So NPR had another gun control survey conducted. I thought I might fisk it, but…
Ban the sale of semi-automatic assault guns such as the AK-47 or the AR-15
And right there, I knew I could disregard the entire poll. If any manufacturer in the world markets a semi-auto rifle actually designated “AK-47,” I’ve never found it, and I’ve spent a fair bit of time searching. The AK-47 is a select-fire assault rifle, despite rampant misuse of the term. (But if you know of one, leave a link in comments.)
However, I did note this amusingly tidbit.
According to the US Census, there are 253,768,092 people 18 years of age and older, as of 2017. So their sample suggests well over one hundred million firearm owners (who will admit it to a stranger randomly dialing phones). Or over 131 million, if you apply their number to the entire US population.
When you dig down a little more, you find that those identifying as firearm owners oppose the queried victim disarmament proposals by 81% overall.
Politicians take note: 82,220,861 likely voters oppose more gun control.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Amy Swearer, of the Heritage Foundation, is stunningly ignorant of “red flag” laws (and Constitutionality) for an alleged “senior legal policy analyst.” But then, she works in the Meese Center, and Edwin Meese was never a friend to the Constitution.
These are the types of questions that must be explored in depth, with reasoned analysis and absent knee-jerk conclusions.
And a-fisking we go. It rapidly becomes obvious Swearer has no frickin’ idea what she’s talking about.
These laws have become increasingly popular since the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, even though the first such law was enacted by Connecticut in 1999.
The chumbucket had been reported to law enforcement for multiple disqualifying felonies and misdemeanors. He was known to be so dangerous that the school had him searched for weapons daily. He was probably a prohibited person — whom the state failed to report to NICS — because Florida DCF claims he was a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness,” which is a legal status based upon adjudication by a court. So-called red flag laws weren’t needed to deal with him, and they’d do no good if authorities aren’t interested in enforcing any laws like assault with a deadly weapon, domestic abuse, criminal threatening, destruction of property, killing animals, and so on and so forth. The FBI likewise blew off credible — documented — reports that the chumbucket intended to shoot up a specific school with a specific weapon.
Part of the problem is that civil commitments are a legally intensive process with serious (and often lifelong) implications for the person being committed. They are, therefore, often reserved as a last resort when all else has failed.
So are “red flag” orders; sometimes they last the rest of the person’s — short — life. But they are for when nothing else has been resorted to. The Odessa-Midlands killer had contacts with the FBI seemingly going back for years. Local law enforcement blew off a report of unlawful gun-fire simply because his address wasn’t in their GPS; they “couldn’t find” his house.
Q: What about the Second Amendment?
A: The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
What about the 5th and 14th Amendments, while you’re busily dismissing the Constitution? There’s that funny little thing about “due process.”
Where the facts and circumstances give specific reason to believe that a person is likely to cause imminent unlawful harm to himself or others, the person may be disarmed until he can reassure the community that he does not pose a violent threat.
Incorrect. If there is a factual basis for an accusation that a crime is being planned, the person can be arrested, and face due process procedures. “Red flag” proceedings are — by definition — ex parte, and generally require an unsubstantiated accusation. Colorado allows accusations to be phoned in, and the order is granted immediately with no actual hearing in which the accuser presents evidence.
Of course, the Constitution also demands that such individuals receive meaningful due process protections prior to the restriction of their rights, and great pains should be taken to ensure that individuals cannot be punished for merely holding offensive views or engaging in objectionable, but nonviolent, behaviors.
So where is the due process in “red flag” orders? In TRUAX, the Supreme Court requires “due process” to occur before the taking. “Red flag” laws allow no course for the accused to defend himself until well after his property has been stolen. That’s their intent.
And apparently holding the “offensive view” that one should be prepared to exercise deadly force to defend against initiated deadly force is suitable grounds for red-flagging innocent people.
For example, the parents of the man who killed six people and wounded 13 in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011 were so worried about his mental health, they disabled his car and tried to hide his firearms. They tried unsuccessfully to get him mental health treatment.
They didn’t try very hard. In fact, the punk had been arrested on charges which, if convicted, would have made him a prohibited person. The sheriff — who immediately blamed the lack of gun control laws for the attack — exercised a little professional courtesy to a fellow county employee, and ordered the killer-to-be’s release without charges. No “red flag” needed… if the sheriff did his job.
Similarly, red flag laws could have prevented the Parkland, Florida, shooting by allowing the family with whom the shooter was staying to petition a court for disarmament after local law enforcement and school officials refused to take action, despite repeated indications that the shooter was dangerous.
That single sentence is astounding: “Red flag” laws could have worked, even though they had — ignored — evidence that he was dangerous.
Let’s get into this more.
Q: What makes a good red-flag law?
Good question.
Use narrow definitions of “dangerousness” that are based on objective criteria and that don’t treat factors such as lawful firearm ownership or political affiliation as presumptively suspicious;
That rules out every “red flag” bill I’ve read. They are all based not on objective criteria, but I feelz that somebody might do something sometime.
And firearm possession is a primary criterion for “red flag” orders, since they are for removing firearms thought to be present.
Moving on, it appears Ms. Clueless is attempting to define what “red flag” orders are not.
Be temporary in nature, limited only to the period of time the person remains a danger to himself or others, and provide for the prompt restoration of firearms and corresponding rights when the danger no longer exists;
But none of them do that. They arbitrarily set extended periods on rights violations, and specifically disallow petitions for rights restoral except at preset intervals; usually 6-12 months, sometimes years, regardless of medical findings in the meantime.
Afford strong due process protections, including high burdens of proof (i.e., “clear and convincing evidence”), cross-examination rights, and the right to counsel.
Look, “senior legal policy analyst,” go read TRUAX. Understand due process, then explain how an after the fact, in which the accused is required to prove his innocence (of something that hadn’t occurred), at his own expense, is due process. The burden of proof on the accuser is Well, he might, while the actual burden of proving he didn’t is on the victim.
Provide meaningful remedies for those who are maliciously and falsely accused, and expunge any records of petitions that are not granted;
Most “red flag” laws exclude penalties for false accusations. In one case, a legislator offered and amendment that would specify flase accusation penalties; it was refused.
Be integrated with existing mental health and addiction systems to ensure that people who are deemed to be dangerous because of underlying factors receive the treatment they need.
No “red flag” law does that. Florida’s version includes the option of invoking the Baker Act after the fact, and in a separate action (meaning the victim of the order needs even more — expensive — legal representation.
Q: Aren’t red flag laws dangerous for law enforcement?
A: Certainly, law enforcement officers may face violent threats while serving red flag orders and seizing firearms from individuals determined to be dangerous under these laws.
And more dangerous to the rights of other people on the theory that the subject non-targets, with authorities seizing firearms might burglarize a house and steal guns.
Q: Where can I find out more about red flag laws?
A: The Heritage Foundation has previously written about red-flag laws here:
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
For those that haven’t heard yet, retail giant Walmart has decided that to keep the forces of evil at bay (the anti-gun harpies and their ilk) the best thing they could do would be cave into the pressure. Because their customers who shop at Walmart looking for value on things they use in their daily lives are not nearly as important as getting the harpies to quit and being labeled as “socially responsible”. Mind you, the harpies are not nearly as large a segment of the population as the people that quietly go about their business shopping at Walmart, I don’t believe.
This has lead a buddy of mine of Facebook to point out a few things. Said buddy is staunch Second Amendment supporter, so his views may be subtle. Thanks Bill for the lines.
My breakup with Walmart will not be easy. I have two outstanding items at the pharmacy that have to be handled there, but then I’ll transfer the prescriptions elsewhere. I’m serious about this.
I do owe him and his buddies one, they helped me figure out how to get a screw out of the laser sights on my .380 and only chided me a tiny bit for carrying that small a gun at times. Good lads all! But being a helpful friend, I told him about Israel Pharmacy. I’ve set 3 people up with accounts there and they’ve all been pleased and saved money, and no they aren’t paying me.
So regarding my buddy’s salient points, let’s examine the death and destruction Walmart unleashes on a daily basis on the unsuspecting communities they invade. And if you are a small Mom and Pop shop, I suspect you would agree with the characterization of Walmart as being an invasive species that puts small businesses out of business and then quits carrying the necessary items.
This one is startling. A study by Johns Hopkins found that 250,000 Americans are killed by medical errors each year. That’s 17 times the number killed by guns. Yet Walmart has a pharmacy in each store.
But my friend wasn’t done with his observations.
In 2018, 40,000 people died in automobile crashes in the U.S., yet Walmart still sells the vital parts and ammunition to keep these machines of carnage operating.
And
In 2014, nearly 5000 people died in bathtub drownings in the U.S., yet with few exceptions, every home still contains at least one of these known instruments of death. In fact, the government requires them!
My gracious! The inhumanity! Think of the bathtub bumpstocks Walmart sells! High capacity bottles of bubble bath, huge bags of scented Epson salts, bath scrubbies in multiple colors and that doesn’t count the dangerous chemicals Walmart sells to clean aforementioned bathtub of death! And they sell Tide Pods!
In 2017 there were nearly a thousand fatal bicycle accidents, yet Walmart still sells these machines of death. Walmart has blood on their hands.
I can hear it now, “Walmart peddler of death”. Yes, it’s a pun. Yes, it’s a bad one.
But let’s go back to the “groundbreaking” stance bit. It’s not really you know. And if Walmart quits selling ammunition you can just go to K-Mart and buy it. Oh, wait. Kmart Kills Ammunition Sales
Maybe not.
Company officials made the announcement Thursday following meetings that included company executives, a prominent gun-control advocate and victims of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.
Kmart stores have not carried handguns since the 1970s, but still sell hunting rifles and other long guns. For some time, the Troy, Mich.-based company has been under pressure from gun-control advocates to stop selling firearms.
In November 1999, talk show host Rosie O’Donnell resigned as the company’s celebrity spokeswoman because of her strong support of gun control.
And in December 1999 the company withdrew an application for a license to sell rifles and shotguns at a new store in New York after protests by an anti-gun group.
Company spokeswoman Julie Fracker said the sale of firearms and ammunition had been under review as part of a merchandising strategy by the company’s new executive team for some time.
“Obviously we consider ourselves a socially conscious business, but this was a business decision made in the best interests of the company,” she said.
And about Rosie resigning as spokeswoman? Well, she’s important you see, you aren’t. If you aren’t rich enough to afford professional body guards, well then your life isn’t worth preserving. She of course can afford armed bodyguards, and has them. #Elitist #Hypocrisy
The latest balance sheet data shows that DICK’S Sporting Goods had liabilities of US$1.93b due within a year, and liabilities of US$3.22b falling due after that. On the other hand, it had cash of US$116.7m and US$68.5m worth of receivables due within a year. So its liabilities total US$4.96b more than the combination of its cash and short-term receivables.
This deficit casts a shadow over the US$3.08b company, like a colossus towering over mere mortals. So we definitely think shareholders need to watch this one closely. At the end of the day, DICK’S Sporting Goods would probably need a major re-capitalization if its creditors were to demand repayment.
…
DICK’S Sporting Goods’s net debt is only 0.48 times its EBITDA. And its EBIT easily covers its interest expense, being 32.4 times the size. So you could argue it is no more threatened by its debt than an elephant is by a mouse. But the bad news is that DICK’S Sporting Goods has seen its EBIT plunge 13% in the last twelve months. We think hat kind of performance, if repeated frequently, could well lead to difficulties for the stock. There’s no doubt that we learn most about debt from the balance sheet. But it is future earnings, more than anything, that will determine DICK’S Sporting Goods’s ability to maintain a healthy balance sheet going forward.
Who cares about those mouth breathing gun owners? Oh, I dunno, the shareholders? If I were a shareholder and the CEO started making monetary decisions based on “social justice” knee jerks rather than responding to customers I think I would lead the charge to oust them. That’s my money you’re playing with. I invested in a company, not a high school experiment with a popularity contest.
This has lead to the popular Babylon Bee news site (satire) breaking the news on two more new Walmart policies
BENTONVILLE, AR—In a bold move intended to curb the thousands of deaths from vehicles each and every day, Walmart has decided to stop selling auto parts, sources confirmed Tuesday.
According to shocking reports, people have purchased car parts at Walmart and then those cars have been involved in accidents, proving a direct correlation between selling auto parts and causing deaths.
“We can no longer be complicit in an industry that kills over 3,000 people a day,” said a spokesperson for Walmart. “Every time we sell a muffler, steering wheel cover, or flame decal, we are potentially causing the death of a person, and we cannot support that any longer.”
But hey, while perusing the Bee’s homepage, I did get a bit of good news!
U.S.—Beto O’Rourke promised to take away everybody’s guns when he is president, though sources have confirmed that O’Rourke will never even get close to being the president.
…
“Man, I can’t wait to see how that presidential pen feels signing an unconstitutional executive order,” he added wistfully, though he will never know how that feels.
At publishing times, O’Rourke’s pro-gun control comments had caused his number of supporters to get cut in half, leaving him with just one.
That’s the thing about all this modern incarnation of “social justice”. In placating the harpies, and playing to the #FakeNews cameras you cause harm to the people you are suppose to be working for, shareholders or constituents. Not to mention the people that work for you. They used to be called “employees with families” till their jobs went away because that store had to be closed. If you’ve enhanced your ego or reputation at the expense of someone you’ve betrayed, it seems there could be fallout. I hope it falls hard on you.
I bet there might be a local gun shop with knowledgeable people around. They may not mix paint for you, but I bet the can make some sensible gun related recommendations should you ask.
-shakes head- All the calls for “gun control” that will magically stop all mass shootings miss the mark. Let me tell you a secret: Addressing the problem with victim-disarming gun control laws won’t hack it.
Background checks, however “enhanced” won’t do it, because looking at past activities doesn’t predict with certainty what someone might do in the future, under changing conditions.
Same with ex parte “red flag” confiscations.
“Assault weapon” bans? Most mass shootings are committed with handguns.
Age limits? What; you’re going to raise age limits to 70? 80?
Licensing? Registration? See above, re:background checks.
Buybacks? That never works; just ask New Zealand, with its 6.45% compliance rate. Buybacks don’t even touch the probable five million plus stolen guns in the wild.
There is only one gun control act that would possibly prevent mass shootings: Total confiscation of all firearms. Not just civilian arms, but everything; police and military (ask Los Zetas where they really got their “military-grade” weaponry; it wasn’t US gun stores). Then you’d have to ban pipes, aluminum cans, iron, copper, nails, sugar, stump remover, fertilizer, propane, butane, lighter fluid, gasoline, charcoal briquets, and any and all chemical precursors to homemade propellant. You’ll shut down all industry and commercial agriculture in America. The country, and much of the world, will starve.
Ever hear of linacs and railguns? There goes electricity, no matter how “greenly” it’s generated. Since you already eliminated plumbing, cities are now uninhabitable.
To enforce all that, you’ll need to raid every structure and property in the nation, going over every inch with metal detectors, ground penetrating radar, chemical sniffers, and Mark I Eyeballs.
Then you’ll need watchmen-watchers to keep an eye on the confiscation teams, because those are just people, too.
And someone to watch them.
You’ll need to recruit every man, woman, and child in the country as snitches, so that someone is always watching everyone who might be creatively assembling concrete, wire, flour, piss, flint, and steel to build an improvised cannon. (Crappy, but it would work.)
You’ll need to ban knowledge of history, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, lest someone apply that to construct a firearm. So much for maintaining infrastructure, let alone creating more.
Literacy will have to go, to be sure someone doesn’t wrong-ideas from an old book that missed being 451’d.
This is the 21st century; the firearms cat is out of the bag. If you want to use gun control to stop shootings, you need to reduce the nation to a sparsely populated Stone Age society.
Have fun with that. Or maybe you’d like to look at things that might really help.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Remarks against Antifa prompt FBI seizure of former Marine’s weapons under Oregon’s ‘red flag’ law: reports
A former Marine who said at a protest that he would “slaughter” Antifa members in self-defense, if attacked, recently had his five weapons confiscated by the FBI, according to reports.
[…]
Based on the court order, Kohfield – who served two tours of duty in Iraq — was committed to a veterans hospital for 20 days and was barred from participating in subsequent protests in Portland.
What was the horrible “threat” Kohfield made, that got his firearms stolen and him involuntarily committed to a psych hospital by judicial order (the latter part means he may never get his firearms back, nor replace them)?
“If Antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield told a crowd, according to the Oregonian. “I’d slaughter them, and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out Antifa.”
Consider:
“If” A conditional
“they start killing us” If someone else initiates deadly force against him
“going to kill them next” A potential response of deadly force against deadly force
“I have a detailed plan” A considered course of defensive action
Do you, like 17.25 million other people, have a concealed carry license?
If you carry a firearm for defensive purposes, you are prepared to exercise deadly force in defense to counter initiated deadly force.
By obtaining a license, you have documented that you have planned for the conditional possibility.
You probably go to the range and practice your plan. Your defensive plan.
This is what Dim-ocrats and Repugnant-cans alike want to inflict upon you.
Think you’re safe because you aren’t licensed and don’t carry? Think again. Maybe you know someone who does.
Vermont used an ex parte “red flag” order to steal firearms from someone because of the possibility that another person thought to be a threat might get into the other person’s house and steal them.
Florida “red flagged” an innocent man because he had a name similar to someone else.
California took the lawfully owned and securely stored (in a safe) firearm from a woman because someone else in the home was “red flagged.”
The Oregon precedent can be used against any CCW licensee. The Vermont/Florida/California (and other places where I’ve seen the same thing reported) can be used against anyone who happens to know, be related to, or lives near someone who has been “red flagged”… for a willingness to defend himself.
And being an ex parte action, the first you’ll know about it is when the cops show up in the wee hours to steal your guns, and maybe kill you in the process. If you do survive, you may have to wait weeks for a hearing (at your expense) in which you have to prove your innocence of something someone else hasn’t done.
Lindsay Graham calls that “due process.”
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
With registration schemes in the works, let’s imagine a humorous, purely hypothetical scenario.
Police State A passes a registration law.
Folks in other states publicly post something along the lines of, “I happen to know that someone in [NOT-State-A] has an AR, [manufacturer] [model] serial number 12345xxx. Plenty of credible examples.
“Compliant” A-Staters use that data to cram the State A’s database full of realistic-looking garbage: variations on out-of-state weapons. Change the serial numbers.
And never forget the overly compliant. Register a few hundred per person. You’ll probably make typos on the forms, so be sure to requisition plenty. And early, as they’ll likely run out.
Now that places such as New York City and California are doing their best to generate new Dim-ocrat voters-to-be with sanctuary and ID for “undocumented” illegals, those identities could be the ones “registering” their imaginary “assault weapons” and half-million-apiece magazines. I’ve heard that in Chicago, 1060 West Addison Street is a traditional address.
With millions of bogus database entries, I expect it’ll be a while before they sort through them and find “real” people who… “Darned boating accidents.” Mischievous types will want to get their lost/stolen reports in ahead of the expected rush. If they go low-bidder on the software, our little Simon Jesters might even crash the database.
If nothing else, this should lower unemployment, as governments recruit more clerks to handle the data entry.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Frustration is getting to me. That frustration is seeing the same lies over and over again, even though they’ve been thoroughly debunked. Like this one:
From 1791 until 2008, the supreme court refused to touch gun-control laws.
[…]
All that changed in 2008 with the court’s 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v Heller. In striking down a Washington DC ban on handguns in the home, the court’s conservative majority held for the first time that the second amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”
It’s particularly frustrating because that comes from “James J Grosfeld professor of law” Lawrence Douglas. Either Douglas is remarkably ill-informed for a law professor, or he’s a liar.
* 1857, Dred Scott
The Supreme Court ruled against Scott because — among other reasons — if Scott was a free man, he’d have the right to bear arms just like every other citizen. Not that he’d have the right to join a militia, but to bear arms at all.
*1876, Cruikshank
The Court found that the Bill of Rights applies to all people. The limitation was on which governments were forbidden to infringe on rights. In this case, they found that it did not apply to state governments.
* 1886, Presser
Admittedly, this was militia related, but the Court found that everyone capable of bearing arms is in the militia. Everyone; all individuals.
* 1939, Miller
This was an odd case, and not just for a dead defendant going to the Supreme Court. The final ruling held that the Second Amendment only protected those weapons suitable for military use. Since deceased Miller’s lawyers didn’t bother showing up, the Court bought the prosecution’s absurd claim that short-barrel shotguns are not military-grade and thus could be regulated under the National Firearms Act. Weapons suitable for military use cannot be regulated. Sadly, they limited that to the shotgun in question.
And that’s something to throw in victim disarmers’ faces when they shriek about “weapons of war.”
The Supreme Court long recognized the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Heller didn’t change that; the Court acknowledging a preexisting, individual right was not new. They said so in their decision, citing multiple cases. What was new was incorporation.
Up until Heller, court rulings as to the applicability of various parts of the Constitution and Amendments to state and local governments was inconsistent. Heller should have settled the matter: The Second Amendment applies to all governments, not just the federal government.
But Chicago politicians ride the short bus, so the Supreme Court revisited the subject in McDonald. The Court slapped down the claim that Heller only applied to Washington, DC, and explicitly stated that it applies to all levels of government.
Is Douglas ignorant or a liar? I think he’s a liar, because this recently-common talking point has been debunked repeatedly. But VDs keep pushing it anyway, just as the cite Kellerman.
It’s frustrating. We’re stuck with the truth. The rights-violators are free to lie at will.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
He could have been Red Flagged, subjected to a Mental Health Database, or blocked by a Universal Background Check.
All of these things, and more, would have been nice and legal under his Government.
Duly Processed, too.
The Rebbe Rashab
Here is a letter recently submitted to some Pro-Second-Amendment folks in the Jewish community:
B”H
Dear Sirs, and Rabbi,
Reportedly, Mrs. Kushner (and, by implication, her husband) are the point-persons which President Trump has tasked with coordination with the Anti-2A forces in Congress.
I believe a strong reach-out, from competent rabbinic authority,representing Torah Jewry on this issue is in order. Furthermore, it appears to be very time critical
Were things to proceed as they are trending, Individual Liberty will suffer, and it will by all accounts be seen as being done at the behest of prominent, reputedly observant, Jews.
A very dangerous combination, indeed.
I would suggest skipping the normal Government protocol (spelled B-A-R-R-I-E-R) approach, and instead start by leaving a message for them through Rabbi Levi Shemtov, of American Friends of Lubavitch, in Washington D.C. (around the corner from the Kushner Home).
The 9th of Av, Tisha B’Av, was actually on Saturday, but since we do not allow anything to interfere with Sabbath joy, the fasting and observance is moved to the next day. The 9th of Av was observed (not really celebrated) on the 10th of Av this year. The 9th of Av is the saddest of days, it has a long history of tragedy going to back to when the spies came back from the land of Israel and slandered it by lying and saying they could never take the land, there were giants, and, and, and. Only Joshua and Caleb spoke well and truthfully about it. The people unwisely believed the other 10 of the spies. Sort of like people who today chose to believe the mainstream media #MSM with their #FakeNews. Just because a lot of them are saying it doesn’t make it true.
I recently watched a video a fellow writer (thank you Y.B.) sent me of The Rebbe discussing antisemitism.
It was very interesting. I guess The Rebbe really never talked about it that much. He absolutely knew it was real, and his family had been a victim of it more than once. He believed we need to first rely on G-d. If G-d doesn’t guard the home (or nation) the guard keeps watch in vain. First we must make sure G-d is guarding the home, and thereafter we must hire the guards for “we may not rely on miracles”. Everything must have a foothold in nature. And once we’re doing everything physically possible through the laws of nature- indeed that’s the Torah way, the verse states G-d will bless you in all you do. Lest you think you can sit and await G-d’s salvation. The verse emphasizes in all that you do, you must work within the laws of nature. This is a part I want to talk about. Another part was when he talked about the way to influence a group of people to stop being antisemitic is to work with those at the top of the movement, not so much the people involved in it, but the leaders of it. This worked in the case of the Crown Heights Riots.
This is not working out well within the Demoncratic party. These are from a variety of sources.
Any attempts to confront the leaders with statements made or positions or actions take are met with howls of “raaaaccciissstttt”. Even though no one is talking about their race, only their actions.
Who does he think I am?
It’s interesting, G-d gave Israel to the Jewish people, he gave other land to other people. From Deuteronomy 2:
Turn northward and command the people, “You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful. Do not contend with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession. You shall purchase food from them for money, that you may eat, and you shall also buy water of them for money, that you may drink. For the Lord your God has blessed you in all the work of your hands. He knows your going through this great wilderness. These forty years the Lord your God has been with you. You have lacked nothing.”’ So we went on, away from our brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir, away from the Arabah road from Elath and Ezion-geber.
And we turned and went in the direction of the wilderness of Moab. And the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the people of Lot for a possession.’
Nobody howls about that, no one is calling those countries apartheid or racist, or oppressive. Even if they are. In fact, no matter how any arab country treats Jews, Christians, Gays, or women, or dogs. Not a word is said. Odd that, eh? Only Jewish Israel.
But back to the Rebbe’s talk, it’s only if G-d is guarding the house, and Demoncrats are also doing their best to throw him out of the country, and life.
The destruction of the two Temples, both on the 9th of Av was horrific. The siege of Jerusalem was horrific. The results of those tragedies are still felt today. Jews are not allowed to pray on Har HaBeit, and often not allowed to visit on special holy days as muslims always seem to come up with a muslim holiday to co-opt the day. And sadly, Bibi always seems to cave to the muslims. If you want to talk about cultural appropriation, here ya go. An appeal to moderate Arabs on Tisha Be Av. Nope it’s not your imagination that mosques often seem to be built of top of churches and synagogues the muslims have destroyed. Remember when they wanted to build on at the site of the attack on the Twin Towers? Yeah, there was a reason for that.
So first we make sure G-d is guarding the house, then we hire the guards. For many of us, we are the guards. We are our own first responders. Except those on the left that hate Jews, Israel, conservatives, Christians and anything in a MAGA red hat want to disarm everyone. They keep telling us how much safer we will all be if only everyone is disarmed of any means of defending themselves and their families. And it just can’t wait. San Fran Nan is demanding everyone come back from recess to enact gun control, President Trump’s knee is jerking. Everyone must be disarmed. Right. Now. Why? I’ve wondered if the left is so insistent that people be disarmed because inside they know they can’t be trusted with weapons. Do they feel if they had a gun they would shoot someone over a parking space? Bit by bit as Trump derangement syndrome grows their masks are coming down. The violence against Trump supporters, or anyone they feel is a conservative grows. There was a new movie slated to come out of September 27th, The Huntwhich shows liberals hunting down and killing Trump supporters for sport. This is totally acceptable to the left and Hollyweird. I understand it may not be released then in light of the recent attacks by leftists that left so many dead. Again, you know why I don’t go to movies. It’s Universal studio if you’re curious.
Anytime there is an attempt to render one group of people defenseless, it is not going to turn out well. When only the government has weapons, it is not going to turn out well. I’ve heard it said “If your sitting at the poker table wondering who the mark is, it’s you”, or something along those lines.
The Jews fought back fiercely in 70 AD against the siege of Jerusalem against Titus and Rome, but they were so out numbered. Part of the battle relies on having effective weapons, some of which they had seized from previous encounters with the Romans, but the other part is there needs to be enough of them to be effective.
As I am sure you noticed — unless you were lucky enough to be away from radio, television, Internet, or gossip — we just had a bad weekend. If you were — momentarily — fortunate enough to miss it, two socialist chumbuckets gunned down a lot of innocent people. As I write, the tally is 29 dead (so far; more victims are in critical condition), and dozens more wounded, in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.
Mainstream media latched onto a manifesto (let me know if the link goes dead; we need to know the enemy) purportedly written by the El Paso bucket o’chum, and declared him to be a pro-Trump white nationalist who hates immigrants. The actual manifesto paints a picture of an anti-capitalist, envirowhacko (he cites The Lorax) socialist who wants to get rid of immigrants to make implementing universal basic income more palatable, and wants to reduce the nation’s population to a “sustainable” level. He wanted all this long before Trump came on the political scene. Before pages got edited, he appeared to be a registered Democrat. He used a WASR-10.
The Dayton asshole was a self-avowed socialist, who wanted to impose socialism on everyone whether we want it or not. He advocated for more gun control. He allegedly made “hit” and “rape” lists in high school. He murdered his sister and her boyfriend and seven more people. He was a registered Democrat. His weapon was an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15.
Naturally the media labeled both incidents white nationalist domestic terrorism, and returned fire on the Second Amendment, joined by politicians and pundits. Trump is calling for “strong” background checks.
Both of the scum purchased their weapons lawfully and passed NICS checks. Just like Gilroy Garlic Festival SOB.
My news feeds are full of examples, but let us focus on one from the New York Post, a call for an “assault weapon” ban.
Come up with answers. Now. Beginning with the return of an assault weapons ban.
We know: That label doesn’t actually describe a clear class of guns. And that some studies show that the last ban, in effect from 1994 to 2004, had a limited impact. But that simply means the next ban should be better written, with a clear definition focused on factors like firepower — rate of fire, muzzle velocity, etc. — not on cosmetic features.
Rate of fire. Where have we heard that before? Should the NYP’s suggestion be adopted, at a minimum, that would ban every semi-automatic firearm.
The shootings prompting this call reportedly used .223 Remington (Dayton) and 7.62×39 (El Paso), despite the media hype, those aren’t all that fast (or powerful) compared to common hunting rounds. If we take 2349 FPS as the threshold, then the NYP ban would eliminate anything chambered for nearly every common hunting round. Fudds, beware; this time they are coming for your guns.
If both of those proposals were adopted, and depending on the arbitrary “rate of fire” chosen, that would probably ban every repeating firearm: semi-automatic, bolt, lever, pump, or revolver. You’d be left with single-shot, pistol- or varmint-caliber firearms.
If you’re lucky.
Yes, they’re coming for all semi-autos.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own “guns in common use.” That doesn’t cover the semiautomatic weapons regularly used only in mass shootings.
100 MILLION honest gun owners didn’t kill anyone with 16 MILLION AR- or AK-pattern weapons over the weekend. 100 million people certainly didn’t kill anyone with 393+ million firearms.
But let’s punish them all for the actions of two chumbuckets with two guns.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
