The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]
2015-07-01 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 115 references

It's not the weapon folks.  In fact, a common vehicle is far more deadly than a gun in untrained (or inadequately-trained) hands.  Witness here....

At least three people have died and 34 more are injured after a man purposely drove through a crowd in Graz, Austria on Saturday, according to CNN.

The driver, identified by the Graz City Council in a statement as a 26-year-old male, intentionally used his SUV as a weapon, according to CNN.

So what are you going to do about that?  There's nothing you can do -- any city street can be turned into a monstrous scene in seconds should a murderous bastard decide to do so, and what's worse is that he or she comes with a built-in set of armor (in the form of the vehicle!) in doing so.

Oh, finally, exactly what device would you use to stop such a person with a two-ton weapon of destruction under their control?

Why I think that would be called "a gun."

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Heh heh heh.....

A federal judge has ordered that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence pay the legal fees of an online ammunition dealer it sued for the Aurora movie theater shooting.

The order, which was issued last week, comes after Judge Richard P. Matsch dismissed the gun control group’s suit that sought to hold Lucky Gunner legally responsible for the 2012 shooting. The Brady Center had argued in their suit that the way Lucky Gunner sells ammunition is “unreasonably dangerous and create a public nuisance.”

The judge found that the Brady Center filed the lawsuit and elected where to file it as a means of attempting to further the political purposes of the Brady Center, which is not a permitted use of the courts.

So not only did he dismiss the suit he ordered them to pay the respondent's (Lucky Gunner) legal costs, which is not going to be cheap.

Two thumbs way up.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Down is up.  Left is right. Negative is positive. 

And Hell froze over.

The dead are buried, the murderer apprehended, and the shock has started to wear off. Now comes the public reaction to the massacre in Charleston. 

Soon after the shootings at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, the first black president of the United States offered some thoughts on Dylan Roof’s racist attack. First and foremost, President Obama said, recent events were about how “innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun.” The killings were also about a “dark chapter in our history,” namely racial slavery and Jim Crow. Obama only suggested practical action regarding the first issue, namely gun control.

He did not consider that such measures will make the persistence of the second problem even worse.

Oh yes he did.

Obama not only knew this he doesn't care.

Salon continues...

It is perhaps counterintuitive to say so but gun control responses to mass killings – whether racially motivated or otherwise – are a deep mistake. The standard form of gun control means writing more criminal laws, creating new crimes, and therefore creating more criminals or more reasons for police to suspect people of crimes. More than that, it means creating yet more pretexts for a militarized police, full of racial and class prejudice, to overpolice.

It is not a mistake, it was and is intentional going all the way back to the National Firearms Act!

Let's cut the crap shall we?  This was always about keeping "the wrong people" from having firearms.  The politicians admit this yet they always couch this as keeping criminals from obtaining guns.

That's impossible just as it is impossible for a law to keep a criminal from stealing your car.  He steals your car irrespective of the law as the definition of a criminal is a person who ignores laws.

But such a "law" by design and intent opens the door of inquiry by police into people who are not at a given time committing a criminal act.  The felon who has served his sentence yet possesses a firearm for personal protection is not at that time harming someone else nor does he ever intend to do so again yet we make his mere desire to protect his own life a criminal act.  We also give the police a pretext to stop and search persons any time they wish to "inquire" whether such a crime has been committed.

"Stop and frisk", as the article points out, was not justified on the premise of drugs but rather guns!  

Yet the possession of a firearm doesn't denote intent or action to harm others, just as possession of drugs does not denote any such thing.  The siren song sung by various policing agencies that such items harm "someone" is an argument that one does not have the right to take actions that might harm themselves.  We've seen where this winds up with New York City attempting to ban sugared sodas under the same rubric; you might harm yourself by consuming one.

The fact of the matter is that any sort of "mere possession" standard for criminal sanction, irrespective of the item in question, always must devolve into selective enforcement if it is possible to attempt to conceal such an object because the process of finding the items inherently involves invasive searches and there is no objective means available to know who does and doesn't have said object upon their person or property.

The only place Salon errs is in believing that this is somehow a novel issue. It is not. "Gun control", just as with marriage laws, was originally designed as a tool of racism.  Nobody wishes to admit to this but it's not only able to be deduced with a minimum amount of study it was actually written into some of the original laws where black people were prohibited arms that whites could openly carry.

Our standard for just laws ought to be that until and unless one harms someone else their conduct is their own business and nobody else's.  This would require a re-think, however, of many subsidies we currently provide for bad behavior, whether it be dropping out of school (welfare), popping out children out of wedlock (AFDC/WIC/welfare/Section 8/etc), destroying one's own health through abuse of alcohol and/or drugs (Medicaid, SSDI, etc) and more.  These laws are not intended to help people at all; they are intended to reward bad behavior and in fact encourage people to destroy themselves through the agency of the state.  But that's not enough; free will fails to serve up enough of the minority population even when provided incentives and so to add to the injustice laws are passed that can only be enforced through unconstitutional and outrageous intrusions into one's affairs, whether it be stop-n-frisk or the practice of stopping someone for the infraction of driving while black.

I have no quarrel with an enhanced sanction if someone uses a weapon in the commission of another offense; indeed, such enhancements already exist in places that make sense.  There is a distinction between armed robbery and ordinary robbery, for example, with one carrying a heavier sentence than the other.  This distinction comes from conduct rather than possession and thus is utterly neutral in both implication and application.

Cut the crap America; if we're going have a discussion about race this has to be front and center.  In point of fact it is precisely the person living in a poor, crime-ridden area (where rents and ownership are cheapest) who needs the protection of the Second Amendment, as-written, the most.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

I'm really tired of the lies.  Especially knowing lies about criminals.

Obama didn't even wait for the bodies to be cold before he took to the podium to once again claim that it was "easy access to guns" that enabled the murderous jackasses in South Carolina to carry out his crime.

But -- the accused would have failed a background check, had he tried to buy his gun legally -- he was apparently under indictment for a felony at the time, which is a disqualifier.  He also apparently knew this because he didn't buy the gun through lawful channels, he stole it.

That (stealing firearms) is a felony also, and belies the truth behind virtually all of these crimes: Once you decide to commit murder all the rest of the felonies you have or will commit are "free" in that there is no further punishment society can exact beyond that for murder.

Such a person does not care what the law says and the tools that can be turned to weapons for offensive purpose are so numerous as to defy enumeration.  Cars, trucks, bulldozers, common household chemicals, gasoline, knives, axes, chainsaws, baseball bats, golf clubs and more.

It is due to the fact that a person hellbent on murder does not care what the law says that the Second Amendment exists -- the undeniable fact that if some such person decides to attempt to murder you your options number exactly two: either stop them or die.

This may make you uncomfortable, it may make you sad, it may make you angry but you can't do a damn thing about any of that.

You still have two, and only two options.

It would be nice to wave a magic wand and make all of those who develop murderous rage, for whatever reason, stop and decide that petting cats is a preferable pasttime.  It would be nice to wish away those who hate, who desire to rob,******and assault.  It would be a wonderful world if none of those thoughts ever crossed a human mind again but all of that is in the realm of magical thinking and we don't live in a magical world, we live in a world in which those thoughts, desires and occasionally events do in fact occur.

There is exactly one device known to mankind that is easily-portable, reasonable in cost and levels the playing field between the 220lb rippled assailant and the 90lb female or less-physically-able older gentleman.  It is a mechanical device invented by mankind for the precise reason that not all men and women are equal when it comes to physical prowess, and yet we all have an unalienable right to life -- and to defend that life.

It is called a gun and our Second Amendment is supposed to protect your right to keep and bear one (or more) at any time and in any place where you may be in the unlikely but possible event that some jackass decides he (or she) is going to try to murder you.

And while possessing one is no guarantee of success in defense of your life it certainly beats no opportunity at all.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

If those two jackwads who broke out of prison do commit any acts of violence against persons in NY State I demand that the entire state and local government structure of that state be held to account as accessories before the fact to whatever violent acts these two jackasses commit.

Officials in the remote New York county where two escaped killers are on the loose have seen a rise in pistol permit requests.


“We typically don’t get more than one a day, but we probably have at least 12 this week,” Mary Lavorando, an employee in the clerk’s office, told the website Friday.

“It seems like more people have been picking up applications,” she said. “But it can take eight or nine weeks for approval. So it’s kind of like locking the barn door after the horse is out.”

May I remind everyone what the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There is no need for any damned permit; the Constitution is the supreme law of this nation, period.

Any constraint that leads to a person being harmed must result in each and every official involved standing in the dock accused as an accessory before to the fact to the intentional disarmament and thus victim creation that they were willing, knowing and intentional participants in.

Cut the crap folks -- a convicted murderer has already been sentenced to the maximum penalty you can impose upon a person.  For this reason all subsequent crimes that person may commit are free since you can only impose one life sentence (or one death sentence) upon a given person.  That in turn means that there remains only one form of deterrence available against such further criminal activity by said individual -- the threat of immediate and effective resistance to any attempted violence.  

It has a name, and is called gun.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
If You're Older Than 40 And Reading This...

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.