Tag Archives: gun grabbers

When the world goes crazy

I don’t think there is anyway to say it that makes it better. I’ve just seen one too many things recently that just makes it seems like there is a competition for the “Most insane or hypocritical” category. Though perhaps those two should each have their own category.

Let’s start with Israel. She is still under attack from the pieceful Falestinians. They are flying fire kites in an attempt to burn crops, vineyards, wildlife, domestic animals, people and anything else they can reach. This is because they love the land so deeply. Sort of like the abusive spouse that says they love you so much that if you ever try to leave they will either kill you and take everything. Yeah, boy howdy, if that doesn’t say true love I don’t know what does. L-O-V-E, like OJ loved Nicole. We want to return to the land we love so much, we’re going to burn it down, break through this security fence, invade a sovereign country and rip the Jews hearts from their chest. Nope, not hyperbole, that’s actually a quote.

So, you have the arabs of Gaza trying to throw the Jews off the land and out of their homes.

And, in the Nativ Ha’avot neighborhood of Elazar in Gush Etzion which is about 11 miles South of Jerusalem, the Capitol of Israel, it’s working!! Jews are being thrown off their lands and out of their homes! No no, not by the Falestinians or Abu Mazen, but instead by the Israeli (way less than) Supreme Court. Yes, once again the liberal Jew hating left has submitted a claim that one meter, one flipping meter of land that runs through the neighborhood is arab. Mind you, they can’t prove it, or haven’t yet. The homes were ordered destroyed in September 2016, and this overrode a State of Israel assertion that they homes were/are legal. Israeli politicians showed up, I guess to talk, because they certainly didn’t do anything useful, like stopping it! Judge Ayelet Shaked was there and has said it’s unnecessary. You see, when those homes were built 15-20 years ago, the state certified that the land was all-cool and fine to build on. Now because of a leftist group fifteen homes are going to be destroyed. I watched Ari Fuld live stream from the scene of the impending crime and he nailed it as self-hating Jews on the Supreme court. Mind you they still haven’t proved the arab claim on the one meter. But, the homes are being destroyed. After Amona, I’m so ticked I’m not using any of the words that I think apply. A group of young Israelis circulated a petition to stop it. That didn’t work either. I watched the people singing and dancing in one of the beautiful homes, it’s heartbreaking especially after Amona.

I think someone needs to have a serious talk with the Jewish Agency and tell them this sort of thing really puts a damper on people wanting to move to a country that will throw you out of the home you’ve lived in for 20 years on the whim of some left-wing group or a spurious claim of an arab that may not have even known he “owned” the land until two weeks before. And, quite possibly found out through the efforts of the aforementioned left-wing group.

And since under Bibi Netanyahu this keeps happening, I sincerely, most sincerely hope that Israelis will begin to listen to the message of Moshe Feiglin and Zehut. If this is breaking my heart, I can only imagine the pain of those going through it.

But this leftist hatred of Jews goes way back. I read an interesting article by Stephen Schecter of Zehut. He was talking history, specifically the Dreyfus affair. And he nails it.

The Dreyfus Affair unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism in French society at the time, an anti-Semitism which proved to be European when it culminated in the Nazi pan-European program to incinerate its Jewish population. Today, Israel’s very existence has unleashed a torrent of anti-Jewish vitriol whose ultimate denouement remains to be seen.

It is in that sense that one can simply state that Israel is a reincarnation of the Dreyfus Affair, but one which goes on and on, and which will only end when Israel, and the Jews themselves, decide to put an end to it. Unfortunately, there are today too many Jews who place themselves on the side that vilifies Israel, without even the decency of the French Jews of Dreyfus’ time who simply kept a low profile. Their excuse was most likely they felt vulnerable as a minority in a country that was not their own. Today they have no such excuse. Israel exists as a Jewish state. In working to destroy it, however, these latter-day Jews will reproduce the helplessness of their French co-religionists of a hundred years ago, and thus bequeath to history the ironic footnote of Jewish complicity in their own demise.

Not that Franceistan is far better today. Macron’s Overt Antisemitism

Macron’s logic and morality run along the same lines. If the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem breeds violence in Gaza, it is morally and politically imperative not to do it. Peace above all, even if it means the clogging of the arteries of Israel’s heart, is good for Israel, and for the world, according to this moral anti-Semitic argument. To balance it off, Macron draws moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas by refusing to address this entity’s expressed supreme goal of destroying Israel. Peace, the anti-Semites will argue, is more important than Israel.

Somehow it always seems to be Israel that the nations are willing to lead to the alter for sacrifice. Even the left-wing Jews, maybe even especially the left-wing Jews. For instance, crazy Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s smear pushes the Democrats further away from Israel

He has adopted the Palestinian narrative about the “Great March of Return” in total. He not only accepts the blatantly false claim that it is “non-violent,” thereby ignoring the use of Molotov cocktails, stones, firearms and incendiaries that have laid waste to swaths of Israeli fields. He also claims that Hamas wasn’t involved despite the fact that it has already claimed responsibility and admitted that most of those killed while attempting to breach Israel’s border fence were members of the terror group.

What a hateful, horrible lying man. He also lied about the number of deaths during the 2014 Gaza war, he gave even higher figures than those Hamass fabricated. How pathetic is that? He needs his meds/adjusted/started/re-evaluated/whatever.

But Bernie is a elitist. No matter what happens to the little people, he’s above it all.

No armed teachers in schools? No worries, Illinois Demoncrats hates the kids so much they are getting rid of the armed guards. Illinois House approves measure to replace armed school guards with mental health professionals Because obviously Demoncrats recognize having armed guards or armed teachers will do nothing to help. Unless of course you are an elitist. Like for example obama Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, one of those responsible for Common (rotten to the) Core failing program.

Anti-Gun Arne Duncan Sends His Children to School with Armed Security

On May 20 Breitbart News reported that Duncan suggested Americans ought to pull their kids from school until Congress passes more gun control. He said he and his family would even be willing to take part in the school boycott if it were done “at scale,” i.e., if there were broad-based participation in such a boycott.

……

Jewish World Review reports that Duncan’s children “attend the exclusive, private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools in tony Hyde Park, which a Lab Schools brochure brags is ‘patrolled by the University of Chicago Police Department (UCPD) and private security.’”

So, as long as we are discussing elitist hypocrisy and the resultant craziness, let’s take a look back at a well remembered and despised catholic priest known as Father Michael Pfleger. Don’t recall the name? He’s the priest that threatened to “snuff out” the owner of Chuck’s gun shop. Actually he threatened to “hunt him down and snuff him out”. For some reason I would take that as a threat. Maybe I’m just sensitive? Not content to let it go with merely threatening one man, the good father then threatened to “snuff out” legislators that didn’t vote the way he told them. Ahh yes, Chicago mob politics. Oops, sorry, Chicago Church politics. That was back in May of 2007. And yes, he is still the priest at St. Sabina’s. Well, it seems the anti-gun priest who goes around threatening to murder, not kill, murder people has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested on 27th May 2018. Yep, police showed up and found the “bodyguard” holding a gun. I use quotes because it seems there is some discussion as to if he really is a bodyguard.

Records with the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation show that Hale’s FOID card expired in December 2017. Records also show that he is certified to work in Illinois as a security guard, and that he was once disciplined but it doesn’t explain why.

A May 29 blog post on “Second City Cop” referred to Hale as “Pfleger’s security” and said that “Pfleger and his minions called 006th dist (sic) nonstop to try to get the guy out of arrest.”

How elitist and entitled. There was also discussion as to whether or not St. Sabina’s priest has armed guards.

When asked about Hale’s relationship with the 68-year-old Pfleger, a church secretary told Chicago City Wire only that Hale was not a bodyguard. He deferred further questions to Pfleger, who did not return a call to clarify whether he employed Hale as private security and whether he called CPD asking for Hale’s release.

Susan Thomas, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Chicago, wrote in an email that “Fr. Pfleger does not have armed security and to our knowledge, neither does any other priest.”

Well, Susan Thomas, you’re in for a real shock. The people at Guns Save Lives have a delightful collection of pictures of St. Sabina’s father with his armed “bodyguards”, and they are printing. Discretion must not be their forte, just as sanity or decency is not Father Phlegm’s of St. Sabina’s.

But, when you’re an elitist hypocrite, that’s just how you roll.

And since Chicago is so concerned with guns, gun owners and gun crime I’m sure their court system is set up to handle things in a swift and just manner, right?

I know, I crack myself up too. It’s Chicago.

Prosecutors: Gun Offender Was Free On Recognizance Bond When He Got Another Gun And Killed A Man

(Judge Stephanie) Miller—a champion of the county’s “affordable bail” movement—let Williams go free on a recognizance bond after he was charged with possessing a stolen handgun on the South Side.

……

On February 9, Williams hit the trifecta, according to police and prosecutors: He stayed out after his unenforced curfew; he got a gun, and he shot someone to death.

……..

On February 21—the very day that Williams first failed to appear in court—Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart sent a letter to county leaders including Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. Dart was concerned about the “alarming” number of people charged with illegally possessing handguns who were being released on electronic monitoring.

But the terms of Williams’ release were so loose, he wasn’t even on electronic monitoring, according to court records.

Preckwinkle responded a few days later, accusing Dart of “sensationalizing” the issue.

Pat Milhizer, a spokesman for Chief Judge Timothy Evans, also fired back at Dart: “The types of cases addressed by Sheriff Dart are gun cases — but they are gun cases in which nobody was shot or killed. That means the charge is not an inherently violent charge.”

YOU’VE.GOT.TO.BE.KIDDING.ME!! This is Corrupt Chicago where priests go around threatening to “snuff out” law-abiding citizens and legislators, which I get, given Chicago may not be the same things. You are living in high crime gun control central, and they have a man who was released on a recognizance bond after possessing a stolen gun, no monitoring. He gets another gun a few months later and kills someone and the county board President accuses the Sheriff who is concerned, with sensationalizing the issue. So, if a criminal has a gun that’s not “inherently a violent charge”. Wow. Wow. But a law-abiding citizen with a gun to protect themselves or their families from Judge Stephanie Miller’s release on recognizance bail. Oh HECK no! They don’t know what they are doing, Father Phlegm will show up and threaten to “snuff them out” and the go back to St. Sabina’s to preach whatever it is he preaches at the Roman Catholic Church. I’m guessing it’s more along the lines of social justice than anything Moshe brought down from Mt. Sinai.

And for the cherry on top of the crazy. There is a Muslim Imam, Imam Mohammad Tawhidi that I admire. He is very strong and brave, very brave. He follows us on Twitter. That alone isn’t remarkable, we have Israeli followers, Iranian followers, Kurdish followers, all kinds of followers. But Imam Tawhidi is very unique. He speaks out against radical Islam, vocally, forcefully and often. Often as in daily. He’s known as the Imam of Peace. He calls Hamass a terrorist organization. People want to hear what he has to say, it’s an important message in this day and age of the UN siding with terrorists, Franceistan, Germany, and Englandistan all harboring, aiding and encouraging terrorism of innocent Israelis and the Jews in their countries as well. Social media has been a big part of spreading Imam Tawhidi’s message.

And so, Facebook banned him. Yep, Facebook, with it’s well know bias against Jews and Israel, banned a peaceful, decent, brave Imam.

Is Facebook Biased Against Jews?

When it comes to incitement, is Facebook biased against Israel?

Is Facebook Biased Against Israel and Jews?

Perhaps stung by that criticism, mere days after two Muslims murdered fourteen people in San Bernardino, California, CEO Mark Zuckerberg vowed that Facebook would “create a peaceful and safe environment” for Muslim users.

Oy. Vey. Vay.

A friend once told me some stories, or jokes I suppose about the wise men of Chelm. It was a town of fools in the stories. First, Chelm is real and second, the people were not fools. But, for the purpose of this column, let’s go with the joke part.

One day a hole opened up on the bridge to the city of Chelm, and every day people crossing the bridge fell through the hole and were injured. So the wise men of Chelm, instead of repairing the ruined bridge, decided to build the hospital under it…

The whole column is very good.

So much is inverted and crazy. Terrorists are labeled as peaceful marchers, Priests are using armed guards while threatening to “snuff out” law-abiding citizens and preventing them from being able to defend themselves from Judges who release murders on recognizance and county presidents that say it’s just gun crime, not always a big deal, self-hating Jews doing everything they can to destroy the one Jewish state, and helping the arabs who are trying to burn it to the ground. The solutions being proposed might as well have come from Chelm for all the sense they make.

In spite of all this, יש תקוה There is hope.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

BREAKING NEWS, BREAKING NEWS!!!!

This is a guest contribution from one of our TZP Facebook followers, Erik Johnson, who is also a friend and darn fine Viking.

It was all over the news. The radio reporter read how the United States had finally come to its senses; the time for knife control had arrived. London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave a speech to a joint session of congress repeating his words of great wisdom “No one needs to carry a knife!” Former comedians touted on their late night shows the fact that you don’t need a 10” meat cleaver to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Moms who don’t get action President Whannon Satts declared “No child should ever have to walk into a kitchen and see a weapon.” Nancy Pelosi proposed legislation banning high capacity assault knives with features similar to knives used by the military such as pliers and screwdrivers and those plastic tooth pickey thingies. Chuck Todd on Face the Nation held up a knife made by the Victorinox Corporation and asked “Who would ever need such a thing? It is clearly made for the army.” Joe Biden pointed out in a speech given to students at Berkley that in America more people are killed every year by knives than with AR-15s. Then his handlers tackled him to the ground and promptly shoved a sock in his mouth. A child who attended a school where a knife attack occurred, although he was truant on that day, Jesse Pig, waxed poetically on The View, “Our f—–g parents don’t f—–g know how f—–g to use a f—–g knife!”, then spit out the tide pod he was choking on. Of course the usual suspects gave the typical straw man arguments. National Rapier Association President Wayne LaThereThere called a press conference to ask, “How the hell are we supposed to cut a steak or even butter toast? Really people this is nuts!” Former President Obama was first to respond to the NRA’s claims saying, “Now let me be clear. No one needs a cut steak”, as a member of his secret service detail portioned a $2000 piece of kobe beef for him which he had pilfered from the White House kitchen prior to leaving office. Then my alarm went off. I looked at the pen knife I laid on the nightstand just before going to bed. “No”, I said to it, “This country will never become so insane we will try to ban knives.” The clock radio wailed as loud as it possibly could. The radio reporter read how the United States had finally come to its senses…..

Practical and commemorative. Because no one should be left defenseless!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

So Penguin, about that book

So little boss Hogg and his little Hogg sister are release a book to encourage taking rights, not privileges away from adults. Rights the little Hoggs are not even old enough to enjoy as they are still children. At least that’s how he referred to himself in his recent bullying session with Laura Ingraham.

The Hogg duo anxious to capitalize on their 27 seconds of fame have “written” a book. They must be paragons of organization. What with all the media appearance, school work and now managing to get a book released. All on their own. Amazing.

I received the following from a active TZP follower of facebook:

#NeverAgain has been the cry of the Jews for decades to remind people of the Holocaust under Nazi Germany.

Now, activist and high school student David Hogg is using the title “Never Again” for a book he is writing that will be published by Penguin Random House.

The book is about gun control. “A new generation has made it clear that problems previously deemed unsolvable due to powerful lobbies and political cowardice will be theirs to solve,” according to the preview of the upcoming book.

For anyone wishing to contact Penguin Random House about the title,

please call at 212-782-9000;

e-mail to: customerservice@penguinrandomhouse.com, RHAcademic@penguinrandomhouse.com, penguinpublicity@us.penguingroup.com, atrandompublicity@randomhouse.com, penguinpress@penguinrandomhouse.com

Should you wish to let Penguin books who have chosen to publish this know your opinion that’s how you can do so.

So thank you follower of TZP!!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Liars, and the lied-to

On a recent post, a commenter noted that anti-RKBA groups must have trouble recruiting workers given the conflicting skill sets of credentials and experience and the reasoning skills of a toddler. I had to disagree; since the goal of groups like Moms Demand Deaths Action isn’t reducing violence, poor logical skills aren’t needed.

Just a willingness to lie. Like Shannon “I’m just a stay at home mom” Watts, the professional public relations manager paid by Bloomberg.

Sometimes I’m willing to allow that a person is ignorant, rather than maliciously lying, when advocating for victim disarmament. That’s because there are — at least — two types of gun control advocates.

The first are those for whom the goal is a disarmed citizenry — for the sake of people control — rather than a reduction in violence.

The second is their targeted demographic: those who didn’t care enough about the subject to have already educated themselves using readily available data. The first group lies to the second to instill panic so that they will begin to care. But the targeted demographic will be operating on the dramatic lies and blood-dancing they accepted passively.

How do you tell the ignorantly well-intentioned — who might be capable of grasping reality once it’s presented — from the outright liars? Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.

Some horrible murder occurs. A group forms saying they want to prevent that happening again. They create a Facebook page to present facts about guns and violence, including a graphic that purports to show that having a gun is more likely to be a danger to you and yours, than to useful for protection. Someone else notes that they’ve referenced the debunked Kellerman study.

At this point, the gun control group could do a few things. They could ask what the Kellerman study is, suggesting they work from simple ignorance. They could stand up for the Kellerman study, which might be ignorance or lying; could go either way.

Or, they might claim that graphic doesn’t represent the Kellerman study, indicating they know what the Kellerman paper is, and that isn’t isn’t worth using as a reference.

So let’s say they did the latter. And our observant commenter points out that the graphic specifically includes text saying it’s from the Kellerman paper. A few other people jump in to tell them the same thing. And the next time our fearless commenter visits the page, his comments have been deleted, as have the others supporting his position. The Kellerman graphic remains now unchallenged. That would be a group of liars, not well-intentioned ignoramuses.

Oh. Wait. That situation wasn’t hypothetical. That’s exactly what Watts’ Moms Demand Action did.

Maybe another hypothetical.

Let’s say that a state legislature is considering a bill to impose universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraint background checks for firearms purchases. And let’s say that another group formed in response to the above mentioned mass shooting testify in a public hearing that universal background checks would have stopped the asshole who killed the children at Sandy Hook. Since the murderer obtained his weapons by first murdering his mother and stealing her guns, it’s hard to imagine him then stopping for a background check. But hey.

So someone contacts the group to point out the little problem with the claim. The possible responses could tell us how we should view them.

They could say that their reps were overwhelmed by emotion and misspoke, and offer a correction.

Or they could lie, and claim their reps actually said PPYI would not have stopped the Sandy Hook killer.

Oh. Darn it. This one wasn’t hypothetical either. It happened. I was there in the hearing in New Hampshire in 2014 when the Sandy Hook Promise representatives definitely said PPYI would have stopped him. So did several hundred other people, who muttered enough about the outlandish claim that the committee chairwoman had to call for silence. And when I contacted SHP, they did lie about what their reps testified to.

In fact, I got two lies for the price of one.

“Sandy Hook Promise is firmly rooted in constitutional values and as such does not support policy or legislation that poses a burden on anyone’s rights.”

Except when they send representatives to another state to demand just such burdensome legislation. (Frankly, I’m amazed they got there. They said that Connecticut borders on New Hampshire.)

Once you’ve determined which type you’re dealing with — lying SOBs, or their knowledged challenged targets — deal with them appropriately. Call out the liars like Moms Demand Action, Sandy Hook Promise, and Giffords; especially in a manner that theirs targets can see so they’ll know they’ve been lied to. Admittedly, that’s touigh when the media are the allies of the liars (and generally liars themselves).

The knowledge-challenged you can try to educate directly. But you have to work past the false “knowledge” they’ve been suckered with.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



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

“‘Astronauts with Shuttles’ can be dangerous, too”

‘Good guys with guns’ can be dangerous, too. Don’t gut concealed carry laws.
That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes almost got shot.

…and proceeds to tell of a lawfully armed man using his training — and restraint — to not kill anyone. Apparently Mark Kelly believes that we are as thoughtless and impulsive as he is, buying a gun “on a whim” and publicizing that it is an illegal straw purchase.

I’m beginning to believe the “brain damage by hypoxia” theory.

Using his… reasoning, Mark Kelly was “a matter of seconds” from crashing STS-108 and STS-121, not to mention all those aircraft in his naval aviation days.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

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

Sandy Hook: My Failure?

I don’t think so.

When will it end?
The killings on December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School will be forever remembered as a monumental failure of otherwise law-abiding gun owners to take responsibility for their freedoms.

I don’t know when it will end. But it seems highly unlikely that it will completely end until overly-emotive nonthinkers like Mr. Nehring base their victim disarmament decisions on reality rather than fantasy.

Let’s talk about the “failures” of law-abiding gun owner Mrs. Lanza.

  • Her son had mental problems. She spent years trying to address them.
  • She bought firearms through licensed dealers, going through background checks.
  • She reportedly kept most of her firearms locked up, some reports indicating specifically to keep them out of her son’s hands.

So what was her failure; what allowed her deranged son to get those guns and murder those people?

She fell asleep.

Yes, for those with no long-term memory, like Nehring, Mrs. Lanza’s son murdered her in her sleep so that he could steal the guns he would take to the school.

Many vocal gun owners refuse to acknowledge that with their freedoms come responsibility. Instead they try to sweep this tragic result under the rug.

I suppose in Nehring’s deranged world, he has a point. The right to sleep without being murdered is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Ban sleep and high capacity king-sized beds.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

So who will bell the cat?

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

Is Ms. Bovy volunteering to come down from Kanuckistan to kick in doors and steal the weapons?

She’s supposedly writing a book on “privilege.” Would that be the privilege of big, strong goons to assault, murder, and rape smaller women? Does she really want to reinstitute that disparity in defensive force, to render women harmless and helpless?

Maybe she’s just a radicalized human extinction proponent who favors genocide over voluntarism.

I digress. Her motivations aside, back to the original question.

A remarkably silly, non-peer reviewed “study” asserts that there are a mere 55 million American gun owners in possession of just 265 million firearms. Oddly, as much as twenty years ago, the CDC put those numbers — very conservatively — at 66 million and 250 million respectively. Others, with a more more realistic understanding of firearms lifespan, estimated 80-100 million gun owners in possession of as many as 750 million firearms.

Consider the past 16 months of record breaking gun sales, on top of two decades of occasionally more sedate sales.

My guess is north of 120 million gun owners, and in the neighborhood of three quarters of a billion guns. More than a third of the country armed. Trained.

When California started getting rabid about “assault weapons” back the ‘900s, I predicted the world’s largest outbreak of “blue flu” if the outright ban passed and the police were ordered to enforce it. Shortly after — purely by coincidence — a police union spokesman made the same prediction. And the victim-disarming legislators changed tactics to slower, incremental restrictions.

So… 55 million, 66 million, 80-100 million, or 120+ million…

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”
— Carl Bussjaeger

The police in California considered it. Have you, Bovy?

Will you personally put your money where your foaming mouth is? Will you come down from Canada to kick in doors of heavily armed citizens, and bell that cat?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hank Johnson Off His Meds Again

House Rep. Hank “Tippy” Johnson [D-GA] bares his hatred of Jews.

Congressman: Jewish Settlers Are Like Termites
“There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming,” Johnson said during an event sponsored by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, an anti-Israel organization that galvanizes supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS.

Clearly one of his staffers needs to be permanently assigned the job of monitoring the lunatic’s medications.

As you would probably have guessed from that “D” behind his name, this man, when he isn’t insulting people and embarrassing himself, works to disarm all his potential victims.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Statistics”

You’ve heard that “polls show that 90% of Americans want…” garbage; usually universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, but often any other infringement of your human/civil rights the gun grabbers can dream up. And you’ve wondered where the heck they found that many idiots.

In New Hampshire, the claim by UNH was 93% in favor of UPPYI checks. But I could never find a single person who would admit to participating in the survey. At all. Responding pro or con. The university refused to release their raw polling data. Actual voting (as in electing pro-gun politicians) doesn’t reflect that claim.

In Washington, the Bloomberg Ban Bunnies trotted out the same 90% claim. Granted, when it went to referendum, the infringement passed.

By slightly under 60 percent, as I recall. So where did the the other 30% disappear to?

Yes, the 90% claim has consistently been shown to be low-grade, poorly composted bovine ejecta. Real “polls” — votes — don’t support the numbers, so…

Katie Couric: ‘Silent Majority’ of Gun Owners Want More Gun Control
“The NRA only represents five percent of gun owners, so there’s this huge silent majority, and they represent common ground.”

[Digression: By that logic, the Bloomberg BBs represent — maybe — a few hundred people, so 99.999999999% percent of Americans must want everyone to be heavily armed at all times. -psst- Couric; I’m not NRA, but I’m pro-RKBA.]

See that? Now that the polls are clearly biased, manipulated, and maybe in the NH case, where no data exist, even made up, they have to fall back on the “silent majority” who huddle fearfully under their beds, refusing to voice what they truly want. A silent majority that can’t be verified because they run and hide form pollsters. But who transmit psychic emanations to Couric so she can discern their hidden desires.

Well, that got weird and creepy pretty quick. But that “silent majority” obviously has a thing for submission.

There’s the BBB playbook: Fake the polls; when that doesn’t work, lie. When that still doesn’t work, claim you’re speaking up for those who won’t speak up, or vote, for themselves.

How convenient.


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