Tag Archives: gun control

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

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

[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

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

Wait, What??

Ok, so just a few things here that have me scratching my head as I read along and finally you just get to a point where you say “Wait, now WHAT??”

Bear just put up a column about how he has written in and tried to explain or correct some things the media has gotten wrong in their reporting. They want nothing to do with correcting their misinformation.

Within a day I found a story that said A gun-focused news outlet on what it takes to cover firearms credibly It talks about how news outlets are not taken seriously because of their attitudes and the large number of stupid mistakes they make in reporting. Ok, maybe I paraphrased that, a little.

So for how long has the leftists told us guns are evil, if there were no guns, there would be no violence, and no abuse and no hatred and plenty of unicorn ice cream.

Ok, yes, mildly gross, and amusing. What a great segue into the next part. Mildly gross and amusing.

The left and guns. Shannon T.Watts hates women, I don’t know how many stories I see up on The Zelman Partisans twitter feed that talk about women and children who were able to defend themselves or save their children by having a gun available. But for some reason those lives don’t matter to Shannon and Mikey Bloomers, who no doubt have their very own armed guards. Why they hates those women and children, who knows, but it seems they do. So the left, the leftist groups, their public voice known as the mainstream media and their thug enforcement arm known as the Demoncratic party have done everything they can to limit law abiding gun owners ability to own guns, to practice sport shooting, to practice self defense shooting, and yes hunting.

Until now.

Now we have new LGBTQ groups that are springing up to learn to shoot. Now Pink Pistols has been around for ages, their goal has always been legal gun ownership, not with an eye towards violence and attacking others, but towards defense. The same as every other law abiding gun owner.

Now we have antifa, the tool of George Soros, who have decided that they need to learn how to fight. Not content with merely carrying baseball bats, they are training in the gym to learn to fight and they are learning to shoot. Not with an eye towards self-defense, with a goal of destroying people they disagree with. Tolerant children aren’t they?

Wait, what? But they’ve been telling us guns are evil and must be banned.

To accomplish this goal of ending fascism, meaning deposing the President and Vice-President elected by the citizens of America, antifa plans to start a revolution on November 4th. Some websites say they are not planning to be violent, but if it happens, well hey.

Others say that they absolutely are planning for the action to be violent.

And some think they are just trying to bait the right into responding.

Wait, what??

You are planning to start riots and violence against people that you think are Trump voters to resist fascism. Which if you are successful in rioting all over the country and it becomes severe enough will possibly bring about a spell of martial law? Which is going to feel like fascism to you basement dwellers.

Now, let’s see, one site says that antifa plans to kill all the Trump voters. So, are you going to ask before you bash a skull or just watch for the secret conservative handshake? If only there could be a clue, like, oh, I don’t know. Like a color or something, like the bloods and crips used to do. Hmm, oh wait! I know! All the people that voted for Trump must be white, right? Because the media said he’s a racist. So that must be it, the “white privilege” thing. I’m telling you, Charlie Manson was off by a few years, but he may have been correct.

Wait, what? Charlie Manson was correct about something?

Let’s look at this “white privilege” deal. Any guesses as to where it originated? Well, of course the left, the media, colleges and social justice warriors. But leftists would be a big clue.

This column makes a lot of excellent points, it was written in 2014, during the reign of barry.

Communism is a system that demands total and complete obedience to the state and anyone who opposes that is standing in the way of progress and needs to be eliminated. Bringing society to the point where they will willingly participate in the slaughter of their own countrymen is not an overnight process. It is a gradual conditioning of the population to get them to believe that some people are not as worthy of life as others.

The author states that there are eight steps before this can take place.

1. The first step is classification. This simply means classifying people into different groups and intentionally dividing people along ideological lines.

2. The next stage is known as “symbolization.” This is the process of attaching a negative symbol to the dominating ideology of the targeted group.

3. The next stage is known as “dehumanization.” I personally can’t think of anything more dehumanizing than being assumed to be a racist simply because I am white.

4. The next stage is “organization.” The political left is the master of organization. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the organizing bible for the left and they have mastered the art of teaching minorities that they are oppressed by America’s evil white men.

5. The next stage is “polarization.” Stanton identifies this as the downward spiral of killings until the vortex of all out genocide is reached.

6. 7. 8. This brings us to the final three stages which are “preparation, extermination and denial.” I stopped with polarization because I believe that is the stage we are currently in. However, it could be argued that we are in the preparation stage as it has been reported that all Americans must be micro chipped by 2017 per Obamacare regulations or even acall for a universal I.D. can be used to justify the idea that we are in the preparation stage.

And the government does love pushing that REAL ID law don’t they. And many people would tell you that in America, we have the right to pursue our dreams, we do not have the right to have someone else work only to have the fruit of their labor taken from them and given to another group. Is there really white privilege or just more SJW bull feathers, and yet another tactic used by those trying to bring about communism and division in our Republic.

Wait, what? What happened to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”? But this is not the “freedom” that antifa says they are fighting to bring about. Nope. Communism? Submit or die? I’m thinking some of those college profs and the media left out a few details about living under communism when they indoctrinated the useful idiots.

Didn’t the obama administration continually tell us how evil and dangerous guns are? In fact I seem to recall some schools wouldn’t even allow Police officer parents to pick up their kids if they were in uniform. And we know many schools do not want armed resource officers. I guess it’s better to let the kids be shot in a gun free zone? I don’t know. I haven’t figured that one out yet. But, back to barry’s regime. It seems some traditionally administrative agencies have armed up. To the tune of 20 million dollars.

Wait, what? This is all from one article, and there isn’t an answer for every square, but for the years 2015-2016…..

Agency Dollars Weapons # of Agents Misc
IRS 12.2 Million AR-15, P-90 tactical rifles,”other heavy weaponry” 2,300
Sm. Business Admin “Tens of thousands” Glocks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Glocks with silencers
Veterans Affairs AR-15’s, Sig Sauer handguns, and other semi-automatic pistols 3,700 armed
Dept of HHS The same sophisticated weapons platforms used by our Special Forces “National Training Operations Center” – a facility at an undisclosed location within the DC beltway.
Dept. of Energy $49,559 M-16 rifles with extra magazines
GSA $16,568 Shotguns and Glocks
Bureau of Reclaimation $697,182 Bulk order of pistols, sights and accessories They build dams, power plants, and canals
Dept of Education Shotguns, Glocks and body armor 88
Dept of Interior $4.4 million Guns and Ammo
U.S. Geological Survey Winchester Black Shadow shotguns and G27 Glocks, shotgun slugs, and frangible ammo They “real-time data and information on current conditions and earth observations.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $410,263 .308 rifles, Glock pistols with silencers, and semi-automatic rifles. They conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing $100,000 “Firearms”
US Mint $179,247 “Ammunition”
The Bureau of Fiscal Services $672,424 .223 Rem 62 Grain Service Ammo, .40 caliber ammo, and buckshot. Additionally, they stocked up on Glock pistols, Remington firearms, and handgun magazine clips. They promote the “financial integrity” of the government through accounting, financing, etc.
Dept. of Ag $1.1 million Guns and Ammo
National Resources Conservation Service $10,347 “Guns through 30Mm.”
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service $22,336 Rifles and pistols plus nearly half a million dollars on ammunition including buckshot, shotgun shells, and rifle ammunition.

Wait, what? I mean obama kept telling us how fewer guns would make us safer, but all these agencies armed up while he was in office. Well, that’s scary isn’t it? Planning more Bundy and Hammond Ranch raids are they? More Ruby Ridge and Waco?

And so, right before Halloween, I’ll leave you with a little cartoon.

Freedom! Trick or Treat?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Boundary Violation? Doctor against hearing protection

Dr. Herring is a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in Dallas who thinks hearing protection is a bad thing, and really likes gun bans and confiscations.

I have a new definition of ‘gun silencer’
A silencer is a device that is attached to a gun in order to virtually eliminate the sound of the gun and the “muzzle flash” that accompanies the bullet. If the Las Vegas shooter had used a silencer, people would have just continued to fall over with no evident cause for heaven knows how long. No one would have known in which direction to look, and no flash would have been seen.

Now that we’ve established that Herring is an ignorant twit, let’s determine the extent of that lack of knowledge. As I mentioned earlier this week, I’ve been indulging my hobby of calling out published idiots.  Since the Dallas News helpfully published the not-so-good doctor’s email address, I sent him a letter. He hasn’t responded, so here it is. Enjoy.

Dear Dr. Herring,

I must say, I’m glad you aren’t my doctor. I prefer medical professionals who take the time to gather facts.

1. A silencer is a device that is attached to a gun in order to virtually eliminate the sound of the gun and the “muzzle flash” that accompanies the bullet.”

Incorrect. Suppressors (the preferred accurate term) generally reduce the muzzle blast sonic signature by 20-30 decibels, from a level that instantly damages hearing to a level that is still loud but doesn’t result in immediate hearing loss. I’d expect a doctor writing on the subject to know that.

You want to know how suppressors work outside of Hollywood and your imagination? Here’s a video in which a suppressed AR-15 is clearly audible at 500 yards.

A doctor advocating against hearing protection is, at best, committing a boundary violation, verging on malpractice. Cheap ear muffs or ear plugs work, but reduce situational awareness; a bad thing when handling guns. Electronic muffs help with that but are a lot more expensive. Electronic muffs that give 360 degree awareness can cost more than a suppressor. A group of people shooting a rifle can spend a thousand dollars or more on electronic muffs, or one guy can spend a couple of hundred on a single suppressor (pre-$200 tax) and protect everyone.

2. “In reaction to the mass shooting, Congress quickly pulled a bill that would have made silencers legal.”

Suppressors are already legal (federally, and in nearly all states). The SHARE Act would simply remove a $200 tax.

3. “The NRA has blocked any epidemiological studies of the effect of unrestricted weapon ownership relative to murder, accidental shooting, suicides, carjacking and home intrusion.”

Wrong again. Type “firearms research” into any search engine and you’ll find lots of research. The CDC was blocked from advocating and promoting gun control, not studying firearms death/injury. The federal government pours millions of dollars in grants to such research.

4. No civilian needs a high-powered repeating rifle like the AK-47.”

The AK-47 — a select-fire assault rifle — is extremely difficult to lawfully obtain. And it is not “high-powered,” being chambered for an intermediate power cartridge with ballistics very similar to the venerable .30-30.

5. “Australia, a country with as high a percentage of gun owners as the U.S., was able to implement effective and fair gun laws that dramatically reduced gun violence.”

It was so effective that they just had to run another amnesty to convince people to turn in gun they failed to turn in back then. Their government’s estimate of compliance — including this year’s amnesty — is around 15-20%. And arbitrarily declaring lawfully owned and used property illegal, and taking it without compensation, was hardly “fair.”

6. “The number of homicides dropped 23 percent in 2013 compared to 2007, the lowest rate in 25 years.”

The Australian homicide rate was dropping before the confiscation, and merely continued. If you look at a graph of the rates, you’ll see a surprising smooth decline with no discontinuity at the time of the confiscation.

7. “Prior to the Australian law there had been 13 massacres (defined as killing of 4 or more people). In the 14 years following the new regulations, none.”

Untrue. By the “4+ killed” definition there has been at least one mass shooting (ed: knife and rifle, technically), and at least two more with seven victims (2 dead, 5 wounded; 3 dead, 4 wounded). (ed: and in 2014, another mass shooting with 5 dead.)

There have also been numerous knife, vehicle, club, and fire attacks that killed far more people than firearms murders, but I suppose you think those don’t count.

If you are truly interested in educating yourself on the subject of firearms, let me recommend The Zelman Partisans’ (a Jewish pro-RKBA organization) “Gun Culture Primer” as a starting point.

You are entitled to an opinion, but if you know something about a topic before publicly pontificating, it will boost your — currently lacking — credibility.

8. “I have patients who have committed suicide with guns.”

That seems extremely unlikely. Perhaps your grasp of English matches your knowledge of firearms and you meant that you had patients who committed suicide, or that you have patients who attempted it.

9. “There are people who are known threats who should not own guns.”

And those are called — in federal law — “prohibited persons,” and are ALREADY… prohibited from possessing firearms. And they are a tiny minority.

Consider that estimates of US gun ownership ranges from a laughable 60 million people to an optimistic 120 million. There are roughly 11,000 firearms homicides per year (and a decades-long downward trend). If each individual homicide was committed by a separate individual (which Mandalay Bay shows isn’t the case, as well as all the repeat murder offenders in cities like Chicago), then that’s 0.009% to 0.018% of all gun owners. At most, less than two hundredths of one percent. But you want laws restricting human rights of the 99.982% who didn’t do it?

Perhaps we should ban doctors: Recent research indicates that medical errors kill 200,000 to 400,000 people per year. With approximately one million doctors in America, it appears that doctors are roughly 2,200 times more likely to kill someone than is a lawful gun owner.

But wait! You might say that number doesn’t reflect the lives doctors save. Your numbers also don’t reflect the number of lives saved by gun owners; even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center says there are 338,700 defensive gun uses per year. Other researchers think the number could be as high as 2.5 million (based on the assumption that most never get reported to police, which my own experience suggests may be accurate).

I’ll leave you with a final thought. A particular incident stands out in my memory from my law enforcement days. A group of convicted felons was watching a news program about a push for gun control. The criminal group consensus was that gun control was good, because as one violent felon (assault with a deadly weapon, as I recall), “Yeah, pass it! Then I’ll know they ain’t got nothing, and I can always get a gun.”

Sincerely,

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more
www.bussjaeger.org
NRA delenda est

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Trolling for sensible fishing laws.*

Apparently the old “regulate guns like cars” argument has worn out. Now…

Fishing for sensible gun laws
As the West’s elected officials wrestle with how to protect us from gun violence in the aftermath of the Las Vegas nightmare, two things come to mind. First, these leaders are not actually wrestling with the issue of how to protect us from gun violence. If they were, the solution would be as clear as a mountain stream: Treat people more like fish.

Marty Jones is somehow under the impression that firearms are less regulated than fishing.

Perhaps he should take a little time to educate himself on the subject of firearm lest he continue to sound like a foolish kook. The Zelman Partisans “Gun Culture Primer” is a good place for him to start.

If Jones believes fishing and firearms should be subject to the same laws, then let’s try applying gun laws to fishing and its gear.

Manufacturers of fishing gear would require federal licensing, and would be subject to no-notice compliance inspections. All equipment would be individually serial numbered and otherwise marked under standards right down to the font size and stamping depth. Failure to so mark equipment early enough in the manufacturing process could be punished as a felony and the company could lose its license and be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Retailers would also be federally licensed (this is in addition to any state or local licensing, of course). All fishing gear inventory would be tracked in a bound book. That book and inventory would also be subject to no-notice inspections. Misprints in the book could result in fines, loss of license, and even prison time.

Thanks to special tackle store zoning restrictions, you may do some traveling to find one. Exposure to fishing implements would be damaging to youth psyches, so tackle stores can’t be within 1,000 feet of any school or daycare facility (even Miss Sally’s after-school place in her house next door to you). They probably can’t be near churches either. Nor any place selling alcohol.

When selling a fishing pole, the retailer would have to guess if the buyer might be a prohibited person (we’ll get to that in a moment), or if he’s making a straw purchase for another person.

The buyer would be required to fill out a multi-page form in which he discloses various legal and health conditions. He’d have to tell his race. He has to have a government issued photo ID, which the retailer will photocopy for his records (the ones subject to no-notice inspection and copying by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fishing. I wonder why they need to know what race you are?

The retailer would then request a background check through NICS. If a “proceed” is not given immediately, the buyer would have to wait days before taking possession of the fishing pole. If the transaction is denied, the sale cannot complete. Roughly 95% of denials are in error, and those that are correct almost never result in prosecution — much less conviction — which may make the fisherman wonder why they bother with the check.

That form the buyer and retailer fill out? The retailer better check it closely, because if you or he makes a typo (or mark “Y” instead of “Yes” in full he can lose his license and be fined.

The check is to make sure the buyer is not a prohibited person. There is a long list of disqualifying conditions, but basically no more fishing for anyone convicted of a crime potentially punishable by 24 or more months in prison, even if you got off with a fine and no jail time. Some misdemeanors will render you fish-free for life, too. Unlawful use of drug, or alcoholism make you a prohibited person. Being adjudicated mentally deficient also does the trick.

You’d have to be at least 18 years of age to buy a long pole, and at least 21yo to buy a short pole.

If a former buddy’s widow wanted to sell you her hubbie’s old fishing pole, you’d both have to go to a Federal Fishing Licensee to go through the background checks.

Want to buy a fishing pole from mail order company? The seller will have to ship it to your local FFL, where you go through a background check. If you travel to another state, you can buy long pole but not short ones.

Reels capable of holding more than 15 feet of line would be banned.

Denver would ban reels altogether, and limit you to 15 feet of line tied to the end of a pole.

Unless licensed to possess a fishing pole, it would be a felony to posses a pole within 1,000 feet of a school. Using the pole inside city limits would be at least a misdemeanor, possibly a felony. Oh, and there would be no more youth fishing licenses.

When setting off on a fishing trip, you’ll need to store your pole in a locked container, separately from you line and hooks. If passing through certain states (and look it up before leaving because state laws on fishing poles will vary, and may ban your possession outright- instant felony i New Jersey), you may have to disassemble your pole, rendering it inoperative. (And for folks that think guns and cars should be regulated the same, consider taking your car apart for a road trip.)

Jones claims there is no bag limit on people, unlike fish. That’s because with the exception of self defense, bagging humans at all is illegal. And even a self defense shooting is likely to get you prosecuted. So even having jumped through all the other hoops, if you attempt to use your fishing pole, you’d better be able to prove in a court of law that a fish was necessary to your survival.

As it happens, contrary to Jones’ assertion, there are caliber limits on firearms. Anything over .50 caliber — half inch, as measured from rifling groove to rifling groove — is a “destructive device” and requires special law enforcement approvals, licensing, and taxes; and the owner is subject to no-notice inspections. I think a similar half inch hook restriction for fishing is in order; right, Jones? Unlicensed DD hook possession would be a major federal felony.

Want to practice casting? Not in town, nor in built-up county areas. You may be restricted to a dedicated “casting range” which will require membership in the National Fishing Association to use.

Jones should join Fishing Pole Owners of America, to help protect himself against further fishing control regulations and bans on reels, and evil black assault poles; and limits on how many poles or hooks he can own; not merely how many he can use simultaneously on a fishing expedition- how many he can own. “Nobody needs more than two poles, without reels.”

Aside from laws and regulations, Jones can expect to be demonized in the media. Columnists who clearly know nothing about his sport and equipment, nor the laws and regulations in place, will write ridiculous articles making nonsensical comparisons to make fishermen look like unreasonable jerks opposing commonsense fishing safety laws. He’ll be called a racist for wanting to own poles. People will make disparaging remarks on his Facebook page saying that he only needs that long pole to compensate for a short penis. Irrationally, those fishing control advocates will make the same penis-compensation argument against female anglers, making Jones wonder if they’ve ever gotten laid and know the anatomical differences between men and women.

So, sure. Let’s regulate fishing and shooting the same way.


* This was sent to the Denver Post in rebuttal to Jones’ silly column. They declined to publish it, so I’m posting it here as I will be doing with other rebuttal attempts.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail