Category Archives: authoritarian swine

What gang’s colors does the governor wear?

About that Trenton, NJ art festival shooting…

Right off the bat, I assumed it was gang related. And that’s just what the cops are saying.

I figured the shooter(s) would be prohibited persons already. And, at least, the dead one was; felony manslaughter, shot a guy to death.

And I assumed guns would blamed. Yep.

So Gov. Murphy thinks criminals sentences are too long. The dead asshole had been sentenceed to 18 years on the manslaughter charge. He picked up an additional 6 years for helping run a gang inside the prison. 2004 (year sentenced) + 18 + 6 = 2028.

Under ol’ Murph’s new policies, the scumbag got an early release in February of this year. Whereupon he apparently went right out and got another gun, somehow bypassing as those New Jersey laws that apply to the honest, non-criminal folks.

Seems Murph also defunded a post-release employment assistance program that supposedly helped reduce the recidivsm rate. Murph apparently thinks a life of crime is dandy.

Now, Jersey already had some of the toughest victim disarmament laws in the country, and the gov signed 6 more gun control bills into law shortly before this shooting. It makes it even tougher to be a law-abiding gun owner, yet somehow doesn’t stop early-released thugs.

Did Murphy suddenly see the error of his ways? Of course not. He’s calling for more victim disarmament laws.

So he lets violent criminals out, limits their non-criminal employment options…

And disarms their prey. How helpful.

Is it bribery, or is he a member of one of those gangs?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

For the ignorance and stupidity of the enemy

… let us give thanks.

Warren J. Blumenfeld, Ed.D has a plan.

“Gun violence could be stopped with some simple measures
While no single or a combination of measures will completely eliminate firearms deaths and injuries, I have constructed a list of proposals to buck the current deregulation trend, intended to substantially diminish the plague of violence:

I read that column with amused fascination; his list of proposals shows that his knowledge of the subject is rather limited. Just for example, those with domestic violence convictions, or those subject to restraining orders are already prohibited from buying firearms. And there is no federal “ban on the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet” to strengthen. Nor is there a federal waiting period to lengthen. It is already a felony to sell armor-piercing ammunition to civilians. A person with “a history of serious mental illness” is not not necessariy a prohibited person; one who been adjudicated to be mentally deficient already is.

And banning semiautomatic firearms, then banning bump-fire stocks? Perhaps he thinks they can turn bolt-action rifles into machineguns.

To go forward effectively, you need to understand where you are starting from. I would have thought they’d cover that in the Education department, but I studied engineering, so what do I know?

Fortunately for the doctor, The Zelman Partisans have prepared a “Gun Culture Primer” to assist those newly come to the field. It summarizes various federal laws and applicable court decisions, and history. You will also find helpful definitions and explanations of firearms terminology, and other useful bits of knowledge complete with links to more detailed source material. It’s written in language simple enough for even an Ed.D to comprehend.

Additionally, I would like to present Blumenfeld with a little three step thought experiment, which might be useful as a test of a proposal’s effectiveness.

Convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Yet 64% of those who commit murder using a firearm have prior felony convictions. Nearly 91% of firearms used in crime are stolen. Multiple federal studies have shown that no more than 7% of criminals obtained their firearms through lawful channels.

The first experiment/test is to ask how a proposal would impact felons who already evade laws like licensing or background checks.

The second experiment/test is to ask how such a law could be effectively imposed on those same criminals in compliance with the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision.

The third step is to consider your first results, applied to a comparatively small group (11,004 murders in 2016 implies no more than 11,004 murderers) of known, registered felons, and figure out how to apply them to honest gun owners of unknown numbers (estimates range from 55 million to 120+ million) when you don’t who or where they are. Nor do you know how many firearms there are (estimates range from 265 million to 750 million).

If you cannot successfully gain compliance from a small known group, then exacting compliance from an unknown group several thousands of time larger may be problematical.

But so long as the victim disarmers concentrate on dreaming up new redundant laws, they probably won’t ever get around to coming up with real ways and means of enforcing their little 18 U.S. Code § 241 & 242 violations.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

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

“[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Seems folks from the Pulse nightclub shooting still haven’t gotten the memo:

31 Orlando police officers sued over their response to Pulse nightclub massacre that left 49 dead
A city police officer acting as a security guard didn’t do his job and more than two dozen of his colleagues failed in their duties or violated the civil rights of surviving victims after the 2016 Orlando, Florida, nightclub massacre, according to a new federal lawsuit.

The police do not exist to protect you. It isn’t their job. That “protect and serve”? That’s the state, society as a whole, the system.

Not individuals caught up in the system.

  • Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981): In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”.
  • Bowers vs. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982) ruled that “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
  • (Turner v. Thomas, Jr., et al (CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00064, 2018): “Plaintiff’s claims share a common question: whether there is constitutional duty under the Fourteenth Amendment for the police to intervene to protect a citizen from criminal conduct by third parties. Because I find this duty is not ‘clearly established,’ his claims are barred by qualified immunity.”

And that is why we remain adamant on the right to keep and bear arms.

The police do not protect you; they protect the state. An officer might choose to help, but are you willing to bet your life on that? Even assuming an officer happened to be there in your time of need.

There’s only one person always present where you are, who happens to have a vested interest in your life.

You.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

ERPOs: Everyone is STASI now

Sane people already know that so-called “extreme risk protective rights violating orders” are… insane.

  • Not a single bill I’ve read actually requires taking into the custody the allegedly “dangerous” person. Just one type of weapon. Just make him angry, and leaves him free to act on it, with something else.
  • None include — by deliberate design — anything approaching due process meeting federal legal standards. The accused is specifically excluded from any chance of defending or explaining himself before his property is stolen. Which, of course, is why he’ll be angry.
  • Few, if any bills, include penalties for someone filing a false report. At least one state specifically legislature voted down an amendment to add penalties for false reporting. A no-cost way to screw with one’s enemies.
  • By design, these bills allow petitions from people with minimal contact with the accused.
  • ERPOs require a standard of “evidence” for depriving someone of rights far below that of even a misdemeanor conviction. The standards are well below that of ordinary civil lawsuits. No evidence; just an unsubstantiated claim good enough for a judge who hates guns.

So how can they possibly get any worse?

What? You never heard of New York, or Gov. Cuomo?

Cuomo: Allow teachers to petition judges to seize guns
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to allow teachers to ask a judge to remove guns from the homes of troubled students.

The Democrat said on Tuesday that he will introduce the idea as legislation. He acknowledged it will face criticism from Republicans.

Under the measure, teachers and school administrators would have legal standing to petition a court to remove any firearms from the homes of students considered a threat to themselves or others.

This would allow teachers to obtain rights-violating orders against not the student, but anyone and everyone in the student’s home. Whom the teacher may have never met. Whom — supposedly — isn’t even the alleged “dangerous” person.

Don’t like guns? Start reporting students and get entire families of innocent people disarmed, without any pesky need for evidence. This being New York, I’ll guarantee they’ll find oath-breaking judges who’ll sign victim disarmament orders. I can see NYS school districts sending out memos to teachers to start collating lists of students/families to target, based on known/suspect gun wnership by a family member. Probably starting with those whose parents demand parent-teacher conferences; the damned uppity troublemakers who dare question the faculty’s authority.

I don’t live in New York (and you would have enjoyed the discussion the time a boss tried to talk me into relocating to New York City), so this wouldn’t affect me.

Yet.

The problem is that, like “standard” extreme rights violating order legislation, the gun people controllers will take any legislation Cuomo comes up with and use it as a model in other states. I can make some good guesses as to which legislators in Atlanta would leap at the chance to sponsor it here.

I have a disturbed niece who has publicly stated that she hates guns, and wants everyone over the age of 55 eliminated. What happens when she realizes she can start filing no-evidence ERPOs to fulfill her genocidal dream?

What happens when anyone having a lawncare dispute with a neighbor can send the confiscation cops out to screw him over?

What happens when ERPO legislation makes everyone a STASI informer?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

False Negatives

Folks tend to focus on the false positive rate in NICS denials: some 96% of denials turn out to be in error; millions of innocent persons’ rights were violated. Yeah, that’s pretty bad.

But it gets worse.

False negatives.

When Background Checks Fail
A convicted felon, who was found “not guilty by reason of insanity” when he stabbed his sister in 2009 and then a manager at a Walmart in 2014, filled out a Form 4473 at a gun shop, lying multiple times while doing so.

Then, somehow, his background check was approved by the FBI in mere minutes, and he purchased two brand new handguns.
[…]
“Indiana State Police Capt. Dave Bursten told local media Abraman’s record appears in the system — under both of his assumed names. He said its the FBI’s job to figure out why the background check still cleared.”

Yes, we know about the DC Navy yard shooter, the Sutherland Springs shooter, and others who shouldn’t have passed background checks, but did because they hadn’t been entered into the system. This is different.

This convicted felon, and one adjudicated mentally incompetent, was in NICS. After the fact, the police verified that he was listed there as a prohibited person. Under both names he uses. Yet somehow this guy, who bloody well knew he shouldn’t pass a NICS check, felt confident enough to go in, fill out a 4473 with his own name, and successfully pass a check and buy guns.

In recent months, I’ve seen some other stories about felons successfully buying guns from dealers. It’s only within the past week that I really noted the apparent trend.

Why are felons suddenly confident of their ability to purchase firearms through dealers, correctly assuming they’ll get a pass from NICS? How often is this happening?

We know about the false positives because honest folks challenge denials; they have a vested interest in the truth coming out.

Criminals, on the other hand, are hardly going to challenge their “proceed,” and admit to yet another felony. So we don’t know how many other have obtain a false negative…

Or how they arranged for that. What might be the going rate…?

I think NICS should be investigated. Just tell the FBI it’s a Russian plot.

Just another reason not to impose “universal-except-for-criminals background checks.”


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Minorities don’t have rights?

David Frum, writing in The Atlantic, has an interesting take on rights.

Only 30 percent of Americans own guns. Thus far, that minority has sufficed to block substantial federal action on guns. But a one-third minority—and especially a nonurban one-third minority—may no longer suffice to shape American culture.

Does he really want to go there? Does he really want to argue that rights are subject to a majority vote; that some minority should lose some right because they’re outnumbered?

What other minorities would he like to disenfranchise?

(https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1&src=pt)

America has done that before. It was a bad idea — morally, legally, and constitutionally — then. It’s a bad idea now.

Especially when said minority is heavily armed.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

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

Feeling Cross

I’ve been reading a really good book lately. The Case for Judaism, it’s not a very large book and is quite readable. It covers several different topics, but the one that I’m thinking of right now is on laws, government, voting and freedom. How perspectives on what is right and what is wrong can change with time. America is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles which came from the Torah given on Mt. Sinai, we just celebrated Chag Shavuot, the holiday that celebrates the giving on the Torah.

One topic in the book is about the role of Torah and another on Defining Morality. It points out that Torah, is a teaching book, not a history book. Torah is spelled תורה and teacher is spelled מורה thus they share the same root Torah and Morah or Moray depending on if its a female or male teacher. It’s laws for a society to have a decent civilization that can lead to peace, prosperity and fairness. The Torah hasn’t changed since it was given. My understanding may change as I learn more and study, but Torah doesn’t. G-d’s word stands solid.

Compare that to man’s laws. If we go only by those, in the section of Defining Morality, we can see that those change depending on who is ruling, or in charge at the time. What is evil or good, what is acceptable or unacceptable varies. Man (and woman) change their mind from time to time, chocolate bar or Hershey’s kisses? These are variable choices. While the author doesn’t get into the debate of abortion right or wrong, moral or immoral, he uses it to point out that sixty years ago it was considered immoral and wrong. Now it is considered wrong to take away a woman’s right to choose. A few thousand years ago throwing people to lions to be eaten alive in front of Roman crowds was a day of wholesome fun for the whole family, kids and all. Today unless we are talking about progressives and the media treating conservatives in such a manner, that sort of thing is frowned upon. The author suggests that man’s flip-flopping moral code is the result of man deciding what he wants and what is best for himself at that time. G-d’s law, is not changeable.

Do not kill.

Around 20th April this year, a 49 year old Grandmother, Anji Rhys, used a crossbow to defend her family. She’s being called Grandbo. Her hobby is shooting her crossbow in her garden. She feels it to be relaxing, and since Britain is basically one big gun-free (except for the criminals) zone, she liked the idea of having something for self-defense. A pack of machete wielding yobs kicked in their door and came at her and another resident demanding their stash of weed. I guess they thought you could explain to them they were at the wrong “joint”. Yeah, sorry. Since they are unable to have a gun to defend themselves, Anji originally grabbed the crossbow to keep them from getting and deploying the quarrel or bolt. She ended up discharging the 6 inch quarrel into one of the machete wielding intruders. But, I suppose you could hear it straight from her.

I guess you could say she used a quarrel to settle the quarrel. I know, that’s twice.

I found a couple of her statements to be rather frightening.

‘A crossbow is a one shot thing and then it’s useless. After that I tried to throw it through the window to raise an alarm but it got caught in the curtains like a goalie net.

Since there were 3 others, that would be pretty disconcerting for me. One shot and done? Yesh. The other kind of had me scratching my head.

‘I think all of us should have something you can strike back with. Not necessarily a weapon. I think the best defence is CCTV.

Huh? Say what? Do you….throw it at them??

The police do not yet have them in custody but they did let Anji keep her crossbow and told her well done, her family is all okay and her 82 year old Mom slept through it. This was around 20th April.

And…on the 14th of May this year. Deadly crossbows sold on High Street without need for a licence or background checks. Gasp, sharp inhaling through the teeth, with the slow whistling exhale.

DEADLY assault rifle-style crossbows are available on high streets and online without any need for a licence or background checks. Today the Daily Express launches a crusade calling on the Government to crack down on the sale of the potentially lethal weapons which can be bought without having to give details of identity or a reason for their use.

We were able to visit a shop yards from one of Britain’s busiest city centre high streets and buy a high-velocity 175lb Panther crossbow which boasts the promise “Built for power”.

The terrifying weapon, bought in Leeds, is capable of hitting a target with its aluminium-pointed bolts at 500 yards.

Like many other brands it comes with a telescopic sight to make aiming easier and is designed to be as straightforward as possible to shoot.

Experts say they are more powerful than some air rifles that have to be licensed.

Ok, now this is my shocked face.

MPs have backed the Daily Express campaign and urged the Government to ban the deadly “sporting devices” saying there was “no reason” for them to be on sale to the general public.

Last week Rachael Maskell, 45, MP for York Central, penned a letter to the new home secretary Sajid Javid urging tough rules be introduced to stop their easy availability.

They were astonished, astonished I say to find that you could buy smaller versions of them as…..wait for it, toys. History of the crossbow.

Man’s laws and opinions. At one time the crossbow was a perfectly respectable device and part of Britain’s history. The media and their government can’t get rid of that fast enough. I wonder if the Sheriff of Nottingham is still in charge?

Less than a month after a woman uses a crossbow to defend 4 innocent lives from 4 machete wielding yobs the media and apparently the “rulers” of the subjects are incensed that people have access to this deadly device. Apparently the media and some Members of Parliament have more concern and mercy for the thugs than innocent people just sitting home watching their tellys.

From Chabad,

In light of the above, it is surprising to find the following law in the Torah (derived from Deuteronomy 22:26): Habah l’hargecha hashkem l’hargo — “If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first.” (This law applies equally to someone coming to kill someone else — you’re obligated to kill the murderer in order to save his intended victim.)

This law seems to contradict the principle of life’s infinite value. If no life can be deemed less valuable that any other, what makes the victim’s life more valuable than the murderer’s life? Furthermore, this rule applies to anyone who is “coming to kill you” — he hasn’t even done anything yet! Maybe he won’t succeed? Maybe he’ll change his mind? Nor does the law say anything about trying to run away. It says: If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first.

The same Torah that tells us that G‑d placed a spark of Himself in every human being, thereby bestowing upon his or her physical existence a G‑dly, infinite worth — that same Torah also tells us that G‑d has granted free choice to every person. Including the choice — and the power — to corrupt his or her G‑d-given vitality and turn it against itself, using it to destroy life. A person can choose to turn himself into a murderer — someone who is prepared to destroy life in order to achieve his aims. In which case he is no longer a life, but an anti-life.

To kill an anti-life is not a life-destroying act, it is a life-preserving act. It is not a violation of the commandment “Do not kill,” but its affirmation. Without the law, “If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first,” the principle of life’s infinite value is nothing more than an empty slogan, a mere idea.

Judaism is not an idea. It is a way of life — G‑d’s ideas made real.

Emphasis mine. For some reason, much of the media and elected officials seem far more concerned with the lives and well being of the criminals than those of the law-abiding. This is not just a British phenomena either.

Media love for MS-13 and Hamass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe I will go with Torah on this.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Sandpaper?

Keep guns out of dangerous people’s hands
Groups that support restrictions on firearms might be tempted to go too far in the wake of tragedy. Gun control opponents reflexively oppose any restriction. They call this one a gun confiscation act, despite the many safeguards it would put in place. For them, sandpaper is slippery slope.

Hmm…

  • pre-1968: If there is sufficient evidence of a crime having been committed, you’ll be disarmed when arrested
  • 1968: If you’re convicted of a serious crime, a felony, you’ll lose your 2A rights
  • 1997: If you’re convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, you’ll lose your 2A rights
  • 1998: You have to preemptively prove you were never convicted of a felony or domestic violence before exercising your right to purchase a firearm
  • 2018: If someone makes an accusation, lacking sufficient evidence to make an arrest, you’ll lose your 2A rights

At this rate, by 2054, if two out of three freaks in a bath tub make an unsubstantiated claim that you might do something in the future, you’ll lose your 2A rights.

Skiing Downhill ca. 2001 Colorado, USA

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Backpedaling

When we last saw Esquire’s Dave Holmes, he was whining that we won’t let him confiscate all our guns. He’s back…

…pedaling. With an extra helping of whining.

What Happens When You Write About Gun Control in America
Gun-rights activists threaten to shoot you (among other reactions).

Ooooh. Threats. Like…

“Go ahead and try, the streets will be awash in blood.”

“Good luck confiscating all those guns yourself, really hope you don’t get murdered by law abiding citizens lol.”

“Molon Labe.”

No one threatened to shoot him, or he would have included that. I see people telling him to go for it, and noting the unintended consequences of such an ill-considered action.

So… No threats.

Had any of these folks bothered to read the piece, which was only 800 words and I am not James Joyce, they would have seen the part where I said: “It won’t happen, of course. So let’s meet in the middle.” I am coming from a place of passion, but I am willing to compromise.

I read it all. I saw him start by stating his desire to take everything. I took him at his word. And some of us are tired of “compromise.” Just once, we’d like to keep our cake.

No. Now what?

Let me offer Holmes a tongue-in-cheek “compromise” on his First Amendment protected rights. I’d rather see him not write anymore. But he won’t stop, so let’s meet in the middle: He’ll be allowed one 140-character tweet (no one needs a high capacity tweet) per month. 800 word columns of mass rights violation? Maybe we could grandfather his old columns under a National Speech Act with taxes, stamp, and goverment approval. But no new ones.

I do find it amusing that Holmes views the NRA as hardcore gun rights advocates. The NRA backed the NFA, GCA, FOPA, background checks, “assault weapons” bans, ERPOs, bump-fire stock bans, and opposed constitutional carry.

Meet The Zelman Partisans, Mr. Holmes.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills, since he doesn’t have a paying gig with a leftist, anti-rights magazine like Esquire. Defending human/civil rights doesn’t pay well, but it needs to be done.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Go For It

In the wake of the Santa Fe school shooting, where an under-age scumbag stole a pump-action shotgun and a revolver to kill ten and wound more, I started seeing a different set of disarmament clarion calls. The criminal enablers are abandoning demands for bans on “assault weapons,” universal background checks, and age limits. Now it’s a flat out total ban on everything.

A typical example:

Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I now actually do want to take your guns.

All of your guns.

Right now.

All righty then. Start with the criminals. That should be easy; via NICS, you have a list of everyone who already isn’t allowed to have guns. A good many of them are subject to current court orders and probation/parole that will allow the police to search their homes without new warrants. Go for it. Prove you can make it work.

Hey, felons et al have been prohibited from possessing firearms for fifty years. Since they’re so compliant with the law, they probably… oh. Wait.

For fifty years you haven’t been able to disarm the criminals. 64% of firearms-wielding murderers have prior felony convictions, yet mysteriously got around of fifty years of laws meant to prevent just that.

Nearly 91% of firearms used in murders are stolen (just like the guns used in Santa Fe, stolen from a locked cabinet). Well, that’s one way around NICS (which has been in place for two decades).

Somehow, despite knowing exactly who they are (because everyone knows how accurate NICS is), you haven’t managed to get guns out of the hands of those already stripped of Second Amendment rights through adjudication.

But now you want to go after… everyone else. The 99.9978% of gun owners who didn’t commit any heinous crimes.

Just in case you evil bastards — out to ensure safe workplaces for criminals — forgot, you don’t know to the nearest 10,000,000 how many gun owners are out there. It might be 50,000,000. Or 60,000,000. Maybe 81,000,000. 100,000,000. Some think (with a fair bit of credibility) that the number is over 120,000,000; more than a third of the nation.

You don’t know how many, so you certainly don’t know who they are, much less where. And their guns? How many, what kind, and where? You don’t know. Could be 265,000,000. Might be 750,000,000.

But you’re convinced that bans are so effective. Just ban everything and the owners will be happy to give up their property. Hey, it worked for Prohibition and the War on Drugs… oh.

Allow me to clue you in:

  • People don’t like to have their property stolen, by freelance crooks or the uniformed type.
  • Since you haven’t managed to disarm the criminals, the rest of us especially won’t care to give up our defensive property.

But let’s pretend that 90% of gun owners go along with your crime enablement scheme (-giggle-). That leaves anywhere from 5,000,000 to over 12,000,000 heavily armed, noncompliant SOBs (or, HANSOBs, as I’ve referred to them elsewhere).

You’ll have to go take their guns. Kick in their doors because they’re well armed.

I’d say, “Best o’ luck, bubba,” but I don’t wish stormtroopers the best of anything. I suggest that Davie Holmes lead the first few confiscation teams to show the guys how it’s done, and to encourage them. And he’d better bring along his ban buddies to help, because the HANSOBs would have every single local, state, and federal LEO, and the entire active and reserve military outnumbered, even assuming the lowball estimate of gun owners and a silly compliance rate. (No one has gotten better than 20% compliance just on registration; and ask Mass how that bump-fire ban went; I heard they got 3. Not 3%; Three stocks.)

But if you gun grabbers choose to go that literal route, be aware of what you’re getting yourselves into.

Wait a sec: Excuse me, I need to place a bulk order for popcorn. I intend to hunker down, sit back, eat popcorn, and enjoy “The Statist-Hunting Show”. It wouldn’t be civil war; Holmes and his buds should be so lucky.

Yes, if you declare that you’re going out to hunt those nasty noncompliant gun owners (who hadn’t done anything… up till now), I consider it extremely likely they’ll return the favor. Please recall that those HANSOBs will probably include a lot of combat vets and people who can — and routinely do — pop prairie dogs in the head at a thousand yards; the guns you’d be trying to take are the guns with which they do that.

Happily for Holmes and his ilk, a lot of them will be of libertarian leanings, like me; we won’t go hunting; that would be an initiation of force. But the fervor of their self defense, should the victim disarmers make that necessary, will astonish and terrify the bastards. On the other hand, libertarian-types are probably a small minority.

Individuals, small groups. No organized “militia” you can defeat or negotiate with. Rather chaotic, in fact.

And should Dave Holmes prove to a be a cheese-nibbling chickenshit, who won’t take point, who thinks he can send out the jackbooted thugs while he rests comfortably at home, four words:

Clinton Rules of Engagement. In fragmenting Yugoslavia, Billy Jeff Clinton determined that noncombatant media, friends, associates, friends of friends were valid military targets, as they gave support to the “enemy,”

That’s another favor those HANSOBs will probably be happy to return.

Now, That’s Entertainment.

Go for it. Bell that cat.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found liked this post, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

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