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.

2018-03-06 09:40 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 2596 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)

2018-03-03 14:15 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 178 references
[Comments enabled]  

Folks, cut the crap.

"Gun control" laws do not work.


James Eric Davis, 19, was apprehended just after midnight Saturday, an officer with Mount Pleasant Public Safety told Detroit's Fox 2.

1. You must be 21 to buy a pistol or ammunition for it.  Those people arguing for doing the same for long guns have just had their argument demolished.  This kid was unable to legally buy said pistol, yet he obviously got one and used it, along with the ammunition.  He therefore obtained both illegally.

2. He was in Michigan.  Michigan requires that you register pistols and acquire a pre-purchase license which is only good for 30 days (that is, you get the license, you buy the gun, then you return the executed copy to the cops.)  You obviously can't register a pistol you can't legally own nor can you get the cops to give you a license to do an illegal thing.  Therefore, quite-obviously, registering guns does not work.

3. He was from Plainfield, IL; that is, his lawful residence was likely in the state of Illinois.  Illinois requires a FOID card (state license) to purchase any firearm or ammunition.  Not only could he not buy a pistol in Illinois legally as he was not 21 he couldn't buy any sort of gun or ammunition without an FOID card, which I suspect it is fair to believe he did not have.  In addition it is already illegal to buy a pistol in other than your state of legal residence irrespective of age.  Therefore registering people doesn't work either.

Now it comes out that the gun was his Dad's.  In other words, he stole it as I think we can reasonably assume that his father, who was a cop, didn't give it to him.  In addition he was photographed by surveillance cameras waving it around before going inside and shooting his parents so he didn't grab it off his father and immediately shoot him with it.

This individual decided to murder his parents (illegal, obviously) and none of the laws that gun-banners wish to impose on people nationally, such as making all firearms restricted to 21 and over, nor the existing laws that barred him from legally acquiring both a pistol and the ammunition for it stopped him from getting said gun and ammunition and, obviously, using it to commit two murders.

So the law-abiding police officer and his wife are both dead, murdered with a stolen firearm. I remind you that an utterly huge percentage of gun homicides (the majority by far) are committed with stolen weapons, often with their serial numbers ground off (which means they were not only stolen they were typically sold on the black market -- the purpose of grinding off the serial number, of course, is so you can't trace them back to their original lawful owner and if caught with it you can't be charged with stealing it.... and which, incidentally, is why mere possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number was made a distinct offense.)

The evidence is clear, convincing, and beyond all doubt -- gun laws do not work and, if faced with someone who has chosen to arm themselves and attempt to murder you you have mere seconds, if that, to offer meaningful, armed defense or there is a high probability you will be dead.

Reports are that the 19 year old murdered his parents after return from the hospital on a "drug-related issue."  Odds are that was an overdose of some sort, it was just before spring break, and I suspect his parents had just told him they were cutting off their subsidization of his attendance at said school, likely due to his choice to use drugs -- thus prompting him to kill both.  There's no real way around this folks -- if someone is willing to murder their parents then quite-obviously passing laws will do nothing; only someone willing and able to offer immediate armed resistance is going to change the outcome.

This is also why posting armed guards is only a half-answer.  You just told the thug who to shoot first -- unless there's more than one, of course.  But if many people are armed in the immediate vicinity, with the thug having no idea who is and who isn't, then suddenly the odds don't look so good for him as there's a very good chance someone who is armed will be either to the side or behind him where he cannot see, and as soon as he draws his weapon that person can stop him or her.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-02 08:25 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 234 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is the sort of position that can do exactly that.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said during a meeting with lawmakers on gun violence. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

The President took an oath to uphold the Constitution and his statement says he intends to violate it - specifically, the 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"Liberty" includes all of one's Constitutional Rights -- including the Second Amendment.

You cannot "take the guns first, go through due process second" without literally burning the entire Constitution wholesale and declaring yourself dictator.

Now it's possible that Trump didn't mean what he said.  But if so then he has an obligation to so-state and explicitly withdraw that statement right damn now, because until he does every single person in this nation can reasonably assess that he indeed means it.

This is unacceptable from a President.  Any President.  And it cannot be "walked back", it can only be confirmed or repudiated with a clear statement that The President is not above the law or the Constitution, that this President will respect said Constitution and that no action will be taken against anyone in this regard in violation of due process and, should any state or local instrumentality attempt to do so the federal government will enforce same including, if necessary, the arrest of said state or local entities.

If that is not forthcoming, and I fully expect that it is not, then this really is a test of the American people.

Do we still have a Constitution?

Do we still have a Bill of Rights?

Or did Trump literally just burn it wholesale?

It's a "Yes" or "No" question folks, and IMHO it would be wise to consider how you're going to deal with what is very likely on the horizon if the answer is "No."

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-24 16:13 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 312 references
[Comments enabled]  

Want to direct anger at guns and the NRA?

Go **** yourself.

Start by dismantling the lying FBI.

On September 15, 2017, FBI received and investigated a tip about a threatening comment posted to a YouTube video.
  • Prior to the shooting, the FBI did not seek information from Google, Inc., YouTube’s parent company, to ascertain the identity of the individual behind the comment or his location.
  • The FBI opened a counterterrorism lead as a result of the September 2017 tip.
  • The FBI closed the lead on October 11, 2017, because it didn’t positively identify the individual behind the post.
  • After the shooting, the FBI requested further information from Google and confirmed that the comment was posted by Nikolas Cruz.

The FBI said they couldn't figure out who posted the comment.

That was a lie.

They never asked Google (Youtube's parent company) for the information and, as I pointed out immediately after the event, if they had they would have immediately learned where the post came from and, since Cruz posted it using his own name, trivially identified him.

Now we have proof from Senator Grassley that they lied to the American Public -- again.

As a direct result of their failure to do their job 17 people are dead.

Further, they attempted to obstruct determining their culpability by lying about being "unable" to find the person responsible.  In fact they never tried to do so; that's not inability, it's a choice.

To those in Broward Couny and elsewhere who are still worshiping cops and claiming the NRA and gun owners are villains and to be shunned: I'm done with all of you and every thinking American needs to be done with you.

Done forever.

You want boycotts, I got boycotts.

No more business done with any firm in Broward County.

No more hiring or consideration for hiring, nor existing employment, within or by anyone who resides or works in Broward County.

No more tourism dollars of mine will be spent in Broward County.

Any firm that takes action to void deals with the NRA or any other organization or person as a consequence of the pressure brought predicated upon these deaths that occurred as a direct result of the willful and intentional misconduct of these agencies will be permanently added to that list.  Today that includes Wyndham, Symantec, Hertz, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Chubb, Metlife, North American Van Lines, Delta and United Airlines.  I am happy to add liberally to this list.

I happen to disagree strongly with many of the NRA's views (they spam me anyway) but I will not do business with firms that act against another organization when the underlying event was had no proximate attachment to the attacked organization but did have attachment to multiple federal, state and local agencies, all of whom did not do their jobs.  I consider such an attack to be proof of intent to act in a dishonest manner in the conduct of their business and thus must fully expect any such firm to screw me.

All of this will continue until I die.

I call on all Americans to follow this lead until the slander of law-abiding, Constitution-upholding Americans ends, the people who did so, every last one of them, repudiates their statements and apologizes, the entire Broward Sheriff's Office resigns without pay, retirement or benefit and every person involved in the FBI's willful malfeasance on both occasions in this incident are all fired and lose all pension, retirement and other benefit as well.

To the extent any of these acts met the standard of official misconduct, and I remind you under Florida Law for the Sheriff or any of his Deputies to ignore a felony it does and in fact constitutes a felonythey must be prosecuted to the fullest extent with no pleas, pardons or exceptions.

Until then you can all **** rightly off -- and if I see something I am not going to "say something" since it's now proved through the death of 17 Americans that every one of you *******s will do nothing.

Want to know what you should do instead if some jackwad wants to pull this crap?  Look right here.....  Now that's doing something.  Just remember what you need to have to be able to "do something" and then tell those who wish to constrain that right to go perform an anatomically impossible act.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-22 10:08 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 187 references
[Comments enabled]  


It never ceases to amaze me how people will dance around the actual issue when politics are involved.  This is no different -- but interestingly this tangent will probably have some (but small) effect.

I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope! - @realDonaldTrump

As I pointed out "ending sale of Bump Stocks" will do little or nothing.

Mental health improvements in the law will do nothing either; there was plenty under existing law to stop the shooting but the Sheriff, DCFS and the FBI all refused to do their jobs.  Just as did the military when it came to the recent shooting in Texas where the shooter had a domestic violence conviction during his service and they never reported it.  Ditto for the kid who shot up the church and had a conviction that was "mis-entered" and would have stopped him from legally buying his guns.

The other problem with "strengthening background checks" -- or any other restriction of this sort is that it does exactly nothing to stop someone from getting one or more guns illegally.  The good news, I suppose, is that most illegal firearms are pistols, simply because that's what criminals prefer (it's damn hard to conceal a shotgun or rifle!)  But then again I'm not sure it matters how you die; whether you're shot by an "evil" black rifle or an "evil" pistol dead is dead.

Finally, the "age 21" thing.  We continue to march down the road of turning adults back into infants for an ever-increasing amount of time.

Are you sure you want to do this America?  You better think long and hard about it, because what's next is that military service is not something an 18 year old should be able to consent to.  In fact, since the military inherently involves training people to use weapons for the purpose of killing (duh!) if you're going to ban gun possession by those under 21 then you must also ban military service for those under 21.

End of discussion.

But let's talk about the gun thing again for a minute.  Banning firearm sales to those under 21 probably would have a small but measurable impact on these sorts of shootings -- but not firearm suicides.  The reason not for the latter is that buying a pistol already requires that you be 21.  Interestingly enough under existing law I can legally give my son or daughter a pistol at 18, but it's worthless since she couldn't buy the ammunition and without ammunition a gun is nothing more than a crude club.

The reason it probably would have some impact on these sorts of mass shooting events is that the psychotropic drugs that I argue are the biggest cause of these events stop having that bad side effect at 25.  Incidentally they also start working, while for those under 25 they not only don't work they make both suicide and homicide more likely. Well, if the range today of both being able to buy long guns and the prescription of worthless and dangerous SSRIs is 18-25 that's 7 years.  If you put the "buy long guns" age at 21 (as for booze) then it's 4 years.

I would thus expect a modest but real improvement in the mass-shooting rate by crazies.

However, that must be balanced by the fact that (1) said crazies can still get the gun illegally and (2) they can use many other things than guns.  Specifically, the nutjob in the NE killed his mother to get her rifle; if you're a homicidal maniac then so long as you know where one such rifle is and are willing to kill its owner then said owner had better be both prepared and able to kill the nutbag first.  In practical terms this means he better be both armed with a pistol and carrying it all the time.  Second, it does nothing for the nutbag who decides to rent a Home Depot truck (or buy, beg, borrow or steal an SUV) and use that for mass-murder -- nor someone who then chooses to use a gallon of gasoline, or a home-made explosive of some design.  May I remind you that none of this is very hard to do and indeed using a vehicle is trivially easy.

As far as civil liberties go it still makes no sense and it still avoids holding the Sheriff, DCFS and the FBI accountable for their willful, intentional failure to do their job -- which was sufficient under existing law to stop this attack.  The FBI in particular, along with the Sheriff, had multiple opportunities and they were not "missed" -- they were intentionally, willfully ignored.

This ought to lead to firings and criminal prosecution with "sovereign immunity" waived -- and until it does these sort of events will continue to happen because irrespective of what law you write if nobody actually has to enforce said law then nothing will change.

As such I stand firmly opposed; if you want to actually go after the problem and fix it you have to start here.

Oh, and for all the people who advocate "21 to buy guns"?  Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment -- that actually would be legal, as opposed to "another law" that is blatantly UNconstitutional -- and include in it that the right to vote does not vest until 21 either.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)