Tag Archives: guns

The Nuge – read before you judge

A week ago Second Amendment firebrand Ted Nugent posted an appalling graphic on his Facebook page, showing a dozen of America’s most famous gun grabbers with Israeli flags superimposed on their photos. The implication was clear – an obvious, disgusting claim that some kind of vast Jewish conspiracy was behind gun control efforts in the United States.

Fans of Ted’s music and his Second Amendment supporters were understandably upset. Was Ted implying that Jews were somehow responsible for the demise of our freedoms? Was he an anti-Semite? Is Ted prejudiced in some way against Jews? Has Ted become a liability to the gun rights movement?

Fast and furious calls for the NRA to cut ties with Ted. The National Review Online called Nugent a disgrace to the gun rights movement.  The usual suspects – everyone from the Huffington Post to Mother Jones to the Southern Poverty Law Center to Media Matters – screeched about Ted’s alleged anti-Semitism. Even Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership – the organization from which this group sprang – immediately jumped into action to condemn Ted for his alleged Jew hatred.

PHOTO COURTESY OF MICHAEL IVES Toting a guitar covered with camouflage pattern and a zebra-striped semi-automatic assault rifle, Ted Nugent is ready for an assault on the outdoors.
PHOTO COURTESY OF MICHAEL IVES Toting a guitar covered with camouflage pattern and a zebra-striped semi-automatic assault rifle, Ted Nugent is ready for an assault on the outdoors.

You know what these reactionary outrageatrons didn’t do? No one in the mainstream media or any major gun rights organizations contacted Ted Nugent for a comment. They didn’t try to find out what was going on. They just assumed that a longtime friend and supporter of our freedoms, who never had an anti-Semitic bone in his body all of a sudden became a Jew hater, and they tripped all over themselves to condemn him.

You know how I know this? Because on behalf of the Zelman Partisans, I spent time on the phone with Ted Nugent – quite a bit of time – discussing this issue, and he told me so. “It’s not like my contact information is hard to find,” he told me. But no one called him to get a statement or to find out what was up.

“I can’t believe that knowing my history, knowing how much I love freedom, and how much I’ve fought to protect it, that no one thought to call me!” he said.

Now, what I’m about to tell you is not an excuse for the use of the graphic in any way. The graphic was originally found in 2013 on an anti-Semitic site called “the Jewish Problem” (and no, I’m not linking to that fascist crap – find it yourselves if you’re curious), according to a TinEye search I did when I first saw the Facebook post. There’s no doubt about what this thing is. Ted used it. There’s no way around it.

Ted is known for some pretty outrageous comments and his blunter than blunt delivery. He’s got energy and fire, and he doesn’t have a whole lot of time for political correctness. But the one thing he has never been is a racist or a bigot, so what happened? Why did a steadfast friend of freedom – regardless of color, race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation – all of a sudden turn into an anti-Semitic jerk?

The answer is: he did NOT.

How do I know? Again, I asked him. Ted and I chatted on the phone first, texted, and then I asked him some questions via email. Apparently, that’s something every reactionary jackass who rushed to condemn him failed to do.

I simply asked, ” What happened? How did you wind up using this thing?”

“Can I say oy vey?” He replied. “I sincerely apologize for my irresponsible re-posting of such a nasty and offensive meme. In my rush between songwriting jams and musical recording frenzy, all I saw was the images of people dedicated to disarm us, I made no connection whatsoever to any religious affiliation. Everyone knows deep down that at 67 years of age I didn’t suddenly become anti-Semitic. That’s patently ridiculous, and those who rushed to such a mistaken condemning judgement should re-examine the system by which such equally irresponsible knee-jerk judgments are made.”

And you know what? Given his decades of commitment to freedom for every single person, regardless of race, color, or anything else, alarm bells should have gone off when Ted posted something so out of character. I was surprised to hear that no one, other than the Zelman Partisans (and one regional writer who put us in touch with Nugent), had made an attempt to contact him about the issue, and I asked him how he felt about supposed Second Amendment allies not bothering to contact him and clear the air.

“In a world of soulless political correctness and the dishonesty and denial that goes with it, I was not at all that surprised,” he told me. “The real tragedy is how many who claim to be on the side of freedom so viciously attacked me with zero effort to communicate with me directly as you so honorably did. For that I thank and salute you.”

I will say that as a former disc jockey for the American Forces Network, I blushed a bit at that. But you know what? That’s just good journalism, and I’m glad we got the chance to clear the air.

Ted Nugent’s real message that got lost in the outrage about the badly thought out use of that graphic? It was about Jewish people needing to defend their rights and freedoms, so that the horror of the Holocaust never happens again.

NEVER AGAIN! Plain and simple, the same powerful uniting message against freedom haters and gun banners that I have dedicated my entire adult life to in 1000s of concerts, numerous books, 1000s of articles, blogs, media interviews and constant speaking presentations. Period.

Oh, and our offer to Ted? He took us up on it. We’re sending him a Zelman Partisans membership packet, plus the yarmulke we promised, and he said he would wear the yarmulke on TV!

nugent membership

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Just follow the money

I wrote recently about Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s unilateral move to ban reciprocity. Virginia, according to Herring’s diktat, will no longer recognize concealed carry permits from 25 other states.

The reaction from pro-rights advocates has been vicious, and in retaliation, the Virginia GOP has moved to defund Terry McAwful’s executive protection unit. Virginia state senator Bill Carrico proposed a budget amendment that could strip the anti-gun McAwful, who apparently has no problem working to disarm the very people who are the source of his power, and who has no problem using those same taxpayers’ money to protect his own worthless hide, of his protective detail. “If he’s so afraid of guns,”Carrico said, “then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”

However, it is instructive to see to whom McAwful and Herring are truly beholden, and John Richardson at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money did just that.

Would it surprise anyone to know that both McAwful and Herring are beholden in no small part to former New York mayor and statist imbecile Michael Bloomberg? I didn’t think so.

Lo and behold the top donor to his campaign for Attorney General was none other than Independence USA PAC. They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations to his campaign. The money went for media production and advertising buys. To put this into perspective, the next two highest donors gave approximately half this amount each. The only candidate to get more money from that PAC was Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA).

Bloomberg-2-777x437And would it surprise anyone to know that Independence USA PAC is Bloomberg’s personal vendetta against our Second Amendment rights, and is dedicated to helping to elect candidates who support stricter gun-control laws? It was founded in October 2012 by Michael Bloomberg, and, so far, has been entirely funded by the former New York City mayor, according to FactCheck.org.

When your politicians are paid for by nosy, authoritarian, meddling nanny statists this is what you can expect. Bloomberg bought himself Virginia’s governor and attorney general. Now all he needs to do is say the word, and they will bend over.

Meanwhile, criminals will continue to carry Glocks in their sagging pants, while law-abiding citizens from out of state will simply switch to open carry, as is legal all over the Commonwealth.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Oh, it’s probably nothing…

Dear Aharon,

I’m sorry to bother you again. But Hanukkah and Christmas are both over and this year it just seems like I’ve seen more than a few things that bother me. I’m really trying to be understanding, but I guess some of this just eludes me and I was kind of hoping you could help me clear it up.

In the America I grew up in, it seemed like December was always just such a joyous time of year. There is Hanukkah, with parties and dreidels and Christmas with Santa and trees and gifts. Of course I know that Hanukkah is not about gelt, dreidels, latkas and sufganiyot. I know Christmas isn’t about gifts, trees and hot chocolate.

Hanukkah was about the freedom to be a Jew, practice your religion and live. All at the same time. The Greeks weren’t so interested in killing the Jews prior to the Maccabbean rebellion as forcing assimilation. As long as you were willing to give up the practice of Judaism as commanded by G-d through the Torah and adopt the Hellenistic ways, as many of the more liberal Jews were, it was all cool beans.

Christmas was about the celebrating the birth of Yeshua, the son of G-d. Churches had nativity scenes out in front and often there might be one by the courthouse as well. Schools would have trees, kids would sing songs, there would be little parties with cookies, and parents would beam as the children did their Christmas plays.

But not this year. It’s been harder and harder to see the symbols in public the last few years, because they aren’t there. This year has been the worst it seems. So many things canceled for fear of offending another religion.

This is the year of the offended. Or fear of offending. It’s so bad that a teacher was told to take down her Hello Kitty Christmas tree. Yep, Hello Kitty. No angels, or baby Yeshua or anything like that, just little cartoon kittys on a pink tree that were dangerously offensive. At another school the Charlie Brown Christmas play was heavily edited due to the complaint of one person. There were many more complaints against it, but they didn’t matter. So it would seems the schools are safely sanitized of religion now.

Well, except for one. While many schools have decided to quit teaching cursive handwriting because it isn’t needed, some school districts are teaching calligraphy. To teach calligraphy, they are teaching the children to write in Arabic. In Arabic the children are learning to write “There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” The first pillar of Islam. The girls in class were also treated to a lecture on how to dress modestly like a muslim, and invited to try on a headscarf while learning. This lesson was not well received by parents, and the school decided to avoid classes the next day and close. Parents were not informed what their children would be told to write, or given a chance to opt out. While a Koran was provided in class for the children to look at, the teacher declined to provide a Bible saying it wasn’t necessary. So I guess that’s how a school in VA observed December. But it’s not just Virginia, in Tennessee in September the schools went even further and made the children learn and recite all five pillars of Islam. They spent three weeks studying Islam, but skipped over the lessons concerning Christianity and Judaism. Doesn’t quite seem equal in the schools to me.

In business, mulsim cabbies refuse passengers with guide dogs and alcohol. Because it’s for religious reasons. However, religious reasons don’t seem to matter when it comes to Christian bakers who don’t want to make a cake. Then it’s all different.

What about obamacare? In 2016 the penalty for an individual is $695 for someone who’s insurance doesn’t match what the government says they must have. The Amish and Muslims are not required to buy obamacare, or have penalties. They believe insurance is gambling. Well, if insurance is gambling and they don’t have to buy it, what about auto insurance? Most states require you to have auto insurance to drive. Are they exempt from that as well?

When there is a crime committed, especially one with guns involved, it seems the media rushes to find a conservative or tea party angle. Yet when it appears the perpetrator is a muslim, the media and the government rush in to decry the connection saying it isn’t islam. In fact, barry still says ISIS has nothing to do with islam. When the woman ran over all those people in Las Vegas? The Sheriff isn’t comfortable discussing motive. Ok, maybe it has nothing to do with terrorism, or islam. Other people may scream “Allahu Akbar”, but seems it could be a clue. I mean that’s how they do it in Israel on a daily basis. The media talking heads and politicians will all trot out and tell us it wasn’t islam, had nothing to do with islam. And then call for more gun control. As a favorite radio show host of mine pointed out, why don’t all those people just hush about it, and let them tell us what islam is and isn’t. The ones doing the terrorist acts says it’s in the name of allah. I’m guessing they would know. No, I don’t think all muslims are terrorists. But the state department hasn’t a clue who is and who isn’t either. Nor does DHS or any other acronym. I’m still waiting for the million muslim march decrying the violence. Oh wait, they probably won’t do that, because it could mean their death as well.

No, islam in America seems to be hoping to force America to change to suit them. And in areas where there are large concentrations of them, they are getting quite brazen about what they insist taxpayer fork over.

So, Aharon, that’s the educational system, the business sector, the health care sector and the criminal arena and even charity and benefits. In all of those one group of people is giving preferential treatment over another. Does this mean we are already living in “dhimmitude” and no one has told us yet? And if the restrictions are applied I guess we will understand why barry tried so hard to take guns away from law abiding citizens. It’s going to be hard to impose the rest of some of those restrictions till he gets that one in place.

It just seemed so sad this December, and I guess I wonder if it is just the start of things? It’s not like we’ve ever seen a time where people are forced to give up the practice of their religion, covert or die right? It’s not like we need to be paging Judah Maccabee, right? No, it’s probably nothing, right?

Sincerely,

נצ

Dear נצ

You really are a glutton for punishment aren’t you? Yes, I can understand why you see things this way. I can understand why you are sad and concerned. But all you can do is keep trying your best to keep the concept of freedom and liberty alive. People have to have the mindset they want to live free. To keep those things alive you have to keep the right to have defensive tools. There are plenty of examples of civilizations that didn’t have enough, or good enough defensive tools and how that turned out. Keep doing those things. That is what you can do. Now, go have a nice cup of Israeli coffee, maybe a piece or two of halva. You’ll feel better.

Regards,

אַהֲרֹן

 

I Am the Storm
I Am the Storm
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Well, we could have had Mark Obenshain…

Mark Obenshain ran for Virginia’s Attorney General in 2013 and lost by a tiny, slim margin to a leftist, anti-Second Amendment authoritarian tool named Mark Herring, because apparently Virginia’s voters were somehow scared that their lady parts would be under the control of the EEEEVILLLL Republicans.

I know Obenshain personally, and he’s a solid pro-gun politician and a decent guy. Herring, on the other hand, is a statist nutbag who hasn’t met an anti-gun regulation he didn’t like. It is under his and Terry McAuliffe’s reign (Thanks, Trump, you buffoon, for giving thousands to elect that Clinton crony in my state!) that Virginia will no longer honor concealed carry permits from 25 other states.

Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) announced Tuesday that Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry handgun permits from 25 states that have reciprocity agreements with the commonwealth.

Under the policy, Virginians with a history of stalking, drug dealing or inpatient mental-health treatment cannot obtain a permit in a state with comparatively lax laws and carry a handgun legally at home.

Herring said severing the out-of-state agreements can prevent people who may be dangerous or irresponsible from carrying a concealed handgun.

Note the severe amount of stupid in that last statement. Herring actually thinks (if it can be called that) criminals who don’t obey laws in other states will miraculously obey Virginia’s.

Thanks a lot, vagina voters! You’ve given us authoritarian swine, for whom this is likely only the beginning! If they have their way, Virginia will soon be getting an “A” from the Brady Center, and you will be defending your giblets from armed thug invasion using only a spork and a cell phone.

I guess out-of-staters will simply open carry, as is legal all over the state.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Sounds like a case of premature detonation

On my own blog today, I synthesized all the information we had so far on the San Bernardino shooting into some hypotheses. I won’t copy/paste the entire thing here, but I will give you the bottom line and let you decide if you want to read my entire thought process.

I wrote this piece as events were unfolding. I also tried to take everything we knew then and know now into account when examining the events in San Bernardino. There are some strange details about this attack that make it seem like it was a bit more spontaneous than a normal jihadist attack. And if you actually read to the end, my assessment is that there may have been a bigger attack planned, but Farook probably lost his temper at the party and launched an unplanned, spontaneous attack on his coworkers, rather than waiting to execute a bigger event elsewhere that he and Malik probably planned. In essence, this is my attempt to analyze the actual details of the event and provide a deeper analysis than just “OMG JIHAD!”

Why do I think this was a case of a jihadist losing his temper and launching an attack early? Several reasons.

According to this CNN update,  “Syed Rizwan Farook — one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre — was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism.”

Given the large number of pipe bombs and lots of ammo found in their house, and given the fact that this guy and his wife were apparently radicalized, and that a band of Middle Eastern men have been reported to have been hanging around,  I think they had something bigger planned. A bigger attack, perhaps, with IEDs and pipe bombs, that was abandoned when Farook stormed out of a holiday party in a rage.

I think these guys aren’t well known for self control. I think something angered him at the party, and he stormed out, went home, and decided to exact his revenge.

Meanwhile, I leave you with this bit of absolute stupidity.

Representative Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) declared, “multi-automatic round weapons are easily available, even though not in California, but they can cross the state line” on Thursday’s broadcast of “MSNBC Live.”

Sanchez said, “the reality is that Congress has been trying to get at some of these issues for the last five years, and we haven’t been able to. We let the Assault Weapons Ban, which was led by our Senator Sen. Dianne Feinstein, we let that lapse. So, you know, multi-automatic round weapons are easily available, even though not in California, but they can cross the state line, as you know. The second thing is, we really haven’t done that much about mental health. I’ve been working with my colleague, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D) here out of the Los Angeles area, to try to get mental health services more available for people, and it hasn’t happened. And then lastly, there are a lot of loopholes in our current laws. So, we can ask people to be registered. We can have waiting periods. A lot of the law-abiding gun purveyors, sellers that sit in our districts, they are following those, but then we have this thing called gun shows, which come into town, sell everything, don’t do these background checks, and there are way too many problems in trying to get this done. And the Congress has a responsibility to close those loopholes, and make it safer for Americans.”

When facepalm is just not enough.
When facepalm is just not enough.

Someone please get me a Stupid to English dictionary, because I seem to lack the comprehension skills to understand what “multi automatic round weapons” are. Are those round guns that point directly back to the shooter? Are they a lot of automatic? Did she take her Lithium today before opening her maw and coming out with so much stupid, that the Man on the Moon is facepalming?

Who elected this creature?

Oh… nevermind. California.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Trump is a tyrannical weasel, part 2,434

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, there’s been a lot of talk about terrorism, how to prevent it, how to fight it, and how to protect Americans. Even the DC Dominatrix Cathy Lanier has accidentally acknowledged that the citizens are the first line of defense against an attack. Of course, she continues to keep them disarmed, but admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, right?

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has placed himself square in the middle of the conversation with another idiotic statement on guns. This time, he stepped on his own winky with golf cleats by claiming that those on the terrorism watchlist should be denied their right to keep and bear arms.

shrug_chart_final1Now, I’ve always thought Trump was a fascist uber douche. Now, that has been confirmed. While I agree terrorists should be prevented from purchasing firearms (also caught and clubbed to death with spiked cricket bats), many of the people on the watchlist are hardly terrorists.

Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database—a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists” that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments—more than 40 percent are described by the government as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” That category—280,000 people—dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.

These are people who have been convicted of nothing. They have been placed on this list, because according to the source, the standard the government uses to put people on a watchlist is “reasonable suspicion” to determine whether someone is a possible threat.

Because the government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,” individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.

These are the people Trump wants to deprive of their rights. These are the people Trump would disarm and render vulnerable to everyone from terrorist to marauding thug. These are the people whom Trump wants to label as “enemies of the state” without due process, and without so much as an official set of charges.

Trump needs to go away. Far away. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House or anywhere near government service writ large. He’s a national embarrassment, who doesn’t understand policy and is merely running for president to stroke his own violently large ego.

It’s hard for me to believe that roughly a quarter of Republicans think this narcissistic weasel somehow deserves to be president! But then again, I think he appeals to the meathead faction of the GOP – you know – the ones who sit in their trailers, drinking cheap beer, scratching their shriveled raisins and screaming about how illegal aliens are taking their jobs, while the meth cooks on the stove.

Yes, I’m being intentionally inflammatory. That said, would anyone in all seriousness consider casting their vote for someone who is proud of his desire to stomp on people’s rights without due process?

So much FAIL!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Take them out with what?

During an interview on “60 Minutes” recently, Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said something surprising – at least to those of us who have followed her anti-freedom, gun-grabbery over the years. When asked about what DC citizens should do if an active shooter threatens them during a siege like the one that took place in Paris a couple of weeks ago, Lanier, whom I have previously described as the DC Dominatrix due to her heavy-handed hatred of gun rights and Second Amendment freedoms, replied “If you’re in a position to try to take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there,”

Take them out for what? Coffee? A drink?

Despite being spanked in the courts several times, DC still has some of the nation’s most stringent gun control laws. Fox News reports that of 233 applications sent for review since the Metropolitan Police Department began accepting permits on Oct. 23, 2014, 185 licenses had been denied as of Nov. 14.

GettyImages-474248390-e1434470938562Lanier has the final say about who can have guns in the city, and it looks like there are exactly 48 people in the entire city who have been granted permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Open carry is prohibited, and concealed carry is nearly nonexistent, with only 44 concealed carry applications having been approved since October 23, 2014.  Virginia residents certainly can’t legally carry their tools of self defense in the city, and if they do, they risk arrest and having their lives destroyed by the very same police force whose head is now claiming that citizens need to be the ones who stand up to the horror!

So whom does Lanier expect to take up arms against terrorists until the cops can get there?

She certainly seems to be admitting that armed citizens are the first line of defense against attacks, and yet she refuses to free the residents of the nation’s capital to exercise their rights.

Such shocking cognitive dissonance from someone who is responsible for the safety and security of America’s capital! I wonder if the attacks in Paris were a wake-up call for Lanier, but somehow I doubt it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

I am WOMAN hear me whine?

I saw a column a few days ago about a University of Miami Law Professor who was opposed to a campus carry bill making it’s way through the Florida senate.

MA Franks, another self-defense expert, urged lawmaker to reject the legislation. Franks is a law professor at the University of Miami who specializes in self-defense law and is also an instructor in Krav Maga, a Israeli form of hand-to-hand self-defense.“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.Franks also rebutted the argument that concealed weapons could prevent rape, noting most assault victims know their attackers. “Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Apparently unmoved by the victims of rape that testified in favor of the bill, Franks believes that a woman would be unable to use a gun to defend herself.

WOW. A Professor of law, but, but the degree came from Harvard so that could be part of the problem.

I had a conversation with my Mom this morning, we were just reminiscing about my Dad, and things I had wanted to be “when I grew up”. At one time I considered lawyer, or perhaps open a auto repair shop staffed by women. A place where women could come and not feel intimidated. Dad didn’t like either of those. At the time those conversations took place women weren’t really in either of those fields. Back then there were still some jobs that were considered “men’s work”.

I remember the women’s liberation movement. Fairly well. Women were fighting to be accepted into fields that typically weren’t open. They wanted equal pay for equal work.

The first female police officer (actually functioning as a regular officer) was 1972. The academies didn’t make it easy for them to get through and often their teammates didn’t want them on the team.

The first female fire fighter to work solely as a paid fire fighter was in 1974. There were women who were volunteer fire fighters in the 1800s. There had also been BLM crews made up of solely women, but the first regular fire fighter if you will, was 1974.

The first integrated unit where men and women served together in the military in a war zone was the 1991 Gulf War. Prior to that women had been in the military, but usually as support staff, medical or clerical jobs. Going back to the War for Independence and the un-Civil War women did serve in combat units, but they disguised themselves as men. It was a process not an event. In 1974 the first six women became Air Force pilots, in 1976 the military academies became co-educational.

Women fought hard to have the opportunity to have these non-traditional jobs. If I had a daughter attending an expensive college and had one of her professors telling her that she was incapable of using an effective tool to defend herself I would be appalled and outraged, and she would be out of there and into a good school in a Miami minute. If I were alumni of the school and had a professor telling women such things I would drop support. I realize colleges are a hotbed of liberalism and progress and so to return to such an outdated and false sterotype is despicable.

So who is this ancient crocodile that is so threatened by a woman being able to defend herself against someone or a group bigger and stronger than herself?

Well, this is where it gets really sad. MA Franks, is Mary Ann Franks. A woman. Sadder still? She is a Krav Maga instructor. She recognizes the importance of self-defense but would deny her sisters the use of one of the most, if not the most effective tool to do so.

She is young now, she can do Krav Maga, but is she foolish enough to think that ALL women can? I realize she earns money teaching a way cool martial arts form, and kudos to her for that. But she lives in la-la land (sorry, forgot about the Harvard thing) if she thinks that there are no older students or students with physical disabilities. The most vulnerable do not need an effective form of self-defense? And they are every bit as deserving to live safely as the people that can afford to take her classes or have her physical abilities.

To have someone who has worked to be in a role that at one time would have been dominated by men telling others that women are incapable of using a gun is allowing her liberal ideology to damage lives. Perhaps she needs to get off the campus and into the real world where she could begin to use her mind and begin to think.

What a shame. What a selfish, silly, ungrateful child.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Well… Bye!

A university economics professor has apparently soiled himself at the thought that students at the University of Texas-Austin (UT) will be allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms by carrying concealed weapons on campus, so he has huffily submitted his resignation to the school.

“As much as I have loved the experience of teaching and introducing these students to economics at the university, I have decided not to continue,” economics professor Daniel Hamermesh said in a letter to university administrators this week. “With a huge group of students my perception is that the risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed-carry law.”

What I find instructive about this sniveling missive is the fear for his own safety. He’s afraid his students would shoot him. Why is that? Is he that horrible of a teacher? Is he cruel? Is he unfair? Why would any student want to shoot him?

And more importantly, if a student did want to shoot him, would a law banning concealed carry on campus stop him or her? Given the fact that guns were banned on the Virginia Tech campus when Seung-Hui Cho committed his atrocity, I doubt it.

Additionally, I would think that this particular pusillanimous weasel would prefer a legally armed student in his class to hide behind in case a disgruntled cretin does decide to take his impotent rage out on the professor. Even if he doesn’t  have enough testicular fortitude to carry a tool of self defense and take responsibility for his own safety, one would think he would have enough common sense to rejoice at the thought that someone in his class could act in that capacity! But no…

Not this weasel.

I cannot believe that I am the only potential or current faculty member who is aware of and disturbed by this heightened risk. As I wrote on my blog several years ago, no doubt this law will make it more difficult to attract faculty, especially those who are willing and able to teach large groups of students.

You can’t believe that other educated, intelligent, rational adults wouldn’t project their own insecurities onto law-abiding adults, who choose to peaceably exercise their rights? You can’t believe that other faculty members don’t think so little of themselves, that they would publicize their paranoia about being shot by a student? You can’t believe that other educators respect their students as rational adults and law-abiding citizens, while you think so little of them and yourself that you would quit your job over a law that allows them to exercise their rights?

Luckily for his students and any future classes this pathetic coward may have taught, he’s moving to Australia to teach in a “gun-free” environment.

We say, “See ya!” You won’t be missed.

The actual copy of the letter can be found here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

They’re Finally Being Honest

The Washington Post editorial page editor is finally being honest about the liberals’ gun control agenda. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt has penned… or I should say spewed his uninformed opinion entitled, “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

This is how you know a leftard is about to soil his unmentionables – when he “courageously” challenges the big, bad NRA from the safety and comfort of his computer – while advocating what eventually would lead to civil war in this country.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thing doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

What, REALLY? You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your assertion that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie. And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large?

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

Tell us why you think that criminals will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn that gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013.  Know now many drowned? 568.  Know how many died in a fire? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances beat the 100,000 who Fred claims get shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

Perhaps we should, but you might want to sit out the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail