Monthly Archives: September 2019

authoritarian swine, gun control, Junk Science, So Much Stupid!

Rorschach Research Associates

3 Comments

The news today is full of the latest poll alleging massive support for an “assault weapon” ban, universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, and more human/civil rights violations. The numbers claimed were so outrageous I was sure it would prove to be another Quinnipiac poll.

But not this this time; it was conducted by Langer Research Associates, an outfit of whom I’ve never heard before.

I had some time to kill, so I took a look at the poll data. This was a “nationwide” telephone survey of 1,003 people, supposedly randomly dialed. There is no further information on methodology. But given the questions they asked, no methodology was going to save them.

16. Would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?

They failed to define “assault weapon,” a term with different meanings in a few jurisdictions and none in most. Therefore the question has zero meaning, or a wildly variable meaning in the mind of each individual respondent.

Did they mean an “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 federal law? A Massachusetts assault weapon whose definition was based on the ’94 federal law until it was bureaucratically expanded? The NY definition which encompasses both more and less? The CA definition which covers even more, while missing things covered by the others? Respondents were left to their own imagination.

17. Would you support or oppose [ITEM]?

a. requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows

All retail sales require background checks already. It’s already unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. The question should mention costs, too. It should note that nearly all firearms used in crimes are obtained unlawfully, bypassing any required checks.

b. a nationwide ban on high capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets

“Clips” are devices used to load magazines, and hold cartridges, not just bullets. The most common clips already hold 10 or fewer cartridges.

c. a law allowing the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others

Such laws already exist. Their summary refers to “red flag” laws, so for the question to have meaning, they must specify that the order would be ex parte and the subject would not have the chance to speak in his defense and that the accuser need provide no evidence (if there were evidence, a regular arrest warrant could be issued).

d. a mandatory buy back program in which the federal government would require assault weapon owners to turn in those weapons in exchange for payment

Again, “assault weapon” must be defined, and the payment specified. For instance, New Zealand’s new ban specifies a maximum payment below market value, which may be part of why compliance is running below 10% (and dropping with each “buyback” event).

18. Who do you trust more to handle gun laws in this country – (Trump) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

That question is so biased that, if I had been polled, I would have hung up on the idiots. It presupposes that more gun laws are desirable. It frames the debate as an individual vs. a Dem majority. (Incidentally, Trump has implemented more new firearm restrictions in this year, than the Democrats have managed in the past twelve years.)

19. How confident are you that [ITEM] would reduce mass shootings in this country – very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?

You failed to define “mass shooting.” The GVA definition, which includes people not shot? The CRS/FBI definition which excludes gangbangers shooting it out over turf and revenge? Meaningless question.

21. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?

I’ve always found that question amusing. Imagine answering your own phone one day and hearing, “Hi! I’m a stranger randomly dialing numbers, so I don’t really know where you live. Will you tell me if you have valuable merchandise that’s easily stolen?”

It gets even better when you toss that question in with the suggestion of confiscation.

All in all, the clowns didn’t find “support” for anything specific. They conducted a verbal Rorschach test of “support” for whatever was in the mind of each individual. They might as well have asked, “Do you support or oppose color?” And left it to each person to guess if they meant color vs. B&W imagery, people of color, or red vs. blue.

I’d like to see more detail on the methodology. Did they ask the questions of whomever answered the phone, or ask for youngest likely voter? Someone else? What regions did they poll, and how did they weight responses? It doesn’t much matter, given the questions, but I’d like to further ridicule them.

[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
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Law

The cluelessness is strong in this one

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.

Answers to Common Questions About “Red Flag” Gun Laws
What are these laws? What do they accomplish that existing laws don’t already do? What concerns should law-abiding Americans have about them?

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.

To date, they’ve proven more dangerous to the target of the order.

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:

Better to get your information from someone who knows something about “red flag” laws.

[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 control, Hollywood, hoplophobia, Law, mindset, Politics, Rights, self defense, Sellouts and traitors, You can't fix stupid

Walmart, Merchant of Death

6 Comments

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.

Walmart to stop selling handgun ammunition. Retailer will also ask customers to stop openly carrying firearms

Walmart’s stance has encouraged others to follow in their ground breaking foot steps.

Walgreens and CVS ask customers not to openly carry guns in their stores

Kroger requests customers stop openly carrying guns in stores

Open carrying at Kroger

Thank you Oleg Volk

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.

IsraelPharm

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.

Hey Walmart. Stop selling beer, liquor, and wine.

An estimated 88,0008 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, and the second is poor diet and physical inactivity.

No mention of guns?

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.

Kmart, Sears store closings: More locations to shutter by end of 2019

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

So, maybe go to Dick’s Sporting Goods? Dick’s Sporting Goods worries that sales could drop in wake of change in gun policy Oh, don’t be silly! Everyone knows taking a strong “social justice” stance will pay off. Who cares about those mouth breathing gun owners, right?

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.

Corporate Gun Control Fail: Dick’s May Have to Close 35 Stores Across 18 States #DontBeDicks

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

In addition to asking them to refrain from open carry, Walmart Asks Customers To Stop Shopping In Sleepwear, Even In States Where It’s Legal

And

Walmart Discontinues Auto Part Sales To Prevent Car Accidents

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!

‘When I Am President, I Will Take Away Your Guns,’ Says Man Who Will Never Be President

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.

You could also take up a new hobby, reloading anyone?

Shop your local gun shops
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, genocide, gun control, gun grabbers, Law

Nasty, Brutish, and Short

4 Comments

-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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, Law

A willingness to defend yourself WILL get you “red flagged”

3 Comments

Consider this report.

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)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail