The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Delusion Will Not Get You Hired

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-03-16 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 240 references
[Comments enabled]  

At the door of the local Bass Pro:  "Concealed carry welcome"

Inside, in the hunting and shooting section: A full rack of black rifles of various types.

What did I do?  Buy something.

Dicks Sporting Goods? **** them.

REI?  **** them double.

End of discussion.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-14 07:51 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 459 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's local coverage of this in Palm Beach but no national coverage I can find at all Not on Fox News, not on CNN, not on pMSNBC, not on CNBC, not on AP, not on Reuters, nowhere.

Why not?

PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. - A 17-year-old boy fatally stabbed another boy and wounded two others during a slumber party in a South Florida home, telling police he did it "because of his Muslim faith," Palm Beach Gardens police said.

Triple stabbing with one dead during a sleep-over; the deceased was there for his 13th birthday as a guest of the family.

The "kid" decided to wait until 4 in the morning "when everyone was asleep", he bought the knife earlier that day with the apparent intent to bring it to the sleepover and he intended to kill all three victims in their sleep.

He has stated his motivation was his Muslim faith as the others apparently thought idolizing famous people was ok, and he thought that was blasphemous enough to justify killing them.  Since he bought the knife before hearing the blasphemy that was just the "last straw"; the alleged perp clearly was motivated to kill before getting to the sleepover since he purchased the weapon in advance.

So here we are, in the same general area as Parkland, with a kid motivated by religious hatred, who bought a nice big fat knife and used it to commit murder.  Where are the calls to ban knives, restrict their purchase or possession for those under 21, to impose a 3-day waiting period for knife purchases and to ban Muslims?

Remember, only 0.0033%, approximately, of AR pattern rifles are ever used in a criminal manner.  Well, this appears to be statistically speaking of approximately the same risk -- nearly all people do not use knives in a criminal manner (including those under the age of 21) and, if we believe everyone who says so, neither do most Muslims commit crimes either.

But this 17 year old did both, motivated by religious animus.  He both used a knife to commit a horrific crime and he did so for religious reasons.  He bought the knife within 24 hours of using it to commit murder, so obviously a 3-day waiting period to buy a knife would have prevented the murder from taking place. If you had to be 21 to buy a knife, since this guy was 17, that would have prevented the murder as well (of course you must also believe he wouldn't steal one if he had been denied the purchase.)  And finally if we banned Muslims entirely we'd have also prevented the murder.

Statistically speaking if we are going to use Parkland and David Hogg as a model of what we should do in response we must ban knives from possession by or sale to those under 21, we must impose a 3 day waiting period to buy a knife at all and we must ban any teaching or adherence to the Muslim faith by those under 21 as well.

Right David?

After all, it's for the children, specifically the dead ones.

PS: Ok, now, hours later, Faux is running a story on it.  And note that once again, as in the case of Parkland, authorities had cause to file charges for the murderer's previous conduct but did not do so.  Once again it's the damned cops that didn't do their job that are directly responsible for the ability of the murderer to commit his crime -- not guns or knives, as those are inanimate objects that cannot form animus or commit negligent acts.  Yet once again there are no demands for immediate prosecution of said cops never mind stripping them of their salaries, pensions and benefits.  WHY NOT FOLKS -- THE COPS MALFEASANCE IS WHY THE DECEASED IS DEAD AND TWO OTHERS WERE NEARLY MURDERED!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Go right ahead and walk out of class or "demonstrate" in the Capitol.

Make sure you get on TeeVee.  Get your picture taken.  Post it on social media; you know you will.

You'll be identified forever; nothing that goes up on the Internet ever truly disappears.

Next year, when Obamacare's mandate is gone, I am looking to stand up an entrepreneurial opportunity.  Maybe someone will buy my home control software wholesale first, but if not, well, I may market it.

You'll never work for me or any part of any firm I control.  Nor will I ever buy anything from any company that hires you.  If I see you in such a business or same identifies as "sympathetic", they're done.  If you apply for a job, into the round file your resume goes.

You can't walk this one back either.  You can't disavow it later.  You support what Governor Scott just did here, which is to make it illegal for 18-20 year old women to protect themselves with a firearm from a rapist.

There are a hell of a lot more rapes than there are murders, and of those murders only about 100 are committed every year with the weapons you wish to ban.  For the abuse of 0.0033% of said weapons you demand that thousands of rapes go undeterred each and every year, forever.

In a word, no.

You're free to speak as you wish.  That's the First Amendment.  But the same First Amendment protects my right to associate -- or not -- with your words and your person.  I choose not, and extend that to everyone who you associate with.

This has already cost REI a couple thousand a year in spending by myself -- roughly what I spent last year there, and won't this year or ever again, and all they did was drop a manufacturer because they also owned a gunmaker.

That's $2,000 times however many people think the same way I do that company will never make again.  If it's a thousand people that's $2 million they're forfeiting.  What if it's 10,000 people?  What if it's even more?

Go ahead and do it.  You're going to find out quite-rapidly that people like me think promoting the rape of young women, which is exactly what you're doing with these policies, is going to get one hell of a lot of pushback -- considering that I have raised a young women who (thankfully) has just passed the age of your "rape victim enhancement act" effects.

You can never walk back what you intended to do to her.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-07 08:24 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 373 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well what do we have here?


That would be a felony.  A felony the Sheriff knowingly did not arrest on, which is a crime standing alone under Florida Statutes if the record was in any way tampered with, and it almost-certainly was, since this has been kept real quiet.

This obviously needs verification but it would fit with what we already know -- which means it's likely to be true.  There is no excuse for any sort of legislative movement on anything until this has been run down and brought into the public view so a legitimate debate can be had.

Today the Florida House intends to punish law-abiding Florida residents to protect a corrupt Sheriff and an incompetent FBI as does the Governor; the Senate has already done so.

If that pending bill passes then I will be looking for a new State to call home.  One that still believes there is a thing called justice and that you do not punish the law-abiding residents to cover for corrupt and felony illegal acts of so-called "law enforcement."

May an asteroid strike Tallahassee today, you corrupt pieces of ****.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-06 09:40 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 2581 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is the sort of article that should lead to a flat-out boycott and destruction of this "newspaper".

Specifically, they speak of Mexico, which has extremely stringent gun laws -- and only one legal gun store.  They make this out to be better than the United States, but intentionally fail to state the obvious: Their murder rate is 17.03 per 100,000 people (in 2016) or roughly three times that of the United States and roughly double the gun homicide rate even though the US has six times more guns per-person than Mexico does.

In other words the number of guns owned and the ease of acquiring them has nothing to do with the gun homicide rate nor with the murder rate overall.

What does?

Are you completely dense?

The "war on drugs."

Mexico has a monstrous war on drugs and the drug war is responsible for an enormous percentage of the homicides in the country exactly as is the case here in the United States.

In fact all violent crime, including homicide, has fallen precipitously in the United States -- by about half -- since 1991.  I know, you don't believe Mises -- so go look it up for yourself using the FBI Data, which I assume you do trust, right?

At the same time the number of privately-owned firearms has gone up dramatically in the United States.  Obviously more guns do not mean more crime (much less more murders) or the murder rate wouldn't have fallen by half over the period of time that the number of guns has skyrocketed.

But it has.

These are facts folks.  Never mind that the specific weapons in question with regard to Parkland -- so-called "assault rifles" (which are nothing of the sort; an assault rifle is capable of select-fire, and these are not) are really just defined as guns that someone thinks look scary.  Well, I assure you that if you're staring down the business end of a gun all guns look damn scary.

The facts on those rifles are even more-clear - - there are several million - - estimates are about 3 million, in fact - - AR-pattern rifles in the United States in law-abiding civilian hands.  I also note, for the record, that "AR" does not mean "assault rifle" -- it means Armalite Rifle, as it's a brand -- that is the company Armalite was the one that came up with the civilian, legal, auto-loading rifle fitting this description and pattern.

About 1,000 people, out of 13,000 gun homicides a year, are killed with rifles of all descriptions.  Roughly 100, more or less, are murdered with Armalite Rifle style weapons.

The NY Times and others are arguing for banning something because fewer than 0.0033% of them are criminally misused; all of the rest are owned and used for perfectly-legal purposes by law-abiding Americans.  This is equivalent to arguing for the banning of ownership of pick-up trucks because a religious nut used one to murder people in New York, which I remind you did happen just last year.

In addition about 90 Americans a year are murdered while traveling in Mexico, or about the same number of people killed with Armalite-style rifles (and about the same number murdered in mass-shootings annually too.)  Yet only about 25-30 million Americans visit Mexico a year which means on a per-person basis it's 10 times more dangerous to go to Mexico than it is to go to school, a mall or other place where mass shooting occur (which basically every American does.)  Is anyone seriously considering destroying Mexico for this outrage?  Or shall we talk about the number of illegal invaders that murder Americans every year -- also far more than 100.  May I remind you that the Democrats -- and the "David Hogg" crowd -- are all for those illegal invaders being here, even though they're here illegally, and even though they are responsible for about 22% of all homicides.  Were we to send all of them home every one of those homicides would not happen.

To put numbers on this that amounts to about 4,000 murders a year or some 40 times the number of people killed in mass-shootings.  David Hogg supports the policies that cause every one of those 4,000 murders.  He's a liar and a fraud -- period.

This is not about "common sense" or any other sort of sense.  It is a purely political witch-hunt, promoted with knowing lies and intended to destroy both Constitutional protection of the right to self-defense and your inherent right to life (2nd Amendment) along with the right to not have private property taken or otherwise compromised without compensation and due process of law (5th Amendment.)

In short the argument put forward by the NY Times and others is in fact about the advancement of the intentional destruction of America as a Constitutional Republic.  Such advocacy and intentional falsehoods, along with any attempt to implement same through government demand or even through private enterprise coercion must not stand.

If you believe in America you have a duty to boycott and legally destroy all businesses that take such a position along with legally destroying the political and economic future of any politician or other public employee, whether federal, state or local, along with any "spokesperson" and everyone that benefits from their activity who adopts any such position in any way, shape or form.

To not do so is to flush the Constitution of the United States and indeed our very nation's foundation as a Constitutional Republic down the toilet of history.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)