And Then

Today I was listening to the radio while I was driving. One of the topics was the attack on Sen. Rand Paul. The host discussed when it first happened the mainstream media (#FakeNews) more or less laughed it off. The assailant IS a Doctor at Bowling Green hospital, man they must be hurting for staff there, don’t think I’d go there regardless of the reason. Then the media said it was over “grass clippings” “landscaping”, apparently the statement given by the assailant’s lawyer. But then a spokesman for Sen. Paul released a tweet (love how there are ways to get around the msm) that made a few people begin to question the excuse given. Breitbart and I believe, the Washington Examiner actually did this old-fashioned thing called “journalism”. They didn’t accept the lawyers word, they went and talked to the neighbors. All of whom said the Pauls were wonderful neighbors, kept their place immaculate, and unlike everyone else who has a lawn care service, Sen. Paul does his own. The “doctor” who is the inventor of a QVC product in 2005. The neighbors reached out to Breitbart because what they were reading in the msm was so wrong. The media reported it as “minor injuries”. The man has six broken ribs and a pleural effusion. Check out the x-ray picture! Minor my ….. foot. The media did everything it could to cover for the liberal Bernie supporter and conservative hating “doctor” and QVC maven.

But this is not the first legislator attacked by a supporter of the communist Bernie Sanders. No, Republican Representative Steve Scalise was shot along with four others before a good guy with a gun, the Capitol police, showed up to end it.

In fact, a lot of the shootings have actually been the peaceful, tolerant, liberal left.

But it seems in the left has stepped up their game in terms of shooting people. Now they have decided riots are a form of free speech.

For instance Charlottesville, to protest, um, why exactly? Some naughty words in this.

Attacking someone physically that believes differently than you do is perfectly acceptable. Remember what I said about the media covering for Sen. Paul’s attacker, and what Paul Joseph Watson said about how the media reported the “peaceful protests”.

And let’s say, what if the police, or campus security were told to stand down, not to help those being attacked. And some of the campus security were ticked, they were told by the college STAFF that everything was “ok”. Sounds like University of Missouri. Who now rents the empty dorm rooms to the 5 people that come to the football games.

If you live in a blue area, I’m sure this makes you really anxious for the next patriotic event, parade or speech perhaps, by someone you would like to hear. Except that to the thugs, many of them Soros funded, free speech only applies to them.

College campuses a safe space? Only the liberals are safe on college campuses. If you are conservative, or want to hear a conservative, not so much “safe space”.

A conservative, gay, Jewish speaker Milo was suppose to speak at Berkeley, yes, this is old news, but it’s going somewhere.

Milo is gay, normally not a group attacked by the left. Milo is Jewish, in the past, not a group attacked by the left. But Milo is a conservative, and no matter what else he is, it means he has no right to say things that college students don’t want to hear and expose them to thoughts they’ve never heard in class except to hear them derided.

And this is going somewhere. Here. Hate Spaces on American campuses

This documentary portrays a horrific picture of anti-Semitism at a number of American campuses. Much takes the form of extreme anti-Israelism, yet also manifestations of intense hatred toward Jews are shown. Under the cover of the First Amendment of the US constitution, which does not permit limitation of free speech, far-reaching hate mongering against Jews and Israel is carried out and considered protected speech. In the American contemporary academic reality this movie can only be called contrarian.

…….

Another question is why has the Department of Education failed to intervene against this ongoing bigotry? Why has it not systematically investigated the breach of academic integrity by biased teachers at institutions of higher learning. Is it not a national interest that university administrations have a moral compass? All this is not only a Jewish issue but also one which indicates that there is a great deal wrong with the American university system.

Protected speech policies allow extreme hatred. Politically correct administrators and professors teaching one-sided biased views reflect academic degeneration. The probability that there is much more wrong on campuses beyond biased teaching and anti-Semitic hate speech is high. This is the more important issue because some students infected by their teachers may eventually come to hold senior positions in the country.

A mob of people going after people that they don’t like. They don’t agree with how they think, and they’ve been told by the media that those people aren’t really even human. So you don’t have to treat them as such. They’re vile, they’re deplorable. What happens when you have large groups of people that think that way? They believe it’s ok to attack? Because we have that now….And then

Today is November 9th. The anniversary of the start of Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Timing is everything, but one more gun law will fix it

The First Baptist Church shooter had an interesting history. Pulling this together from assorted news reports:

  • He was reportedly on “high doses of ‘psych’ meds” in 6th through 9th grade.
  • As an adult, he dated a 13 year-old girl.
  • The police were called because he stalked the girl when she dropped him.
  • In the Air Force, while in pre-trial detention, he was committed to a psychiatric hospital (from which he escaped) because he was deemed a threat to himself and others. Somehow, the Air Force never reported the committal to NICS.
  • In a General Court Martial, he was convicted of multiple counts of domestic violence (including cracking a child’s skull). Somehow the Air Force failed to report the felony-equivalent domestic violence conviction to NICS.
  • There was an open sexual assault investigation of him that police dropped in late 2013 because they thought he’d left the state.
  • Then the police responded to another complaint against him (domestic abuse) at the same address in early 2014. Yet somehow the police couldn’t figure out that he was still in state.

That an adult was dating a 13yo is concerning enough (and where were her parents?). Was it a sexual relationship? If so, then he committed sexual assault. Where were the police?

But one more gun control law will fix it.

The timing of the asshole‘s military and civilian legal interactions raises more questions. In June 2012, he was facing charges in the at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. He was committed to a New Mexico psychiatric hospital in June. He escaped — that’s desertion –and was recaptured on June 13, 2012. He was sent to a Miramar Navy brig for pre-trial confinement, presumably after his escape and recapture; otherwise I have to wonder why he’d be sent from California back to New Mexico for committal.

In November 2012, he was convicted and sentenced to a year confinement, which he served in the Miramar brig until June 2013. Clearly, he was credited with pre-trial time served despite having escaped custody. For three counts of felony-equivalent assault, including breaking a child’s skull?

An appeals court upheld the conviction in 2013. When in 2013 isn’t clear.

Upon release from the brig “in early June of 2013”, he was placed on unpaid leave, apparently through the end of his term of enlistment in early 2014. Well, it’s not like the Air Force wanted him back (and oddly enough, I was stationed at Holloman AFB in the ’80s, and was detailed to maintain custody of another deserter, whom we didn’t want either).

Almost immediately — June 17, 2013, just seven months after his initial conviction — he was under investigation in New Braunfels, Texas for alleged rape. I would expect the police to run a background check on him, but since his committal and conviction were never logged, he would come up clean. Perhaps if the Air Force had done its job, the police would have seen a history of violence towards women and taken this case more seriously and arrested him.

In early 2014, the police were called to the same address again, on a complaint against him. They failed to notice that he was the same person they assumed had fled the state during another investigation. Since the Air Force never reported his committal and conviction, and the police hadn’t arrested him for the rape complaint, apparently he still looked clean. So he was allowed to roam the streets.

On August 1, 2014 he was cited for animal cruelty. With no other apparent criminal record (thanks, USAF and New Braunfels PD) a judge fined him and gave him deferred probation.

On November 13, 2014, he registered to vote in Colorado. He was able to do this because no one had bothered to record his committal and felony-equivalent crimes.

All we know about the next few years is that he lived in Texas and Colorado and bought guns. Because no one recorded his committal and conviction in NICS, or investigated other complaints more carefully… because he seemed to have a clean record each time. He tried to get a Texas carry license but was denied because they apparently noticed his Bad Conduct Discharge (my reading of Texas law is that anyone with less than an Honorable discharge is ineligible). At least someone did his job.

On November 5, 2017 — reportedly angry with yet another woman — killed 26 men, women, and children, and wounded 20 more. Because various authorities failed to apply the laws they expect all of us — who didn’t commit these crimes — to obey. The authorities failed to notice his criminal record, mental health record, and his history of of disturbing and criminal behavior with women.

But more bans, limits, and background checks for us — who didn’t commit these crimes — will fix it.


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

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

Looking at the “gun violence” problem

Last year (2016) the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report states that number of firearms-related homicides was 11,004. Each was a personal tragedy, but how significant were they in terms of devising a strategy to prevent future murders?

Number of justifiable homicides (law enforcement): 435
Number of justifiable homicides (civilian):331
Difference/Criminal homicides: 10,228

The UCR does not specify the number of murderers (I use this word to collectively refer to those who commit criminal homicides, even though the charge may have been criminal negligence rather than capitol murder, for instance; it’s literary shorthand for “perpetrator of criminal homicide”) who used firearms, only the number of victims killed with firearms. Given the above data, we know that we have a theoretical maximum of 10,228 firearms-wielding murderers. In fact, since we also know of serial and and mass shootings, the number of gun murderers must be lower, but is not quantifiable with available data. For purposes of discussion I will use the high 10,228 figure for murderers.

US Population (2016): 322,762,018
Percent that are gun murderers: 0.0032%
That’s 32 ten-thousandths of 1 percent.

Estimates of American gun owners vary by significantly large amounts. The lowest I have seen is 55 million, or roughly 17% of the general population. The highest is 120 million, or approximately 37%.

Therefore, murderers are 0.0085 to 0.0186% of all gun owners. 85 ten-thousandths of 1 percent to 186 ten-thousandths of 1 percent. The greater estimate is represented graphically:

In reality, the number of gun owning murderers is far lower than even that. Some 64% of violent criminals have prior convictions, which would make them “prohibited persons” who cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Even if we disregard that — perhaps the criminal bought a lawfully owned firearm from some trusting soul — data indicates that 88% of firearms-related homicides are committed with stolen guns. Being in possession of stolen property clearly does not make one the owner.

The potential number of gun-owning murderers suddenly drops by 9,000 to 1,228. That makes them, at most, 0.0022% of all gun owners; 22 ten-thousandths of 1 percent. But, in reality, even fewer than that because as I noted, each murder victim doesn’t represent a separate individual killer (serial/mass murders); I opted for the high number out of convenience.

Perhaps gun owners aren’t the problem. Could it be the guns?

Figuring the number of “murder guns” is difficult. The Uniform Crime Report gives the percentage of total murders committed with firearms, but doesn’t give the total number of weapons, nor does ATF gun trace data break out guns by crime (not even guns by whether or not criminally used). But since we know there were 10,228 firearms-using murders, we can figure a minimum of 10,228 firearms as well. As for a maximum, the highest number of firearms in a single one-shooter incident I am aware of is the approximately two dozen in the Mandalay Bay shooters hotel room. Even a month later, the exact number of firearms present varies in news reports, and how many were, in fact, fired has not yet been made public. For convenience, I’ll use 24 (the highest number I’ve seen) were all used.

We have no idea, given the lack of data, of the average number of guns used by murderers. We know it ranges from 1 to 24, but those 10,228 individual shooters could have used any number in that range. For this discussion, I’ll make the probably outrageous assumption that the average is as high as 12, midway in the range (my gut feel is that average is closer to 1.1 per shooter).

So… 10,228 shooters time 12 guns, gives a hypothetical number of “murder guns” of 122,736 (gut feel would be 11,250).

I guesstimated gun owner numbers. Firearms estimates are just as vague. Recent lowball estimates are around 265 million. Others put it well over 300 million. Or over 400 million. The highest estimate I’ve encountered is 750 million.

122,736 murder weapons would be 0.0463% (less than 5 hundredths of a percent) of the low estimate. Or 0.0307% (a hair over 3 hundredths of a single percent) of the 400 million estimate. I’m not going to bother graphing that either.

Murderers and their weapons are such a tiny fraction of a percentage of all gun owners and their arms that both are statistical outliers.

Murderers cannot be taken as representative of gun owners, and any attempt to address “gun violence” by ignoring that fact, by proposing sweeping laws and regulations addressing all gun owners and all guns, will fail. Any “stumbling block” put before all gun owners in hopes of catching the murderers, any delay or restriction, will miss the intended target demographic — murderers — and is an infringement of human/civil rights of the 99.9814% of — tens to hundreds of millions — gun owners who didn’t do it.

No, new restrictions — just like the current restrictions — will not work.

Criminals break laws. They don’t — and cannot be required to — undergo background checks. The vast majority of criminals obtain their firearms through already unlawful channels, bypassing background checks and other supposed limits on their access. That is why universal background checks do not result in a reduction in gun homicide rates. Background checks merely make the process of lawfully purchasing a firearm — remember, something that criminals bypass — more expensive and inconvenient for the large majority of honest people, particularly when considering that approximately 94% of NICS denials are false positives resulting in more expensive, delays, and sometimes legal intervention for law-abiding people.

If those allegedly intent upon eliminating “gun violence” truly have that as their goal, they must change their focus. Stop regulating “guns” and “gun owners,” and begin looking at the specific offenders. For one thing, being such a smaller group, they’re easier to examine.

They should examine 1) murderer demographics (the UCR is a good place to start), and 2) murderer motivations and drivers (turf wars over drug-marketing territory for instance).

I predict that they will discover — if they go about honest research — that most murders are related to unlawful drugs because the profitable black market is worth fighting over. Note that AbbVie rarely send gangbangers out to commit drive-bys on Pfizer. But the “War on (some) Drugs” has boosted the street price of a weed that grow over virtually the entire continent to hundreds of dollars.

They will also likely discover that those once convicted of crimes have limited chances to find honest work at pay scales similar to drug-dealing.

They will discover repeat offenders — even repeat murderers — on the street thanks to plea deals, rather than being incarcerated. Incarceration may not be rehabilitative, but at least the killer isn’t on the street killing more competitors and innocents.

They’ll find criminals who were motivated by a need for enough money to buy their drugs at regulatively-inflated prices.

They should look at where gun crimes occur, and examine the political/economic/psychological reasons behind the clustering.

And yes, they will find some murderers who are simply crazy. Perhaps if they study those people closely enough, they’ll learn the warning signs so that other such can be stopped before they kill.

But they have to address the problem, not the 99.9814% who didn’t do it (except perhaps to establish a baseline for decency and sanity by which the murderers can be judged). If those allegedly intent upon eliminating “gun violence” won’t do this, we have to ask, what are their true motives? And how will they respond to growing noncompliance with irrational, inconvenient, and expensively useless infringements on gun owners’ rights?


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

[Updated] Assorted Observations: First Baptist Church Shooting

Much remains unknown about the First Baptist Church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas this early in the investigation, but a few things are being reported with surprising consistency in the media. Like: Victim disarming gun controllers using it to call for more gun control. What about the laws already in place?

Background checks: Reports have it that the asshole purchased his Ruger AR-556 from a dealer, which means he passed a background check. The problem with that is multiple, consistent reports that he had been convicted of domestic violence (assault on spouse and child). That makes him a “prohibited person” thanks to the Lautenberg Amendment. So NICS, along with its 94% false positive rate, has lethal false negatives. Perhaps the system has it in for churches since the Charleston church shooter also passed a NICS check despite being a prohibited person. No wonder background checks don’t reduce firearms homicides. I expect we’ll learn that, since he received a Bad Conduct Discharge rather than the automatically disqualifying Dishonorable, the Air Force never bothered to report his conviction; although this is an inconsistent point of reporting (both versions from the same network). If it was a DD, there is no reason whatsoever for the Air Force to fail to report him to NICS.

That never happens: Victim disarmers tell us only police need guns because ordinary civilians never stop bad guys. Except when they do, as multiple reports have it that a local resident shot back, causing the asshole to drop his weapon, and ran the asshole away from the church. How, exactly, the shooter died hasn’t been released yet, but it’s possible the civilian killed him.

Laws don’t stop killers; honest folks armed for defense do.

Added: It’s now being reported that Stephen Willeford shot the asshole, apparently in a gap in the body armor. He and Johnnie Langendorff pursued the asshole in Langendorff’s truck, caught up with when he went off the road, and held him at gun point. It appears the shooter bled out from the wound Willeford inflicted. Well done, sirs.

Deadliest church shooting in America: I saw this claim several times. The Branch Davidians — the survivors — would beg to differ. Or doesn’t it count when the Only Ones are the shooters?

Updated: The asshole had been denied a Texas carry license: “So how was it that he was able to get a gun? By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun,” [Texas Gov.] Abbott told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “So how did this happen?”

As I read Texas law, Texas specifies that anyone separated from the military with anything lower than an Honorable Discharge is ineligible for a license, while federal law only specifies a DD as disqualifying. Also, Texas law allows application fees to be waived or lowered for veterans. If the shooter showed them his DD214 to get a discount, they would have evidence that he was disqualified from a Texas license. But the domestic violence conviction still should have made him a prohibited person.

Also, the sheriff is now saying he died of a self-inflicted wound.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

But WHO IS the enemy?

I’m going to start you out with a video from Moshe Feiglin of the Zehut political party in Israel. This is in regards to the terror tunnels. For those that do not know, Israel recently demolished another terror tunnel from Gaza into Israel, from near Khan Yunis in southern Gaza Monday afternoon. During the course of the terror tunnel destruction some terrorists were killed, including senior members in the terrorist group Islamic Jihad. I would call this a bonus score. The IDF however, apologized. It’s not a surprise to me that Moshe Feiglin protested this. Mind you since 2014 they’ve known Hamass had a plan to send 200 terrorists through the tunnels at the same time to emerge in Israel, dressed in IDF uniforms. In June The UN Slams Hamas for building terror tunnel under Gaza schools. And on October 30, Another Terror Tunnel Found Under UN School in Hamas-Ruled Gaza. Apologize my foot!

And that brings us to our little movie clip. It has subtitles.

And that is the salient point. Can WE name the enemy? Americans were again attacked on Halloween in the gun free paradise known as New York. The bucket of chum used a rented Home Depot box truck. As some have pointed out, should there be waiting periods to rent pickup trucks now? What about background checks before you can rent a pickup truck? I’m not blaming Home Depot for renting it, which is what the anti-gun fools do. But isn’t that what they claim about how background checks will stop crime? Well, this article raises excellent questions about what would happen if the clerk at Home Depot had a bad feeling and refused to rent the truck. What would happen to the clerk? What would a through background check reveal? That he had been arrested four times in Nebraska was arrested in Missouri in 2015 for failing to maintain the brake system in his commercial truck. He failed to show up in court in April 2016. Yep, he had a commercial driver’s license. And again, few are willing to lose everything because they will be vilified nationally by the likes of cnn and mslsd (#FakeNews) for being Islamaphobic, probably fired by Home Depot.

How did he get here? Chuck Schumer invited him via the “Diversity Visa” program. He came from Uzbekistan in 2010. He also brought in 23 family members. Um, anyone know where they all are now? They say that the “Diversity Visa” winners undergo the “same rigorous vetting” as other immigrants. Ahhh, think I found part of the problem. Said Bucket of Chum is proud of the killings. If only there could have been some prior warning that Bucket O’ Chum was a danger! Well, gee.

NYPD MONITORED TERRORIST’S MOSQUE, BUT SARSOUR CONVINCED THEM TO STOP

And they listened? To Linda Sarsour? I wouldn’t trust her to tell me if day was day or night. So lock Sarsour up as an accomplice already!

You see, they now fear Bucket of Chum may have been radicalized in the US. There is excellent reason to think this, Bill DeGoofio was sent a letter by Imam Tawhiki warning him of radicalizations. Imam Tawhiki is known as the Imam for peace.

Letter from Imam Tawhidi to DeBlasio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention the presences of ISIS flags being paraded down Manhattan streets. That could be a clue as well.

isis flag proudly paraded down the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here’s the thing. This is another part of the problem. The leftist celebrated “diversity” and “multiculturalism”. Many of the muslims coming into our country do not want to assimilate, they have no intention of becoming Americans, well, beyond taking tax dollars, welfare, free housing, free healthcare, etc.

What ‘Melting Pot’? Americans Didn’t Expect the NYC Killer to Assimilate — So Why Bother?

And we must celebrate the diversity of beliefs. For example, ripped, hole jeans are very fashionable among the younger set. So, the women need to be raped. Huh?

Al-Wahsh added, “I say that when a girl walks about like that, it is a patriotic duty to sexually harass her and a national duty to rape her.”

Mr. Al-Wahsh is an Egyptian Lawyer, not a cleric. Oh, goodie. Yep, let’s allow everyone to keep their culture they bring from the homeland. I’m not talking about corned beef and cabbage, I’m not talking about beer gardens. There are choice that anyone can choose from, unless your on the left and then you scream cultural appropriation and don’t eat the corned beef or wear hoop earrings. I’m speaking of beliefs that affect others. Such as New Year’s Eve in Cologne Germany. I’m talking about ISIS flags in Manhattan.

The left will not accept that there are violent evil people in this world, unless of course they are talking about people on the Right.

Have we, as Americans lost the ability to name the enemy? It’s not pickup trucks, it’s not box trucks, or guns, or flame throwers. It depends on who’s finger is on the trigger. Have we become so cowed by Political correctness that it is to late to name the enemy? Of late, it is Islam, but for a long time it’s been the leftist influence in our schools, our media and our government.

And what happened within mere days of another islamic attack on Americans?

After continued Muslim terror attacks, NYC launches “I am Muslim” media blitz.

Just, by the by, Jews are ten times more often the victims of hate crimes that muslims.

Like the leftists that wanted to harass the IDF (who is already harassed by the upper echelon) and went into a Arab village to “express solidarity” and were almost stoned and lynched. The IDF then had to pay the price for their stupidity and naivety and go in and extricate them. We also will pay the price for the leftist desire for political correctness.

We must know the enemy, as we must know ourselves. A friend once told me I must never forget who and what I am, he’s right. We can’t afford it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Damned weak gun laws

Home Depot’s truck rental policy is tougher than gun restrictions in many states
According to its website, Home Depot requires that truck renters be at least 21 years old, possess a current American or Canadian driver’s license and leave a $50 deposit. Additionally, proof of automobile insurance is required for Home Depot’s “Load ‘N Go” rentals.

Many gun laws in the U.S. are laxer than these three simple requirements, The Independent reports.

Laxer? Let’s see…

To lawfully purchase/rent from a dealer in my state:

  • Clean criminal record: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope. (For the record, it’s a felony even in a private sale to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.)
  • Clean mental health record: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope.
  • License to operate: Guns, check. Automobiles, check. Whoa! A point of convergence.
  • Fingerprints to get license: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope. Oops.
  • Background check to get license: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope again. Hmm…
  • Background check to purchase/rent from dealer: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope. I’m seeing a pattern.
  • Unlawful to sell to underage person: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope.
  • Insurance required by law: Guns, nope. Automobiles, check only to operate on public roads. Meh.

The insurance aspect is amusing in a sick, twisted way. For years, victim disarming gun control freaks have pushed mandatory liability insurance for gun owners (even though lawful gun owners kill fewer people than drivers), as a means of making gun ownership financially difficult. But when they realized people were voluntarily getting insurance, they freaked out.

When car dealers and rental agencies have to be federally licensed, maintain bound books, are subject to federal compliance inspections, run NICS checks on buyers and block sales to prohibited persons; and mufflers require more background checks, taxes, permissions, and separate registration; and car insurance is viewed as “murder insurance” and regulators try to shut it down then these clowns can start the guns vs. automobiles comparisons.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Gun control works!

Or so says NYT’s Nicholas Kristof.


That is, of course, in reference to yesterday’s terrorist truck attack.

Rumor has it that the rented truck, obtained without a NICS check, was equipped with a engine silencer that prevented his victims hearing him come. It was fitted with an after-market high-capacity bed, too. Nobody needs more than a quarter-ton capacity vehicle except the police and military.

The alleged attacker was quoted by witnesses as yelling, “Allahu Akbar,” which is Arabic for “My motive may never be known!”.

Oh. Wait. This time time they are considering terrorism.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Disingenuous Doctor

For new arrivals, I’ve been writing to “news” outlets and the writers of published gun-related misinformation. Call it education or calling them out on lies, I’m trying to correct bad reporting. Mostly, I an simply ignored, which indicates they know they’re wrong, and are disseminating BS deliberately. Once it’s clear that the outlet/writer is not interested in allowing facts to run, I’ve been posting my attempts here.

Today’s entry is a little bit different.

A focus on gun safety – not control – leaves 2nd Amendment intact
Our civil rights are under attack, and have been for some time. The freedom to assemble etched out in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is under attack by the Second Amendment — and it shouldn’t be. Jason Aldean’s concert was a peaceful assembly ravaged by a lone gunman who, for all intents and purposes, had the right of gun ownership.

What is it with doctors lying about firearms issues lately? 744 words of misdirection and falsehoods. I sent a proposed guest column of 721 words to rebut. To the Orlando Sentinel’s partial credit, they didn’t ignore me completely, as usually happens.

They told me to pare it down to 250 words or less and they’d consider it for a Letter to the Editor.

I couldn’t do it. There were too many Levy lies for 250 words. I got it down to 444 (remember, even my original column was shorter than Levy’s offering), by leaving out some specific references, and using more abbreviations and… not-so-great grammar.

They turned it down. So here it is.


Disingenuous Doctor

Doctor Marc Levy’s October 27, 2017 column, “A focus on gun safety – not control – leaves 2nd Amendment intact,” is as lacking in candor as the very column title, suggesting that delaying and infringing on rights somehow protects them.

In bringing up the Dickey Amendment and tying it to research, Dr. Levy implies that the amendment stopped federal funding of firearms-related violence. Just to be clear, this is false. The federal government funds much firearms-related violence research. As one recent example, there is “In-State and Interstate Associations Between Gun Shows and Firearm Deaths and Injuries: A Quasi-experimental Study,” primarily funded by the NIH.

Levy attempts another bit of misdirection in noting that Obamacare has a provision that prevents the collection of information on firearms. I’m sure that a doctor in Florida is well aware that Medicare/Medicaid sidestepped the law by implementing a rule requiring doctors to use Electronic Medical Records software, produced by nongovernmental agencies, which include questions on patient access to firearms in the intake questionnaire. Any doctor with Medicare/Medicaid patients will be asking that, while the CMS innocently proclaims, “WE aren’t requiring it.”

Dr. Levy also appears to be a fan of “universal background checks” (more accurately called preemptively-prove-your-innocence”), so that criminals and other prohibited persons could not obtain guns. He avoids the little problem that most firearm-equipped criminals already obtain their weapons unlawfully, and that the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision upholds
criminals’ Fifth Amendment rights to not self-incriminate by reporting their unlawful activity; i.e.- criminals cannot be required to undergo background checks.

Levy mentions “assault rifles” as he wonders why we don’t track firearms purchases. Either he is unaware that assault rifles are heavily restricted, regulated, taxed, and registered; or he doesn’t want readers to realize that he’s talking about semiautomatic sporting and defense tools. Perhaps he meant to say “assault weapons,” a term with no legal meaning in Florida or federal law; only a handful of states use the entirely subjective term.

The doctor claims that all “responsible” gun owners approve of his restrictions: registration, taxation, limits on ownership, prior restraint on the exercise of a right, and more. Since I do not, that is demonstrably false, unless Levy has invented his own bizarre definition of “responsible.”

Similar claims that “90% of Americans favor Universal Background Checks” don’t hold water. A few years ago in Washington state, polls alleged that 90% of Washingtonians wanted UBCs; but when it went to an actual vote (Initiative 594), fewer than 60% voted in favor, missing the claim by over thirty points, and more than 40% opposed.

Since recent research shows that background checks do not reduce firearms-related homicide rates (“Do gun laws reduce gun homicide rates?,”), the 40% had a valid point.

Levy sidesteps other questions. Estimates of American gun owners range from a ridiculous fifty-five million to a possibly overly optimistic one hundred-twenty million. Estimates of firearms range from two hundred sixty-five million to a three quarters of a billion. Given the lack of knowledge demonstrated by that remarkable uncertainty, how does Levy propose to determine who has what? How does he propose to pry “extra” firearms out of the homes of those with “too many?” Does he expect dubious owners, who won’t tell a telephone poller what arms he possesses, to self-report to a government intent on registration and confiscation? Or does he advocate searching every single, individual domicile in the country? That’s a lot of doors to kick in, and when the California legislature first proposed mass confiscations of “assault weapons” several years ago, a police union spokesman announced they’d see the largest outbreak of “blue flu” in history if implemented.

Perhaps Dr. Levy and the other estimated one million doctors in America will volunteer to do the door-kicking; they outnumber the FBI’s estimate of fewer than 700,000 law enforcement officers anyway.

Consider those fifty-five to one hundred-twenty million gun owners; then consider the roughly thirteen thousand firearms-related homicides. If each homicide represented an individual shooter and gun, that’s 0.01-0.02% of all firearm owners and 0.001-0.005% of firearms. While personal tragedies, statistically homicides are “black swan” events.

Those tiny fractions of a single percentage point do not point to a gun problem or gun owner problem. There is a criminal problem. Perhaps Dr. Levy should lobby for a gangbanger tax to fund criminal violence research.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.