. So I thought I might share a few thoughts on some people I think are forgotten and deserve the consideration of compassion.

“He Who is Compassionate to the Cruel Will Ultimately Become Cruel to the Compassionate”

This notion, that displaying an attitude of mercy towards the wicked who deserve severe punishment involves acting cruelly towards the general public, can be found in the words of Maimonides in his book The Guide of the Perplexed. In reference to the verse (Exodus 21:14), “If a person willfully schemes to kill his neighbor – he shall be (even) taken from my altar and put to death”, Maimonides writes that the wicked and calculating person (who killed intentionally and was sentenced to death) – if he seeks sanctuary among us, we must not provide him with asylum and not have mercy upon him…because compassion towards the wicked – is cruelty to all beings.

Actually that whole article is well worth reading.

It seems that the whole world right now has it upside down. The world has confused “fair” with “reality” and “compassion” with “justice” or “mercy”.

I’m pretty sure our readers of TZP are familiar with the case of Elor Azariya. The Israeli soldier who shot a Arab terrorist who had not yet been checked by sappers to see if he had bomb. The terrorist had just stabbed a solider. His  goals were not questioned, he wanted to kill Israelis. Elor entered prison this week. The judges refused to stay his prison entry until it was determined whether or not he would receive a pardon. It seems interested parties torpedoed the attempt to forestall his entry into the prison system. For him, the IDF brass and judges had no compassion. For the arab terrorist, tears all around.

Compare the judges response to a 14 year old terrorist who went on a stabbing spree with his cousin in October of 2015 in Jerusalem. I can tell you סכין means “knife”, you may want to know that.

So guess what? The judges have decided to have compassion on the terrorist.

However, the judges decided that in view of his young age and in light of his rehabilitation efforts, his sentence should be shortened from 12 years to 9-and-a-half years in prison.

The soldier protecting his fellow soldiers and the citizens, no. We must prove to the world (who is going to hate our guts anyway) that we will eat our own with relish, and possibly BBQ sauce to prove how moral we are. The terrorist who stabbed people, well, compassion we must have for the “poor disadvantaged youth” taking a page straight from CNN and MSLSD.

Not surprisingly to me anyway, Yosef Haim Twito, who was one of the victims of the “misguided youth” <<<that there is leftist speak for terrorist, is angry. For some reason he feels this is the wrong direction.

“The judges of the court gave a tailwind to terror,” Twito said of the judges, who decided to shorten the punishment imposed on the terrorist by two-and a-half years.
“From the beginning of the affair, the State Prosecutor’s Office showed incredible incompetence when it did not ask the maximum sentence, but at the same time I was surprised to discover that the Supreme Court justices decided to ease the already-lenient punishment.”
“It is regrettable that Judge David Mintz, who wrote the verdict, chose to ease the punishment because a prison stay may have undesirable consequences for [the terrorist] – I ask what about the undesirable consequences for me? What about the trauma I went through? The damage caused me for my entire life?”
“Israel has become a haven for terrorists,” Twito said. “The judges of the court unfortunately do not understand that easing the punishment of terrorists is a judgment that gives a tailwind to terror.”

Former National Union MK blasts court’s decision to cut terrorist’s sentence: ‘We’re telling the Arabs it’s ok to slaughter and murder us.’

Yes, yes, I believe they are.

But Israel is far from the only country to suffer from this form of compassionate suicide. In France a new phenomena is taking place. Muslim that scream “Allah’s snackbar” and charge at people with guns, knives, trucks or hardened stale french bread are terrorists. Unless the victims is Jewish. Then suddenly the Muslim is “mentally ill”, not in fact, a terrorist. If a Jew is killed because they are Jewish, no worries, the poor dear was mentally ill, didn’t know what he was doing don’t you understand? We must be compassionate. That one is well worth reading as well.

And America and Canada? George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson? One a neighborhood watch person, and unpaid volunteer and the other a professional law enforcement officer. No matter what you think of either man, or their job, I think one thing that has not been successfully challenged is they were both attacked by a criminal. Criminals of which the media rushed to show cherubic pictures of when they were twelve, before the gang tats and gold teeth. Had the criminals not chosen to attack, nothing would have happened. But they did, and the media fanned the flames of “victimhood” for the aggressors. For the two men just living their lives and doing what they were suppose to be doing there was no compassion. For the people who had their business and homes burned down in the peaceful protests there was no compassion, for the firefighters shot at, the cops attacked the people attacked for their skin color, there was no compassion.

Shannon T.Watts and Bloomers, Rosie O’Crazy and all the other anti-gun people that tell us “people will be safer without guns”.

Campus rape survivor: Carrying gun would have prevented attack

Susan Gratia Hupp, because one can never watch this video too much

She lost both her parents because she had been disarmed by politicians. So which class of people is it that will be safer if no one has guns? Oh, the criminals?  Yes, yes, it will be much safer for them. Misguided youth, hate crime, profiling, it’s their culture, whatever, they attacked an easy target. For law abiding citizens just eating lunch or going to school? Not so much, no compassion for them.

The poor undocumented (unvetted) refugees. They just came here for a better life, they were escaping________. Of course we must provide, food, shelter, obamacare, schooling, clothing, transportation, obamaphones and allow them to live with dignity! And I have a feeling Canada had been looking down her nose at US a bit smugly as we elected that horrible bigot because we hate people different from us. See, I have paid attention to how the left views and talks about U.S.  unwashed masses. Except now the poor refugees and heading for Canada. They are self-deporting.

A surge of migrants tests Canada’s welcome

CAQ calls for tighter borders, hardline approach to asylum seekers

And that’s the thing, no matter what country. The United States, Canada, or Bugscuffle, TX, the immigrants have to be fed, housed, given medical care and toilet paper. Who pays for this? They don’t work, they don’t have transportation, many of the recent ones don’t speak English and have no desire to assimilate and have stated clearly they will not. Which ones? Who knows. But the more of them you have the more it costs to take care of them. Who pays for it? The average John or Jane Doe, just trying to live their lives, raise their kids and potty train their dog. They probably drive an older car, can’t afford private school for their kids and eating out at McDonald’s every third week is a treat. You know why? Because they try to live within their means. And now it’s even harder because some politician with half baked social justice compassionate dreams of a legacy has mandated “we” will show compassion to ____________. Never mind the immigrant has no plans of working, assimilating or even respecting the host countries culture. Have you checked out the rape and crime stats in Sweden and Germany lately?

So, arab terrorist, criminal, illegal un-vetted immigrate, these are to be shown compassion by judges, the media, and society. Who gets none of this compassion? The people just trying their best to live their lives, do their jobs, run a business, go to school or walk down the street in Jerusalem. The people left defenseless by politicians with taxpayer funded bodyguards. For these people there seems to be no compassion.

Am I being judgmental? Yes, yes I am. I feel these are the people deserving of compassion, and more than compassion, they deserve justice. And because of this stance I am regarded as hard-hearted and unsympathetic?  Ok.

I agree and understand what Maimonides was saying. When we are kind and show mercy to those that have harmed or intended to, we harm the very people deserving of the compassion and kindness. Those who were just going about their lives doing the next right thing.

Shabbat Shalom.

שבת שלום

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, guns, So Much Stupid!, You can't fix stupid

Mandating Technology

4 Comments

It’s not RKBA-related, but it’s exciting:

New bill bans electrical generation unless they are fusion-based
Introduced as the Make Power Green Act, the proposal would strip the ability of utility companies to build power plants with any greenhouse gas emissions. Backers argue that as much as 40% of global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions, which fusion power is incapable of producing.

Oh. Wait. My bad; this one — H.R.3458; text not yet posted — bans “pistol sales unless they can microstamp their bullets.”

“Introduced as the Make Identifiable Criminal Rounds Obvious (MICRO) Act last month, the proposal would strip the ability of federal firearms licensees to sell pistols that do not carry the controversial microstamping technology. Backers argue that as much as 40 percent of murders go unsolved due to lack of evidence, which the bill is meant to address.”

You can see my mistake: microstamping is about as workable as as breakeven fusion power. Technically, both work a little in the lab, but not in the real world.

Microstamping would also be expensive (rather like fusion is expensive. But while governments — courtesy of taxpayers’ pockets — can dump billions into fusion research, individuals looking for affordable defensive solutions would be harder pressed to afford microstamping pistols. (But we all know that’s the real point.)

My imaginary fusion bill might halt the construction of new power plants, but it wouldn’t do anything about the 7,658+ existing plants. Nor would halting the sale of future pistols do a darned thing about the 265 million to 750 million guns already in civilian hands in America. Well, the Obama administration made a start on shutting down coal plants, no doubt these idiot Dim-ocrats have a similar plan for our guns.

You’d think that rational people would have learned their lesson about legislating that which cannot be. Oh. Wait.

My bad again; rational people.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Politics, Uncategorized

Poll: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity

7 Comments

Last week James Yeager made an argument against national concealed carry reciprocity based on “states’ rights.” That is, that federal legislation requiring states to give full faith and credit to licenses of other states violates states’ rights to self-determination.

Do you agree with Yeager that national concealed carry reciprocity (H.R. 38) should be stopped?


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

We Had That Conversation

4 Comments

Milwaukee NPR wonders…

Why Can’t We Talk About Guns?
An NRA video making the rounds online has been called everything from an open call to violence to protect white supremacy to a condemnation of violence.

“The only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” says NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch in the ad.

Subsequent NRA videos are more political but equally divisive.

The debate over guns in America has never been easy – but is it getting harder to keep it civil and useful?

We asked the NRA and Loesch to appear on this show, but did not hear back.

I expect they didn’t hear back from the NRA or Loesch because it’s extremely clear that WUWM’s anti-rights bias would make this, at best, an argument rather than a discussion. Stacking the deck with three anti-rights shills vs. one pro-rights activist, as well as WUWM’s false characterization of the Loesch video proves it.

And as a tool to reach any real understanding or agreement, it’s pointless. Those would disarm the honest demonstrably will not listen or learn. And they will lie. How do we know that (he asks rhetorically)?

Several years ago, I wrote a column for The Libertarian Enterprise. In light of this supposed call for “talk,” it seems appropriate to publish it again.

We Had That Conversation
In the wake of the Newtown murders, I see a meme popping up amongst the gun banners/victim disarmers. They say we need a “conversation” on guns in America. A common sub-argument is that pro-gun people need to stop saying “No” every time those who prefer a disarmed populace suggest more restrictions on the honest folks who didn’t kill any innocents in Newton.

We already had that conversation.

We had it in 1791, and settled the issue with the second amendment to the Constitution protecting a preexisting right to keep and bear arms. Gun banners being the whack-a-moles of civil rights violation, we had that conversation several times: Cruikshank and Presser come to mind.

More recently, we again had that conversation in 2008, when the Supreme Court pointed out that yes, the second amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller.

Chi-town pols didn’t like that, so we had the conversation yet again in 2010. The Supreme Court again pointed out that arms really are a right, and that it really is an individual right, in McDonald.

Victim disarmers are slow learners, forever doomed to riding the short bus through life, so we had the conversation yet-a-frickin’-gain in 2012: Moore v. Madigan, in which a federal judge had to lecture the poor, cognitively-challenged pols of Illinois (who have trouble even finding the short bus) in small words that, WHACK-upside the head “Pay attention, dipsticks; we told you it’s a right of the individual people, so stop screwing with it.”

And here we are: Once more, idiots who shouldn’t be on the streets without a guardian to wipe the drool off their faces, change their diapers, and keep them out of the road, are calling for the “conversation”. Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents over and over and over and over for a coveted-but-terribly-bad-for-you present, they keep ignoring the settled issue. “But China does it. Why can’t we make all the citizens helpless, too?” they pontificate petulantly. (Yeah, China does it. That’s why their lunatic had to cut up those 22 Chinese schoolchildren with a knife a few days before Newton. Guns bans sure solved China’s violence problems.)

We had that conversation, and explained in words that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size should have been able to comprehend: “the security of a free state”, the right to life and liberty, self defense. At this point, anyone who doesn’t—or won’t—get it probably falls into one or more of three categories:

  • whining mental incompetents
  • those with a “professional” need to ensure a steady supply of helpless victims for violent predators
  • and those with a more extensive agenda

You might abbreviate those as morons, criminals, and traitors. None of which are really interested in reasoned conversation.

Going on five years and we’re still hearing the same judicially-invalidated claims and demands from the victim-disarming whack-a-moles, reinforced with equally-disproved claims that 90+% of Americans want universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks (because — try not to laugh — they would have prevented the Newtown school killings), and debunked claims that gun owners are a shrinking minority.

If gun ownership is on the decline, why are firearms trainers still seeing new people coming in for voluntary classes? Why are more and more people getting CCW licenses even as more and more states are dropping license requirements?

We have facts. They have lies. Of course we don’t want to bother debating them, in a biased setting no less.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

Motivations

6 Comments

I’m a bit late to the NRA “truth” video game, but having seen this today:

Gun rights group targeting its foes?
Are my rights to assemble and speak freely with whomever I please superseded by an assault rifle?

Do I deserve to be arrested or shot because I seek to peacefully dissent from and petition my government?

The National Rifle Association, in a video released last week (https://youtu.be/PrnIVVWtAag), seems to suggest that I should be targeted because my views run contrary to the NRA, its members, our elected president and most of Congress.

-sigh- Complete with the usual — false — “assault rifle” claim.

Interesting. I’m not an NRA member (I object to much of what it does), so I think I watched that video with sufficient objectivity. What I saw was Ms. Loesch saying that some people are manipulated into committing violent crimes and that we must fight this with truth.

Mr. Prescott speaks of nonviolent, peaceful dissent; yet the NRA video specifically addresses — verbally and visually — violent, and destructive criminal acts. Apparently that’s what what passes for “peaceful” in Prescott’s strange world.

If someone objects to ending violence with truth, I have to wonder what that person is doing, or might be planning to do.

Especially when he parrots the “assault rifle” lie. I guess it’s easier to inflict a little arson/assault “conversation” on the unarmed; which I why I don’t plan to ditch my tools of self defense.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Politics

GOP Baseball Shooting: “More Laws!”

5 Comments

If one were to take early reporting seriously (which I haven’t done for decades), some angry white guy — probably a right-wing white supremacist — shot a bunch of congressmen with a full-auto M4 assault rifle. The asshole took advantage of Virginia’s “lax” gun laws to get and carry his assault rifle.

Umm… Not so much. One, maybe two congressmen. One, maybe two cops. One, maybe two staffers. Maybe a lobbyist. Reports on that still vary.

CNN would have us believe the — oops, rabid left-wing Bernie supporter — used a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47.

Oops redux. Again, not so much. Now it was an SKS.


Note the subtle differences between this and the AK-47 and M4.

So he had an IL FOID (background check), possibly a CCW (background check), and bought his 3 guns from an Illinois FFL (background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period). He used a knock-off of a WW2-era semi-auto rifle (apparently with a 10-round fixed magazine, since it was Illinois legal. Heck, it might even still be California legal. Not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle.

I can hardly bear waiting for the calls for laws that wouldn’t have stopped this. Oh. Wait.

I didn’t have to wait.

But I apparently will have to wait on national reciprocal carry while Congress addresses DC reciprocal carry only for our betters masters congresscreeps

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail