Tag Archives: gun control

False Negatives

June 7, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 3 Comments

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

But it gets worse.

False negatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action, self defense

Incentive

June 6, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Governments have a habit of throwing money at problems…

DC government will pay criminals not to commit crimes: $9,000 a year / 200 people
Did This City Bring Down Its Murder Rate by Paying People Not to Kill?: $300 to $1,000 / 50 people
California Mayor Proposes $1,000 for People Considered ‘Most Likely to Shoot Somebody’: $12,000/year

…unless it might go to honest folks. Like honest, noncriminal gun owners.

Philipstown Enacts Safe-Storage Gun Law: $1,000 fine and a year in jail

So they’ll pay criminals to “behave,” but punish gun owners for not “behaving.” I’ve got a better idea.

Just those three Danegeld cities would account for some $6 million a year in extortion payments. That would buy more than 105,000 of these little gun safes, and handguns are the preferred firearm of choice — small, concealable, easily disposed of — for criminals.

Instead of criminalizing theft victims, and paying off the predators, how about incentivizing guns owners to secure unattended weapons?

Michael Bloomberg spent $20 million just on Nevada’s 2016 background check initiative, only to see it fail when it turned out his toadies wrote an unenforceable proposition. He could have spent the same money on 350,000 gun safes — for more than 10% of the state’s population –, and actually accomplished something.

For that matter, $20 million would provide excellent bounty payments for would-be victims who take out the criminal who attempted to prey upon them. A two-fer: incentivizing defense and elimination of criminal predators.

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

authoritarian swine, gun control, So Much Stupid!

Minorities don’t have rights?

June 5, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

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

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

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

What other minorities would he like to disenfranchise?

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

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

Especially when said minority is heavily armed.

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

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

gun control

Consider if you will

May 26, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger Leave a comment

-annoying rap ringtone-

“Yeah? Mikie here. Oh, Lemonjello.* Yeah, I know, but I ain’t got the money. I know, I know; I said I’d pay it back last month, but, sh*t bro, you know how it goes… No, don’t tell Sharisse; she’d kill me. F*** it, man, I gots some cash coming next month. Leave me ‘lone till then.”

-puts multi-hundred dollar phone away-

“F*****g a**hole. I’ll pay his a** back.”

-pulls phone out again-

“Crimestoppers Hotline.”

“Yeah, I know this who’s gonna rob a bank. His name’s…”

“Sir, is this a crime that has already occurred?”

“Well, naw. But he’s gonna rob it.”

“Sir, I’ll forward you to the Detectives division.”

-click- -obnoxious elevator music-

“Investigations. Sgt. Holloway.”

“Yo, man. I know a dude what’s gonna rob a bank.”

“Really? And you know this how?”

“Like, he’s talking ’bout needin’ cash, and he got this gun… His name’s Lemonjello Sm…”

“What bank do you believe he’s targeting?”

“Umm… Well, he gots an account at the Second First National on Highland.”

“He’s going to rob his own bank?”

“Sure; he know where that one is.”

“He told you about his plans?”

“Naw, but you just know…”

“Right. Tell me about this gun he has. What type, where he got it.”

“I ain’t seen it. But he said he bought something for protection at Falcon Tactical Guns a while back.”

“He bought this at a gun store?”

“Sure.”

“So we have a guy with a lawfully owned firearm, who hasn’t said anything about robbing anything, but you just know. Has he robbed anything else? Muggings, assault, anything else?”

“No, but…”

“Let me guess. You owe him money, and you’re trying to get out of paying. We see that all the time.”

“Wait! Maybe he’s gonna…”

-click-

“Well, shit.”

-punches numbers again-

“Red Flag Hotline. Who is in danger from whom?”

“Yo, Lemonjello Smith done got a gun, and he’s gonna hurt somebody. And… and… Yeah! He’s real depressed-like and gonna kill hisself when he done.”

“Thank you for the warning, sir. We’ll get right on it. Please spell the poor man’s name.”

“L-e-m-o-n-j-e-l-l-o S-m-i-t-h.”

“Lemon Jello?”

“Yeah, his momma love the stuff. And you should see his sister Deserta.”

“Lemon Jello and Deserta?”

“Yeah, ain’t none of them right in the haid, if ya know what I mean. And he gots a gun.”

“Yes, this sounds very serious, sir. Let me get the rest of the information, and we’ll get a protection order to take his gun right away.”

“Cool! Thanks be to Jesus for red flag orders, huh?”

“Yes, sir.”

* Pronounced leh MAHN jeh LOW.

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

authoritarian swine, gun control

Sandpaper?

May 23, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 3 Comments

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

Hmm…

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

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

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

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Media

Backpedaling

May 22, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger Leave a comment

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

…pedaling. With an extra helping of whining.

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

Ooooh. Threats. Like…

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

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

“Molon Labe.”

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

So… No threats.

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

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

No. Now what?

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

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

Meet The Zelman Partisans, Mr. Holmes.

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

"News Media", gun control, mindset, Schools and campuses

Problems and Solutions

May 19, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 7 Comments

Once again, some asshole went on a shooting rampage in a school.

Once again, some asshole legislator is blaming the lack of new gun control laws, specifically universal background checks Preemptively Prove Your Innocence (PPYI) prior restraint on human/civil rights.

It’s true that the Santa Fe scumbag would not have been able to pass a background check, being seventeen years old, but… he bypassed any such checks by obtaining his weapons unlawfully in the first place. He stole them, from a locked cabinet. Does Douche Deutch honestly believe that if universal PPYI were in effect that an underage person intent upon mass murder to the point that he violated laws would suddenly exclaim, “Oh, darn! That would be illegal. Never mind.”?

The simple facts are that 1) 64% of murderers have prior felony convictions* prohibiting them from lawfully obtaining guns, but they manage it anyway; 2) 88% (or as high as 90.5%) of firearms murders are committed using stolen guns, which means they were obtained unlawfully; 3) criminals generally don’t obtain their firearms through lawful channels, doing so only 7% of the time. Pray tell, how does one enforce a lawful background check in an unlawful transaction?

And the touted background checks? No doubt, you’ve heard all about how checks have stopped sales to bad guys 2.5 million (or whatever number is being bandied about of late) times. The reality is that with a false positive rate of 94%, that’s actually 2.3 million innocent people whose Second Amendment rights were mistaken abridged. That’s why there have been so few prosecutions (I think 140-something was the last number I saw; not 140,000, not 1,400… 140. Nationwide.) coming from those millions of NICS denials. At last report, the DOJ still had a backlog of tens of thousands of denial challenges to process.

Prohibited folks intent upon committing crimes just bypass pesky PPYI inflicted on the innocent.

New gun control laws would target only the honest folks who aren’t committing the crimes. So such laws violate rights without even the lousy excuse of enhancing public safety.

So naturally the gun control crowd whines, “But we have a growing gun violence problem, and you aren’t offering any solutions.”

No, we don’t; and yes, I am.

First: No. We don’t. Even when you include the recent uptick, “gun violence” is a mostly solved problem already.

Firearms homicides are down 24% from 1993
The rate of firearms homicides is down 37%
Accidental firearms deaths dropped from 824 (in 1999) to 489 (in 2015)

School shootings?

Again, even with the recent jump — largely attributable to the media plastering killers’ names and faces everywhere, showing psychotic copycats the road to fame — school shootings have been trending downward for decades.

Violence isn’t really up. Violence reporting — thanks, 24/7 news networks, in desperate need of material to fill time slots and draw advertisers — is up. So kids (chronological and mental) who haven’t looked at the real data get the impression that schools are less safe than ever before in history.

We are safer because of honest folks lawfully arming and defending themselves. 338,700 times in 2007-2011, 11,690/year even according to the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. Other researchers estimate defensive gun uses at 2.5 million, which recently located CDC data (suppressed for 20 years) suggest is a better estimate than the VPC’s.

But those upticks?

There are 3007 county units in the US. 54% — more than half — had no murders in 2014. 5% ( counties) provided 68% of all murders. 2% of the counties (60 counties) accounted for more than half of all murders. Care to guess where?

Would you like to narrow it down further? According to the Wall Street Journal, one-third (33.3%) of the national homicide spike in 2016 came from just five neighborhoods. In one city: Chicago.

Huffington Post narrows it down even more. Although you have to look at the FBI UCR data on victim and offender to see what they try to avoid stating outright.

A mostly solved problem; violence declining almost everywhere.

Second: But there is more that can be done to address the still-present (if declining) problem:

1. Teaching people the things they need to function in an honest society.
2. Providing second chances and skills to those who slip and survive.
3. Providing skills and equipment to those who want to stop the real violence.

But for the gun people controlling victim disarmers, those answers are unacceptable because they reduce their control over the population.

Solved problems are a problem for them because those don’t provide an excuse to exert more control, spend more money, generate more victims from which to profit.

The people controllers suppress self-respect and self-reliance in favor of violating everyone’s human/civil rights.

And it could backfire on them.

* Recently, I’ve been checking on regional firearms murder reports. Where the offender is identified, the prior felony rate is more like 70%. When other disqualifiers are factored in — domestic violence conviction, restraining orders, felony indictment, mental incompetency adjudication — at least 90% of the murderers were already prohibited persons. That doesn’t even count the people like the Santa Fe killer, who apparently had no disqualifying record, but was under-age to obtain his destructive implements of choice.

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

authoritarian swine, gun control, Schools and campuses

Gun Culture Genocide

May 15, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 3 Comments

Or call it cultural terraforming. Either way, the intent is to indoctrinate children with the idea that guns are evil. John Dewey would be proud of them.

Police called to New Haven magnet school for child making toy Lego gun
School officials said a child built a toy gun out of Lego at the Jepsen Magnet School in New Haven Thursday.

School administrators called police to the school after the child made the gun and started pointing it at the other kids.

The school’s behavioral rules do forbid toy weapons, but somehow I don’t think that’s a criminal offense, even in Connecticut. So why were the police called to enforce a school rule?

To ensure that uppity kid understands that the authorities will stomp on his rights. To expect it. To accept it.

To ensure the culture of self responsibility — expressed through firearms ownership — becomes extinct, by terrifying a small child, young enough to be playing with Legos in school, with cops.

Now, I could accept some restrictions on toy guns in school. Popping off Nerf projectiles during lessons could certainly be disruptive. And you wouldn’t want a child to be beating other children with a plastic bludgeon. But neither was a case here. The child made an inert gun-shaped assembly of plastic blocks. He allegedly pointed it at other students.

Great Ghu, did they think the Legos were going to go off?

In a sane world, the teacher might have told the child, “Johnny, that’s very creative, but you should never point even toy guns at other people. And you’re disrupting class. Put that away until recess.” End of story. It would have been a good time to start the class on the basic rules of safe firearms handling.

Nope. Someone panicked. The police were called. The police responded… to a toy gun call. Even they though they had to know there was not a criminal violation.

Where’s the investigation of school personnel filing a false report with the police? That is a crime. Even in Connecticut.

Better yet…

“School leaders and local police partners were able to investigate and resolve the issue internally with use of restorative practices.

How did the police investigate the issue? Did the police question the child? Were his parents informed and present, or other adult counsel? There is a lot of court precedent for children knowing their Miranda rights and having proper representation during questioning. In a rational world, the New Haven Police Department could be in serious legal trouble for playing the school’s game.*

And then there’s the potential for a lawsuit against the teacher, and whomever else was involved in bringing in the police. If I were the parent, that would include the pricipal and school board.

Just maybe we could culturally terraform Connecticut back into respect for the Bill of Rights. And people. Even small children.

* I sent an email to the NHPD, asking for clarification on their role. I wanted to email the school, but they’ve scrubbed every active contact link for their web site (“contact us” buttons still appear, but link to nothing).

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

authoritarian swine, gun control

Open Letter: Fudds Against Freedom

May 11, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 7 Comments

Generally, I avoid columns at HuffPo, but I clicked the link before I realized where it was (I really need to watch URLs more closely). In this case, I discovered an “open letter” from associates of the Outdoors Writers Association of America, who apparently never heard of Jim Zumbo. They want gun control.

Lots of it.

As is my habit, I wrote an email to Daniel Ashe, the bylined writer of the letter, and former FWS director (an Obama appointee). I couldn’t find an email for him, so I sent it to OWAA, as all the co-signers are affiliated with that group. I waited for a response.

-crickets- Funny how that happens when I challenged victim disarmers with facts.

As is also my habit, I’m now sharing my letter with the world.

Dear Mr. Ashe (and co-signers),

RE: An Open Letter From Hunters About Gun Reform
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-ashe-guns-hunting_us_5af04b20e4b041fd2d28bd88

I’m not sure you’ve thought through your gun control proposals. Allow me to explain.

“We see the need and opportunity to frame compromise between the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the Fifth Amendment’s right to life and liberty.”

That would be the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property” part, I presume. I think you need to read the whole Fifth Amendment, rather than cherry-pick one clause:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Please note that this is a set of restriction on government, meant to protect individuals from said government. Let’s focus on that partial clause you like:

“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Shall not be deprived of property without due process. Like taking, or preventing the acquisition of firearms. That’s rather important, as I hope you’ll come to understand.

“Here’s where we would begin:

“1. An age minimum of 21 years to purchase any gun;”

Any other constitutionally guaranteed rights you want to restrict? Perhaps the First Amendment right to… write? Vote? That whole Fifth Amendment thing?

“2. Anyone on the Terrorist Screening Center’s “no-fly list” may not purchase or possess firearms;”

I’m not a fan of denial of human/civil rights without due process. I think you’re advocating an 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights violation.

The problem is that politicians discovered an investigative tool (lists of suspects — many with insufficient evidence to arrest — and possible associates to be watched) and mistook it for a list of actual known bad guys. Well… they did ID the late Senator Ted Kennedy, so some of them were bad guys. But the elderly nun? The inconvenient wife who the federal worker added to no-fly to be rid of her? And several others?

“3. Anyone on Social Security disability due to mental illness may not purchase or possess firearms;”

There’s that due process — or lack thereof — problem again. Based on experience with the Obama administration, I’m guessing that you mean you want his old no-due- process rule reinstated.

“4. Prohibit new sales of semiautomatic assault or tactical-style weapons;”

Why? You never actually explain that. I’m reasonably certain that the Second Amendment doesn’t mention hunting, while it does mention arms being necessary to security and freedom. Pesky thing, eh?

“5. Prohibit new sales of semiautomatic shotguns or rifles (except .22-caliber rim fire) that can hold more than 10 rounds;”

Ditto. Not that such a limit would have deterred some of the recent school shooters (Parkland, FL, ten-round magazines; Ocala, FL, double-barreled shotgun — whoa, a hunting weapon — Dalton, Ga, revolver)

“6. Prohibit any accessory designed or mechanical modification intended a) to increase the rate at which any firearm may be discharged; or b) to increase the magazine capacity of a semiautomatic rifle beyond 10 rounds (except .22-caliber rim fire);”

Can you give me an example of such a device? Metallic self-contained cartridges raised the rate of fire over that of non-case muzzleloaders. The Revolutionary War era Ferguson rifle also had a higher rate of fire over muzzleloaders. Double-barreled shotguns can fire faster than single-shots. Polished trigger groups can increase the rate of fire (along with replacement springs and bolt assemblies).

At a guess, I suspect you have bump-fire stocks (and possibly trigger cranks) in mind. Funny thing: neither increases the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm; that’s inherent in the physics of the firearm’s internal parts. In fact, since a bump-fire stock bleeds off recoil energy to allow the trigger to reset for the next manual operation, that can decrease the theoretical maximum rate of fire.

“7. Mandatory and universal background checks for all firearm sales;”

There’s an idea. How about starting with the 64% of murderers with prior felony convictions who use stolen firearms 88% of the time (and even more with other disqualifying conditions like mental health adjudications, misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, unlawful residency status, and the rest)? Roughly 90% of them get their firearms from friends and family who could be presumed to be aware of their prohibited person status, and from blackmarket — i.e.- already unlawful — sales.

If you can get them to go through background checks, you might be on to something. I’m not sure how you’ll get around the HAYNES ruling on self-incrimination, though.

“8. Prohibit sales of firearms except through registered/licensed dealers (no direct private sales);”

You’ve already specified mandatory universal background checks (more accurately: a prior restraint on the exercise of a right through preemptive proof of innocence). Why also require owners/buyers to go through an FFL dealer unless you want a permanent 4473 and bound book record of who owns what? And you still have the prior felon issue; get them to buy through dealers. Such an insistence on a paper trail is why many gun owners fear you have backdoor registration in mind.

“9. Enact gun violence restraining order authorities allowing courts to temporarily prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing firearms when a family member, community welfare expert or law enforcement officer presents evidence of a threat; and”

You have a serious jones for violating due process, don’t you? Such restraining orders mandate violating human/civil rights with process coming only after the fact; UNDUE process. And if the person is so dangerous that his property must be taken preemptively, why wouldn’t he be arrested and and charged with a crime? Or do you mean that rights — like the First Amendment right to pen silly columns — should be violated without probable cause?

“10. Repeal the “Dickey ban” on scientific research in the area of gun violence and implement the Institute of Medicine’s 2013 gun violence research agenda.”

There is no such ban. The Dickey Amendment forbade the CDC to “advocate or promote gun control.” They could — and did — continue with research (as are other federal agencies). The amendment did take away certain research funding: the amount that the CDC diverted away from research, proving they didn’t need it for said research. And you seem to have missed recent legislation clarifying that: an explicit statement that such research is allowed.

“These suggestions are simple to implement and enforce.”

If they are so simple, then start with the unlawfully armed criminals before inflicting them on the folks who didn’t do it. You know, the…

“They do limit the rights of honest and law-abiding citizens, but they are responsible limitations that do not infringe the ability of Americans to hunt, shoot, or protect themselves and their families.”

They limit the rights of INNOCENT “honest and law-abiding citizens,” but ignore the prior felons who are the vast majority of the problem.

And if have to wait for government permission to purchase only less-effective defensive arms, then, yes; my right to protect myself has been infringed. I seem to recall a wise man speaking of a right delayed being a right denied.

Oh well; it’s not as if you have to run your open letter through a Federal Literature Licensee and undergo a prior restraint background check before exercising your right to speak up.

—

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
Writer, The Zelman Partisans
zelmanpartisans.com

About Us: Jews. Guns. No compromise. No Surrender.
A group of Jews and friends who stand uncompromisingly for the right to
keep and bear arms — and the entire Bill of Rights.

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

gun control, So Much Stupid!

Nurses for Tyranny

May 1, 2018 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Another weasel-worded call for repeal of the Second Amendment.

Gun rights — Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients
We are nurses who have a vested interested in the health of the public. Each of us has many years of experience working in practice, and in teaching public health, mental health, and women’s health. Gun violence touches on all these areas.

We agree that there’s a need for gun violence research but we also think about the root cause. By definition, there would be no gun violence if there were no guns.
[…]
For us, as nurses, we notice that when we are discussing gun violence it is critical to note that gun ownership is a constitutional right — specifically enumerated and clear as clear can be.
[…]
To protect our patients, we as nurses are rising to an important recognition that the time has come to follow a constitutional approach to address gun violence. The reality is that the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients. And we, as nurses, believe that the time to act is now.

We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence.

Guns are the root cause of gun violence? That’s a complete failure to differentiate between cause, effect, and method. As a more rational nurse said, “In a nurse, that’s f*****g serious.”

I hope none of those idiots are ever my nurse. Hearts are the root cause of heart disease. By definition, there would be no heart disease if there were no hearts.

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

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us

Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.