Monthly Archives: September 2019

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Sellouts and traitors

Amy Swearer is riding her “red flag” hobby horse again

5 Comments

I’ve previously observed that, for a “Senior Legal Policy Analyst,” Ms. Swearer seems to have a limited grasp of legal issues; particularly “red flag” laws. Or pretends so.

Once again, she is pushing “properly crafted” “red flag” laws.

In a nation with a constitution with a Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment, and where Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921) yielded a SCOTUS decision that due process must take place before a taking, before an abrogation of constitutionally protected rights, there is no such thing as a properly crafted “red flag” law.

The sort of laws Swearer describes as good “red flag” laws, are not. She describes the existing, standard protective order: accuser presents real evidence, hearing is held in which the accused — who must be informed — can have legal representation and present his defense, and the judge rules. If the ruling is in favor of the accuser, now firearms may be taken.

By deliberate intent, “red flag” laws:

  • Allow no-due process ex parte proceedings in which the accused’s first warning is when the police arrive to SWAT him.
  • Far from facing his accuser, it is unlawful for anyone to tell the accused who did it to him until his eventual hearing.
  • Lower the standard of evidence to the level of I feel that something might happen sometime, but I can’t prove it or I’d file a police report so they could get an arrest warrant.
  • When a ex post facto hearing is eventually held (laws vary from two weeks to a month after the seizure of property), the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. He must prove his innocence of something that hasn’t happened and for which there may have been no credible evidence was going to… because if there was, he could have been arrested already.

That is what makes a “red flag” law: No due process, gossip as evidence, and forcing the accused to prove his innocence. Anything else is a standard, existing protection order process.

Those elements are bad enough. The practical implementation of the laws is worse. In no “red flag” law I have reviewed* is there any requirement to take the allegedly “dangerous” person into custody; neither for “public safety” nor for a mental health evaluation. Florida’s perfunctory nod to that is a requirement that law enforcement merely inform the accuser if they are planning to — eventually — Baker Act the accused.

The accused is so dangerous that he must be SWATted on no notice and forcibly disarmed, but so safe he can be left on the loose to obtain other weapons?

Florida and Colorado allow the initial “hearing,” in which the accuser’s application is considered, to be conducted telephonically. Even an accused murderer deemed too dangerous to transport from jail to courthouse gets a video hearing so the judge can consider little things like the defendant’s demeanor and credibility as demonstrated by gestures, body language, and facial expressions.

The federal “encourage the states to SWAT innocent people” bill includes a pretend protection in the form of a felony perjury charge for a false report. But how does a prosecutor prove that the accuser didn’t really “feel” that “something” “might” happen “sometime”?

“I turned out to be wrong, Your Honor, but I honestly ‘felt’ that at the time.”

So why are people pushing for “red flag” laws? Why does Swearer think they’re so great? Do they honestly believe that they will reduce gun violence, and that makes the constitutional shredding worth it?

Florida passed its “red flag” law in March 2018. They are reportedly flagging an average of five people per day. 2019 data isn’t in yet, but an analysis of 2018 homicide, firearms-related homicide, and suicide numbers strongly suggests otherwise: post-red flag, homicides went up; firearms-related homicides went up; and suicides increased dramatically.

The suicide statistics — suicide rate held steady at 14.1/100K for two years, then suddenly jumped to 15.3/100K post-passage — suggest the law is making that worse. Imagine a borderline suicidal person suddenly betrayed by an anonymous accusation from a supposed loved one, his property stolen without a chance to defend himself; perhaps he’ll cross that borderline now, from potential to successful suicide. Would a depressed person choose not to seek professional help lest a well-meaning busybody “help” him by violating his human/civil rights?

“Red flag” laws are clearly unconstitutional. Far from helping, they may be aggravating the situation.

Protection order procedures with due process already exist in every state. Every state already has a Baker Act equivalent law to take at-risk people into custody for evaluation. “Red flag” laws are not needed… for the advertised purpose.

Which begs the rhetorical question of, “Why push for them?” In some cases, it appears to be ignorance of existing laws. That should not be the case for a “senior legal analyst.”

But consider the backlash to Presidential candidates suggesting the use of overwhelming military force against civilians to confiscate firearms in bulk (and how far we fallen when credible candidates could even think of such a thing). They cannot do it. It is impossible. That is why every “assault weapon” ban proposed prior to the current psychotic Congress grandfathered existing arms; even Feinstein understood the problems of kicking millions of doors because the occupants are well-armed.

If you go at it piecemeal, one firearm owner at a time, you can “boil the frog.” Pass a “red flag” law, use pretend “evidence” against someone who has done nothing, give him the semblance of a day in court, and you can sneak up on everyone. And if you happen to round up an occasional person who really was at risk, the people-controlling politicians and media will be happy to put him on display as the posterboy for wonderful ERPOs. “See? It works! Never mind that he was one in a few thousand.”

And you don’t even need expansive “assault weapon” definitions, because you’re taking everything anyway.

* I freely admit that I have not analyzed every law that has been passed, nor have I analyzed the results of those laws as I did with Florida. I lack the resources to do that. Unlike a “senior legal analyst” funded by a ritzy foundation with tens of millions of dollars to throw around, I do what little I can on my own time and dime. As is, I have to add airtime to my 4.5 year-old dumb flip-fone a bit at a time as I can scrape up the money, and I sold my 23 year-old truck a few months ago. If you would like to see more, and more in-depth, analyses feel free to hit my tip jar below.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, Law

Florida Red Flag Law: How is it working out?

Post-Parkland, Florida passed a “red flag” law allowing the confiscation of firearms from people deemed at risk of harming themselves or others. That was in March of 2018.

Since more states are adopting such laws, and federal “red flag” legislation is being considered, I thought it would be a good idea to see if the rights-violation was “worth it” in terms of lives saved.

Recently, we learned that Florida is apparently using its “red flag” law an average of five times a day.

Five times per day. That’s 1,825 people flagged per year. People that allegedly couldn’t be stopped by conventional — due process — means. Preemptively preventing their crimes should make a noticeable dent in homicide numbers. If the “red flag” law actually works.

Let’s take a look.

The law was passed in March, so it was only in effect for nine months. With the 5/day average, that’s approximately 1,350 people who didn’t kill, who otherwise would have, in 2018 (2019 data isn’t available yet).

2017 had 1,057 homicides, of which 791 were firearms-related.

2018 had 1107 homicides, of which 836 were firearmsailerons -related. OK, to be fair, Parkland is included in that count. Let’s exclude that to see how the numbers went down:

1,090 homicides. 819 firearms-related.

The numbers went up? Even when we exclude Parkland? But… but… red flag.

Ah, perhaps all or most of those flagged individuals were suicidal. With the “red flag” law, I’m sure we’ll see a nice decrease in suicides.
2016: 3,122 (14.1/100K)
2017: 3,187 (14.1/100K)
2018: 3,552 (15.3/K)

If the usual homicide:suicide ratio of 1:2 in firearm deaths applied to the “red flagged” people, Florida should have seen a drop of 900 suicides: 2,652. Or, since approximately half are by firearm, perhaps only half of those flagged people were planning to go out that way: 3102. Not an increase of 365 to 3,552.

If “red flag” laws worked.

“Red flag” goes into effect. Homicides go up. Firearm homicides go up. Suicides go up.

They don’t work. The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed by people who aren’t supposed to have guns anyway, and who will get them; generally in an unlawful fashion.

“Red flag” laws may even make suicides worse, by aggravating already disturbed people while leaving them on the loose to die by other means, and by not Baker Acting them so they get help. If I’m correct, 2019 suicide numbers in Florida may well be even worse than the significant increase of 2018.

Added: Based on comments elsewhere, I was apparently too subtle in noting that the law didn’t work as they claimed it would. Since I’ve been noting for years that gun control laws target the demographic not committing the crimes, therefore the unspoken goal isn’t what they claimed, I didn’t bother to say it explicitly again. It’s people control.

I hereby apologize for failing to repeat myself again.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Bump-Fire, Courts, gun control, Law

If I see, “The ATF admitted…” One. More. Time.

This story won’t go away. Ever since NCLA ran their press release claiming the federal government admitted in a filing in the Aposhian case that they didn’t have the lawful authority to “legislate” the bump-fire ban, the “wonderful news” keeps showing up in blogs, forums, and news sites.

First, the story did originate with the NCLA. That was your first tip to take it with a grain of salt. You may recall that they also claimed that Aposhian was the only man in America allowed to keep his bump stock. That was… incorrect. It was almost as if they were completely unaware of the Guedes et al and Gunowners of America cases. I, and many other people, tried to get them to fix that statement. They informed me that a statement correcting it that would be released.

It wasn’t, at least as of this writing, six months later.

As for this claim… read the filing for yourself. What the federal attorneys said was, We did not arrogate Congressional power to legislate. We used our Congressionally delegated power to interpret the NFA’s language to establish rules; the ‘power to fill up the details’.

Please stop passing NCLA’s mischaracterization around.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Academics, authoritarian swine, gun control, Law, You can't fix stupid

Gun Controllers Still Making S–t Up

Today’s entry is Nicholas H. Wolfinger.

Reaching a compromise on assault weapons
[…]
Many mass shootings involve military-style assault rifles capable of rapid-fire mass murder: equipped with a hundred-round magazine, the Dayton shooter killed nine people and injured at least 27 more in 30 seconds.

An assault rifle is a shoulder-fired, select-fire firearm chambered for an intermediate-power cartridge. The Dayton chumbucket used a semiautomatic pistol.

Building on the National Firearm Act of 1934, the 1986 Act banned new machine gun sales but grandfathered in existing weapons. According to a 2015 ATF report, over 500,000 of these rifles remain in private hands.

Dipstick cites a four year old report that actually lists 543,073 machineguns total (not just rifles). The actual number is, per the ATF, 175,977 in private hands. To approximate Wolfinger’s number you have to add in restricted items and sales samples, neither of which is available to private individuals. And that only yields 490,664, because he failed to notice the exports in his source.

The 1986 Act codified a robust regulatory regime governing the transfer of machine guns between private parties.

No, the NFA 0f 1934 did that. FOPA ’86 banned transfer of machineguns not already registered.

Buying one requires a background check (including a testimonial from a local law enforcement officer), a fee, a permit, and a wait of up to a year for government processing. All such purchases are entered into a federal registry.

Close, but no cigar. Local law enforcement is notified, but — under federal rules; states may vary — the CLEO does not have to sign off on it.

No federally-licensed gun has ever been used in a violent crime, let alone a mass shooting.

Wrong again, bubba. September 15, 1988: Patrolman Roger Waller of Dayton, Ohio used his registered MAC-11 chambered in .380 to kill police informant and local drug dealer Lawrence Hileman.

And, while it was properly classed as an accident, there was the 2014 death of Charles Vacca at the Arizona Last Stop range by a young girl with a registered Uzi.

Why not extend this regulatory regime to all assault rifles?

All assault rifles are already covered by the NFA, and always have been (since the NFA predates the first assault rifles).

The El Paso shooter, for instance, purchased his assault rifle in the weeks before his rampage.

He didn’t have an assault rifle. He had a semi-automatic WASR-10.

Pistols, not rifles, are responsible for the vast majority of homicides and suicides in America

Pistols are nonsentient inanimate objects. They are not responsible for homicides or suicides; the people pulling the triggers are responsible.

Indeed pistols, many of which are capable of semi-automatic fire, have been used in some of our worst mass shootings, including the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Interesting that he doesn’t mention the Sig Sauer MCX, since he’s riding an “assault weapon” hobby horse.

Parenthetically, in modern US usage “pistol” refers to a handgun with the chamber integral with the barrel, and most often semiautomatic handguns. Wolfinger may find this firearms primer useful should he wish to, you know, actually know whath e’s talking about.

I wonder if Wolfinger is even aware that legislation to do what he wants — make all those nasty guns into NFA items — was actually filed back in February. I noted that while it requires everything to be registered within 120 days, in reality it would require a minimum of 54 years to get the tax stamp.

This professor’s classes must be a real joy for his students, stuck trying to sort truth from made up stuff in his lectures.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Bump-Fire, gun control, Law, Politics

We’re Screwed

2 Comments

(ETA: I just noticed that this is TZP’s 1,000th post.)

Everyone is trying to guess which way Trump is going to jump on universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI; “background checks”) and other gun control proposals. Alan Gottlieb assures us all will be well:

“I got call from White House staff. Gave me details on what the President is considering to support with regard to gun legislation. They considered my comments and ideas and we were on the same page. I like the red lines that they have drawn to protect Second Amendment rights.”

So the White House is “on the same page” as the guy who…

  • Bragged that he helped write the previous — hated — Manchin-Toomey universal background check amendment
  • Pushed for federalized universal PPYI with his Washington I-591 (and diverted resources from fighting I-594)
  • Backed regulation of bump-fire stocks
  • Drove away pro-rights writers from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership with censorship

BOHICA.

It would be nice if the White House would call someone other than anti-rights gun controllers like Gottlieb or the Vichy NRA. I’m available.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
Bump-Fire, gun control, Law, You can't fix stupid

Bump Stock Ban Update: Oh dear bog

1 Comment

I read a couple of the most recent responses from the government in the Aposhian and GOA challenges of the ban.

I see the government still fails to explain some points.

1. The government argues that pulling the action of the firearm forward to engage the trigger with the user’s finger the first time is a “pull of the trigger,” but then argues that pulling the action forward a second time is not a “pull of the trigger.” Why are identical acts not the same?

2. The government asserts that the Akins Accelerator is a machinegun because the spring absorbed recoil energy then used the stored energy to push the action forward again. And yet it then argues that using a rubber band to absorb recoil energy and push the action forward is not a machinegun. W.T.F?

3. “A ‘Single Function of the Trigger’ Is a ‘Single Pull of the Trigger’ and Analogous Motions,” but using the off-hand motion to engage the trigger is not an “analogous motion.”

4. And they still maintain that a BSTD, without spring or rubber band, is a machinegun, while a semi-auto without spring or rubber band is not, without saying why.

My head hurts.

Allow me to put that in perspective.

DOJ: This is a Cadillac.

DOJ: This is a Cadillac, too.

DOJ: This is a Chevy.

And the bobblehead judges are just nodding their unquestioning acceptance.

This nation is so screwed.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, Law, Politics, Sellouts and traitors, Voting

Voter Blocs

Let me tell you a story. Back in the 1990s, I was a sworn peace officer. I worked in a close security prison in Georgia.

One night while I was on duty, several inmates were in a dayroom in H Unit watching the news on television. The topic was gun control; I think the specific subject was the Brady Bill, but I don’t recall exactly when this happened, so it might have been the federal “assault weapon” ban under discussion. But the inmates approved.

They began talking amonsgt themselves. I don’t think any of them realized I’d entered the room until the discussion was well involved.

After two and a half decades, I can’t remember exact quotes. But the consensus was

  • Gun control is great because people we rob are more likely to be unarmed.
  • Armed victims are scary; more so than than dogs, for burglars.
  • We pick different victims if we think one might be armed.
  • It won’t affect us because we can always get guns anyway.

In support of the last one, I recall one inmate (whom I believe was in for armed robbery, assault, and felon in possession of a firearm) declared he’d have a gun within hours of being released from prison. About then, they appeared to notice me; the discussion ended, and the inmates dispersed back to the barracks area.

Please note that the party pushing hardest for victim disarmament is the same demanding voting rights restoration for incarcerated felons.

There’s a reason that scumbags like Bobby Francis “Beta” O’Rourke (himself arrested for burglary, though the university declined to press charges) push for laws that would only apply to honest people.

They know who they really see as their constituency. Gun control is OSHA for violent criminals.

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
"News Media", gun grabbers, Junk Science, mindset, Politics, So Much Stupid!, You can't fix stupid

That’s just crazy!

5 Comments

I heard an interesting interview on the Mark Levin show a couple weeks ago on my way home from class. The interview involved Dr. Bandy X Lee.

Bandy Xenobia Lee (born 1970) is an American psychiatrist with Yale University and a specialist in violence prevention programs in prisons and in the community who initiated reforms at New York’s Rikers Island prison. Her scholarly work includes the writing of a comprehensive textbook on violence. In 2017 she organized a conference on the mental health of Donald Trump at Yale and was the editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a book of essays that has contributed to the debate about Trump’s mental stability and within the psychiatric profession in the United States about the interpretation of the Goldwater rule.

It seems Bandy has co-written a book with Judith Lewis Herman.

Judith Lewis Herman (born 1942) is an American psychiatrist, researcher, teacher, and author who has focused on the understanding and treatment of incest and traumatic stress.

Herman is Professor of clinical psychiatry at Harvard University Medical School and Director of Training at the Victims of Violence Program in the Department of Psychiatry at the Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a founding member of the Women’s Mental Health Collective.

She was the recipient of the 1996 Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and the 2000 Woman in Science Award from the American Medical Women’s Association. In 2003 she was named a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

How distinguished! But it seems these two distinguished doctors are afraid. There is a huge problem. They along with 25 35 or 36 of their fellow psychiatrists realized the imminent danger our country is facing because we elected a seriously unstable Republican as President.

So Mark’s interview begins with asking Bandy about her political leanings. Is she a Demoncrat? She denies she is, though she did vote for Hillary. Is she a liberal? Yes, and a conservative. Has she ever voted for a Republican? Yes. Who? She’d rather not say. Then it really starts to get interesting. In what ways is she a conservative? She is a devout Christian, she believes in the founding principles of this nation, she’s a great patriot if you will, says she. By later in the interview I’m thinking she had to be a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church. Mark inquires if she believes in private property rights. Well, to an extent, she feels private property rights have gone too far. WTHeck? Does she believe in limited federal government? This made her nervous. Why was he asking her such things? She declares first and foremost she is a medical professional! She is not a very political person! She declares she has no conflicts of interest. Do you believe all the Bill of Rights? Ummmmm. Do you believe in the Second Amendment?

“Ummmmm…..I actually don’t really know the exact ummmm, meanings of the Bill of Rights. What I studied was enlightenment literature.”

So she and 36 other “mental health experts” have written this book. As many as thirty-six out of the, as she admits, hundreds of thousands of other mental health experts in this country, have written a book on the dangerous mind of President Trump.

Where did she get her information? Had she ever met the President? No. Had she ever spoken to the President? No. Did she watch TV, read newspapers, listen to the radio? No, she did a “fairly intimate analysis of him due to the information that was on him in the Mueller Report.” She said, well, its observations from outside the President’s head. As Mark points out, her book was written before the Mueller report came out. She says the alarm for herself started in early 2016. She was triggered by the interaction between the Presidential candidate DJT and his rally attendees. She said this is real time interaction, and response in real time, as recorded of course. She was disturbed by the things the Candidate said and that people were applauding and cheering. Mark points out she did no scientific diagnosis, as that’s not possible from a distance. She counters that is not true, she brought her scientific knowledge and psychiatric training as well as her experience in public health. So she was quite aware of what these signs represented, and they have born out to be true with time. A danger she says. That’s why it’s ok she wrote this book without a diagnosis. Mark points out you can’t have a diagnosis from afar. She says “that’s not true either”. With certain conditions, a diagnosis is more accurate from a distance, without a personal interview. And this is mainstream thought. Today diagnosis is based on no interaction, just on observing the person. But she insists she never diagnosed, she is only interested in the public health effects of DJT. Then she insists she can’t diagnose from afar. And she doesn’t want to, where upon Mark tells her the book is filled with speculation on such things. Mark asks if she analyzed Hillary Clinton? She insists dangerousness is about the situation, not the person. Huh? Ok, is she dangerous?

“Hillary Clinton never raised alarms for me”.

I guess she could do a internet search on the Clinton body count. She insists it’s not about political party, it’s about standards. Mark reiterates he’s read her book. On what page are the standards listed? They aren’t. He further points out, she only watched TV. She never actually went to any of his rallies, never talked to any of his people, never talked to any of his supporters.

Why does this outrage me so? Red Flag laws. Not only can a person accuse you without evidence it appears the medical profession, or at least the mental health profession (some of whom wanted nothing to do with Bandy or this book) are willing to make judgments affecting your property, your rights and your life based on some undocumented, unspecified standards. Will these be the same “professionals” helping to write legislation in an advisory capacity? Now I understand why Professor Quack thinks personal property rights have gone too far. Not that she can tell you about the Bill of Rights.

If you want to hear the whole interview, it’s available here

If you want the whole show, and the part about “medicare for all” is pretty darn interesting, as is the “wealth tax”, you can get that here.

https://omny.fm/shows/mark-levin-audio-rewind/mark-levin-audio-rewind-8-27-19

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
duty, Inspiration, resistance

Captain Witold Pilecki

8 Comments

Over at my blog, I noticed a commenter’s screen name. It was unfamiliar but, given the avatar, I assumed it had some historical significance. I looked it up.

Captain Witold Pilecki

I am almost ashamed that I had never heard of this man before, because based just on the Wikipedia entry, Pilecki was a total badass. He fought the Soviets in the Polish-Soviet War. He fought in World War 2, including with the Tajna Armia Polska, (Secret Polish Army; which he helped found), the resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Poland.

Just what I’ve read so far is fascinating; I’m going to be learning more about him. But let me drop two exploits from his life that are germane to The Zelman Partisans.

Witold Pilecki volunteered to be imprisoned in Auschwitz. Not to find out what was going on in the camp. He knew; some of it, at least. He went to gather proof to be presented to the Allies. He volunteered to go into a death camp to try to help those imprisoned there. They smuggled in radio parts and built a transmitter in the camp and broadcast intel about camp activities.

And he escaped more than two years later. With German documents he’d somehow gotten hold of.

Some might think that was enough for one war. Think again.

He went to the Warsaw Ghetto, and fought in the uprising.

And survived.

As I said, I’m still learning about Pilecki. I do know that he was executed by the Soviet puppet government of Poland in 1948.

For working against the Soviets.

“I’ve been trying to live my life so that in the hour of my death I would rather feel joy, than fear.”
– Pilecki, after being sentenced to death

[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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, Law, Politics, Voting

Survey says..

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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail