Tag Archives: children

Childish Things

“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
― C.S. Lewis

When I was a child, I believed some — in retrospect — silly things. Things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

One Easter morning I happened to wake up unusually early, and caught my parents loading the Easter baskets. I’m no genius, but neither am I an idiot. I told them I knew.

And then I generalized… and asked if they were also Santa Claus. Nailed it. To be honest, I’d had suspicions about him for a while; how did he manage to work so many stores simultaneously? How did he have time to make toys when spending so much doing photoshoots at said stores? Why did he sometimes have a real beard, and sometimes a fake? Sheesh, the excuses my parents came up with to explain discrepancies…

I don’t recall just how old I was; maybe five years old; I don’t think I’d started school yet. I know I’d broken the conspiracy well before a lot of kids my age (some of whom, at school, professed to still believe in Santa until the third or fourth grade).

Another childish thing I believed back then was “gun control”. “Saturday Night Special” was a big part of that. When I heard that propaganda news about how they were just cheap pieces of junk not good for anything but killing, I just knew they were terrible and should be banned. And, just of course, “criminals” shouldn’t have guns.

I believed that into my teens. But, as with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, it was observation and reasoning that led to disbelief, beginning with “Saturday Night Specials”.

Reasoning: If a SNS works well enough to fire offensively, why won’t it work defensively? “Cheap POS not good for anything” doesn’t make sense.

OK, maybe there are some guns that are just plain Pieces of Sh garbage. The Clerke 1st revolver I once encountered was so poorly made that I wouldn’t fire it with Hillary Clinton’s hand.* Well… All right; maybe hers, but not yours. But how many Clerkes would be out there after the first use/failure? I kept hearing about recovered guns linked to multiple shootings. Those couldn’t be Clerkes.

Observation: I kept seeing news reports of guns labeled “Saturday Night Specials” which even I recognized as Smith & Wessons. It appeared the defining characteristic of an SNS was price: if you got a new Smith at full retail price, it was all good. If you bought a used model at a price that someone on a budget could afford, it’s evil.

How’s that again?.

Remember how I extrapolated from “Easter Bunny isn’t real” to Santa Claus? I kept thinking: If affordable guns are bad, doesn’t that mean only financially well off folks can have “good” guns by definition? Rich = Good, Poor = Evil? Not being wealthy, but knowing my parents — just example — were decent people, I could see right through that once I bothered to consider it.

And that whole “prohibited person” thing to keep crooks from buying guns… C’mon, even as a kid I saw the “crook buys stolen gun in back alley” trope in cop and detective shows, movies, and books. Sometimes a stereotype reflects reality. I saw that same “trope” in a lot of news stories, so I knew it was real.

So if crooks didn’t get their “Saturday Night Specials” through lawful channels anyway, didn’t that suggest the law targeted honest people, and not criminals?

That was my “slippery slope”. Before long I was wondering why kids used to safely carry .22 rifles across their bike handlebars, but suddenly couldn’t be trusted to have a gun. So far as I knew, none of my .22-toting friends had ever robbed anyone.

Being an aspiring writer even then, I figured words had to have meaning. Like “infringe”, as in

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:

  1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
  2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon)

“Breach,” “infraction,” “encroach.” It seemed pretty clear: You can’t encroach on that right. Not even a little bit. Not just major infractions, minor infractions are out, too. Words have meaning because if they don’t, no two people can communicate. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be revoke in its entirety, but encroachments are dandy.” It doesn’t say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it’s convenient for the government.”

I was a kid of maybe thirteen or fourteen and I figured it out. I guess gun controllers never grew up.

Case in point: Dana C. Jones’ column Gun obsession is an issue of a nation, not just a male one

The pandemic of guns in the United States is the problem of a nation, not a particular sex.

Says there that Jones is a journalism junior, which suggests a minimum age of twenty years. Jones still has trouble with the “words have meaning” thing at a point years past where I’d figured it out (and at an age where I was already
an E-4 Senior Airman in the USAF).

“Pandemic of guns.” Prevalent, general, universal. Maybe Jones knows something we don’t know. America has the most armed civilian population in the world by a large margin, yet most estimates of American gun owners range from sixty million to a a hundred-twenty million, which makes us a minority. A heavily armed minority, but still not “prevalent” or universal.

If you keep reading (and try not to giggle too much) you’ll see that Jones really alleges to be concerned about gun violence. ‘Cause that’s… not so prevalent either.

Let’s say that there are a mere — chortle — sixty million gun owners out there.

According to this, there are approximately twenty million felons in America, including those incarcerated, paroled, on probation, or whose time is done. Bureau of Justice statistics suggest that around 3% of those are weapons offenses; let’s pretend all the weapons were firearms, just for discussion. 3% of 20,000,000 is 600,000. This isn’t six hundred thousand per year; it’s six hundred thousand cumulative total. That can include someone convicted of underage possession — not a crime of violence — and never committed another crime in his life for decades.

But pretend. 600,000 is just 1% of of sixty million gun owners. Not “prevalent” or “universal”.

Did you see what I did there? I pretended the groups actually overlap. But felons can’t lawfully own guns, so they shouldn’t be included in the group of admitted gun owners. So they’d be less than even the 1%.

You know… 600,000 total felons. That’s less than two-tenths of one percent of the total American population. Hardly “pandemic”. (Heh; given an average life expectancy of 79.3 years, that could potentially mean an average of 7,566 firearms felons — including nonviolent offenses — per year for the past eight decades. Still not “prevalent” or “universal”.

Apparently Jones childishly failed to observe that.

Back to the junior journalist’s panty-twisting.

The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms…

A little study of American history, not to mention Supreme Court rulings, could have shown Jones that the Second Amendment does not “grant[s] citizens the right to bear arms.” It is a pre-existing right, and the Second Amendment was intended to protect it from government meddling. (Since Jones failed to notice it, I’ll provide a recent SCOTUS hint: Heller.)

Words. Meaning. Grants vs. Protects.

Norway, for instance, has a low gun homicide rate and has stricter, more reasonable gun laws. Norwegians need a hunting or sporting license, which can only be acquired by completing a “nine-session, 30-hour course on guns, wildlife and environmental protection.” A sports shooting license is issued only upon completion of a firearms safety course of at least nine hours.

True, Norway has a low murder rate and restrictive gun laws. But Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela have far more restrictive laws — of the sort that would make California socialists swoon with delight — and murder rates that dwarf that of the USA. Jones fails the  “observation” test, not to mention confusing a Norwegian hunting license with a firearms license. That ““nine-session, 30-hour course on guns, wildlife and environmental protection” isn’t the requirement for a Våpenkort. That’s the requirement for a hunting license; a hunting license is merely ONE of the possible qualifiers for a Våpenkort. Words. Meaning. Great Ghu, this person expects to be a reporter and is less capable of observation and reasoning than a thirteen year old.

Gun control is not synonymous with annexing the Second Amendment, but it does mean protecting the people who live in this country.

As a humorous Internet meme notes, if Jones likes gun control so much, why not move to the south side of Chicago? It’s worked so well there. Gun-controlled Baltimore might be another good choice for Jones. But… “annexing” the Second Amendment? Words. Meaning.

I’ve piled on Dana Jones here, but only for a convenient example. Consider Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts, or pretty much any gun controller and ask yourself if that person appears to display adult-level observation and reasoning abilities. Or do their whines for control — ignoring the fact of generally fall violent crime rates (outside of gun control Paradises like Chicago and Baltimore) — sound more like a child crying because she can’t bring her freshly dug hole into the house?

In the past, I’ve accused gun controllers of rejecting reality. Perhaps that was unfair. Maybe they just aren’t grown up enough to recognize it. They still operating at a pre-teen mental level.

Hey! That explains why they always want to “do this for the children”. They meant themselves.


* Several years ago, a friend showed me a Clerke 1st he’d somehow acquired. I looked it over. Then I wiped it down to be sure I didn’t leave any fingerprints behind. I suggested that he clean it very carefully, with forensics in mind, and load it with a single round (likewise forensically sterilized), mount it in a clamp, and fire it with a long string. He should then — still wearing gloves — load one more cleaned cartridge, leaving the fired case in place. He should then put the thing in a sealed envelope labeled “For Emergency Use Only,” and save it in case he ever shot someone in dubious circumstances and needed to plant exculpating evidence. I was joking, but I wanted to reinforce the idea that he should never ever try to use that thing.


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Mom, Dad and Big Brother

Bear and I actually did NOT coordinate our columns!

Sometimes, I see a lot of different news stories that, at least in my mind, seem related. Listening to talk radio today as I was out driving to various and sundry places I had plenty of opportunity. One show I was listening to was hosted by Phil Valentine. Part of the hot topic was repeal and replace the disaster known as obamacare. I’ve seen up close and personal the effects of obamacare on some people.

Left-wing loon Bernie Sanders, who has very violent supporters that he encourages, has been yammering on about “People who can’t afford health care don’t deserve to die”. No kidding, but it’s a very disingenuous statement.

And then there’s the equally foolish statement that to ditch obamacare will leave 22 million uninsured. People listen to the Congressional Budget Office after the predictions on obamacare? Astonishing! As much as finding out anyone still watches CNN.

CNN has standards? Who knew!

After I finally got home and got on email I started seeing things that to me, are tied in, as in a big government taking control of things that they should never have been in, with no repercussions or consequences.

Most traditional families, have Mom, Dad and maybe a sibling or so, even if the sibling is covered in fur. I can still remember for the first few years of my life my sibling was a dachshund. I keep pushing for another sibling. Sadly apparently I was unable to make myself clearly understood. I told them quite clearly from the time I was two, maybe less, I wanted a pony. PONY, P-O-N-Y, pony, or horse. Yes, I knew at two. At the age of three, I got a sister. S-I-S-T-E-R, sister. As you can see the two do not even sound the same. Two years later, they repeated, I got a SISTER. Sigh, they are good sisters, loved them dearly. Still love them dearly, still, I really was hoping for a horse. Families are important, they can be your support system when the world is trying to chew you like a chew toy. It doesn’t always turn out that way, and it may not be that way all the time. I think by and large, families are sort of a cohesive unit. I might pick on my sisters, as of course, I should, I’m the oldest. But you let ANYONE,  A-N-Y-O-N-E, mess with one of them? I can go from 0-Bitch is 3 seconds flat, always was that way. It’s in the job description, I read it in the “Big Sister’s Manual and handbook for SOP”.

So, our first story is about Justina Pelletier, if the name sounds familiar, there is probably a reason. This was a very high profile case. From Michelle Malkin, who was on Phil’s show today talking about an unrelated issue:

Justina’s plight had become international news in Marty’s backyard. One fateful winter day in February 2013, Justina traveled with her mom to BCH from her West Hartford, Connecticut, home, seeking relief from a severe case of the flu. Ordinary sickness compounded Justina’s rare medical conditions, including mitochondrial disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. But those illnesses hadn’t stopped her from participating in school, competitive ice skating and an active family life.

Instead of receiving top-notch care and attention at BCH, however, Justina was snatched from her parents and recklessly re-diagnosed with a psychological condition, “somatoform disorder.” She was dragged from BCH’s neurology department to its infamous psych ward, where she was reprimanded for being unable to move her bowels or walk unassisted in her weakened state. At Wayside, she was harassed by a staffer while taking a shower. The physical and mental torture lasted 16 months. <Emphasis mine>

Justina’s parents were under a gag order and only allowed supervised visits by the kidnappers, Boston Children’s Hospital. Or, as Boston Children’s Hospital calls it, a ‘parentectomy,’.

“They tried to break us all,” Justina’s dad, Lou, told me at his West Hartford home, where Justina fights to recover from post-traumatic stress and physical deterioration suffered while she was held hostage.

But the arrogant, tunnel-visioned torturers failed. Thanks to an aggressive awareness-raising campaign by an eclectic coalition including Justina’s family, the Christian Defense Coalition’s Rev. Pat Mahoney, conservative media personalities and left-leaning critics of the Massachusetts child welfare bureaucracy, Justina was eventually freed and reunited with her parents.

So who else was involved in this eclectic consortium? A young man named Martin “Marty” Gottesfeld. What did Marty do? Well, he realized the publicity campaign to free Justina wasn’t working. So he with other hackers, and possibly the group Anonymous shut down the hospitals web site. Marty explained:

I knew that BCH’s big donation day was coming up, and that most donors give online. I felt that to have sufficient influence to save Justina from grievous bodily harm and possible death, as well as dissuade BCH from continuing its well established pattern of such harmful ‘parentectomies,’ I’d have to hit BCH where they appear to care the most, the pocket book and reputation.”

Marty’s been involved in a couple of other cases where he felt patients were being maltreated. No, he had never met the Pelletiers.

The next sad case is that of a 10 month old baby in that social utopia known as Englandistan. Little Charlie Gard was born with a rare genetic condition and brain damage. Unable to treat him in that socialized medicine paradise, his young parents raised the staggering sum of £1.4 million to be able to bring Charlie to non-mostly-socialized medicine America for an experimental treatment that might help the baby. Hang on to the horn folks, this isn’t going where you think, I can almost guarantee it. They are not going to be allowed to do this. Why?

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to ‘die with dignity’.

The British courts ruled against the parents. The desperate parents took the case to Franceistan, to plead to be allowed to take their child to America for treatment.

But on Tuesday afternoon, the ECHR rejected a last-ditch plea and their ‘final’ decision means the baby’s life support machine will be switched off.

The ECHR announced the application to the court by the parents was ‘inadmissible’ and added that their decision was ‘final’.

How the heck does this kind of situation even arise? Well, you allow the government to control your health care and who gets it. I’ve heard plenty of how socialized medicine works in Israel. Yep, they do fabulous research, but… I would say from Justina’s case, our government is already way to big for it’s britches. Yes, the hospital kidnapped her, they’ve too much power, but they were backed by a Judge.

Continuing the “We know what’s best” even if the government don’t decide your child’s life and/or death, they most certainly have more control than I think they should. Moving back to that social paradise known as Englandistan, let’s take a look at a school.

UK threatens to close Jewish school for not teaching LGBT agenda

Seriously? I mean most teenagers have probably heard a bit, they need to teach this? Oh, wait! Sorry my bad. These students are girls, 3-8 years old. It’s a private haredi school in Londonistan which has received kudos for the excellent education that it provides.

The school has been visited three times since February 2016, and told each of those times that it must incorporate the LGBT agenda into the 3- to 8-year-olds’ curriculum.

After the third time that the school refused to cooperate, the government decided to close it down. This, despite the fact that the school was praised elsewhere in the report, especially for the teachers’ “good subject knowledge and high-quality classroom resources that inspire pupils with enthusiasm for learning and to achieve well.”

Can we not just teach the 3-8 year olds how to jump rope and play dodge ball? Oh, sorry, too aggressive?

This doesn’t even begin to look at how home schooling parents have been harassed and threatened.

Children ARE the future of a country, how they are shaped will shape the country. That’s one of the reasons terrorists like to attack schools and buses, think of Beslan and Israel. If you can destroy a future generation?

You know, parents have a role to play in their children’s lives. They have unique and special gifts only they can give. It’s very difficult when the child is being raised not by it’s parents, with it’s siblings, but by “Big Brother”. They have enough trauma in life to overcome, you know, pony or horse neither one sound like “sister or brother”.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Parents, explain something to me, please

While browsing news this morning, I ran across this screed. It’s in response to a woman — with an admitted anxiety disorder requiring treatment — wondering if she should ask about the presence of guns before sending her child away to a play date.

Dear Abby Says Asking About Guns In Homes Is ‘Off-Putting’
It is astonishing that in this day and age, when guns are the third leading cause of death for American children and we hear stories seemingly every other day about children getting access to adult’s guns, that anyone — let alone someone whose job is to give advice — would recommend that a parent be more concerned about not making another parent uncomfortable than about making sure their child is safe.

TL;DR is that Bland is shocked that possibly offending an acquaintance might take precedence over child safety “when guns are the third leading cause of death for American children.” (Which happens to be one of the latest lies being pushed by gun ban bunnies. They have to include gangbangers up to 24 years of age to get there.) But this is where I need some input from parents, since I’ve never been one.

Do you parents normally send your kids — I mean those too young to understand that guns aren’t toys — off to the homes of people you don’t know well enough to have a feel for how safe they are?

Do parents typically not teach their children not to screw around with other people’s property — guns, in this case — without permission?

Do parents encourage their children to hang out with other children who lack respect for people’s property?

As a non-parent, my experience is limited to my own childhood, observing friends and relatives with their children. Bog knows, my parents told me to stay away from certain kids and homes. None of my nieces, nephew, grand-nieces, grand nephew have even tried to get my — secured — firearms.

Or, going to some friends for example: I used to spend a fair bit of time with a couple with two young children, the oldest a boy about three years old at the time. Any time they had guns out for cleaning, they’d let the boy watch. And handle guns and parts under supervision. And all the while telling him about the Four Rules; conversationally rather than as a lecture, in simple language a 3y/o could grasp.

And to make sure he understood that guns can destroy things and people, we took him to the range. We fitted him with hearing and eye protection (which he wanted anyway, since the grown-ups were putting on their own). I set up a milk jug full of water on the target line, and shot it with .45 ACP (I believe I was usually running 185 gr. Federal Hydra-Shoks back then), as our young student watched.

He was impressed. I didn’t know eyes could get that wide.

To the best of my knowledge, he never ever “played” with a gun. Because he knew what they could do.

In another case, I attended a camping event which included a lot of shooting: a pistol competition, pistol and rifle classes, and near-continuous informal target practice. The camping area was on elevated ground, and there was a trail leading down to the valley where the range was set up with the firing line facing the other side of the valley.

Much of the time there was a five year-old boy parked at the trail head. Small .22 rifle slung on his shoulder (Chipmunk, I think, but can’t swear to), and a belt with pouches for his muffs, safety glasses, targets, and ammunition. Any time an adult approached the trail head, the youngster would speak up very politely. “Excuse me, sir. Are you going to the range?”

“Yep.”

“Could I go with you? I want to shoot, but my parents say I can only go to the range with an adult.”

So I took him to the range, since I also happened to know his father and knew the drill. That boy was one of the safest shooters I’ve seen; strict adherence to the Rules (not positive, but I think he might have been muttering the Four Rules to himself as we walked to the firing line). Not a bad shot either,

Because his entirely reasonable and responsible parents had taught him firearms safety and shooting. Is the circle of friends, family, and acquaintances I hang out with really that much more safety-aware than most parents?

A more general example: I live in a state where an estimated one in three people own guns (I think that’s pretty low, but we’re not the sort to tell strangers on the phone a lot of details). In my small town rural area, the anecdotal rate is more like 90%; most of the exceptions are military and Yankee transplantees who haven’t bought anything yet (although some have asked me for help on deciding what to buy). It seems to me that if fears of kids grabbing guns were the huge problem Ms. Bland and Mrs. Anxiety-meds believe, this county would have depopulated itself decades ago. It hasn’t, it’s growing, and I can’t recall the last accidental shooting by a minor, nor does a web search turn up anything.

So, real parents; who better represents reality? My responsible friends, or fearful folks being treated for anxiety?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Doing the blood dance

We’ve seen it time and time again – politicians doing a ritual dance in the blood of victims in order to promote a political agenda and using tragedy to advance their schemes.

We saw it when Cindy Sheehan used the blood of her hero son Casey, who was killed in Iraq, to advance her anti-war agenda and launch her political career.

We saw it recently when both political parties saw it fit to use the Gold Star family of Army CPT Humayan Khan as a means to promote their candidates in a national election.

It happens every time a psychotic murderer goes on a rampage. The cries for more laws that would do nothing to stop any future carnage grow louder and louder, and those whose only purpose is to advance a political agenda mislead, lie, and use grieving families as tools to advance their odious goals.

What I find unconscionable is how brazen these liars have become.

Last month Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Arizona Representative Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) introduced the nauseatingly-named Help End Assault Rifle Tragedies (HEART) Act. And if the name isn’t enough to make you want to regurgitate last week’s lunch, wait until you read what this noxious piece of… legislation aims to do.

S.3171 and H.R.5739 would “prohibit the transfer, loan, or other disposition of a machinegun or semiautomatic assault weapon to an individual under 16 years of age.”

So, essentially, it will end youth shooting sports. It will prevent young people from learning and training with semi-automatic rifles. It will kill off programs that teach responsible gun use and ownership, focus, and accountability to thousands of young people.

Worse yet, they’re using lies and misleading grieving families into becoming props for their abhorrent ends!

“Right now we live in a country where a suspected terrorist can go online to Instagram and buy and find an assault weapon that could be handed to a child at a gun range for shooting practice,” he said. “There is no other nation in the world where that is allowed to happen.”

WUT the hell?
WUT the hell?

Yeah, get this straight! You can buy guns on Instagram! And terrorism! And children!

That incoherent rant came out of Markey’s maw when he introduced this travesty on July 12th. Because we can’t pass up the opportunity to somehow work terrorism into a pack of lies to help pass an odious bill that will do nothing but destroy programs that teach thousands of kids competition, sportsmanship, and responsible gun ownership.

And worse yet, the two slimy fascists also tricked a grieving family into being poster children for their agenda!

The children of Charles Vacca, a firearms instructor, who died in 2014 when a 9-year-old learning to shoot an Uzi at an Arizona gun range shot him, have been roped into pushing the political agenda of Markey and Gallegos. This bill would ban the use of common semi-automatic rifles by young people under the age of 16. I’m fairly sure this is not what their father – an Army veteran and range instructor – would have wanted.

But this is how the gun grabbers operate.

They take advantage of tragedy. They try to tempt, cajole, and mislead grieving families of victims of tragic accidents with promises of definitive steps that they claim will increase safety and reduce tragedies such as the ones that took the lives of their loved ones. They promise their loved ones’ names will live forever in legislation which they promise will reduce future tragedies. They use their grief to their advantage. They promise a lot.

And they lie.

What the HEART Act will do is prevent the next generation of shooters from competing in their sport of choice.

What the HEART Act will do is prohibit young people from learning critical gun safety skills.

What the HEART Act will do is toss focused, disciplined, talented, well-trained kids like Shyanne Roberts, whom two years ago I called “The Future of Gun Rights in America” out of their competitions.

What the HEART Act will do is make Olympic gold medalists like West Virginia’s Ginny Thrasher, who just won the first gold for the United States in Rio, obsolete, much to the glee of gun grabbing, classless swine, who have taken to the Internet in an attempt to ridicule, ostracize, and demean Thrasher and the United States in order to condemn our rights and freedoms.

Jerks like this Brian Santa Maria, whose biggest accomplishment seems to be managing a Curves in California, would be only too happy to surrender the pride of the United States to quivering cowards like himself who would rather see us disarmed, unskilled, and subservient to petty tyrants.

What this reprehensible, fraud-ridden legislation will do is destroy youth shooting sports in the United States.

shyanneAnd this is exactly what a new organization called Youth Shooters of America and the Zelman Partisans want to prevent.

These types of legislative proposals pose a danger not just to Shyanne’s ability to compete, but also to other young people’s ability to learn gun safety, and hone discipline, skill, focus, and personal responsibility.

Education, not bans, will help prevent these tragic accidents. By banning the use of these firearms by young people, these legisleeches will do nothing but make them taboo and increase curiosity and accidents.

And by lying to grieving families and exploiting their anguish for political gain, these opportunistic swine are confirming themselves to be nothing but indecent, mercenary charlatans, who care about little else other than promoting their agenda.

Luckily, the Senate and House versions of this lunacy haven’t gotten any traction, and are currently languishing in subcommittee. The House version has six co-sponsors, and the Senate version has one – Dick Blumenthal – the same Dick who has repeatedly lied about his military service.

But as ridiculous as the majority of the current gun control proposals pending in the 114th Congress are, they may be more dangerous than we imagine.

They may not pass, but they change the landscape ever so subtly. They express concerns about “gun violence.” They push for funding for “gun violence research.” They have cutesy names like “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act,” express support for special “months” to be designated “gun violence” months, and they name odious, dangerous, tyrannical legislation after victims of crime and negligence.

Words matter. Language matters. How we describe our freedoms matters. When you allow change the ideological landscape to change, you are losing the battle for our rights.

And we cannot allow this to happen.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: A Good Time for Machine Guns

My son was eight years old when he fired his first machine gun. It was an MP5 9mm automatic that a nice man at the range offered to let him fire.

He was 11 years old here. Very small for his age.
He was 11 years old here. Very small for his age, with a lot of hair!

I stood behind him, helping his little hands control the weapon, and the gentleman stood next to me, also behind my son, guiding him.

Danny had been exposed to firearms since he was probably four years old. He knew gun safety rules before he learned how to tie his shoelaces. Prior to his range trip, he had fired numerous firearms under supervision, and I felt he was ready to try something new that day.

Not everyone thinks that children should be taught to use these firearms, let alone semi-automatic rifles. Two hoplophobic imbeciles last month introduced separate bills – one in the Senate, and one in the House – nauseatingly named the Help End Assault Rifle Tragedies (HEART) Act to prevent young people from using these firearms.

We’ll discuss these noxious proposals more in depth in a separate article. For now, we’d like to know when you believe is a good time to introduce youngsters to automatic weapons.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Illegal Marketing?

I’m virtually certain that our regular readers know about the current lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families against Remington/Bushmaster. Their odd little legal theory — and seemingly bought by the judge — is that Remington is liable for the actions of Some Asshole because the company improperly marketed a military weapon to civilians (and precognitively knew that regions that buy guns may see thieves stealing them from honest folk).

Sensible people with some grasp of the law know that suit should have been immediately dismissed with prejudice under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA protects firearms business from imaginary liability for the misuse of a weapon by some end user…

…so long as the company obeyed all the myriad rules, regulations, and laws that govern the manufacture and sale of firearms. Companies are still liable for defective products and unlawful actions.

These misinformed moneygrubbers claim that marketing an arm commissioned by the military to civilians is “negligent entrustment,” another exception to PLCA immunity.

We could note that the military didn’t exactly “commission” the weapon design. It was marketed to the military some years after it was designed, and it was a heck of an uphill battle for the military to finally adopt it. So to speak.

[Informed folk can skip a paragraph or two.]

In fact, the military variant, the M16 family, is not the same as the AR family of semiautomatic arms sold to civilians. The military version has some specified modifications not in the original AR, and is is fully-automatic (legally speaking; some variants fired bursts, which the feds still class as “machine gun”).

Every time some ignorant, victim disarming crime-enabler calls semi-auto ARs weapons designed for soldiers in war theaters, I ask them to show the army that deliberately chooses to generally arm its troops with semiauto AR-15s instead of assault rifles or battle rifles.

And every time… –crickets–

Back to the lawsuit. Part of the plaintiffs’ claim is that Remington deliberately marketed ARs to teenage boys. (This ignore the fact that The Asshole didn’t buy the AR he used. He murdered the lawful owner, an middle-aged woman, and stole her gun.

Nonetheless, a moronic Yalie thinks she can prove that claim.

This historian just made it likelier that Sandy Hook parents will be able to take Remington to court
To support sales Winchester embarked on what it characterized as the “greatest commercial venture in the history of this country, probably in the history of the world.” They never lacked for ambition. In 1920 alone, they spent close to a million dollars on advertising.

A centerpiece of this effort was the company’s boy plan. Winchester prepared a letter about the .22 caliber rifle to send to boys between the ages of ten and sixteen. They asked retailers to send a list of the names of boys in their towns, so the company could send the letter to them under the retailer’s name. The company intended to reach precisely 3,363,537 boys this way.

Yes. You read that correctly. TL;DR: The Sandy Hook Asshole was driven to murder, theft, and more murder by the fact that nearly a century ago Winchester did market firearms to boys (back when it was perfectly legal for boys to buy guns, generally unlike today’s legal environment.

Since children cannot purchase firearms from FFLs, it would be silly for Remington to spend millions marketing to them. In 1920, it made sense, but no longer. Much better, more profitable, to market to parents.

Once upon a time, Remington lawfully marketed to a profitable demographic. Now they don’t because that demographic is no longer lawfully accessible.

Can you think of an industry whose products are being provided to children legally too young to use the products as intended? And who is doing it?

Hint: Condoms, and other birth control products. By schools. To children below the age of consent.

I guess it’s OK to protect victims of statuatory rape from the consequences, but not right to allow them to defend themselves against the rape in the first place.

Cui bono?


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

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail