Tag Archives: gun control

We Had That Conversation

Milwaukee NPR wonders…

Why Can’t We Talk About Guns?
An NRA video making the rounds online has been called everything from an open call to violence to protect white supremacy to a condemnation of violence.

“The only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” says NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch in the ad.

Subsequent NRA videos are more political but equally divisive.

The debate over guns in America has never been easy – but is it getting harder to keep it civil and useful?

We asked the NRA and Loesch to appear on this show, but did not hear back.

I expect they didn’t hear back from the NRA or Loesch because it’s extremely clear that WUWM’s anti-rights bias would make this, at best, an argument rather than a discussion. Stacking the deck with three anti-rights shills vs. one pro-rights activist, as well as WUWM’s false characterization of the Loesch video proves it.

And as a tool to reach any real understanding or agreement, it’s pointless. Those would disarm the honest demonstrably will not listen or learn. And they will lie. How do we know that (he asks rhetorically)?

Several years ago, I wrote a column for The Libertarian Enterprise. In light of this supposed call for “talk,” it seems appropriate to publish it again.


We Had That Conversation
In the wake of the Newtown murders, I see a meme popping up amongst the gun banners/victim disarmers. They say we need a “conversation” on guns in America. A common sub-argument is that pro-gun people need to stop saying “No” every time those who prefer a disarmed populace suggest more restrictions on the honest folks who didn’t kill any innocents in Newton.

We already had that conversation.

We had it in 1791, and settled the issue with the second amendment to the Constitution protecting a preexisting right to keep and bear arms. Gun banners being the whack-a-moles of civil rights violation, we had that conversation several times: Cruikshank and Presser come to mind.

More recently, we again had that conversation in 2008, when the Supreme Court pointed out that yes, the second amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller.

Chi-town pols didn’t like that, so we had the conversation yet again in 2010. The Supreme Court again pointed out that arms really are a right, and that it really is an individual right, in McDonald.

Victim disarmers are slow learners, forever doomed to riding the short bus through life, so we had the conversation yet-a-frickin’-gain in 2012: Moore v. Madigan, in which a federal judge had to lecture the poor, cognitively-challenged pols of Illinois (who have trouble even finding the short bus) in small words that, WHACK-upside the head “Pay attention, dipsticks; we told you it’s a right of the individual people, so stop screwing with it.”

And here we are: Once more, idiots who shouldn’t be on the streets without a guardian to wipe the drool off their faces, change their diapers, and keep them out of the road, are calling for the “conversation”. Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents over and over and over and over for a coveted-but-terribly-bad-for-you present, they keep ignoring the settled issue. “But China does it. What can’t we make all the citizens helpless, too?” they pontificate petulantly. (Yeah, China does it. That’s why their lunatic had to cut up those 22 Chinese schoolchildren with a knife a few days before Newton. Guns bans sure solved China’s violence problems.)

We had that conversation, and explained in words that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size should have been able to comprehend: “the security of a free state”, the right to life and liberty, self defense. At this point, anyone who doesn’t—or won’t—get it probably falls into one or more of three categories:

  • whining mental incompetents
  • those with a “professional” need to ensure a steady supply of helpless victims for violent predators
  • and those with a more extensive agenda

You might abbreviate those as morons, criminals, and traitors. None of which are really interested in reasoned conversation.


Going on five years and we’re still hearing the same judicially-invalidated claims and demands from the victim-disarming whack-a-moles, reinforced with equally-disproved claims that 90+% of Americans want universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks (because — try not to laugh — they would have prevented the Newtown school killings), and debunked claims that gun owners are a shrinking minority.

If gun ownership is on the decline, why are firearms trainers still seeing new people coming in for voluntary classes? Why are more and more people getting CCW licenses even as more and more states are dropping license requirements?

We have facts. They have lies. Of course we don’t want to bother debating them, in a biased setting no less.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Motivations

I’m a bit late to the NRA “truth” video game, but having seen this today:

Gun rights group targeting its foes?
Are my rights to assemble and speak freely with whomever I please superseded by an assault rifle?

Do I deserve to be arrested or shot because I seek to peacefully dissent from and petition my government?

The National Rifle Association, in a video released last week (https://youtu.be/PrnIVVWtAag), seems to suggest that I should be targeted because my views run contrary to the NRA, its members, our elected president and most of Congress.

-sigh- Complete with the usual — false — “assault rifle” claim.

Interesting. I’m not an NRA member (I object to much of what it does), so I think I watched that video with sufficient objectivity. What I saw was Ms. Loesch saying that some people are manipulated into committing violent crimes and that we must fight this with truth.

Mr. Prescott speaks of nonviolent, peaceful dissent; yet the NRA video specifically addresses — verbally and visually — violent, and destructive criminal acts. Apparently that’s what what passes for “peaceful” in Prescott’s strange world.

If someone objects to ending violence with truth, I have to wonder what that person is doing, or might be planning to do.

Especially when he parrots the “assault rifle” lie. I guess it’s easier to inflict a little arson/assault “conversation” on the unarmed; which I why I don’t plan to ditch my tools of self defense.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

GOP Baseball Shooting: “More Laws!”

If one were to take early reporting seriously (which I haven’t done for decades), some angry white guy — probably a right-wing white supremacist — shot a bunch of congressmen with a full-auto M4 assault rifle. The asshole took advantage of Virginia’s “lax” gun laws to get and carry his assault rifle.

Umm… Not so much. One, maybe two congressmen. One, maybe two cops. One, maybe two staffers. Maybe a lobbyist. Reports on that still vary.

CNN would have us believe the — oops, rabid left-wing Bernie supporter — used a Chinese knock-off of the AK-47.

Oops redux. Again, not so much. Now it was an SKS.


Note the subtle differences between this and the AK-47 and M4.

So he had an IL FOID (background check), possibly a CCW (background check), and bought his 3 guns from an Illinois FFL (background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period, background check & waiting period). He used a knock-off of a WW2-era semi-auto rifle (apparently with a 10-round fixed magazine, since it was Illinois legal. Heck, it might even still be California legal. Not an “assault weapon,” much less an assault rifle.

I can hardly bear waiting for the calls for laws that wouldn’t have stopped this. Oh. Wait.

I didn’t have to wait.

But I apparently will have to wait on national reciprocal carry while Congress addresses DC reciprocal carry only for our betters masters congresscreeps

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

The ER Lost A Patient

I just spent the day at a hospital Emergency Room (for reasons worthy of another column, but this is the wrong venue for that one). What’s relevant to TZP is that while I was there, they lost a patient.

Don’t start with the sympathy yet. He didn’t die.

They lost him:

“Hey, have you seen [xyz]?”
“He went to the restroom.”
“I checked; he isn’t there.”
“Maybe he’s in the other one.”
{insert pitterpatter of sneakered feet}
“He’s not there either.”
“Where did he go?”
“I don’t know. Look.”

There’s garbled talk of hospital security (who eventually showed up to search) and the Sheriff’s department, who also showed up. People in scrubs running up and down the hall, looking in every room. Multiple times. Muttering which I took to be poorly suppressed profanities.

Mildly amusing, you may be thinking, along with, “What the heck does this have to do with self defense, the right to keep and bear arms, or any of the other things that interest The Zelman Partisans?”

Some of you might see where this is going, but I’ll explain anyway.

Thanks to HIPAA — not to mention hospital Public Relations — no one was going to tell me exactly what the fuss was. But I overheard some gossip between staffers and law enforcement.

It appears that Patient Werrdefuqdego was a transferee from the jail. Possibly a mentally disturbed transferee. An unrestrained transferee. -ding!-

And no one from the Sheriff’s department was watching him. -ding!-

Nor was the hospital staff keeping an eye him. -ding!-

In fact, they were letting him run around without a keeper — in a yellow gown, blanket worn like a skirt, and no shoes. -ding! ding!- (Yes, he was a peculiar sight, before dropping out of sight.)

Figured out the relevance yet? For visitors unfamiliar with the Constitution, but hooked on magical thinking: The hospital with an escaped loon — possibly dangerous — from the jail, who was left to roam at will, is a “gun-free” zone.

So with a potentially dangerous nut on the loose due to lack of give-a-sh!t on the part of the staff and LE, I was deprived of my usual defensive tool. True, I could have refused to leave my sidearm behind and told the hospital to blow it their appropriate orifice, or even refuse to go there in the first place. But for personal reasons (possibly appropriate for the aforementioned other column), not going, or getting busted for trespassing, wasn’t an option. I had to go, and under trespass law, I had to disarm myself.

“No problem,” might say the Constitutionally challenged magicians, “the cops and hospital security will protect you.”

Except they didn’t. They turned the loon loose. They didn’t warn me, nor did they hang around to guard me.

Tell me again how gun-free — helpless-target-rich — zones make me safer.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dueling Twits

I recently read an article about two candidates competing for Governor of Virginia. The two candidates are touting as their best selling points their great records of working for people control and how many citizens that have committed no crime, they can leave defenseless to those that care to do so. Yes indeed, the thug block has two solid candidates running. Of course they are both Demoncrats.

Let’s take a look at a few figures, shall we?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm

Forcible Aggravated Larceny Vehicle
Year  Population  Index  Violent  Property  Murder  Rape  Robbery  Assault  Burglary  Theft  Theft 
2015 8,382,993 172,869 16,399 156,470 383 1,493 4,441 9,235 21,340 127,019 8,111

From the Virginia State police, I have this:

There were 441,355 Group A Offenses reported by the contributing agencies. (Page 8)

The total number of incidents of crime was 389,019 and the month of July had the greatest number reported. (Page 7)

Of the 17,459 violent crimes reported, 50% occurred in the residence/home. (Page 46)

There were 5,097 victims of the 4,787 forcible sex offenses reported by the contributing agencies; 84.4% of the victims were female. (Pages 14 & 15)

The theft of money accounted for a property loss of $64,061,900. (Page 60)

Firearms represented 24.7% of all known weapons used in aggravated assaults. Of all victims of aggravated assault, 64.3% had some type of injury. (Page 47)

There was a total value loss of $75,278,993 related to 7,955 completed motor vehicle offenses. (Page 61)

There were 126,032 Group A arrests reported by the contributing agencies and 156,390 Group B arrests reported. (Pages 74 & 75)

There were 1,238 assaults on officers reported in Virginia. Just under one-quarter (24.2%) involved some type of injury to the officer. (Page 56)

Of the 155 hate crime offenses reported, 45.8% of these were assault offenses and 31.6% were vandalism/damage of property offenses. (Page 52)

What strikes me, is the number of people willing to assault a law enforcement officer. If they are willing to assault someone they can be pretty darn sure is trained and carrying a gun you think they won’t try Grandma, or anyone else? The number of rapes, 84.4% were female. Since women are typically smaller and a bit weaker than the male of the specie, let’s make it harder to obtain a tool that could level the ground a bit. That sounds like a good plan (for the criminal). Following in the footsteps of their Gov. Terry McAuliff and his high regard for women with his binders full of them. Full of the victims of his political agenda that is.

I keep wondering what is it these two Demoncrats want to do to law-abiding citizens they can not do unless they are disarmed and defenseless.

What could cause a state to want to elect people prone to dictatorial impulses? I remember hearing a lecture a couple of years ago and the speaker was talking about a plan to turn previously conservative states into liberal voting states. Sort of the evil reverse of Molon Labe. It’s something along the lines of this plan. https://www.sisterdistrict.com/ As I recall it’s been implemented in Colorado and Texas was in their sights as well. I can’t remember all the others, but the speaker was Mark Meckler from Citizens for Self-Governance.

I suspect we all know what the end result is of citizens being disarmed by their government, and there is plenty of pain and suffering along the path on the way to the end result. Yet, politicians such as these two knot-heads persist.

At times like these, I try to think to myself “What would Fabio say about this?” You remember Fabio of course. The handsome cover model of probably millions of paperback romance novels? Long flowing golden locks? He’s also a writer and actor, in case you didn’t know.

Nope, I’m not kidding. Fabio. Fabio Lanzoni, who immigrated here from Italy. And he has a few outspoken things to say. Not from talking from the land of Unicorns and fluff, but from experience of what he has seen in Europe and what he is seeing in California now.

Fabio recently bought a gun after his home was robbed. But he is not a recent convert like so many during the Rodney King riots asking fellow actor Charlton Heston to borrow a gun.

As an immigrant from Europe, Fabio is in a unique position to share some advice with American citizens. His first bit of advice is blunt: “Just look at Europe and go the opposite way. It’s as simple as that.” He added, “Europe already jumped off the cliff. They are doomed.”

His second bit of advice is not something one often expects to hear from a celebrity. “Don’t you ever give up your guns,” he said. “If people lose that right, forget about it. Politicians — they will take everything away from you. And then what are you going to do, protest with a rock? Because that’s what they do in Europe.”

He said one major difference between America and Europe is the right of good people to be armed against tyranny and criminals who “are always going to have every single weapon available to them.”

He added, “The day you give up your weapon in the United States, the United States is going to be history.”

The whole interview is VERY interesting!

Apparently the Demoncratic party has not yet realized not everyone that voted for President Trump was not in love with him, but they looked at the alternative who would further obama’s attempts at disarmament and siding with thugs and criminals and said. “Nope”, just nope. This thought hasn’t occurred to them, so they think people control and victimization is a winning plan. YESH!

Yep, “What would Fabio say?”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

How much training? And why?

In ransacking the news for the weekly newsletter, I ran across this letter to the editor which reminded me of a typically ban bunny tactic to make firearms less accessible to honest folk.

Support smart gun laws
On the other hand, I am appalled and always have been by the fact that only one hour of practice is required to get the permit.
[…]
When one picks up a gun and consciously gets a license, it is with the intent to defend yourself, up to and including killing another human being. It is a weapon more intense than an automobile, which requires many more hours of training before someone gets behind the wheel.

When I got my driver license 40 years ago, I had to pass a ten question — as best I recall — written test and a five minute road test. There was no mandatory classroom or road training back then.

My truck has several controls. Steering wheel, shifter, clutch pedal, accelerator pedal, brake pedal, parking brake, headlight switch, hi/lo switch, wiper switch, turn signal switch, dash light dimmer switch, emergency flasher switch. I won’t bother mentioning the rest which don’t relate directly to driving the vehicle safely. But for all that, ten questions and five minutes on the road. Training wasn’t mandated by law, but I undertook that on my own so I’d know how to work all those controls properly. It seemed the sensible thing to do. After all, I’d be operating a device with the kinetic energy of a small bomb while carrying a fuel tank with the chemical energy of a large bomb. Thousands more people die by automobile than by firearm in America.

My usual carry gun has a trigger, magazine release, and a slide lock/release. Note the lack of a steering wheel, because if you can point your finger you can point a pistol.

For that, gun controllers — when they deign to allow us to be armed at all — want us to — just as examples from bills I’ve seen over the years — 1) get a license to purchase a firearm, 2) undergo forty hours of classroom training, 3) sixteen hours of range training, 4) pass a hundred question written test, 5) pass a fifty round range test, 6) get fingerprinted, 7) get photographed, 8) pass a background check, and 9) get a judge’s permission to carry. In some places, not others.

Given the requirements for operating a potential weapon of mass destruction, the requirements for carrying a defensive tool with three controls seems.. a little excessive.

Someone planning to get a gun certainly should get some education and training. I did; some through military and law enforcement sources, and quite a bit more on my own, by my choice.

While I’ve never been a certified instructor, I have informally trained quite a few people. In a couple of hours or less I can get the basic laws regarding carry defensive shooting across to most people of normal intelligence. Then spend another half hour on the “four rules”, familiarization with the new shooter’s specific weapon, sight picture, trigger control (a little dry fire included). I’ve found that when the trainee starts live fire, 50% of them put the first round in center mass. quite a few do the same with the first full magazine. I don’t recall any who missed the silhouette. (As opposed to a law enforcement officer who routinely failed her annual weapons qualification because she couldn’t paper with a shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot at twenty yards. The only time I routinely wore my ballistic vest was when I had to be on the range with her. Another officer tried to buy it from me when he heard she was coming.)

The simple fact is that that defensive handguns are designed to be operated without a huge amount of training.* Clueless “useful idiots” in the gun control camp may not realize that, but their leadership does. The mandates are only intended to restrict honest people’s right to self defense.

Train, yes. Mandated unreasonable, restrictive requirements, no.


* Design is what matters, not mechanical simplicity. A broadsword has no moving parts, the only “control” is the hilt. Yet a new would-be swordfighter might require days or weeks of training before I’d let him armor up fully and engage in a regular full speed bout. Swords are mechanically simple, yet difficult to master. This is why medieval Japan banned firearms; too many highly trained-samurai-backed tax collectors were getting killed by peasants with those newfangled guns.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Amalek, Haman and a Bucket of Chum

I know, I know Purim has passed and it’s not yet Pesach, but if you’ll indulge me just a little I’ll explain. First we need a bit of background.

When the Hebrews left Egypt, HaShem, the G-d of Israel had just delivered the enslaving nation of Egypt ten, count ‘em, ten devastating plagues, split the sea and drowned the Egyptians as they pursued the now freed Hebrews. NO sane nation wanted to mess with them. The qualifier, did you catch it? Sane. From Aish.com, and I’m going to be quoting quite a bit from this one article.

Remember what Amalek did to you as you were leaving Egypt. He happened upon you, and struck the weakest people trailing behind, when you were exhausted. And he did not fear G-d. (Deut. 25:17-18)

G-d said to Moses: Write this remembrance in the book… that I will surely erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. (Exodus 17:14)

To understand, we have to go back to the time of Jacob our forefather. Jacob had a twin brother Esav, who was a lifelong rival ― so much so that Esav sought to kill Jacob (see Genesis 27:41).

The Midrash says that when Esav was getting old, he called in his grandson Amalek and said: “I tried to kill Jacob but was unable. Now I am entrusting you and your descendents with the important mission of annihilating Jacob’s descendents ― the Jewish people. Carry out this deed for me. Be relentless and do not show mercy.”

True to his mission, Amalek has historically tried to destroy the Jews. For example, in Exodus 17:8, Amalek attacked the Jews out of pure hatred ― Amalek lived in a distant land and was under no imminent threat.

So what does Amalek have to do with Purim? The Scroll of Esther (3:1) identifies Haman as the descendent of Agag, King of Amalek. Haman’s desire to wipe out the Jewish people was an expression of his long-standing national tradition.

I’m sure we’ve all heard of the vehicular and stabbing attacks. It’s been all over the new, right?

A young Falestinian woman carried out a vehicular attack at the Gush Etzion Junction. She veered out of her lane, drove at great speed towards the bus stop at the junction and tried to run over soldiers standing there. The soldiers guarding the location shot at the car and wounded her. A solider received minor injuries. Although with that lot, it could mean she ran over his leg a couple times. Their idea of minor injuries and all.

Gush Etzion Car used in ramming attack

The stabbing attack? A Falestinian named Bucket O’ Chum 1, from Beit Fajjar, and a friend, carried out a stabbing attack at the Ariel Junction; both were killed.

This is life in Israel, the media finds it of no interest that cars are used as weapons of mass destruction against Jews on a regular basis. A knife attack against a group of Jews? Cnn (fake news): Ho hum. Did the Kardashians get new sunglasses? Isn’t it odd how these stories never seem to make the mainstream media?

But there was another attack too wasn’t there? This one in London. A Bucket of Chum that had converted to the religion of pieces got a car and drove over Westminster bridge and mowed people down, just like the pieceful Falestinian girl that barry ridiculed Americans for wanting to vet the women and children. Damn skippy. Bucket O’ Chum 2 has killed I think it’s 4 people, injured more than 40 people. Just like the pieceful Muslim in Ohio. And just like that one he jumped out of his car with two knives and begin to stab.

Photo of Some Asshole

Bucket O’ Chum’s stabbing victim was a much admired Police officer, husband and father, Keith Palmer. In America this might raise many eyebrows as we would be wondering why didn’t Officer Palmer shoot Bucket O’ Chum. But this is gun free utopia England. Officer Palmer was defenseless, you read that right. He was unarmed. He had to wait for other officers who were armed to shoot his attacker, and despite the fact that they were very close, it was still too late. Seconds really do count, and Officer Palmer didn’t have them. Want to know who shot Chum #2? A close protection officer for Defense Secretary Michael Fallon. Because you see, politicians are important, other people? Meh. Would you like to know what Defense Secretary Mr. Michael Fallon said about the incident?

“’They did not get into Parliament. They only got as far as the gate. They did not breach the security of the House of Commons and he gave his life to protect the security of our democracy.”

BULL FEATHERS!!! He died for no d*mn good reason! He died for political correctness, he died because the foolish people of Britain confuse the teeth. They can’t discern the protective teeth of an armed citizen or Police Officer from the teeth of the wolves that have come to tear them to shreds. For that matter, if there had been ONE, just ONE armed citizen on that bridge, is it possible Bucket O’ Chum wouldn’t have ever made it to Parliament? We will never know, but it sure might have changed the odds. For that matter, did they do a “universal background check” before the car was rented?

Bucket O’ Chum’s rented car

Oh but there is more ticked off to go:

Former Met firearms officer Roger Gay said Britain may need to move away from the idea of ‘traditional’ unarmed policeman in important locations.

He told Sky News today: ‘In my opinion, I would have all of them in that location, I think, should be armed. What you have there, and I hate to use the term, is perhaps a sacrificial pawn.

No, you idiot. He was a Police Officer, husband and father made defenseless by your idiotic policies. But at least this guy thinks they should consider arming all of the officers, at Parliament. Because, hey, they’re important.

In raids across Britain today they have picked up 8 people for “suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts,”.

And it will not end. As “Mad Mommies” virulently spill their insane bile against schools considering changing some of their policies to make their students at least a tiny bit harder to kill, remember it will not end. There will be other targets, in any country and because kids are taught in school to fear an inanimate object as being evil and to embrace a culture that part of it’s people say they want to kill Jews and Christians in many places, it will continue unopposed.

While Jacob believes that G-d runs the world and there is an absolute standard of morality, Esav believes that life is random ― and morality is therefore subjective. Esav’s hatred for the message of morality actually forms the basis of all anti-Semitism. Just as the Jews stand for the principle of caring for the vulnerable and weak, Amalek is the opposite ― “attacking the weakest people trailing behind” (Deut. 25:18).

……

So why do we have to stomp out Haman? Because we must recognize our enemies and fight them. Not because we enjoy war, but because part of being a “good person” is to actively seek the destruction of evil.

There are evil people actively working to eliminate G-d consciousness from the world. Know your enemy and fight against it. “Erase the memory of Amalek from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14).

It really, really is about good vs. evil. And we are to fight evil, we are to oppose it. And political correctness is evil. It keeps people from discussing issues that can endanger their lives, and from considering solutions that could save it. Please, Abba, no more defenseless victims, please let people begin to discern good from evil and act accordingly.

עם ישראל חי
Am Yisrael Chai

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

When the truth won’t do

I’m working a theme this week.

Robin Brulé, “Member Of Everytown Survivor Network,” wants universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. After all…

My mother is gone; others may be saved
My 75-year-old mother, Ruth, and her friend had been shot and killed. My mother had taken a trip to visit her friend who lived in a retirement community. They were drinking coffee and reading the newspaper when strangers robbed them and took their lives in a single instant.
[…]
the glaring loophole in New Mexico state law that allows criminals, domestic abusers and other dangerous people to obtain guns from unlicensed sellers with no background check, no questions asked. SB 48/HB 50 would close this deadly loophole by requiring a criminal background check for all gun sales.

No honest folks really want violent criminals walking around with guns (although one might also wonder what the violent criminals are doing on the loose in the first place, if they’re known). But Brulé fails to explain how universal PPYI checks would have stopped her mother’s murders. After all…

“Wright had no prior criminal record in Arizona…”
[…]
“Court records show Lauro was arrested on a second-degree burglary charge in 2013. The charge was dismissed in 2014.”

And…

Gothic said both men were subject to standard pre-employment procedures, drug screenings, and E-Verify, “which exceeds legal and industry practices.” The company said they are cooperating fully with law enforcement in the ongoing investigation

So, Brulé, how would your background checks stop a couple of guys, apparently with no disqualifying convictions, from purchasing a firearm? From anyone, including an FFL who has to go through NICS?

Another question: Given that, in Haynes, the Supreme Court has rulled that felons cannot be forced to self-incriminate on firearms charges, how do victim disarmers propose to force disqualified persons to comply with PPYI? Your police state dream law would only apply to honest people. You know, the ones who aren’t the problem.

Third question: Even if SCOTUS suddenly decided to toss the Fifth Amendment, how do you victim-disarming whackos propose to preemptively stop strawman purchases?

When victim-disarming ban bunnies start suggesting laws that don’t infringe on honest people’s right, and do apply to the real criminal predators, I might stop regarding them as liars or idiots. Or both.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Fakes Quotes, courtesy of victim disarmers and the lying media

Liars lie. More große Lüge.

List of reasons people got shot last month makes grim reading
Parents Against Gun Violence summarised news reports as if they had been written in the first person voice, to underline how pointless these reasons are for death or serious injury.

“Quote:” A guest at my son’s New Year’s Eve party got drunk and wouldn’t leave, so I shot him dead.

Reality: There was a fight. The aggressor refused to leave, and was shot in self-defense. The defender was not charged.

“Quote:” Some guy dinged my door in a parking lot and we started arguing about it. We both had guns, so I shot him first.

Reality: “Victim” dinged a guy’s car, and they did get into an argument. “Victim” tried to draw a gun, so defender drew his and fired. Judge threw out the case, and the defender was released.

“Quote:” I accidentally ran over a dog with my car. The guy who owned the dog was really mad about it and was yelling at me, so I shot him dead.

Reality: Self defense; no charges filed.

“Parents Against Violence” — or “Parents Against Gun Violence”?* This brilliant example of große Lüge urinalism gives both versions of the group name — is pulling the standard trick of intermingling criminal use of firearms with justified self defense. They want you to equate defense with murder. All the better to manipulate the ill-informed into supporting “sensible gun laws.”

We have facts. They have disingenuous fake “quotes.”

But look which Metro published.


Edited to add footnote.
* While there is a “Parents Against Violence,” that is an Alabama-based group that doesn’t seem to be related to this. This list of “quotes” appears to have been lifted from the Facebook page of “Parents Against Gun Violence.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Intent

LSU art student Jordan Marcell speaks of the “intent” in the creation of firearms. A lot.

Opinion: Guns dangerous by nature, effects not containable
“Even when not performing their purpose, the ever present danger with firearms, is that— somehow— they will.”

Too much, and yet still misses two points.

Let’s start with that intent. Marcell claims to believe that firearms are simply built to be deadly destroyers of biological life, and that this is a continuing and progressive trend towards ever more deadly weapons. If that were true, there would be no handguns produced, as long guns can project bigger, faster, more damaging rounds than could — effectively — any handgun. If simple killing were the goal, I’d stick to a AR-15 pattern rifle and a vest full of 30 round magazines, and junk the compact polymer pistol in wimpy 9mm which I do carry everyday.

I don’t carry that handgun to kill. I carry it to defend myself (and others, should the circumstances warrant). My handgun was not designed by Ruger to be the penultimate killing machine. It’s designed to be carried routinely and comfortably and to provide basic protection.

Or take this little number.

Does anyone seriously believe that was designed for anything other than punching holes in paper? One could use it to kill, but so could such a determined person bash in his victim’s skull with Marcell’s coffee mug.

Next, consider Marcell’s fear that all firearms will perform the deadly purpose mistakenly attributed to the inanimate gadgets.

According the CDC, in 2015, 36,252 people died by firearm; that includes homicide and legal intervention (such as self-defense) and accidents. We’ll pretend each death was accomplished with a separate firearm: 36,252 guns.

Conservative estimates of firearms in civilian hands in America range from the wildly implausible 265 million to a more likely 500 million, to a possibly over the top 750 million.

If you studied math, rather than Marcell’s “Studio Art” you probably see where I’m going with this.

36,252 firearms were seemingly used in accordance with the “intent” Marcell believes imbued their design. Out of 265-750 million firearms. If Marcell were correct then — conservatively — 99.98632% of firearms suffered gross design failures: 264,963,748 guns failed to kill anyone (as they are allegedly designed to do).

You’d think that if 60-130 million gun owners (estimates vary as wildly as estimates of firearms) thought their guns had malfunctioned, there would be a monumental class action lawsuit wending its way through the courts. As some anonymous Internet wag noted, “If guns kill people, where are mine hiding the bodies?”

Or, just maybe, those inevitable deadly effects are “containable,” because of the intent of the owners.

There is no “intent” conferred upon firearms. As always, intent resides in the person operating it. Yes, even in negligent or accidental discharges, some had the intent to do something — likely stupid — with the gun.

So Marcell missed two points. Did you notice a third point which he implied?

“A firearm, as a tool, is an instrument that was created with the purpose of eliminating biological life— or killing, if you prefer that term.”

“Killing.” He fails to distinguish between murder and self defense. Or to differentiate between murder and hunting for food. Or murder and putting down a terminally suffering animal. Even in “killing” intent varies. Unless one is a liberal arts student incapable of more than simplistic over-generalizations bearing no resemblance to reality.

If Marcell equates all killing to murder, I wonder what our young student eats. Surely not meat, yet…

And you who feed on nothing but plants
Don’t hold your pride so high
For plants are living, and just might feel
And they take so long to die.
– Fisher’s Chant, Leslie Fish

Does Marcell heartlessly murder suffering plants for sustenance?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail