Category Archives: gun control

So How Could This Happen?

As I look at the massive amount of “change” our country has endured since I was a child, I’m not feeling a lot of “hope”. I had long wondered how our country had gone from one of fierce independence, strong work ethic and Judeo-Chrisitian values to one where living on the dole is viewed as an entitlement to some people, and it comes with a free obola-phone. The fierce independence and looking after yourself and your family has become “let the government do it”,  “wait for the police” and “there ought to be a law”. We are to have been a country ruled by law, not mobs. And we have moved so far away from that. “How could this happen?” A friend of mine on Facebook asked that the other day. This column was already percolating in my brain when he did. I may have some insight into it.

You know the old saying there is nothing really new under the sun? Well, many of the things we see in America now have been done before, and succeeded brilliantly for those that implemented the policies.

Let’s do a little compare and contrast, shall we?

There is a traveling exhibit from the Midwest Center for Holocaust Education called “nazi Propaganda”. No, I didn’t mean to capitalize nazi. There was an exhibit of artifacts and a lecture series that explored different aspects of the Propaganda.

“Propaganda is a truly terrible weapon in the hands of an expert”~~adolph hitler 1924
hitler had one of the best at propaganda Joseph Gerbils (Goebbels, yes, I enjoyed doing that too), who said that “Any man who still has a residue of honor will be very careful not to become a journalist”. That’s pretty rich coming from a one time journalist.

When hitler came to power in 1933, Germany had a very well developed communications system. There were 4,700 daily and weekly newspapers, a total circulation of 25 million. Of these 81%  were locally owned, although there were some national ones that had even attained international recognition. When the nazis came to power in 1933, they owned less than 3% of the 4,700 papers. Through the elimination of the multi-party system the nazis gained control of the newspapers that had been run by those parties. The nazis used the press and radio to create fears of a communist uprising and then the populace was willing enough to accept limits and the curtailing of their liberties.

The nazis had a great ally in Julius Streicher who produced Der Strumer, a virulently antisemitic “newspaper” and I use that term loosely here. Mostly it ran articles on how the Jews were to blame for everything wrong, and they wanted to start a war while the rest of the world wanted peace. They ran horrible cartoons by “Fips” designed to isolate and dehumanize Jews. It ran from 1923 to 1945 and during the Weimer Republic was the receipient of many lawsuits by politicians and Jewish groups. It did not stop them though, and when hitler came along, it thrived.  The nazi regeime also embraced the new technology of radio and television. They already had a thriving movie culture. With the creation of the people’s radio, hitler’s speeches could be broadcast everywhere, factories, homes and even the streets, and they were. The cheap mass produced radios had very few stations available on the dial, quite the shocker that, eh?

The German propaganda machine was also at work in the US and Britain believe it or not. In many news stories of the time the writing was done in such a was as to create fear among Americans and the British and leave them wanting to just get it over with and give in. Interestingly to me anyway, most of these stores came from the AP. Germany also forbid it’s citizens from getting any news from sources outside of Germany. But with the great radio shows on, why would they want to? I mean who could turn down hitler speeches and home making tips all in one broadcast?  Besides, listening to the BBC was considered very treasonous, and punishable by prison time.

Propaganda was used to sell the majority who hadn’t voted for hitler (was it racist back then to demand voter ID?) that there would be this national community, it’s just that a few people wouldn’t be part of it. Germans by in large it seems, ate that National Community Hope & Change stuff up. It was necessary to convince them not to intervene when they saw their neighbors of many years being hauled off and their belongings taken away. The ghettos were posted with signs warning of health dangers, that was meant to discourage non-Jews from entering and seeing conditions for themselves. With the lack of sanitation, people starving and lack of medical care, that was somewhat true, but not why the nazis posted the ghettos. Films were staged in the ghettos to show the German people that the Jews bred and carried diseases. The goal with that would be to decrease any sympathy the Christians might have felt and any desire to help the Jews. The Jews were also portrayed as not caring about anyone but themselves. Films were also staged to convince the world that the Jews were being treated very humanely, and just in the camps for “re-education” to the nazi way of the thinking and life. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Part of the goal of the propaganda was not so much to enlist ordinary Germans in killing the Jews, but to convince them not to intervene on the Jews behalf. After all, they weren’t REALLY human were they?

So, why is this relevant today? People would recognize the dangerous conditions and do something about it before it ever got this far again, right?  No set of Americans would sit idly by while one segment of the population was marginalized and attacked by leadership would they?

How about people who believe the Constitution should remain the law of the land, and not ruling by pen and cell phone?

Would the government ever paint such people as “the enemy”?

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2012/08/08/us-army-using-tea-party-insurrection-scenario-to-train-officers/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/23/does-army-consider-christians-tea-party-terror-threat/

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/08/bringing-war-back-home-full-spectrum.html

Would the government ever single out those people and use the force of the government to go after them?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711039/Emails-IRS-official-Lois-Lerner-called-conservatives-crazies-holes-Eric-Holder-gets-new-pressure-investigate.html

http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/erev-rosh-hashanah-lois-lerner-degrades-conservatives-now-judaism-26594/

Remember all the antisemitic cartoons? Some of these appeared in newspapers, some were made up by readers.

http://lumberjocks.com/topics/34254

The Media Research Center put together a lovely list of some of the worst attacks by the mainstream “media” on ordinary American Citizen. Curiously, the “media” was very supportive of Occupy Wallstreet.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/02/27/5-years-after-7-worst-media-attacks-tea-party

What happens when a reporter actually tries to do the job, and report on Government and investigate stories? Um, doesn’t turn out well.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102714-723693-former-cbs-news-reporter-blows-whistle-on-pro-obama-bias.htm?p=full

So, while in Germany many of the newspapers MAY have been forced to regurgitate the party poop, in America it seems we see this kind of reporting, not because of being forced into it, but because the media itself is on board with the ideology of the current regime.

Anyone remember Candy Crowley from CNN a “moderator” (chuckle, chuckle, snort) helping the President out during the debate against Mitt Romney? Or who can forget the classic of CNN making it appear a semi-automatic rifle is a automatic by the way they talked during the “report”.
Speaking of ideology, when the media constantly calls a semi-automatic rifle an “assault rifle” and report on someone shot breaking into a house as a “gun shot victim” because the home owner shot him? Does that not seem to be allowing their ideology to drive the story, to influence people that haven’t a clue about guns? To convince people that the ability to defend themselves and their families from any kind of a threat is not something they should want.

Nice blog post about CNN and guns.

http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-lies-fakes-story-once-again.html

And a great video to show anyone who doesn’t understand about a semi-automatic and fully automatic.

If you want to compare how the obama infatuated press handles a story think about what you are hearing now that there was a Republican landslide on Tuesday. The media is marginalizing that, saying the people want Republicans to work with obama. The British press presented the story a bit differently.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822484/WHAT-LANDSLIDE-Obama-threatens-vetoes-executive-orders-Americans-reject-giving-Republicans-historic-gains-Congress.html#ixzz3IIYedBh1

As did the Candadian http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67371

I discovered the first time I went to Ireland and listened to the news on the radio as I was driving that the way I heard stories on the radio in Ireland was vastly different than the way they were presented at home.

Why would the media do this? Lie to citizens, target certain individuals (think Sarah Palin or Phil Robertson) certain businesses (Chik-fil-A or Hobby Lobby) try to isolate them, polarize and demonize them?

Some pretty good answers can be found in the film Grinding Down America. You can watch it on YouTube, but you have to find the different sections. Or, if you don’t mind the Spanish subtitles, the movie is in English, and it is well worth watching.

So, my first villain in “How could this happen”, is the media. And unlike Germany, the mainstream media in America is part of the problem, not the watchdog.

I mean seriously, if they can’t even report a story involving a gun correct AFTER it has happened, why do we even listen to them give a weather FORECAST?

Der Sturmer

Just create the indifference
Just create the indifference
Allow none to show sympathy
Allow none to show sympathy

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Elections: I got those I wish I didn’t care but I care anyway blues

You know what they say about elections. “No matter who you vote for, the government gets elected.” Or “If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.”

It’s also been said that elections are advance auctions of stolen goods and (unlike the legitimate acts of self defense and justice described by Ilana and by commenter Tahn) that voting is a form of violence because it’s trying to force our will on others.

So true. I try not to think of elections as anything more than a team contest, sort of like the Super Bowl or the World Series, but for people with less talent. This month I care very much, though. Mostly I care in the same way I might care about who wins the SuperBowl. It might be dramatic or suspenseful to see if the R’s beat the D’s for the Senate as most oddsmakers are saying, but life and freedom probably won’t depend on whether Joni Ernst grabs that Senate seat from Iowa (though I like her) or Mary Landrieu has to go into a runoff election in Louisiana (though I’d like to see that political biotch driven back into the bayous, never to be seen again).

The thing I really care about this month has nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with common people and our rights. I’m talking about initiative 594 in Washington state. Even for people who don’t live in or near Washington this is a big one.

Since you’re reading gunblogs I suppose you already know that I-594 is the anti-gunners’ dream this year. Under the pretense of being ‘only’ a universal background check bill (common sense, you know!), it would criminalize nearly all transfers of firearms, including the most helpful, innocent, and momentary. Loan a gun to a friend in need? Felony. Instructor hands a gun to student and student hands it back? TWO felonies. So on so on so on.

Because this is just about the only victim disarmament measure on the ballot anywhere in the U.S. this year, the Billionaire Brigade has poured money into it by the millions. Of course Washington state has quite a few homegrown anti-gun billionaires like Microsofties Bill Gates and Paul Allen, plus Nick Hanauer (a Jew who ought to come here and read some of the posts by Ilana and Y.B. if he thinks leaving people helpless is what Judaism is about), but naturally Bloomberg is in for his million, too.

The pro-gunners are way out spent and, according to every poll, also outnumbered. The NRA came in late with its anti-594 money and Washington’s biggest homegrown (supposedly) pro-gun activist, Alan Gottlieb, proved his true intentions once again by getting another measure on the ballot (I-591) that appears to protect rights but in fact doesn’t “give” anybody anything they don’t already have and sets the stage for later federal UBCs. So another million or so that could have been spent to fight 594 got diverted into supporting 591.

The big reason the fight against 594 matters even to people who live elsewhere is that if Washingtonians can kick 594 to the curb, it’ll be the best sign ever that bigoted billionaires should spend their money on something other than disarming the common people. On the other hand, if 594 wins, it’ll just encourage them to keep hammering at us and our rights.

The polls all say 594 is not only going to win but win big. They may be wrong. They’ve been dead wrong about gun rights in Washington before. (For a blue state, it has decent gun laws.) They’ve been polling registered voters, not likely voters. I’ve also got to wonder how much of the polling covered only the Puget Sound urban area (already leaning anti-gun and the place where the billionaires have been pouring all their ad money). If the pollsters have missed a lot of likely rural and eastside (that is east of the Cascades) votors, they’ll be dead wrong.

So this year I’m watching and caring and I’d even say if you live in Washington state get the heck out and vote against that awful thing.

There’s also the possibility that both 594 and 591 will pass and then the championship game of gun rights, or at least the NW Regionals of gun rights, will go into some long and probably pretty weird overtime.

Free people will keep their rights no matter what. The Billionaire Brigade and their useful idiots can’t vote them away, but we shouldn’t even give them the illusion that they can make a successful try.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Ballot Box

 “There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order.”

I listened to a radio show the other morning and the host was talking about how it seems like the mainstream media is downplaying the importance of this coming election. That is really won’t be all that important. This is not the case. It is very important. If it weren’t I don’t think we would be seeing the reports of touchscreen voting machines that seem to be changing Republican Votes to Democrat votes.  Interestingly, there don’t seem to be reports of it going the other way which is sort of shooting a hole in the stock reply from officials it’s a “calibration error”.

Here, here, and here.

So, my first bit of helpful advice for the upcoming ballot box trip, is carefully check your summary and make sure that the votes it shows are the ones you actually wanted to make.

Second tip. Who can you rely on to give you accurate suggestions when it comes to voting for pro-gun candidates?  While what I’m going to say may sound like heresy, it’s not. Nor am I “attacking” the NRA. But when those little orange cards come to your house, or that handy voter guide is in the magazine, please, please, please do not let that be your only source of information.

While the TZP (The Zelman Partisans) are NOT making political endorsements, I do have a suggestion along those lines. I would suggest you go to Gunowners of America and check out their voter guide.

Why you ask? Well, let’s take this one race. In West Va. The NRA has endorsed Nick Rahall. They have given him an “A”. He is the incumbent. The endorsed him over Evan Jenkins, who has his own voting record.  GOA gave Rahall a D- and gave his opponent Evan Jenkins an “A” rating.

That’s a pretty big difference. But also remember the NRA gave anti-gun Harry Reid a “A” rating and it cost Nevada and America a solid Second Amendment Senator, we could have had Sharon Angle.

Arkansas too had problems with the NRA ratings.

I know there were some problems in Missouri when the NRA endorsed the late Ike Skelton who at the time had been voting WITH Nancy Pelosi 98% of the time. I’m not sure how that managed an A rating, but it did.

I can only guess at why they rate candidates the way they do. I’ve heard they prefer to endorse a candidate they think will win, so that their endorsement win level appears high. That probably explains their preference for endorsing incumbents.  Another thing to consider is what kind of “gun legislation” does the NRA consider important. If you want state sovereignty gun legislation, know that the NRA does not.  Missouri and Florida have both tried to pass a state version of a “Second Amendment Protection Act” only to see it sabotaged by the NRA. Wyoming has also had fights with the NRA on expanded background checks, but Wyoming has a very strong grassroots Second Amendment group, Wyoming Gun Owners,  and it seems they win some of their fights. Wyoming does have a Firearms Freedom Act.

So am I trashing the NRA? No, but if I’m going to urge you to check other sources for voting guidelines, I should give you a few reasons for that statement.  Yes, the NRA does some good things. I love the Eddie Eagle program. But if you are an activist that wants a version of a Firearms Freedom Act or a Second Amendment Protection Act, then understand the high grade that you see on the orange card may not actually mean what you think it means!

Our country is in a very pecarious postion, we can not afford to make mistakes. I think the GOA voting guide will be your best source for accurate guidence on the candidates.

Please, this coming Tuesday, utilize the ballot box, we do not ever want to be in a position to have to utilize the cartridge box.

.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Video to Make You Tear Up

It’s Tuesday morning, and I ran across this video that I felt I needed to share with you. There’s not much left to say that Aaron Weiss didn’t say in this flawless 3-minute speech.

It’s eloquent and true. Those of us who volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces know why we did so – and it’s not for that generous $1800 per month you receive as a PFC.

I graduated Johns Hopkins with a degree in International Relations, and there was little doubt in my mind about what I wanted to do. I gave it some thought for a few months, but in the end I joined the Army.

I joined, because I understood what it’s like to live in a tyrannical state where rights matter about as little as human beings do.

I joined, because I wanted to defend the freedoms and opportunities this nation afforded me – freedoms the former USSR, Nazi Germany, and every other statist hellhole has destroyed.

I joined, because when I came to this country as a kid, I realized that I had opportunities here to live, achieve, and succeed that I would have never had as a Jew in the USSR.

And I was grateful. I was grateful enough to put on that uniform and swear an oath to defend our Constitution and those freedoms with my blood and my life.

Regardless of who resides in that White House at 20220, that oath and that promise remains the same. Politicians come and go. We may agree with them, nor not. But our oath and our promise remains: should any enemy threaten our country, our Constitution, or our people we will be there.

The young man in this video understands this. He served to protect those rights we hold dear. He continues to do so on a local level as a law enforcement officer. And he let those statist swine in New York know that he – as a veteran and law enforcement officer – will actively oppose their efforts to destroy everything he swore to protect…

…and do so by hypocritically using the deaths of children at Newtown to do it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

UPDATED: Billionaire Bastards (I-594)

“Make sure it doesn’t happen in your state next,” warns Michelle Malkin, in “Rocky Mountain Heist,” a documentary in which the columnist puts her trademark shoe-leather journalistic sleuthing to work in exposing the Democrat-rigged “democracy” of Colorado, where a “group of wealthy liberals overtook Colorado. They used every scheme possible to impose a backward agenda and they transformed the place [she] love[s] into a testing ground for their liberal ideology.”

Malkin, who once resided in our state, might already know that the dice are loaded against decent people in Washington State too. I-594 is, by Rachel Alexander’s telling, “the only gun-control measure on the ballot this fall anywhere across the country.” It “is being bankrolled by billionaires on the left in favor of gun control, including anti-gun activist and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as former wealthy Microsoft execs Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.”

Let us not forget Paul Allen, also a billionaire and also of Microsoft. He and the other bastards—who no doubt have security details guarding their abodes—“have raised more than $6 million” to make it more difficult for ordinary folks to defend life and property.

In 2011, another unfathomably wealthy individual got behind an effort to bilk businessmen and women of modest means. The Service Employees International Union (state and national locals), the National Education Association, and Washington teachers union locals all united to champion a new income tax, the poster boy for which was William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

UPDATE (11/2): Vladka Peltel writes:

Since you’re reading gunblogs I suppose you already know that I-594 is the anti-gunners’ dream this year. Under the pretense of being ‘only’ a universal background check bill (common sense, you know!), it would criminalize nearly all transfers of firearms, including the most helpful, innocent, and momentary. Loan a gun to a friend in need? Felony. Instructor hands a gun to student and student hands it back? TWO felonies. So on so on so on.

MORE.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

But If It Saves Just ONE Life!

How many times have we heard the plaintive cry from the anti-gun crowd? More gun/people control is needed to save just one life. You can tell how much life matters to the anti-gun crowd when the call for “SWATing” of innocent open carry citizens is suggested and celebrated. Even when it results in the death of two innocent people. One of who died of a heart attack after watching another innocent man be gunned down by the police. And Mommies Demanding Atrocities celebrated their death. Yep, if it saves just one life. Whine on. And people take Mommies Demanding Atrocities seriously. SERIOUSLY? Why?

According to this article:

“If you sync the phone call to the footage,” Bob Owens tells me, “you’ll notice that Ronald Ritchie, the caller, makes claims that are not true.” Among those claims, the Guardian records, were that “Crawford was pointing the air rifle at customers,” that he threatened “two children,” and that he was recklessly “waving it around.” This does not appear to have been the case. Indeed, when the lattermost statement was made, Owens notes, “the gun’s muzzle was pointed to the ground.” So pronounced are the discrepancies between Ritchie’s story and the surveillance footage that John Crawford’s family is hoping to take legal action. “He’s basically lying with the dispatchers,” the family’s attorney, Michael Wright argues. “He’s making up the story. So should he be prosecuted? Yes, I believe so.”

In this case a black man was shot because of a false police call made by Ronald Ritchie.

A radio show host has called for people that open carry to be gunned down by the police, according to this article he hates guns, and the police, so figures pitting them against each other is a great idea. The fact he has to lie, put every innocent person at risk doesn’t seem to trouble him a bit. But then he is a liberal, and anti-gun idiot. But I repeat myself. He doesn’t care that the open carry advocate is innocent, he doesn’t care that the other people around are innocent, he doesn’t care that the police that show up are innocent. He just wants them dead, because after all, guns are evil, they kill people. Life is so important to him, he’s willing to kill off a few innocent people to save just one.

My solution to people like Ronald Ritchie? I think he needs to be charged with premeditated murder. He knew what would happen when he lied to the Police and told them Mr. Crawford was threatening children. I think anyone, especially Mommies Demanding Atrocities, that SWAT someone because they are opening carrying should be charged with premeditated murder.

Ok, hang on to the saddle horn, we’re going to make a jump sideways.

If you look at what is going on in Ferguson, MO right now you see a mess. A black man was shot by a white police officer. While this is fine with Mommies Demanding Atrocities if he was doing nothing wrong and innocently carrying a BB gun through a Walmart, it’s not ok if he may have been in the process of assaulting a police officer. Initially the media portrayed him as this “gentle giant”. That narrative kind of came off the rails when video surfaced of him assaulting a store clerk a bit before his run in with the police. Oops. Then it was the Police “gunned him down” needlessly. Well, it seems forensics may not exactly bear that out.

Then protesters rioted, torched stores (it seems they left a tatoo parlor being guarded by armed owners with those “deadly, no sporting purpose, evil black rifles” alone) demolished a Quick Trip to achieve justice for Michael Brown. Um, well, hmm. While it may have appeared to the rest of the country that the Ferguson Police were a bunch of racist Barney Fifes running around with an itchy trigger finger (and who knows, maybe they are) but what has not been pointed out is that a large portion of those arrested are not, in fact, from Ferguson. Duane Lester of The Missouri Torch did a lovely job of detailing some of the out of town guests that showed up to the party. One of the first being Greg “Joey” Johnson, a communist revolutionary arrived fresh from Chicago, to stir the unrest. Photos too!

ACORN was also involved, as were the Black Panthers. You know, they ones that showed up during the Trayvon Martin debacle. Sort of Govenor Jay Nixon did his best barak obama impression by stating “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” of the officer that shot Michael Brown. Wrong Way Jay might have wanted to wait till some actual facts came in before he said that. But since obama had already used “the police acted stupidly” I guess he was trying to come up with the next best idiot line before someone else thought of it. Some of the other out of town guests were Code Pink, RevCom, the New Black Panthers, Socialist Party USA.

Several pictures have come out of Ferguson with the cops suited up like the military, and there were certainly charges of heavy handedness. I do not like seeing local police with tanks, humvees, nor do I like seeing them act like they are fixin’ to storm Bin Laden’s lair. That being said, they have families, they want to go home of a night in one piece. I understand. There are certainly an abundance of out of town scum that are there trying to stir the people up into a frenzy and they want more rioting and social unrest. Heck, just yesterday a anti-gun state Senator got herself arrested drunk and carrying a gun. She has a CCW. What a shocker. She’s anti-gun for thee, but not for, well, herself.

So where am I going with all this? While I don’t want to open carry because I choose not to give away my tactical advantage and because it scares the sheep, I don’t want to deny those that want to do so their rights. Those in my state, with a CCW have undergone a FBI background check, taken a class and passed a proficiency exam and written test. All necessary to utilize your Second Amendment rights in this state. Can Mommies Demanding Atrocities PROVE they are such law-abiding citizens? I doubt it. The Police and the CCW or Open Carry people SHOULD be allies. We are the law-abiding ones that just want to be left alone, we want to protect ourselves and our families. We don’t bother anyone, and we don’t want anyone to bother us. We don’t riot and burn down Quick Trips, we don’t SWAT people because we disagree with them politically hoping they will be killed. We don’t go out and incite people to attack the police. And yet, the left, the people of “tolerance” are the ones showing up, inciting strife and suggesting it’s a great idea to walk out of a restaurant without paying or make a false police report hoping it results in the death of an innocent person.

And people listen to these moonbats when they call for more gun control howling “if it saves just one life”? Inconceivable!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXjcZdk5QQ

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

How Did Canadian Killer Get A Shotgun? Give Me A Break!

As much as I love Canada—I’m a citizen—I could not live in a place that practically outlaws the right to defend life and property. Ordinary Canadian citizens are de facto barred from owning firearms. Read Second-Amendment scholar David Kopel’s account of Canada’s draconian gun laws:

… it is virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to obtain a permit to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense. Handgun carry permits for self-protection are issued “only in exceptional cases” where the issuing officer is “satisfied” of the applicant’s need. A 600 page National Firearms Manual, prepared by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provides ample reasons for an officer to accept or deny a self-protection application as he sees fit. In contrast, permits to carry unloaded, locked handguns to target ranges are readily obtainable.
… How strict the police departments are in issuing handgun target licenses varies from region to region. In some jurisdictions, a person might legally buy a handgun, but the police would hold the gun for several months, while the central government in Ottawa completed its paperwork. Only then would the police allow the gun to be taken to a target range.

Notice how law-enforcement are first to champion gun control against the populace, by using the pretext that it’ll stop criminals from arming themselves. This is the case in the US too. Currently, in Washington State, one is treated to TV footage of weepy “vaginas” (not my coinage; I’m innocent here) plumping for a ballot initiative that would, as these simpletons promise, stop violence against women. Explains Rachel Alexander:

I-594 has been cleverly drafted to sound like it merely makes small changes to gun laws, not a flat-out ban or gun registration scheme. This is why it is so dangerous. People are less likely to oppose it; in fact, polls show that even a majority of gun owners – 54 percent of the 35 percent of Washington residents who own a gun – are in favor of it.

The initiative, or so the professional criers claims, is backed by thousands of policemen.

But I digress. Gun restrictions impact the law-abiding citizen; criminals by definition are outlaws. The criminal who “ambushed the Parliament building in Ottawa” had no qualms about violating Canada’s pernicious anti-gun laws to carry out an attack on the Canadian parliament.

Still, the moron media stateside pushes more gun control in … Canada.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

No, we don’t want to be like the UK!

Quite often, in my travels on these here Interwebz, I find gun grabbers pontificating how cool it would be if we were just like Britain. After all, they have stringent gun control, and their homicide rates are SOOOOOO much lower than ours!

Must be the fault of the evil gunz, right?

After all, the United States, according to recent figures, has 4.7 murders per 100,000 residents, while the United Kingdom has 1.

Must be the fault of the evil gunz, right?

Ehhhh… not so fast.

While the United States does, in fact, have a higher murder rate than the UK and much more guns in circulation, anyone with a shred of an education knows that correlation does not equal causation, and that the presence of guns tells a very limited and very inaccurate story.

We have by far one of the highest per capita gun ownership rates in the world, and yet, we’re far from being the most violent country out there.

Countries such as Latvia, that have the same per capita murder rate that we do, have a much lower gun ownership rate.  Whereas we boast 90 firearms per 100 people, and despite this fact, our per capita homicide rates are below those of Estonia and Lithuania, Haiti, the Cayman Islands, and Mexico, which all have gun ownership rates far below ours.

So is it really the guns?

B0JTUOVCcAAK0wg

 

I’m thinking not so much, especially with our homicide, accidental death and violent crime rates on the decline, while gun ownership increases.

homicides-per-year

The UK enacted its strict gun control legislation after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, which resulted in the deaths of 16 children and their teacher. The ban did not stop murders in the UK. As a matter of fact, they increased dramatically in the aftermath of the legislation, and reached their peak in 2003/2004.

That said, the nation has had historically low homicide rates to begin with, so the increase was definitely noticeable.

What also is notable are the low homicide rates prior to the enactment of the gun control legislation, which left most Britons disarmed and vulnerable to armed thugs.

So in a country with historically low homicide rates, one incident prompted a comprehensive infringement on the people’s right to bear arms, and said infringement had no appreciable effect on the already low homicide rates in this country.

Meanwhile in the United States, we finally got rid of the odious and worthless “assault” weapons ban, gun ownership rates have been climbing, and homicide rates have been declining steadily.

But if you think that the Brits are finished spanking the gun owners for incidents of violence for which they are not responsible, you would be wrong.  According the latest news from the UK, if you’re a registered gun owner in Britain, you will be subject to unannounced police visits to your home, and warrantless inspections of firearms storage.

Right to privacy? Forget it.

Right to property? Screw you.

If you are a gun owner in the UK, you have no rights. And yet, we have Mommies Demanding Action for Gunsense screeching about safe storage laws… for the children.

They either don’t understand that such mandates would involve massive violations of Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, or they don’t care.

My bet is on the latter.

They want more stringent controls. They demand universal background checks that would essentially eliminate private firearms sales, infringing on the people’s right to dispose of their property without government interference.

They want a ban on scary, black rifles for no other reason than they’re black and scary.

And all for what?

For nothing. The UK’s example shows that their gun control laws have had no effect on actual murder rates, but instead of looking at actual causes of violence, the gun grabbers in this country want to be just like the UK.

Do we want to emulate a nation that routinely infringes on its citizens’ right to privacy, right to property, and right to self defense in vain?

I would hope the answer is a resounding “NO!”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

I don’t want to hear “Never again!” ever again

You hear it all the time in writings or speeches about the Holocaust: “Never again!”

This is spoken as a war cry, a cry of defiance and determination. Yet how many of the people raising their figurative fists to the sky and shouting that there will be no more Holocausts are actually doing anything to prevent future disaster?

Damn few. Shouting, “Never again!” doesn’t do one real thing to prevent disaster any more than pink ribbons (which my town is festooned with every October) cure breast cancer. The shouts and the ribbons are both fine if they lead to lifesaving action, but without that, they’re meaningless.

One writer referred to the cancer ribbon campaign as “relentlessly pink optimism”, which can actually be very distressing to women whose cancer has metastasized. “Pink optimism” could lead to greater awareness, but on the other hand it could create false hope, divert research from even deadlier cancers, or end up making people feel less concerned about the problem because their attention eventually blanks out from too much bombardment with those ribbons.

Similarly, “Never again!” creates the impression that something’s being done to prevent Holocausts when there’s little or no action. Since Hitler’s Holocaust, there have been genocides in China, Uganda, Cambodia, Rwanda, and other places known and perhaps others unknown.

The “Never again!” people have done an excellent job of reminding the world of what Hitler did. (My nymsake, Feigele “Vladka” Peltel Meed was one of the earliest to make sure the world wouldn’t forget.) Sadly, though, they’ve also helped create the impression that Hitler was some unique monster and his genocide was the one and only. Yet just as there have been genocides since Hitler, there were also genocides before him. We now know that Stalin probably outdid Hitler when it came to killing his own people and his genocides were well under way when Hitler was barely getting started.

That’s the first big mistake of “Never again!” If you see only one genocide and see it as unique, you’ll always fail to understand the nature of genocide. You’ll look forever at Hitler and Germany, trying to figure out how they were different than everything that came before them and everything after them, which means you’ll fail to understand the full pattern of genocide. You’ll never really understand the attitudes, conditions, and laws that create genocide and you won’t see the next one coming.

One big, vital thing you’ll miss is the role that victim disarmament plays in genocide after genocide. You can’t kill millions of people until you’ve eliminated their ability to fight back. Of course “gun control” is only part of disarming people. It’s part of a package that includes destroying their spirit of resistance, getting them to trust authority even when authority intends to kill them, and other things. Taking away their resistance tools is complicated, but it certainly means keeping the victims less well armed than the perpetrators.

That’s another reason I don’t ever again want to hear “Never again!” Too many of the people shouting those defiant words are working for the very thing that leaves victims unable to defend themselves. How many people who cry, “Never again!” are enthusiastic advocates of “gun control”?

How many of them will tell you that only police and soldiers, the very agents who carry out genocides on behalf of homicidal governments, are the only ones who should have firearms?

No, I don’t want to hear “Never again!” ever again, unless it’s coming from the mouths or the pens of people who really mean it. The way to mean it is to educate people about the wide history of government murder of citizens. Don’t just pretend Hitler was some anomaly. The way to mean it is to stand up for the second amendment, to own firearms, to teach children to shoot and teach them why, to encourage a spirit of resistance, and to understand individual rights and freedom.

Do that and I’ll believe you mean it when you cry, “Never again!”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Faith and Firearms Revisited

Years ago – when I had time to write more than an occasional blog post, I wrote an article on faith and firearms for the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.

Having grown up Jewish, I always wondered why it is that major Jewish organizations were always pushing disarmament, and worse yet, leaning on faith to do it!

For an answer in this article, I turned to Rabbi Isaac Leizerowski – a friend of my dad’s and an authority on Jewish law. Rabbi Leizerowski confirmed that the right to self defense is actually mandated by Jewish law.

From the sanctity of Life comes an imperative to safeguard Life. The directive to defend your life is written in the Talmud, the 70-volume Code of Jewish Law, in at least three places. “And the Torah says, ‘If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.’”

For a reply on the psychology of disarmament, I turned to another friend, who shed some light on the issue.

Jack Feldman, Professor of Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology, has one theory: “Jews are called on to care for others who are troubled, suffering, etc. and to stand up for the oppressed,” he says. “It’s a mitzvah. Democrats and socialists (traditional proponents of gun control) have taken that role, in appearance if not reality…A lot of us have yet to get the message about the Left, and [continue to] cling to these fallacies.”

Life is sacred, my friends. We must work to change the mindset that disarmament somehow promotes safety, and is therefore a mitzvah.

It’s not.

Disarmament is death. It’s slavery. It’s tyranny. It’s the antithesis of everything Jews strive to achieve in the social sphere – life, liberty, goodness.

The Nazis knew this, and we should never forget this.

And we must strive to show it for what it is and challenge its proponents – especially in organized Jewish circles!

Because if we allow gun grabbers to control the message and spread the lie that gun control is somehow beneficial, we’ll be swimming upstream for a long time.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail