Category Archives: gun grabbers

MeToo

I’m sure most folks are familiar with the ongoing social media trend with the hashtag #MeToo. It began when allegations of sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein began surfacing this fall, and continued to ever expand like ripples on a pond after a rock. Women who had been harassed,raped, and catcalled were all posting in response to an actresses’ request to respond to her tweet with #MeToo. The floodgates opened. More Hollyweird types, politicians and people of all walks were thrown in the arena for the lions of public opinion to devour. Now, lest you think I am defending Weinstein or something like Al Franken, I’m not, not at all. But some of the men thrown out there had no due process, it was just court of public opinion. Al Franken is an exception, Lauren Tweed had photos. It is reminiscent of what happens when conservatives run for office. Remember the allegations against Dr. Ben Carson that just faded away after he dropped out of the race? And honestly, I don’t understand why someone waits for forty years and then brings this stuff to the press when a politician has run for political office many times before. Yes, I’m talking about Judge Moore, and a few things that didn’t seem to make the national news. Hide your shock. Did Gloria Allred’s daughter offer to pay them as she did President Trump’s accusers? And so it seems #MeToo is becoming a stick to bludgeon men. I’ve had a couple of conversations about this in the last few days that have been interesting. One was a friend, he’s a white male. He’s stated before, “I’m not allowed to have an opinion, or express it”. He’s not the only white male co-worker/friend/Facebook buddy that has said similar. They feel if you are in those categories you don’t dare express a thought that isn’t politically correct or approved. Mayim Bialik, an actress ran afoul of the pack when she dared suggest that perhaps some of this is avoidable. If a known Hollyweird horn-dog invites you up to his hotel room to view his etchings the prudent answer might be “No, thanks”. She was not saying that there aren’t women who haven’t been harassed, just that in some situations, perhaps different attire or answers might yield different results. DISSENT, DISSENT from the party line, can’t have that. She tried to have a conversation about it. That went as well as you could imagine. A girl friend of mine posted something on Facebook, a video where a woman was making similar points, and suggesting don’t sleep with a man to further your career then claim you were harassed. And my friend was attacked for the video she posted. DISSENT, DISSENT, this will not be tolerated! You must stick with the party line. Women were powerless in these situations, and now all men must pay.

Are you tired of that sort of thinking? Especially from people who claim to be feminists and/or supportive of women?

#MeToo

And so, I’ve decided #MeToo needs a fresh purpose. Let’s take it for a test spin, shall we?

Murder

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

In 2016 there was a total of 16, 964 murder victims. 10,310 were male, 1,295 were women and 5,359 were unknown. In 2015 one of those statistics would have been Carol Browne who had applied for a concealed carry permit in her state of New Jersey. She was afraid of her ex and was doing what she could to protect herself. She also obtained a restraining order. She apparently had called to check on the status of her request for a concealed carry permit, but it wasn’t in yet and so her ex walked through the restraining order and stabbed her to death in her driveway.

Where was that Shannon T.Watts?  If it saves just one life? While you have hired armed bodyguard at your marches? Are ya’ll tired of the #hypocrisy?

#MeToo

Apparently the US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties and those would be urban, Demoncrat controlled. It seems the areas with a high concentration of gun owners do not see the high murder rates. Don’t you find that interesting?

#MeToo

In one of those high crime areas, Chicago, Concealed Carry Gets Boost from Black Women on Chicago’s South Side.

Think Mayor Rahm will be disconcerted?

#MeToo

Then we have Aggravated Assault

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury.

There were 803,007 of those in 2016. I couldn’t find a breakdown of how many male vs how many female, but I bet at least a couple of them were female.

And lastly we’ll take a look at Rape statistics.

In 2013, the FBI UCR Program began collecting rape data under a revised definition within the Summary Reporting System. Previously, offense data for forcible rape were collected under the legacy UCR definition: the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Beginning with the 2013 data year, the term “forcible” was removed from the offense title, and the definition was changed. The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

There were 130,603 rapes by the revised definition and another 95,730 by the legacy definition.

It’s a horrible crime, not about sex, and having to do with power and control. It brings out the worst in gnat brained politicians like Representative Joe Salazar who suggests Women use ‘Whistles’ rather than Guns to Defend against Rape. Besides which good old Joe, that self professed defender and respecter of women points out, women might not know if they’re REALLY going to be raped or just responding hysterically out of fear. Think he’s a bit patronizing?

#MeToo

Then there is the arrogant, ignorant AND gnat brained Evie Hudak. Yes, I can use the word in a sentence, “It’s Thursday so I need to clean the Hudak out of the chicken house”. Does it seem to you that Evie Hudak has irked me mightily?

#MeToo, sigh.

Why? Because the gnat brained Evie decided to try to tell a rape survivor that had a concealed carry permit that her gun would not have saved her. Amanda Collins was a well prepared woman on her “safe gun free zone” campus at University of Nevada-Reno. She knew martial arts and she went out with a group of people to the parking garage. However, her car was parked away from the others. Her car was parked 50 feet from the campus police department office. Which was closed. Her attacker went on to rape two more women and kill a third. The gnat brained Hudak proceeded to tell the victim (who was present at the rape) that she, THE Evie Hudak (who was in fact, NOT present at the rape) knew that she would not have been able to stop the rapist with her firearm. And then she proceeded to vomit out statistics that bear no semblance to the truth as we know it. Because to the all knowing Evie Hudak towing the Demoncrat party line is far more important than empowering women to defend themselves. In 2013 women made up 41% of the Colorado legislature. Why did you bother to run for office Ms. Hudak? The odds were not with you. Oh? You wanted a chance did you? And then you used that opportunity to legislate your sisters into defenselessness. You had a chance to empower them, instead you did chose to betray them. Anyone else think the self-important,lying Evie is full of hudak?

#MeToo

These hearings took place in Colorado in the spring of 2013. Here’s the helpful list of hints the University of Colorado provided to students:

1.    Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
2.    Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead!  It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
3.    Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
4.    Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
5.    If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
6.    Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
7.    Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
8.    Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
9.    Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
10.    Remember, every emergency situation is different.  Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

Does reading the list of “helpful” suggestions from the University and legislators make you want to vomit or worse on them?

#MeToo

And that makes this February of 2013 column by the ever wonderful Daniel Greenfield even more interesting.

Colorado Springs University legalized the right to carry concealed firearms on campus in 2003. Since then, according to Students for Concealed Carry, the number of forcible and non-forcible sexual assaults dropped sharply, falling 90 percent from a high in 2002 to a new low in 2008.

Wait, what? Rape had dropped by 90% and now they want to make it a gun free zone all the while warbling on about what great respecters and defenders of women and women-rights they are?

Anybody going to call “B.S. or hudak” on this one?

#MeToo

Demoncrats, liberals, Hollyweird and the mainstream media (all different snakes on the deranged head of Medusa) keep saying they “want to empower women” they “respect women” they “support women”. But then when someone like Mayim Bialik, or the writer of the National Review column, or the woman who put the little video on Facebook offer a different take or dare to say in some of these situations that women had the ability to change the outcome or prevent them, well then, Katie bar the door. DISSENT from the party line! No, no, these women must be seen as helpless victims powerless to have changed anything. They could only accept what was dished out and they had no choices whatsoever in the whole matter.

Because the same cabal of flotsam is incapable of seeing people as individuals and can only see them as victim groups, race groups, gender identity groups, ethnic groups, grope groups. Pigeon hole city.

Now we Southern girls, at least ones of a certain era, have a different way of seeing how such things should be handled.

Think that might sort a few things and solve a few problems?

#MeToo

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Liars, and the lied-to

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 isn’t 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. So did several hundred other people, who 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!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

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

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“‘Astronauts with Shuttles’ can be dangerous, too”

‘Good guys with guns’ can be dangerous, too. Don’t gut concealed carry laws.
That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes almost got shot.

…and proceeds to tell of a lawfully armed man using his training — and restraint — to not kill anyone. Apparently Mark Kelly believes that we are as thoughtless and impulsive as he is, buying a gun “on a whim” and publicizing that it is an illegal straw purchase.

I’m beginning to believe the “brain damage by hypoxia” theory.

Using his… reasoning, Mark Kelly was “a matter of seconds” from crashing STS-108 and STS-121, not to mention all those aircraft in his naval aviation days.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Rules of the Gun [Control] Debate

David Frum, who has mastered the art of psychological projection, presents a an asinine parable and cynical “rules” for running the gun control debate. This man clearly has mental health issues.

Frum’s little parable, meant to represent the problem of “gun violence,” purports a town which has stupidly built itself in a locale guaranteed to suffer repeated natural disasters. The sensible folk of the town think everything should be raised up on stilts to avoid flooding, while the pro-gun reactionary do-nothings object to preparation because it won’t stop floods.

The reality of the “gun violence” problem is that 1) it’s man-made by a relatively few bad guys, and 2) the pro-gun folks don’t object to taking measures to protect themselves. In Frum’s water-logged village, we’d be the folks putting up our own houses on stilts, pilings, and mounds, while the anti-flood violence idiots like From pass laws designating the town a flood-free zone.

Frum’s “rules” illustrate the usual problems of irrationality on the part of victims disarmers.

Frum’s Rule 1. “The measures to be debated must bear some relationship to the massacre that triggered the debate. If the killer acquired his weapons illegally, it’s out of bounds to point out how lethally easy it is to buy weapons legally. If the killer lacked a criminal record, it’s out of bounds to talk about the inadequacy of federal background checks. The topic for debate is not, iWhy do so many Americans die from gunfire?’ but ‘What one legal change would have prevented this most recent atrocity?'”

My Rule 1a. If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.

My Rule 1b. General discussion of the many sordid causes of “gun violence” is a separate conversation.

Frum’s Rule 2. “The debate must focus on unusual weapons and accessories: bump stocks, for example, the villain of the moment. Even the NRA has proclaimed itself open to some regulation of these devices. After the 2012 mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, attention turned to large capacity magazines. What is out of bounds is discussion of weapons as in themselves a danger to human life and public safety.”

My Rule 2a. See My Rule 1a.

My Rule 2b. Any proposed solution must included a cost:benefit analysis, and not be based on the unicorn wishes of just one party.

My Rule 2c. Firearms are not a natural disaster; they are man-made tools, which must be manipulated by an external force — like a person — to do anything, good or bad.

Frum’s Rule 3. “The debate must always honor the “responsible gun owners” who buy weapons for reasonable self-defense. Under Rule 1, these responsible persons are presumed to constitute the great majority of gun owners. It’s out of bounds to ask for some proof of this claimed responsibility, some form of training for example. It’s far out of bounds to propose measures that might impinge on owners: the alcohol or drug tests for example that are so often recommended for food stamp recipients or teen drivers.”

My Rule 3. Since there are 55-120+ million gun owners, and the human race has not been rendered extinct in the US, one should start with the assumption that most gun owners are not murderous lunatics bound and determined to kill everything; if we were, you’d know… not know it because everyone would already be dead.

Frum’s Rule 4. “Gun ownership is always to be discussed as a rational choice motivated by reasonable concerns for personal safety. No matter how blatantly gun advocates appeal to fears and fantasies—Sean Hannity musing aloud on national TV about how he with a gun in his hands could have saved the day in Las Vegas if only he had been there—nobody other than a lefty blogger may notice that this debate is about race and sex, not personal security. It’s out of bounds to observe that ‘Chicago’ is shorthand for ‘we only have gun crime because of black people’ or how often ‘I want to protect my family” is code for ‘I need to prove to my girlfriend who’s really boss.'”

My Rule 4. Assume parties in the discussion mean what they say unless you have evidence to the contrary. An automatic assumption that ‘Chicago’ must be a racist codeword — in face of demographics of Chicago criminals — or that the only possible reason to have a defensive weapon is to abuse women says much more about the person who believes only that than it says about most lawful gun owners.

From there, Frum devolves into “discussion.”

“A requirement that gun owners carry insurance would not only protect potential accident victims—including gun owners, since many gun accidents are self-inflicted—against economic loss.”

We did that. You folks called it “murder insurance” and tried to stop it. Make up your minds.

As for preemptively-prove-your-innocence (“background”) checks: If they work, then lawful gun owners have already proved themselves “responsible gun owners” (FR3). If they don’t, then stop demanding something that doesn’t work and come up with something that would.

My Rule 5. There is no “gun violence” problem. There is a violence problem, most prevalent in certain economic/geographic demographics.

If a doctor conducted a study to determine if a chemical caused a certain cancer, and found that cancer in just 0.00124% of regular users of that chemical, he’d discard that hypothesis and go looking for another cause.

0.00124% happens to be the estimated number of lawful gun owners who are murderers in any given year.

Clearly, while guns are used, they aren’t the cause. People kill with guns, knives, clubs, cars, fists, feet… If guns are removed, the cause will remain until addressed and fixed; murderers will simply use one of the myriad other methods available, as they have through history.

My Rule 6. If you ignore the underlying cause and only treat symptoms, you will never cure the disease.


* Note the original URL.


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!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Spirit of Esav is alive and well

Last Shabbat was Parsha Toldot. Genesis 25:19- 28:9. It talks about Yakov and Esav, when they were in the womb, born, the birth order (Esav first) and then the kind of men they each became. Esav, a skillful hunter and man of nature was favored by his father, Yitzchak. Rivka favored Yakov, who studied and basically stayed in the tents. Their desires were was different as the areas and activities they chose to pursue. .

28And Isaac loved Esau because [his] game was in his mouth, but Rebecca loved Jacob.

29Now Jacob cooked a pottage, and Esau came from the field, and he was faint.

30And Esau said to Jacob, “Pour into [me] some of this red, red [pottage], for I am faint”; he was therefore named Edom.

31And Jacob said, “Sell me as of this day your birthright.”

32Esau replied, “Behold, I am going to die; so why do I need this birthright?”

33And Jacob said, “Swear to me as of this day”; so he swore to him, and he sold his birthright to Jacob.

34And Jacob gave Esau bread and a pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank and arose and left, and Esau despised the birthright

His game was in his mouth, according to Rabbi Chaim, Esav talked a good game, a real good game. He pretended to be a serious Torah scholar to his father, but he was far from it. You think Esav was worn out from working in the fields all day? Um, probably not. He raped, murdered, and he married pagan women who sacrificed to idols in the camp. Esav didn’t love G-d, he wanted to destroy G-d’s presence in this world. Rivka had grown up in that environment, her father and her brother Levan, were both devious and deceitful. You find out just how much so when Yakov goes to Levan to meet a bride. Rivka knew BS when she heard it, she’d been there and done that. Yitzchak grew up with the faithful and hospitable Avraham and Sarah, he had much better role models, but was more innocent. When Yitzchak’s life was growing short, he called his first born son Esav to him, and asked him to go get him some game and fix it the way he liked it. I’m guessing sautéed with onions, mushrooms and Tabasco sauce? But Rivka came up with a plan to get the blessing for Yakov. One thing I’ve heard is Yitzchak was not fooled at all, but knew that Yakov would be the better character for the responsibility of the birthright. But at any rate, remember Esav had sold his birthright to Yakov for a bowl of soup and some bread. Esav had no love of his birthright, until it was gone. If you’d like to watch a short video on the Torah teaching, one is here.

It wasn’t valued? I guess I might point out to people who think Jews shouldn’t have all of the land that G-d alloted that they might want to remember G-d takes a dim view on those that don’t value their birthright. A way of living that has been good, and has sown benefits and opportunity that some discard as of no value because they don’t see the deep gift it really is. Rivka saw the birthright for the thing of value it really was. Esav wanted to claim the blessings of the birthright, but he wanted none of the responsibility. She understood about deceitful people. She’d seen bad, and wanted no part of it.

Sort of like one of my friends in school, she is from the Ukraine, and another lady I really like that is in a Torah study class I like to attend whenever I can, is from Russia. And they have no problem telling me what it was like. You could not openly worship G-d, or openly be a Jew. When talking about recipes for Matzah, my friend from the Ukraine was telling me how they fixed it. I asked what spices they used? She said “Spices? What spices? It was Russia, we were lucky if we had salt and pepper! I didn’t know what spices were until I left”. I’ve also heard her talk of the “dental care” you get under socialized medicine. But, it’s all equal, everyone is equal, everyone gets equally bad dental care. What little there is available.

Which makes it a bit puzzling that the majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one, according to a new poll.

Want some highlights?

“This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society regarding socialism and the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago,” Mr. Smith said in a statement.

Millennials are more likely to prefer socialism and communism than the rest of the country. Fifty-nine percent of all respondents chose capitalism as their preferred arrangement, compared to 34 percent who said socialism, 4 percent fascism and 3 percent communism.

Some of communism’s luminaries are admired by millennials. Thirty-one percent said they have a favorable view of Che Guevara, 32 percent Karl Marx, 23 percent Vladimir Lenin and 19 percent Mao Zedong. Joseph Stalin is viewed favorably by just 6 percent.

In the poll, only 33 percent of millennials were able to identify the correct definition of socialism. They fared about as well as the rest of the country, which only successfully identified socialism at a 34 percent clip. Gen Z, the generation after millennials, ―was the most informed group, with 43 percent correctly identifying socialism.

Or this Nearly half of all U.S. millennials believe the greatest safe space of them all would be living under a socialist regime.

This article does a very good job of explaining Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists

Of course, I also think their college professors, especially the “cool” ones and the mainstream media play a big juicy role in this as well.

Thus the popularity of the Socialist/Communist Bernie Sanders. It seems Millinials think there is a “kinder gentler” form of socialism available. Like maybe small c? I seem to recall barry sotero, or BS for short, thinking Hugo Chavez was just dandy.

This is a very good run down of how Hugo Chavez came into power. How he enacted communism in stages. He knew he couldn’t pull it all off at once, heck at one time even his hand picked Generals deposed him after he ordered them to fire on unarmed civilians during public demonstrations. They refused and deposed him, replacing him 3 days later when the new guy didn’t work out. But he learned from that little episode. And did his Vice-President. And in 2014 Hugo’s replacement Venezuela’s Maduro launches civilian disarmament plan, but he had some help, from the ever “helpful” UN at creating disarmed, vulnerable people. And the fall out of Chavez/Maduro’s progressive implementation of socialism/communism?

The government’s desire to control and monitor all economic activity led to the approval of a mass of inconvenient laws, which became enemies of investment, production, and innovation. The Ley Orgánica del Trabajo is just one example, which banned outsourcing, mandated 90 percent of a company’s employees be citizens, and impeded one’s capacity to remove unproductive individuals; it harms the national economy as well as the working classes. Since that legal instrument came into force last May, it has become increasingly difficult to create a job in the formal sector of the economy, while at the same time the productivity of workers has decreased at an alarming rate.

The price controls (or price-freezing process) and the fixed exchange rate (established in February, 2003) remain as a policy, regardless of the fact that they completely distort our country’s economy and against all evidence of their ineffectiveness and inconvenience.

And now? Now the people are starving. They are looting to survive, they are eating pets, street dogs and cats and birds. Their President, Nicolas Maduro, is urging them to raise rabbits for meat and to raise chickens on their balcony. And, feed them with what? Perhaps they can share the vegetables they find scrounging through the garbage? Nope, I’m not kidding. The Hunger Games have begun.

And the Millennials and Snowflakes said to the Capitalists, “Pour into me some of that kitty stew for I’m famished and let me go eat it in my safe space so that no one might say any names or things that I don’t want to hear. I don’t want to hear about G-d and his tyrannical demands. I want the freedom of socialism where Uncle Bernie and Aunt Hillary say we get college and health care for free. I want business to pay their fair share of 99%, because I need things I can’t find a job anywhere. No company has over 3 employees these days! This Capitalism is so evil! I just hate it. I don’t want to have to do all the things that bosses want to make me do. I want to find myself. But until I do, give me some pigeon as well. Birthright? Freedom? Liberty? Of what use is that to me. Behold I’m going to die.”

Yes, yes indeed. The spirit of Esav is alive and well.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

If they have a case, why do victim disarmers have to lie?

As you may have noticed from previous number-crunching, I’m quite analytically inclined. When I see or hear something that doesn’t sound right, it gnaws at me until I check it out. Like this:

Emotions run high during Politech’s gun control forum
“So it’s really a touchy issue on a sense of security. Also if you want to go to domestic violence, most women who are around guns, 50 percent of the time will be shot using their own weapon,” Gavran said. “So there are a lot of challenges with that.”

Really? 50% of women around guns will be shot with their own weapon?

My guess is that emotions ran high because lies like that were allowed.

According to a MarieClaire.com and Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey 32% of women live in households with firearm. I think that counts as being “around” guns. 32% of 162,000,000 women would be 51,840,000. 50% of those would be 25,920,000 women shot.

The FBI’s 2016 Uniform Crime Report says there were only 1,217,400 violent crimes (male and female; murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) last year. Yet ditz Gavran claims that just women shot is more than 21 times that.

But maybe Gavran meant 50% of the MC/HIRC reported 12% of women who own guns. That gets us down to 9,720,000 to about 8 times the number of total violent crimes for males and females alike.

Let’s stroll over to the CDC’s WISQARS and see what they say about it. 6,368 total nonfatal firearms assaults, and 1,950 fatal firearms assaults, for a total of 8,318. A far cry from 25,920,000 or even 9,720,000.

OK, I’ll be generous. Rather than what she said, maybe she meant to limit the population strictly to domestic violence cases; so 50% of female domestic violence victims.

Uh oh. It says here that females are the victims in 85% of 960,000 estimated annual domestic violent incidents, giving us 816,000 victims, half of which would be firearms by Gavran’s claim: 408,000. Only 49 times the number of fatal and nonfatal female firearms injuries the CDC reports.

Wait. 12% of women own guns. So .12 times 816,000 is 97,920. Half of that is 48,960. Only six times as many as the total the CDC reports.

Pure. Effing. B. S.

But as the man said, there’s more.

Perry was able to speak on what he considered naivety in regards to fears of students carrying guns around the campus. Gavran responded to Perry, saying there were accidental discharges around some universities in Texas.

She went on to say there is no way of knowing all of the effects of Campus Carry because the Clery Act legislation does not require reporting of accidental discharges.

I searched. I found one. More than a year ago. If the ditz has better data, she should cite it.

Or STFU.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Die-Anne Feinswine’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 is out. It’s worth a read. In some respects it’s much like its 1994 predecessor, only more so. Particularly in that it isn’t a ban. Hang on to that thought.

The first section sets up definitions. “Assault weapons” become pretty much any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and any 1 of several other features: pistol grip, pistol grip (specifically includes thumbhole stocks), forward grip, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, shoulder thing that goes up, threaded barrel, and so forth. Pistols specifically have their own characteristics, which you can guess from Feinstein’s previous ranting.

She got smart on one point. Back in the ’90s, manufacturers simply redesigned platforms to conform to the law (which she fein-whined was taking advantage of a “loophole”). This time she remembered to ban any variant of pages of specified firearms. So gun makers can’t take an AR-15 and saw off the pistol grip or weld the magazine in place and call it an AR-15PB (post-ban).

They’ll have to give it a new model number series. I suggest the UYDF-17. You can figure it out.

Then she gets to the ban-that-isn’t.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.

Yes, existing gear is grandfathered. As before, her “assault weapon ban” doesn’t ban a single firearm, and — gun owners having learned the lesson of her last attempt — have far more “assault weapons” on hand than they did in 1994.

Standard capacity magazines are next to not-go, with similar language merely banning future manufacture or importation of detachable magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, existing magazines grandfathered.

Government entities are all exempted, of course.

Up next, “safe storage.” Yeah, if you aren’t carrying it, or have it within arms reach, lock it up. Unloaded. Ammunition elsewhere. Feinstein really hates children.

“High capacity” magazines for government are going to get more expensive, but hey: taxpayers have deep pockets. New “assault weapons” and magazines must be serial-numbered and marked with date of manufacture.

She then inserts 90-some pages of specific firearms that are exempted from this law’s restrictions, which strikes me as stupid because the ones I recognize don’t fit her “assault weapon” definition anyway. She never was that bright.

Transfers of grandfathered “assault weapons” would have to go through an FFL. A private seller has to turn it over to the FFL, who has to enter it into his inventory records. The buyer will have to fill out a 4473, just as if the firearm were being purchased from the FFL, and be run through NICS. There is no exemption for gifts or loans, even between family members.

She’ll graciously allow you to let the buyer handle it for pre-purchase inspection without the FFL and NICS check. Oh, goody.

Now back to that thought I started with; why a ban that isn’t a ban? She did that before, and we know how that turned out.

  • Strictly by the numbers, crimes committed with firearms fitting the ’94 definition of “assault weapon” did go down. But it was statistically meaningless because those firearms were always rarely used by criminals. It’s like a town that saw one case of measles one year, then had 100% percent increase the next when two siblings get the measles. Statistically meaningless in a town of a couple hundred thousand or more.
  • Overall, firearms crime remained roughly the same. A few more hand gun crimes compensated for “assault weapons.”
  • A frickin’ huge number of evil, wicked “assault weapons” were transferred in panic-buying before the ’94 ban went into effect. So the imminent law had the effect of a subsidy for firearm manufacturers and dealers.If Feinstein — or her staffers/handlers — have a brain amongst them, they know this. They know every time someone makes serious banning noises (Obama election sound familiar?) sales skyrocket. “Gun Salesman of the Year.” Prices go through the roof.

    We know Feinstein isn’t bright. But is she crazy? Or is she taking brib campaign contributions from the evil gun industry?


    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!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Ancient Mysteries

While the current news cycle churns out reports about multiple bills to ban bump-fire stocks and other accessories, or to ban nearly all semiautomatic rifles, let us cast our minds back to the ancient — in lamestream media time — history to the event that prompted this round of Second Amendment infringements.

Mandalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas, where the uninformed world discovered “bump-fire.” You know the narrative: A multimillionnaire dragged a couple dozen semiautomatic weapons to his 32nd floor suite. A dozen of them were equipped with evil bump-fire stocks. He broke out two windows and used those bump-fire “fully automatic” weapons of mass destruction to hose down a crowd of 20,000+ country music fans who probably deserved it because they’re nasty NRA gun owners themselves.

So our heroes in Washington, DC were forced to protect us by offering legislation to deny stuff to the 55 to 120 million gun owners who didn’t do it. “Bump stocks” must go! Bump stock manufacturers must pay for their crimes!

Whoa. Like I said, cast your minds back in time. To… say, October 2, 2017.

Did you see that? At least one fully automatic weapon and weapons equipped with bumpstocks.

The LA Times reported that other weapons were being examined to determine if they had been converted to full auto.

The Weekly Standard reported at least fully automatic weapon as well.

Dennis Michael Lynch noted it, too.

But the automatic weapon(s?) vanished from the narrative. Perhaps I overlooked it, but my searches turn up no “correction” that, “Oh, we didn’t mean full auto,” or, “That person was mistaken; we were talking about two different bump-fire devices and he thought we meant bump-fire and full.”

They just stopped talking about it.

Then they just stopped talking.

Well, why not, when you have powerful senators and congresscritters who need a lawful accessory to demonize in the interest of creating a gun control slippery slope?

Was one (or more) of the shooter’s weapon fully automatic? Personally, I thought at least one recorded burst sounded so regular (as opposed to other stuttering bursts) that I took it for full-auto fire.

The shooter had a clean record, so he’d have been eligible to purchase an NFA item. Certainly a multimillionnaire could afford one even at the inflated prices driven by the FOPA of 1986. But if he’d bought one legally, that would be just another example of the law not working as advertised. If he purchased one unlawfully, or converted a semiautomatic to full, well, then he’s just another criminal. Our protectors need something unregulated to… regulate. Gotta get that slippery slope.

So our ancient media mysteries are:

  • Was there one or more fully automatic weapons as reported in multiple outlets?
  • Did inspection of the weapons found in the hotel suite show which had been fired?
  • Has ballistics testing determined which were used to kill and wound the victims?

This is fairly important, really. The Mandalay Bay massacre is being used to justify a whole new set of infringements of human/civil rights, starting with bump-fire. Are they justifying legislation by something that didn’t happen per the script? (Note to nutcases: I’m not saying the incident was staged/faked; I’m questioning which weapon(s) was used.)

But shooters — aside from a few Mom’s Basement Army keyboard commandos and mall ninjas — consider bump-fire stocks to be nothing more than fun ammo-wasters. Granted, I can’t really wrap my head around mass murder, but it seems to me that if I were a wealthy guy intent on the murder of as many people as possible in ten minutes, and I had one or more automatic weapons handy, I don’t think I’d look over the selection and say, “Nah, the toy is the better tool for the job.”

I might transition to a bump-fired weapon if everything else jammed or broke, but who would start with that?

The cable news attention span has expired, so we may never learn the answers to my questions.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear “Common Sense Gun Safety” Advocate,

You say you want “common sense gun safety” laws. Fine. Propose them. Specifically.

Specifically. Don’t issue vague wishes about “mental health,” and “safety.” Don’t use the term “assault weapon” unless you live in a state that has defined that term in law. Know the differences between “assault weapon” (where such exists), “assault rifle,” and “machine gun;” and do not use the wrong term in discussion; it makes you look ignorant at best.

Do tell us exactly what you intend; preferably by providing the text of law you propose. Be prepared to address the following points:

  • If your rationale for a law refers to semiautomatic firearms as “military-grade,” “military-style,” or “weapons of war,” identify the nation which uses semiautomatic rifles as standard issue to regular troops.
  • If your rationale is based on “90% or (whatever number you like today) of Americans want,” please show where that number was proven in an actual referendum.
  • If your rationale references “militia,” please know what the militia is, and the legal differences between the militia, national guard, and standing army.
  • If your rational includes “if it saves a single child/person,” explain why the converse — if it results in a single innocent’s harm — does not count.
  • If you are banning and/or confiscating any firearms, explain how you will locate the items when you don’t even know how many there are.
  • If you are licensing gun owners, explain how you will identify them when you don’t know to the nearest ten million how many of them are out there.
  • If your law purports to address “gun violence,” explain why it would be imposed on the 99.9814% of gun owners who aren’t the problem.
  • Similarly, explain how a restriction will not be a prior restraint, nor violate due process.
  • Explain how you will induce criminals to comply with the law, when they don’t comply now.
  • Given the low compliance rates with other firearms laws, explain why people will comply with this one. Explain how you will deal with malicious compliance.
  • If you are reinstating something that failed to reduce gun violence in the past, explain why it would be different this time.
  • If you are expanding a restriction, explain how it will improve the situation.
  • If you are expanding the definition of “prohibited person,” please research existing law to see if those people are already prohibited.
  • In any case, please understand your own law.
  • Your law must include a stated goal and metrics to determine if it is accomplishing that goal, and an automatic sunset clause to end the law if it does not work by its own metrics.
  • If your law involves federal employee action such as adding a prohibited person to NICS or conducting a NICS check, include penalties for failing to do the job properly, with particular penalties those who act maliciously. Individual penalties.
  • If your proposed law conflicts with other laws, explain how you will resolve the conflict.

That’s a starting point. TL;DR: know the subject and honestly address all aspects you can think of. If you cannot address those points intelligently and honestly, there is no reason why gun owners should take you seriously as anything but a threat to constitutionally-guaranteed human/civil rights.

If you propose something in reaction to a specific event, do not whine when someone questions how your proposal would have prevented that event. In wake of The Sandy Hook, Mandalay Bay, and Sutherland Springs church shootings, I have heard “gun safety” advocates call for “expanded” background checks; in these cases “expanded” means requiring privates sales to go through NICS as FFL dealers already do.

Both of the Mandalay Bay and Sutherland Springs shooters went through — and passed — multiple NICS checks. The Sandy Hook killer bypassed checks by killing his mother and stealing her guns. This causes knowledgeable gun owners to wonder what the advocates’ real agenda and goals are. Or if they are simply ignorant.

Many of those advocates also decry the elimination of the Obama administration rule that placed thousands of Social Security disability recipients on the prohibited persons list used by NICS. Congress blocked that rule because it violated federal laws (yes, plural) regarding adjudication and due process, not because they want crazy people to have guns. Such claims — again — cause informed people to question the advocates’ agenda or intelligence.

Sadly, at this point, having given a gun controller facts, the response devolves into, “You’re a heartless person who doesn’t care about people — CHILDREN! — being killed and hurt!”

I care enough to spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on defensive firearms, ammunition, training, practice, maintenance, licensing, and studying rules and laws in order to protect myself, family, and friends. I’ve trained other people in how to protect themselves, and occasionally provided one with a firearm or other tool until they could afford their own.

So what have the gun controllers done, other than trying to pass laws to stop me?

Tell me again about those common sense gun laws you want. Intelligently and honestly.


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

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail