I had an interesting discussion with a girlfriend of mine the other day. I made the statement I thought someone was evil. She disagreed and said she didn’t think people were evil, some just made bad choices, even appalling choices. But people weren’t evil.
Yeah, I think they are. I watched a show the other night that talked about Nellie May Madison. Born in 1895, Nellie was an interesting lady. Raised on a ranch in Montana she learned to shoot, ride and survive in the wild from a young age. She was also the first woman in California sentenced to death for the murder of her husband. Nellie’s first set of lawyers did her no favors, and she got a judge determined to make an example of her. Luckily for her, she had a lawyer as one of her ex-husbands and he persuaded her to get a different lawyer and appeal. When the legendary Aggie Underwood got involved her sentence was commuted and eventually she was paroled. So why did she kill her husband (other than some people just need killing)? She could have been one of the first #MeToo people as well as the first woman on death row. Her husband had a nasty tendency to marry women, then abuse them, pick up teenage hookers, force his wives to write letters that they had been unfaithful because back then that was a sure way to win in court and then beat them. When Nellie held a gun on him and told him to give the letter back, he pulled a box of knives out from under the bed, told her he’d cut her heart out and flung a couple of the knives at her. He missed. She didn’t. But he had seemed so charming when she met him. Snappy dresser, nice car and treated her well. Pretty much the same thing his first wife said. He was really nice, till he wasn’t.
There are a lot of documentaries and crime shows with the topic of people that seemed to be kind, compassionate wonderful people. And how shocked people were when the found out that John Wayne Gacy , Bob Berdella, Samuel Little and the very charming Ted Bundy killed people. Stories of how people had been taken in by someone that seemed wonderful only to lose family members to them, or to be hauled into the police station to see when they knew about the neighborhood rapes, murders, thefts, whatever. These people didn’t see the traits, if they saw them they didn’t recognize what they were and if the did see the signs and suspect they tamped down their uneasiness and stifled their fears. And sometimes they had fears of their own and were unable to do anything useful, such as calling police, due to those.
So, when I think of evil, I think of someone who takes pleasure in hurting others in some form or fashion. I think of someone who has no empathy for others, and only sees people as someone who will help them get what they want, or is preventing or standing in the way of them getting something they want. Which is part of what got me to thinking about psychopaths. There are differences between psychopaths and sociopaths.
And if you’re really curious, this video explains a lot.
Again, victims usually do not understand what is occurring until it is too late. The psychopath may have already launched smear campaigns, taken unfounded legal action, and manipulated those the victim cares about, simply for sport. Once the victims begin sharing their stories with others, the people to whom they tell these stories, often cannot believe what they are hearing. It is common for others to be in disbelief, either because they perceive the victim as an unlikely candidate for targeting or abuse, or because the stories can seem so inherently unlikely that it may be difficult, at first, to believe they are true.
Because they are very convincing, and excellent at lying. The psychopath doesn’t really have a conscience, while the sociopath does, but it’s small and ineffective.
Why are the always usually successful? Because they are really, really good at picking their victims.
The sad thing is, most of us have traits that make us susceptible. Things like compassion, extroverted or introverted, sensitivity to the feelings of others, “go with the flow” attitude, competitive or sentimentality are all traits that can be exploited by someone with “antisocial personality disorder”, the comprehensive phrase for both psychopath and sociopath.
Several of the sites I did some reading on advise trusting your instincts, but sadly a lot can happen before the warning bell goes off it seems.
But what really got me to thinking about this, is a couple of the stories I’ve put up on social media for The Zelman Partisans recently about how the grabby giffords crew and the elitist Michael Bloomberg have been pushing the “red flag” laws, extreme order of protection in different states. They confiscate first and ask questions later. If you’re still alive after the confiscation. Maryland Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order Ends with Dead Gun Owner.
While some of those with “antisocial personality disorder” may not be violent, some obviously are. And now the criminal protection bunch have made it even easier. They don’t need to disarm the victims themselves, they just make a phone call and the law will do it for them.
You know, I believe I’m in favor of a law allowing civil lawsuits against the sponsor of such legislation when they result in a death. Like waiting periods cost Carol Browne her life because the restraining order only made her a target. So yes, I think we need legislation that when a civilian disarming law is passed, that those harmed by it are allowed to sue the sponsor and co-sponsor of such legislation. I realize it’s probably a pipe dream, but hey! If it saves just one life.
Recently I had occasion to patronize several commercial establishments including an apartment complex. Displayed on the glass entry door of each was the international symbol for “No,” a red circle bisected by a diagonal line. Centered in each was a handgun; Beretta 92FS in the first, 1911A1, possibly a Colt, in the second, and a Glock 19, Gen 4 in the third. I thought; thank G-d for Smith & Wesson. Why do those responsible for malls, schools, stores, apartments, and venues open to the public believe posting these stickers deters those bent on violent behavior? Criminals, by behavior and definition, exist outside the law and if legal prohibitions against them possessing firearms provide no dissuasion, a decal surely won’t. Instead they disarm the law-abiding, the only ones already on the scene capable of halting violent crime and mass shootings.
Webster’s Dictionary (a virginal source of information for today’s public school students) define Straw Man as: “a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up to be easily confuted (overwhelm in argument, refute conclusively).”1 Talk show host and baron of bombast Michael Savage knows something about Strawmen. Recently he launched a series of attacks on the 2nd Amendment, specifically semiautomatic rifles as well as their owners. His wild assertions were an army of scarecrows so stuffed with combustible straw, one dared draw nigh with matches at his own risk. When anyone says; “I own guns” or “I’m a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment” followed by a “but,” they don’t. They’re lying. It’s a trick to seize the intellectual and moral high ground thereby casting those in disagreement as extremists. Savage case in point. He began each show declaring support for the 2nd Amendment followed by an angry frothing at the mouth denunciation of firearms owners and notions of self-defense. In so doing, he promoted arguments undercutting the very amendment he purports to defend. Hay crammed in his Strawmen must have been plucked from the field of contradiction.
Savage’s first broadside came the day after the Las Vegas, Nevada Mandalay Bay Hotel mass shooting. He said he was a gun owner, big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and to have given a “fortune” to the NRA apparently believing by brandishing such credentials he was immunized against critique. Savage asked if Americans should be able (allowed) to own “military grade weapons” and “assault rifles,” terms left undefined. He asked; should a man in therapy and on medication for mental problems be allowed to own a gun? If concealed carry was legal, how could armed citizens have stopped the killer’s rampage Savage demanded to know. In mocking tones he added; “Gun-slingers will say that. No matter what you hold in your pocket, you couldn’t have defended yourself. Fallacious argument. All you John Wayne’s with concealed carry on your mind, put it aside. You’d have gone down like ten pins.” He asked why anyone “needed” an “automatic weapon” declaring there needs to be “limits.” Should people be “allowed” to own a Howitzer, Russian tank, or bazooka? No one “needs” a semiautomatic rifle to defend their house, Savage continued, saying a shotgun was much better in that role. “The whole idea you’re going to get a semiautomatic rifle to hold off an army, come on. Stop the BS. If someone breaks into your house all you’ll have time to grab in the dark is a shotgun and an automatic pistol, not a semiautomatic rifle. Unless you keep a semiautomatic weapon fully loaded, and in your bedroom, it’s not going to do you any good. And if you do keep one, you’re crazy. If you keep a semiautomatic rifle next to your bed cocked and locked and ready to fire, you’re a sicko.” He then mocked Mandalay survivors who said they were no longer atheists. Next he attacked unnamed conservative talk-show radio hosts who, after Mandalay Bay, still opposed new gun control laws and regulations, yelling into the microphone; “You bunch of John Wayne’s!” He accused them of calling people like him, now supporting stricter new gun control laws; “lousy communist Progressives” adding in sneering tones; “No one wants to seize your guns otherwise it would have happened during the Obama years.” He asked how the killer had obtained “machine guns” because “they’re illegal” reminding listeners he wasn’t new to the gun control debate and had been on his high school rifle team. He asked if every psycho in the nation should own machine guns. “Did you know machine guns are legal in Nevada?” Savage continued. “But of course, fully automatic rifles are illegal.” What? Come again. Continuing in mocking tones, he asked who “needed” a fifty round drum magazine. “They should be illegal!” He shouted. “I argued this before. When I asked callers why they ‘needed’ one, they said to hold off the U.S. government which is against the private ownership of firearms.”2
Savage continued his assault on the 2nd Amendment the following day floating hysterical conspiracy theories attacking the Las Vegas Police for taking too long to assault the killer’s hotel room. Once again he reminded listeners he was a gun owner, “passed all the tests,” and gave money to the NRA therefore his calls for new gun bans had to be reasonable. Again he asked if the right to keep and bear arms included hand grenades, bazookas, used Russian tanks, and half-tracks asking; “Should there be limits on the right to keep and bear arms? What do you mean saying the 2nd Amendment ‘permits’ you to have any number of machine guns? Does this mean you can own two hundred machine guns, that every man should be able to have an arsenal in his basement? I can see having weapons to defend yourself but does that mean an entire arsenal? Why not RPGs and flame throwers? I don’t think the 2nd Amendment goes far enough” he continued in sarcastic tones. “I think we should be allowed to have flame throwers for that evil government that may arise any moment now. We should be able to have flame throwers.” During Savage’s shows, he insisted on calling magazines “clips” and using the terms semi and fully automatic rifles interchangeably.3 He entertained, as experts, numerous callers claiming because they had been in Vietnam, they knew precisely what weapons the suspect used (opinions subsequently contradicted by the FBI). Many voices sounded too tender to have been alive let alone old enough to have served in Vietnam. Once again he labeled anyone holding contrary views as “John Wayne’s” and “right- wingers” promising to hang up on them if they called his show. Savage concluded by attacking the Las Vegas Police, again, and blaming mass shootings on prescription drugs and the “proliferation of guns.”4
Savage’s claims and Straw Man arguments are wrong on so many levels, space and sufficient matches probably don’t exist to address them all. His oft repeated claim to be a firearms authority, supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and NRA backer is artifice, a trick as noted, to prevent debate to the contrary.
As to the efficacy of concealed firearms with respect to the Mandalay massacre, handguns are designed for self-defense at personal distances not against someone shooting rifles from the 32nd floor of a hotel window hundreds of yards away. Savage’s attempt to undermine concealed carry by judging its validity against situations for which it was never intended is a fallacious straw man argument a practice he accuses critics of employing. Does he really know what he’s talking about?
Doctors don’t use the terms bacterial and viral infection interchangeably. Weight lifters know the difference between dumb and barbells. Authorities on any subject use proper terminology. Improper use exposes pretenders, poseurs, and frauds. For example, in Stephen King’s novel Salem’s Lot, his policeman character checks his .38 special revolver to ensure the “safety is on.”5 A kid in his novel IT, warns another kid to be careful with his dad’s pistol, a Walther PPK, because it has “no safety.”6 In the movie The Fast And The Furious, Vin Diesel’s character Dominic Torretto tells Paul Walker that his dad’s 1970 Dodge Charger’s engine had so much torque, it twisted the “chassis” coming off the line.7 As a Deputy Sheriff and later policeman in the 1970s and 80’s, I carried and or shot Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Colt revolvers in .38 special and .357 magnum. None, nor those on revolvers of colleagues, had a “safety.” I’ve also shot a variety of PPKs from Walther and Manurhin and their clones from FEG to Bersa and each had de-cocker safeties. Except for the Imperial (1965), Chrysler abandoned the chassis in favor of a uni-body frame, (1960-1961), which my 68’ Charger has, exposing TheFast And The Furious’s writers to be automotive ignoramuses. In like fashion, Savage insisted on referring to drums and other magazines feeding semiautomatic pistols and rifles as “clips” and conflated “assault weapons, assault rifle, semiautomatic rifle,” and “machine gun” as interchangeable terms, one and the same over and over.
A “clip” holds individual cartridges, “has no spring and does not feed shells directly into the chamber. Clips hold cartridges in the correct sequence for ‘charging’ a specific firearm’s [fixed] magazine.”8 A magazine holds rounds in a box, separate from the firearm for the weapons under discussion. Examples of clip “fed” firearms would include the Russian Mosin-Nagant 91/30 and American M1 Garand of W.W. II fame as well as the postwar Soviet SKS. Cold War weapons like the Soviet AK-47, U.S. M14, and later M16, are magazine fed. No such category of “assault weapon” exists for firearms. Any object that can be used to hurt another; flyswatter, umbrella, coat-hanger, or kitchen counter hardened wedge of cornbread is an assault weapon. The term “assault-weapon” was invented by liberals to frighten non-gun owners into believing your AR15 is identical to an M16 and that AKs and Mini-14s are full-automatic machine guns. Repeat after me; “The other side lies.” Editor of Jane’s Military Publications and firearms expert Charlie Cutshaw writes there are firearms categorized as “assault-rifles” but to be so classified they must be “shoulder-fired,” capable of fully automatic fire,” and chambered in a caliber intermediate “between pistol (or revolver) and rifle ammunition.”9 Some have a device allowing operators to switch from semiautomatic to full-automatic fire and back again. Commercial AK47s, AR15s, Mini-14s, and similar families of rifles don’t have this capability. Their triggers must be pulled, one at a time, for each round fired hence they are not “assault rifles” but “semiautomatic rifles” and “carbines.” “Machine guns” are typically heavy and tripod mounted, with hand held versions called “submachine guns,” and are capable of full automatic fire, emptying a magazine with a single pull of the trigger.10 Consistent misuse of terminology indicates Savage is grossly ignorant and misinformed, flagrantly dishonest, or both. He has no credibility.
No one wants to take your guns is the mantra of people, who, in the same breath, call for “assault weapons” (sic) and “high-capacity” (sic) bans. Time and again Liberals from anti-2nd Amendment organizations to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said no one wants to take your guns and then promote Australian gun control which did just that. They are either stupid or brilliantly cunning. Perhaps dangerously naïve, I have never called liberals stupid because they’re not. Recall that U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake essentially resurrected the “sporting purpose” standard in upholding Maryland’s ban on AK and AR rifles mislabeling them “assault rifles” asserting they are not commonly used for lawful purposes including home defense.11 Liberals claiming; no one wants to confiscate guns, followed by proposals to ban AR, AK, and similar rifles, sounds contradictory until one understands their two pronged “trick”; the first is how they define “gun.”12Confiscationists define “gun” in general as a firearm possessing a long established sporting purpose commonly used for hunting, trap and skeet shooting, and target competition at ranges and with no military analogue.13 This would exclude ARs, AKs, FN-FALs, and so forth. The second part of their trick is to convince the non-gun owning pubic there is no difference between full and semiautomatic firearms. Obama and others said time and again, AR15s, AKs, their derivatives, and similar rifles are military weapons that belong on battlefields, not our streets. It would not be confiscation, they argue, to return military weapons in civilian hands back to the U.S. Military where they belong.14 The only way to do this is through a ban on “civilian” possession of semiautomatic rifles and confiscate them as did Australia and England, and incrementally in California. How can Savage, living in Marin County, California, one of the most liberally infected in the galaxy, deny confiscation is not the liberal’s end game? He lies.
Like Judge Blake, Savage’s claim no one uses and no “cop” would recommend using an AR15 for home defense because they are such a poor choice, is pure buffoonery from one who has lived for too many years behind the Bay Area’s Tofu Curtain.15 Breathlessly, about to reveal a secret, Savage said his listeners, had never heard or been “told this” but one of the reasons AR15s are such poor choices is because the .223 round goes through walls. Shotguns and pistols are better because their rounds don’t. On the contrary, “More Americans than ever are relying on AR15s for home defense. Not only is an AR easier to shoot more accurately than a handgun—thanks to its additional points of contact with the body (cheek weld, shoulder mount, and two hands)—[and longer sight radius]—on AR rifles chambered in .223/Rem/5.56 NATO, produces superior terminal performance, and penetrates less when compared to the typical handgun.”16 An AR is harder to grab in the dark than a pistol or shotgun, Michael? Why is that? People have been attaching optics and lights to ARs for decades. A cocked and locked rifle makes one a “psycho” Michael?17 Employing his unloaded pistols and shotguns without lights against intruders beggars the question as to whose sanity should be in question. His rhetorical cant; “who needs” this or that firearm or “high capacity clips” and that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t allow possession of bazookas, hand grenades, and Russian tanks is a fallacious Straw Man argument to set the stage for infringements against the 2nd Amendment.
Savage is ignorant of or intentionally misrepresents the 2nd Amendment’s meaning. It grants no rights including to own anything. Rather, it recognizes an individual right to self-defense, to keep and bear arms, and establishes prohibitions against any government infringement on this right. The Declaration of Independence establishes it as a G-d-given right belonging to every individual inherent in their humanity whether government exists or not. It is inalienable and off-limits to a majority vote by one’s neighbors, act of government, or fashionable whim of the times. Rights cannot be modified, regulated, licensed, or infringed upon by government otherwise they would be called privileges.18 Inherent in the right of self-defense is the means by which one exercises it. To answer Savage’s “need” question, rights are not dependent upon a utilitarian need standard which, at best, is arbitrary, subject to popular opinion, or manipulated and controlled by those in power. Were this not so, government could raise the bar to demonstrate “need” so high, it becomes insurmountable thus rendering the right de facto abolished. Employing Savage’s Straw Man “need” standard to firearms ownership would subordinate it to ephemeral notions of “the common good, the good of the whole,” or “the greater good.”19 How long before it became extinguished? Ask Britons. By suggesting the 2nd Amendment regulates bazookas, half-tracks, Russian tanks, and grenades, therefore rifles can be regulated as well, is hay falling from massive gaps in Savage’s last Straw Man. Matches please.
Half-tracks and used Russian tanks are not firearms hence are regulated by other laws not the 2nd Amendment which applies to weapons citizen soldiers would keep and bear. Bazookas were the technological equivalent of shoulder fired canons, used against tanks, and grenades are sort of like exploding cannon balls. None of these are proper analogues to firearms. These are fallacious and false arguments employed by the deceitful to trick the unwary into surrendering bits and pieces of their 2nd Amendment rights until all of them are gone. This explains why Savage banned calls from those who knew what they were talking about in favor of kooks, conspiratorialists, the deluded, and poseurs.
11 Frederick C. Mish, Editor-in-Chief, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Massachusetts, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Publishers, 1985), 1165, 276.
22 Michael Savage, The Savage Nation, broadcast 2 October, 2017.
1616 Richard Nance, “Your AR15 ASAP: Hornady’s Rapid Safe Wall Lock and Gunlock Provide a Safe Storage Solution for Quick Access in the Home,” Guns & Ammo 10 (October 2017), 76.
1717 Expanding what constitutes “mental illness” and “mental instability” is very popular on the Left who will use such determinations to expand individuals prohibited from owning firearms. Can thought-crimes be far behind?
1818 Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (Lanham, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, Publishers, Inc., 2005), 3-6. See also; Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 127-129.
1919 Jeff Snyder, A Nation of Cowards (St. Louis, Missouri, Accurate Press, 2001), 119-121.
With Demoncrats doing everything to gain control of the nation so they can institute their program of higher taxes, impeaching a lawfully elected President and enacting gun control they have a variety of strategies they are flinging at the goal.
Since San Fran Nan has decided it’s more important to enact gun and citizen control than to win elections, I thought we might take a look at some of these brand new demoncratic socialist candidates. Although really, I guess if you’re a Demoncratic Socialist, after you’ve enacted gun and citizen control, you don’t really need to worry about winning elections, yeh? They’re just being more open about it now.
One is the socialist who thinks Bernie Sanders is the Great Pumpkin, Ocasio-Cortez.
Another is a candidate in Texas who wants to lead the nation in gun control, has a perfectly WASP sounding name so apparently wants to be called Beta, oh, sorry! Not Beta? Oh, right Beto. So Beto is desirous of stripping Americans on one of their Constitutionally enumerated rights. Not granted. I’ve also heard he eats his tacos with a fork, so does Beto use the same fork to eat his tacos he uses to shred our Constitution?
Sometimes I wondered if the National Demoncratic Socialist Party realizes these elections are to be held in America, but in this day an age? Ocasio-Cortez beat a sitting legislator, so yeah, I guess they do.
Then there is Missouri. Missouri has Air-Claire McCaskill.
I’ll be right up front here, this really isn’t a “Gee Josh Hawley is a great guy, how could you pass him up” column. For one, I don’t like Josh Hawley, I think he is a smarmy, greasy, snake oil selling jerk. Missouri elected a Governor, we’ll call him Eric Greitens, shall we? Gov Eric did something quite foolish in his personal life before he ever ran for Governor. And like politicians all over, of every party, he got caught. Now, he didn’t drown her so he didn’t actually follow a recognized approved DSNC playbook and perhaps that is why the Demoncratic Socialists became convinced the world would end, end I say, if our Gov Greitens wasn’t removed from office. Well, it could have been the lack of playbook or it could have been that he signed a bill to allow Missouri to become a right to work state. The Demoncratic Socialists didn’t like that either. But the AG at the time was Josh Hawley. I don’t know if Hawley was just trying to prove how cool and unbiased he is but he felt compelled to wade into the poop patch created by Demoncrats and their propaganda arm, the mainstream media. Now the thing is, there are some actually very curious things about the persecution of Gov Greitens by good little Demoncratic Socialist Kim Gardner that SCREAM for someone such as a real attorney general to poke a nose in. Lt Col Dave Grossman did a couple of articles for The Federalist asking questions the media or the AG didn’t seem to be asking. The first one asked questions like,
1. Where is the police report?
2. Where is the evidence?
3. Why did the FBI, the U.S. Attorney, and the police refuse to look into this case?
4. What’s the deal with the private investigators?
5. Why did the prosecution want so badly to delay the trial until the fall?
That number 4? Now that is some interesting reading.
The Second article, had such data that one would really think someone would be asking about her expenditure of taxpayer funds,
1. It appears that Gardner began preparing the paperwork for the indictment prior to conducting any investigation.
2. Gardner allegedly broke the law in the course of her prosecution.
3. Gardner’s assistant prosecutor allegedly misled the grand jury about the indictment.
4. Gardner’s investigators were under FBI investigation.
5. Even the chief of police of St. Louis is demanding answers.
But, guess not. So no, I’m really not so much a Hawley fan. When you consider that this grave threat to freedom, Mom, the flag and apple pie just pretty much faded away after Gov Eric resigned…seems odd. Still don’t have Right to Work.
So, when I say this is about the Demoncratic Socialist known as Air Claire McCaskill, please don’t think this is about saying Hawley is great, it’s not. It’s that Air Claire is so much worse, and dirtier than Josh Hawley. Let’s take a few trips down memory lane, shall we? Because Air Claire has a lot of history that can be examined, along with her baggage, carry-on and otherwise.
But I’m saving the cherry of memory lane for last.
Air-Claire likes to create problems so she can use the force of government to solve them, like all big government Demoncratic Socialists do. For example in February of this year, Air Claire got all hot and bothered to battle “Identity theft” and the use of stolen social security numbers! Especially the use of stolen children’s social security numbers! Good job Air-Claire, right?? I mean who wouldn’t want Air-Claire in her crusader cape flying the friendly skies on behalf of law abiding citizens?
Air-Claire helped create the problem, now she expects private businesses to spend their money to fix it, after she blithely spent OUR money to create it. How so?
It would be appropriate to have [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – DACA] applicants disclose any misuse of Social Security numbers or other personal identifiers so that the system can be purged and corrected, and so that the true number holders can be informed. It would also be appropriate to impose an additional fine on the many DACA recipients who worked illegally before obtaining DACA status and improperly used false identity information. The fines could be used to establish a restitution fund for the victims.
… 43.9 percent of all surveyed DACA recipients had worked prior to gaining DACA status, and that percentage increases to 60.7 percent for DACA recipients over 25 years of age. However, these individuals were unable to legally obtain Social Security numbers for their pre-DACA employment, which means that they used fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers that all-too-often belong to American citizens, including American children.
The use of unlawfully obtained Social Security numbers by individuals eligible for DACA status is so pervasive that the Obama administration instructed applicants not to disclose their illegally obtained numbers. That ensured that Americans who are the victims of DACA identity theft were left with destroyed credit, arrest records attached to their names, unpaid tax liabilities, and corrupted medical records while the DACA recipients walked away scot-free from multiple felonies.
Does Air-Claire have anything to do with that mess? Does a Demoncratic Socialist love vote fraud?
She supports chain migration, sanctuary cities, funding for executive amnesty, and funding for processing centers for Central American unaccompanied minors. She voted for the DREAM Act, against a bill to prevent suing Arizona for immigration law, and against defunding sanctuary cities.
The Association of Air Medical Services (AAMS) is greatly concerned about the unintended negative consequences that can result from the recent Air Ambulance Consumer Protection Act, reported to be introduced today by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). While it is the position of AAMS that all our members advocate on behalf of their patients and work toward solutions that keep patients out of the middle in negotiations with insurers, this legislation doesn’t do that – it only provides insurers with smaller portions of patient’s bills to cover while erecting “borders in the sky” making it difficult or impossible to transport patients across state lines. We can do better – we can require transparency, fix Medicare, and solve for greater healthcare access.
Transporting patients across state lines was something aero-medical helicopters routinely did when I flew. It’s like Air-Claire just hasn’t yet ruined enough healthcare systems to suit herself.
And it’s kind of ironic that Air-Claire thinks she should chime in on air anything really.
McCaskill is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, a fact that Republicans are quick to remind voters as McCaskill battles for a third Senate term representing a state President Donald Trump won by nearly 19 percentage points in 2016. GOP-funded ads trying to paint her as out of touch with ordinary Missourians have attacked McCaskill for buying a $2.7 million D.C. condo and for using her husband’s private plane on the campaign trail.
So a few years ago, air-Claire got busted using the family’s private jet to travel around and campaign. And billing the taxpayers for it.
It gets worse for Air Claire. The public realized (even the press) that using taxpayer dollars to pay yourself is wrong. The pressure was unbearable and McCaskill whipped out her personal checkbook and re-paid the federal treasury with an $88,000 check. It’s shameful when you game the system to the point of being politically forced to pay back a taxpayer subsidy.
McCaskill had been keeping the plane in Delaware and Illinois, two states that do not impose personal property taxes. Well, Missouri does. So, was McCaskill, a committed liberal millionaire who advocates soaking the rich, actually dodging taxes?
Yes, Air Claire was trying to pay fewer taxes. Caught again and pressured by the public, McCaskill pulled out her checkbook and wrote a check for over $300,000 for back taxes on the plane.
Not only was McCaskill paying her own company taxpayer dollars to fund her travels, she avoided paying taxes to the state she supposedly serves.
The RV, named BigBlue by the campaign, was unveiled late last month by McCaskill, who said she was “very excited to hit the road” in it for an upcoming “Veterans for Claire” tour. The campaign kept a live blog of its three-day RV trip from May 29 to May 31, posting updates of its whereabouts.
All indications from the McCaskill campaign were that she was traveling on the RV. The campaign bragged after the three-day tour concluded that it had traveled 700 miles on the RV. The campaign asked in fundraising emails for money to fuel the RV, complaining, “gas is expensive.”
“It costs us $200 just to fill up the RV and with the number of places we plan on going—that adds up fast,” the campaign wrote, without mentioning aircraft fuel costs. “Will you pitch in just $5 today to help fund our RV tour and power us to a victory in November?”
Now for the fun part?? Air Claire has been FLYING a bunch of that in her private plane, and just not telling anyone or at least so far as we know, charging the taxpayers for the use of the plane. The same article listed above tells how the plane has been tracked and it’s path lining up with her RV. Yeah. Worth reading that. But Air Claire knew they would probably track the plane, so she had
Then KOLR10 allowed Air Claire to express her outrage at Josh Hawley. Huh? He had nothing to do with it. Air Claire had a synapse or two go missing. So rather than watch Claire’s idiotic response, let’s watch the brilliant and talented Mr. O’Keefe dismantle it.
Now at 1:17 in, James seems shocked that Air Claire would just say something on TV, that is just a flat out lie. Just say it, just throw it out there with no truth behind it. Darling James, WHY?? It’s not like it’s the first time Air Claire has done this. From 20th June 2012,
And, we’ll let Glen Beck take it away
But now, now, the cherry. Just step into my wayback machine. And I do mean way back. Back to when Air Claire was the Prosecutor for Jackson County Missouri, on 9th December 1992.
Yes, Air Claire is the prosecutor. I’m almost sure back in 1992 James O’Keefe and Josh Hawley had nothing to do with her lying to the press about the law that she certainly should have known better as a prosecutor. But if you really fear that they might have secretly been taping what she openly lied about I can ask the author.
You see, that is the thing, Air Claire openly lies, in any way shape or form she feels the need to get what she wants. She will deceive and hurt whoever necessary, because Air Claire is evil. You may or not give two hoots about the Second Amendment, but I promise you, there is most likely an issue that you care very deeply about. And you think you know Air Claire’s position on it. But she has lied to and betrayed Second Amendment people for years, you think she won’t betray you? You are being foolish.
Air Claire is only one of the Demoncratic Socialists up for election this time. Nancy Pelosi has said if they win, gun control takes priority over winning elections. And, as I suspect will be the case it will be because the fight will have changed from the soft fight to the hard fight. Because there are something that they just can not do to us while we can fight back. Whether or not you believe in the electoral system or think it’s all bunkem, I think it it worth it to suit up and show up and participate in the legal option, at least as long as we have it. Besides, you can always join Bear in his new game.
“Gulliver” appears to be the author of that failed attempt at satire. “Gulliver” also appears to have bought the big lie.
Let’s see how “under-/unregulated firearms are. I’ve done this in abbreviated form in the past, but this will be a little more detailed.
[“Gun Culture” types can stop here; you know this, more than likely. This column is for the less-informed like “Gulliver,” whoever s/he/ze/zyr/&tpen/@/it may be.]
Naturally, a firearms manufacturer has to comply with all the same rules that any other manufacturer faces: OSHA, EPA, labor law, finance… it’s a long list, which is why we have to import a lot of stuff; regulatory compliance makes it too expensive to actually make a lot of stuff in America these days.
Moving on, we have firearms specific laws and regulations. First, you need a Federal Firearms License to build guns for sale. Usually that will be a Type 7 FFL. Maybe.
Let’s say you had a potentially great idea for a system that disperses fire retardant chemicals over an area. You think it’s just the thing for suppressing forest or grass fires on the perimeter. Fire departments and ranchers will love it. Your system is a 40 millimeter “grenade” full of said chemicals, fired from a light weight polymer launcher.
Whoops. 40mm makes that a “destructive device.” Now you need a Type 10 FFL. And you’ll mostly be able to sell it to governments; tougher for volunteer fire departments of ranchers. Manufacturing the rounds for the launcher also requires a Type 9 FFL, so it’s no good contracting out just the launcher while you assemble the ammunition.
So you scale it back to 37mm. It’s less effective than 40, but better than nothing.
Or maybe you say the heck with it, and move on to a different product. Howa bout a short self defense shotgun with a 14 inch barrel? If you put a standard shoulder stock on it, it becomes a short-barrel shotgun, and buyers will need a market-limiting tax stamp. If you put a pistol grip on the same exact action, it’s magically not. You aren’t sure why, since smoothbore pistols are “Any Other Weapons” (AOW) and require tax stamps. But the ATF made a ruling. (Ghu save the buyer if he puts a shoulder stock on it without getting a tax stamp.)
That’s too complicated, so you decide to enter the light weight polymer defensive pistol market. You have a fantastic design that makes even the slide nonmetallic. This will be easy to to carry on a daily basis.
But is it too light? Federal law bans the production of nonmetallic “undetectable” firearms, even if the dense polymer shows up in x-rays. If your metal barrel is underweight, you have to build in a chunk of nonremovable metal, raising the weight of your previously light weight sidearm.
The heck with it, let’s just make a cute little pistol out of metal, that looks like a cell phone. Except that might be an AOW, too; so you’d better submit a sample to the ATF and get a ruling.
Hmm… how ’bout a simple little pen shaped gun (made of metal, of course). You’d best submit your design to the ATF again.
Argh! All right. Conventional pistol, with the action simplified to make it cheap to machine.
Wait. You didn’t make that an open bolt design, did you? That’s a machinegun. I know it’s just a semiautomatic-only, but new open-bolts are automatically machineguns now, under firearms regulations.
Good Bog, you’re trapped in a regulatory maze, and you haven’t even built anything yet!
OK, screw it. You’ll build a simple autoloader pistol. Reverse engineer a Raven with enough differences not run afoul of any patents, and better quality. Good to go.
So you start building guns. Which have to be marked: manufacturer, serial number, caliber. You’re CNC milling these, so you do the marking during initial milling to minimize the process.
Bad move. Every firearm you make — and it’s a firearm once marked — has to be logged in the books for ATF inspection. Yes, inspections. If you make one and it fails quality control testing, and you destroy it, you have to log that, and prove you destroyed it.
So you mark it afterwards. No, no, no! You can’t do that. If firearms are not marked, that’s illegal, too. You’ll just have to guess at what point in production the serial numbers are required. Good luck complying with that rule.
Umm… you did do the marking in the approved font, in the regulated size, and to the specified depth? Right?
But somehow you manage. Your firearms are ready to ship. You exchange FFL paperwork with distributors across the country (under firearms laws and regulations, you can’t ship to end buyers). And away you go!
Wait a minute there, bud. You didn’t design that pistol for a round which the ATF considers armor-piercing (this week), did you? Back to the drawing board.
So it’s finally ready for prime time. Keep your fingers crossed.
State Laws and Regulations
First, you need assorted state (and possibly local) licenses to operate. Not just any old manufacturer licensing; that and licensing specific to firearms. There be additional zoning laws to keep firearms manufacturing out of areas where other manufacturing is allowed. Forget being within miles of a one room schoolhouse in the country.
You can’t just start shipping out federally legal guns to anywhere. Some states will require you to submit samples for evaluation and approval. Massachusetts wants to be sure they’re “safe” and don’t look too much like weapons they banned that complied with their rules but also looked too much like guns they don’t like.
California will do the same and more. Is the gun too small? Too big? Will it pass drop testing? Did you remember to submit a sample of every single variation you make? That means if you offer the pistol with black plastic grip panels and pink plastic grip panels, you have to submit two complete pistols in both colors. We’re aren’t sure how color makes a difference, but we aren’t smoking what the California legislature smokes.
Whoops! Your pistol doesn’t microstamp pistol-identifying data on the case of each round fired, in two places. Yes, we know the technology doesn’t yet exist to do that, but California apparently has really good weed.
So you just scratch off some large potential markets and just ship a firearm that complies with physical reality to the sane parts of the country. Or…
You could say the hell with manufacturing. Eliminate the need for FFLs and all that garbage. You go back to your plastic pistol design and tweak the 3D printing files so the design complies with all federal laws (minimum metal content, and such), and sell those on the Internet. You can draw on the Defense Distributed Ghost Gunner market; they have the mill, you can supply really cool printer files, right?
You’re going to prison for violating ITAR arms export laws and regulations. Yep, more of those “grossly under regulated” laws and regs.
At this point, maybe you’re thinking that firearms manufacturing is too tough and you’ll just say the hell with it and make something safe. Like shoelaces.
Sorry, that might a machinegun, too. Better get an FFL anyway, just in case the ATF changes the rules again.
Back to just selling legal pistols in the safe parts of the US.
The Retail World
So — complying with all federal and state laws and regulations — you sell a shipment of Super-Concealed Thug Slayer pistols to a distributor. Distributor checks laws and regs and sells some to a fully compliant retail FFL (yes, another federal firearms license). The retailer follows all laws and regs and logs the guns into his bound book for ATF inspection.
The FFL dealer also has state and local laws and regulations to deal with. Some zoning laws keep him out of cities altogether. If someone builds a church a thousand feet away, he might be forced to relocate or close. He’ll be required to install security systems beyond that required for banks or jewelry stores. He’ll be required to pull all his merchandise off the shelves and lock them in a safe in a back room after hours, even if the cases are unbreakable and the store has roll-down blast-proof shutters. He might be required to install anti-vehicle barricades to prevent thieves driving a stolen car through his store front.
The dealer is required to be a mindreader or precognitive, capable of determining whether a customer who meets all legal requirements is really a straw-purchaser, or might commit mass murder years down the road, or if the ATF overrides a NICS denial to allow an unlawful sale so they can pretend to “entrap” someone. He’ll be required to provide unlicensed mental health counseling for potentially suicidal customers; he’ll be required to be an unlicensed psychologist to make that diagnosis.
Joe Citizen walks into the Isher Weapons Shop and likes your gun. He presents state-issued photo ID, fills out a multi-page form swearing that he is allowed by the feds to purchase a firearm. As required, he informs the feds of his race. In some states, Joe will also present his license to merely own a firearm (more PPYI, fingerprinting, photos, taxes and fees, probably training). The dealer calls the FBI to complete a prior restraint on the would-be buyer’s constitutional rights requiring him to preemptively prove his innocence.
If the buyer is lucky, the FBI will approve the sale. If he isn’t lucky, they might make him wait a few days for approval/denial. If the FBI doesn’t respond in three days, the dealer has the option of completing or killing the sale. If the buyer is really unlucky, the FBI will declare him a prohibited person and deny the sale.
Joe Citizen, being a law-abiding type, can’t understand why the sale was denied. Assuming he isn’t in one of the states that requires the dealer to report him to the police (whereupon he’s arrested, charged, jailed, etc.), he files an appeal of the denial. Maybe he knows that virtually all NICS denials are false positives, and it’ll all get straightened out. Some day. Maybe. Because there’s a backlog of tens of thousands of unprocessed appeals.
But we’ll back up; Joe was legal and got his new defense pistol. He takes it home and locks it in a safe (per state “safe storage” laws, with ammunition locked away in a separate safe). Because he has not yet also gone through the PPYI check, fingerprinting, photographing, mandatory training by state-approved/licensed instructors, and paid the taxes and fees for a separate carry license for that specific firearm in his state (even though he’s already licensed for the Super-Concealed Thug Slayer with blue grip panels. Bog save him if he lives in Hawaii, where his license is only good in one county and he’ll have to try to repeat the process in every county to which he might travel.
Well, perhaps. In some states, there’s a mandatory waiting period before he can take his new pistol home. He still has to pay for, but he must wait. Even though the point of the federal NICS “instant background PPYI check” was to eliminate waiting periods. He must wait to prevent him from doing anything impulsive with that gun. He must wait even if he already owns a dozen guns with which he could act impulsively. Because of grossly under-regulated guns.
The “End User”
But finally Joe takes it home. After registering it, depending on state. Hopefully with ammunition he purchased after yet another round of PPYI checks, in some states.
And that night, some goblin breaks in, murders Joe, gets into the safe, and steals that Super-Concealed Thug Slayer you built and sold. Goblin steals a Ford Escort, uses it to plow down a bunch of pedestrians, then uses your product to finish off the survivors.
What’s that got to do with you? It’s your fault. Not Ford’s fault, even though Goblin used a Ford. Not the Ford dealer. Not the Ford’s owner. But it is Joe’s fault for negligently storing the gun in a safe that the Goblin could get into after Joe negligently let himself be murdered. Thanks goodness you excluded California sales, or Joe’s estate might be prosecuted for dead Joe failing to report the stolen firearm.
It’s the dealer’s fault for following all local, state, and federal laws. Ditto for the negligent distributor. And most especially you, Mr. Manufacturer, for making and marketing a weapon to kill people.
“But the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protects me if I followed all the rules and someone else misused my product,” you cry. “Why not sue Ford?”
Possibly they’ll get around to it, though it seems unlikely. But you engaged in “negligent marketing.” By obeying the grossly under-regulating state and federal laws and regulations that damned near kept you out of the market in the first place.
Welcome to the wonderful world of unregulated firearms. Next week, we’ll talk about the laws, regulations, and rules surrounding ammunition for those unregulated guns. If my head doesn’t explode; I may need a Federal Explosives License from the ATF for that.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.