The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]

Yeah, it won't come here, they said.  Obama promised.

He lied.

MOORE, Okla. – Officials with the Moore Police Department say the FBI is now involved in the investigation related to a brutal attack of workers at a food distribution plant.

Sgt. Jeremy Lewis says the alleged suspect, 30-year-old Alton Nolen had just been fired when he drove to the front of the business, hit a vehicle and walked inside.

He walked into the front office area where he met 54-year-old Colleen Hufford and began attacking her with a knife.

Sgt. Lewis confirms the type of knife used in the attack is the same kind used at the plant.

Lewis confirms that Hufford was stabbed several times and that Nolen “severed her head.”

Fortunately an off-duty deputy, who happens to be the former CEO of the company, was there.

Said off-duty deputy shot the assailant several times and stopped the attack, but not before Sir Muslim Jackass had killed one woman and was in the process of trying to kill a second.

Here's the important point: But for that individual there would likely have been many more fatalities.

The problem is that you cannot expect there to be a cop everywhere all the time, and by the time a cop can get there many people will be dead.

The choice to be armed or not should be yours, and the 2nd Amendment says that we all have the right to be armed, carrying concealed or openly as we, and only we, choose, without asking anyone for permission or any sort of "license."

If you think that ISIS cannot get people into this country, well, guess what -- they already have, either by importing them (gee, that's a very nice insecure border you have there!) or simply by converting people who are already here.

Either way when some jackass is trying to saw off your head there is only one question: Is there anyone, whether you or someone else, who is both willing and possesses the means to stop the assault before you die in the immediate vicinity?

There is only one means known to man that makes all men and women equal in this regard irrespective of their age, physical prowess, size or infirmity.

It is called a gun and we are well beyond the point where we must, as Americans, demand that the original intent as expressed in our Bill of Rights be restored immediately on a nation-wide basis.  No more damned permits, no more roadblocks, no more games and no more bullcrap.  Every willing adult must have their 2nd Amendment right to be able to defend themselves and others in the gravest extreme restored and respected right now.

Period.

Who is going to introduce and demand passage of emergency Federal Legislation to preempt all contrary laws whether local, state or federal and restore The Second Amendment as written -- with no ifs, ands or buts about it?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Gee, who would have thought....

Never before have I felt so naked.

Now more than ever, I wish I was armed.

And I’m not alone.

Any and all home-grown Islamic terrorism should be able, if need be, to be met by a well-armed civilian militia. The United Kingdom has had two beheadings of members of the public in the last two years, with neither police nor civilians able to prevent it. It has prohibitive gun laws.

With news of the ISIS plot to randomly abduct members of the Australian public and behead them, Australian sentiment on guns is dramatically shifting.

Yeah, I know, it's WorldNet Trash, otherwise known as WND.

But the point stands.  ISIS thinks it should behead people in other nations.  Like Australia.  Like the UK, where two people were beheaded in public and that very same public was unable to stop it as nobody among the civilian population had a gun.

Have you wondered why that clowncar group called ISIS hasn't tried something like that here?

I'll tell you why -- there are millions of people in this country that, were ISIS adherents to attempt beheading someone in public, would fill them full of lead without a bit of remorse.

The Second Amendment is all about making attempts at tyranny and terrorism unprofitable enough that the people who would try it get second thoughts.  That very process applies to the common street thug, the ISIS jackass and a potentially-terroristic government itself.

All are comprised of people who have no respect for the law or common decency.  They speak only one language -- violence, and they respect only one language -- the ability to meet their violence with equal or superior violence.

The shark does not bite man at will because it is not certain that you, who are of good size, have no teeth of equal power.  Of course we do not, but were the shark to be certain of this it would eat us with impunity any time we went in the water.  Nobody could swim in the ocean without being turned into chum; if you doubt this go take a chopper or airplane ride at low altitude over a beach sometime.  There are usually numerous sharks within tens of feet if not closer to people swimming in the water, yet they do not bite said swimmers.

Likewise there are predators of the two-legged variety all over the world.  These are individuals and groups of individuals who in some cases don ski masks and dark clothing, in others they don magical costumes of various colors and in still other cases they simply operate brazenly in the open.

These predatory individuals and groups are no more stupid than the shark is.  Just as the shark does not bite in the general case on purpose, that is, when it bites it does so due to an error in identification (e.g. you look like a seal, which the shark knows has no defensive weapons of substance when you're on a surfboard and the shark is below you) the two-legged predators are not interested in initiating a fight they believe they may lose.

So ISIS plots to saw the heads off people in Australia, because the general public has no guns -- and certainly none in public where they would be of use in such a situation.  Crazy Muzzies did cut the heads off two people in the UK for the same reason.

Why do we have a Second Amendment and why must all Americans demand that the actual words in that Amendment be honored, with an immediate and full removal of all alleged "laws" that are in conflict with it?

For the precise reason that there are predatory animals walking on two legs, and they understand exactly one language when it comes to deterring their behavior -- the ability and willingness to meet their initiation of violence with an equally-violent defensive response at that precise moment in time.

Welcome to the real world, Australia.

As for those on the other side of the debate here in America, who would call me a "crazy teabagger" or some other slur, I will simply point out that when your head is about to be sawed off by a Muzzy nutball it will be too late to change your mind about whether I, as a law-abiding citizen who by happenstance is close enough to stop that act, should be legally able to carry the only device known to mankind that will allow me to drill said jackass right between the eyes at the moment of your gravest extreme need.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

In the mainstream media?  Who woke up this morning?

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The problem is that this isn't a 2012 statistic.  It's an "always has been that way" statistic.  Big, black scary rifles and shotguns are used in almost no murders, statistically.  And as I have repeatedly pointed out the DOJ's own statistics tell a much more-somber tale but one we refuse to talk about: About 5,000 black men are murdered with guns annually, nearly all by other black men -- roughly half of all murders -- but the percentage of the population they represent is six percent, give or take one or two.

In other words that particular group of people is eight times more likely to be murdered than their share of the population would suggest.

It's worse - the public was sold on this ban originally because yes, these weapons are used in one particular sort of gun violence event more than anything else -- mass-shootings.

But your odds of being shot in one are vanishingly small -- there are only about 100 victims of such crime annually, or about 1% of all firearm homicides.

If we got rid of all the other shootings the mass-shooting homicides would still shock and horrify, but we'd have eliminated virtually all firearm murders.

If you want to be serious about putting a dent in homicides you need to look at who's dying on an outsized representation compared against their population share and why.  The "who's dying" is young black men.  The "why" is mostly related to violent gangs, and those are mostly related to the illegal drug trade.

That trade is a wholesale creation of our political process that has criminalized people wanting to get high on something the government disapproves of -- while leaving other things (e.g. alcohol) legal and taxed.

If you legalize and regulate drugs -- all of them with the exception of those that really have no "high" purpose (such as krokodyl) and sell them over the counter with ID checks the outcome would be profound.

The funding source for these gangs would be eliminated as would the reason for them to engage in violence; beefs they cannot take to a courtroom because their activity is illegal.  Yes, people would get high, but people get high now.  We'd dramatically shrink the prison population, eliminate all the "civil forfeiture" games that often catch innocent people and steal their property without recourse, and with all the money that was being spent on that enforcement and incarceration we could fund addiction treatment for those who want and seek it.

But that would mean pulling our head out of our ass and admitting that we have too many cops, too many jails, and we have built an entire industry centered around caging people who have done no violence to another, along with fostering and endorsing homicide as a means of settling beefs rather than imprisoning only those who are a true menace to others -- while we intentionally let out of prison those who are dangerous predators.

Don't expect that much common sense to break out any time soon.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

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.