Tag Archives: gun grabbers

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 fantasy rather than reality.

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

Victim’s Mindset

For decades — ever since I really became aware of RKBA as a political and moral issue, and educated myself on the subject — one particular question has nagged at me.

Given history (Maccabees, Basel, Warsaw Ghetto, and the Holocaust in full, to pick out a few), why and how do so many American Jews support victim disarmament? If any single group has thousands of years of experience with the value of arms, it must certainly be Jews.

The closest I’ve come to understanding this, if only on an intellectual level and certainly not agreement, is expressed by Charlie Deitch. So far as I know, he isn’t Jewish, but this seems to be the same mindset.

Deitch: Fight for gun control now, you don’t know whose life you’re saving
I’m only alive today because she killed her husband 64 years ago.
She felt so certain of her death because she only knew him as an abusive monster her entire young life. Her siblings, the oldest in his teens, had dealt with it much longer. The fact that this was her daddy made her even surer of what was coming.

An account I got later in life, the account I’m inclined to believe, is that [grandmother] got the gun away and took her shot. My grandfather, a World War II veteran and inveterate drunk, was dead; my grandmother was arrested; and six months later a grand jury, who heard the first version of events, ruled the shooting self-defense, according to a news report from the time.

Now some will say, of course, and I’m just waiting for the emails, that a gun actually saved my mother’s life back in 1952. And who knows, maybe that’s how you might think of it if you’re not a 5-year-old with a rifle in your face or her 44-year-old son who sometimes thinks about how close he came to not existing so someone else could exercise his Second Amendment rights. But I don’t see it that way, and most rational people wouldn’t see it that way either.

One man with one rifle nearly ended our entire bloodline in one night.

So the fact that everyone knew him as an abusive monster likely to kill them all means nothing. It’s the gun’s fault.

The fact that his grandmother got the rifle away from the would-be killer, yet still felt sufficiently threatened by the disarmed man to find it necessary to kill her own husband in self defense, means nothing. It’s the gun’s fault.

I’m surprised Deitch doesn’t condemn his grandmother for using that nasty, evil rifle. Isn’t it still the gun’s fault, if guns are evil by default?

No, sir, most rational people wouldn’t see it that way. You’ve confused rationality with your own delusions.

And so, I believe, do the Schumers, Feinsteins, Spielbergs, and Creditors of the Jewish world.

Rationally, a firearm is neutral; neither good nor evil. It isn’t even specifically designed to kill. “Firearms are chemical/mechanical devices designed to direct a projectile at a target. That’s all.” The target is chosen through the intent of the person using it. Deitch, of all people — his mother threatened with a gun by his grandfather, and saved by his grandmother with the same gun — should see that.

And so should should anyone whose forebearers used arms to put off their own involuntary participation in the Holocaust.

In the end, it seems that the answer to my question is that those people are irrational, not quite sane. And one does not help a crazy person get better by compromising with them and adopting part of their delusions.


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

Happy Patriots’ Day

Celebrating Americans resisting gun grabbers at Lexington-Concord.

minuteman-statute

Oh.

Wait.

Town of Lexington Voting To Ban Commonly Owned Firearms & Magazines
For the record. The basic premise of Rotberg’s Article 34 is an insult to all law abiding gun owners. His logic is also flawed in that he insinuates that a gun is inherently “dangerous”. A firearm is an inanimate object incapable of doing anything on its own. The only thing that has the potential for being dangerous is the person and there is nothing in any of the versions of Article 34 which addresses this. It’s just more bigotry, harassment and blame of lawful gun owners.

Never mind.

-sigh-

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Rational Discussions

” If you carry a gun in public you are a terrorist. Period. There is no other way around it, because you are using the gun to intimidate in the name of feeling “safe.” But you know what? Your “safety” is a threat to every other person. Every other person. Shouldn’t that scare you? Oh, and they won’t be telling you when they are about to take you out.”
Daniel Carr, commenting on the Moms Demand Victims F******k page, who has the most appropriate profile picture on FB

Armed = Terrorist. Period.

Like this guy. Or 8yo Alexis. Or this pregnant woman.

My “safety,” Mr. Carr, is only a “threat” to someone credibly threatening me with death or bodily injury. If you consider me a threat to you, I’d like you to explain why you’re planning to kill me.

The victim disarming rights-violators frequently claim that we need to have a rational discussion about guns, and whine that RKBA proponents won’t listen to them. This is why: their idea of “rational” is a display of a pathological fear of inanimate tools. They fail to realize that universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence backgrounds checks are not going to be conducted by the 70% of criminals who get their firearms through illicit transactions, nor that they cannot even be required to do so.

The victim disarmers cite research that claims to have studied the laws that best correlate with lowered gun deaths, and conclude that firearm identification (whether through ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping) would help lower deaths by 90%, even though only two states have even had ballistic fingerprinting databases, and one of those gave it up after 15 years of it never leading to a single arrest (and no one has microstamping yet). We are expectedly to “rationally” accept a study that literally cannot support the conclusions it drew because the data is nonexistent or directly contradicts the claim.

To the victim disarming blood dancers, it is rational to believe that surveys in Washington state showed that 90% of the people wanted universal PPYI checks, when less than 60% would actually vote for it.

We are to accept as “rational” the idea that a convicted felon on probation, under a restraining order, who obtained his gun via an illegal straw purchase, and killed 3, and injured 14 would have been stopped by universal PPYI checks.

Two blood dancers from Sandy Hook Promise gave statements to the New Hampshire legislature that it would be “rational” to believe that universal PPYI checks would have stopped that school killer, who obtained his weapons by killing his mother in her bed and stealing her guns.

It is supposed by the people-controlling gun grabbers to be “rational” to ban steel pipe, sheet metal, blocks of metal, nails, springs, rivets, iron oxide and aluminum, and even plastic bags to stop gun violence.

It would be “rational” to lift a nonexistent ban on gun violence research.

“Rational” discussion would accept that gun deaths are increasing, and are caused by the increasing number of guns, when the rate of gun deaths is at the lowest level in decades (while guns per capita is at a record level).

“Rational” discussion by the gun controllers’ standard means accepting delusion over reality.

Let’s have that rational discussion just as soon as your doctors get your medications balanced.


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

Mask of the Blood Dancers

In response to a convicted felon on probation, under a restraining order, killing 3, and injuring 14 “Gabrielle Giffords” is dancing in the blood:

Gabrielle Giffords ‏@GabbyGiffords: In just the last week, 11 mass shootings have brought terror and tragedy to our country. This is not the America we strive for. #Hesston

Yes. This is exactly what “you” are striving for: a world in which honest people have to preemptively prove their innocence just to hope to exercise their right to self defense against murderous thugs who recognize no such restrictions. Helpless targets, so bastards like Ford can victimize them in perfect safety. Unarmed people in magical gun free zones that never work.

But no doubt, every time the policies that “you” push enable another horrific incident like this, you can call for more action that somehow requires more people to donate more money to your little Criminals’ Workplace Safety organization.

So I guess “you’re” happy.

I actually feel sorry for Gabby Giffords. Unless she has recently made a miraculous recovery, it’s unlikely that she formed that thought and typed that tweet. Medical professionals who are familiar with the sort of bullet-induced brain trauma that Giffords suffered, and who have observed her public appearances, tell me — while carefully noting it’s only a general observation and not a valid diagnosis, since they haven’t examined her –that her behavior is consistent with extreme brain damage that she will never further recover from; that most likely her understanding of the world, much less victim disarmament, is that of a young, innocent child. And always will be.

Giffords is most likely perpetual child who just wants to please the nice people surrounding her. One being used by her own husband, Mark Kelly, and the gun people controlling puppeteers around her. Think on the utter lack of morals and ethics it takes to abuse and manipulate a trusting child like that. Contempt only begins to describe my thoughts about them.

Then consider what Mark Kelly et al would be willing to do to everyone else, whom they don’t obstensibly love and care for.

Gabby Giffords is the mask that the victim disarmers use to hide the true face of gun control.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would lik>e 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

Traitorous Bagel-Brains Against Gun Victims

bagel-brain-x-ray

U.S. rabbis’ anti-gun violence group starts in Berkeley
Like many Americans, Creditor reached a boiling point on guns after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 young children and six adults were killed.

If Rabbi Creditor wants to reduce gun violence, it would be a fine thing for him to organize gun safety classes for the young people of his community. He could work to expand economic opportunities so fewer would resort to the illegal drug trade. He could perform direct outreach to at-risk kids. He could exercise the prime responsibilty of a rabbi by teaching these people the difference between aggression and defensive use of force.

But Creditor is a rabbi in name only. He doesn’t want to teach.

“Our vision is to amplify the work that’s being done, knowing that Congress has failed us so far,” Creditor said. “The ability that faith leaders have to marshal civic activism is unrivaled.”

More laws. More violations of the rights of honest people. The kind of laws that those honest people — and even Congress — have rejected.

Because, when violent crime rates are dropping to levels not seen for decades, some crazy minor murdered a woman to steal her guns and take them to a designated gun-free victim disarmament zone to murder more people…

…he wants to inflict more human/civil rights infringements on the people who didn’t do it. Because the gun laws didn’t work there, Rabbi Creditor wants to turn the entire nation into Sandy Hook.

For safety.

Because disarming Jews worked so well there, he wants to turn America into Nazi Germany.

For safety.

I think not. I strongly suspect his motivation is a little more crass.

Creditor also got Eileen Soffer, a Mountain View resident who had worked as the national deputy field director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, to come aboard as the full-time national coordinator.

That is the same Moms Demand Victims that is under the umbrella of Everytown for Gun Safety (along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns), which is chaired — and heavily funded — by billionaire Michael Bloomberg who never saw a gun in civilian hands that he liked (except his own bodyguards). Soffer undoubtedly brought along the promise of financial backing for yet another bloody-handed victim disarmament group.

Perhaps I’m being unfair; maybe he wants something other than restrictions on rights. But since he does want “further expanded background checks, public health research into gun violence, I doubt it. The fact that he runs their F******k page as a closed group implies that they want to hide their agenda from those who appreciate civils rights.

I invite Rabbi Creditor to answer a few questions.

  1. Have you ever read the complete Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights?
  2. Do you comprehend the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy?
  3. Exactly what gun laws do you propose to stop another Sandy Hook scenario (where the perpetrator violated a series of laws just to get the guns)?
  4. How do you propose to protect the rights of those who didn’t do it?
  5. How do you propose to enforce your laws on criminals (bearing in mind that criminals cannot be required to submit to a background check)?
  6. If your agenda includes weapons bans, will you man up and conduct confiscations peronally?
  7. Would any ban/confiscation recompense gun owners for the loss of property? Have you considered how much money that would be?
  8. What will you do when the good guys just say, No”?
  9. What will you do if the good guys say, “All righty, then“?

I await Rabbi Creditor’s response, though not with bated breath.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail