Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Attention liberals and socialists:

I don't want to hear another damned word about 'Faux News' from you clowns until you condemn this kind of crap just as loudly as you bitch about Fox.

Most of you won't; because Maddow is the kind of lying journalist you like, so anything she does is good.

Dianne Feinstein is an oathbreaking dirtbag politician and a liar.  And really wishes that nasty Constitution would stop getting in her way.
On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that semi-automatic rifles are personal pleasures for gun owners that need to be set aside for the "general welfare," The Blaze reported Tuesday. 

"The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare," she told Mitchell.
I am going to borrow Tam's words here; partly because she says it so well, and partly because this kind of crap makes me want to break into Language Practice(extended version):
You listen to me, you meddling harpy, you jumped-up refugee from a zoning board: You don't get to pick and choose which of my constitutional rights are "personal pleasures" and further, while your job does entail a certain amount of promoting the general welfare, you don't get to compel whatever definition du jour of the "general welfare" you please.
My personal welfare, and the welfare of millions of my fellow Americans, is generally promoted by the possession of effective weapons of self-defense: trying to take them away would be very harmful to the general welfare and practically the opposite of ensuring domestic tranquility. Stop.

Exactly. But she won't, because she demands control, and us being armed and having some desire for personal autonomy stands in the way.

Linoge has a nice post on a Webley revolver, and a link to the 1937 British training manual.  Couple of bits that caught my eye:
2. The correct handling of the pistol in war calls for cunning,
initiative, determination and a knowledge of the characteristics
of the weapon. This is particularly the case in fighting in
enclosed country, such as villages, woods, trench systems, etc.
Handling the weapon in war requires confidence on the part
of the firer to hit an adversary at close quarters.

3. The characteristics of the pistol arc :-
1. A one-handed weapon used without support to hand or
arm. Therefore :- .
(a) It is unsuitable for firing by deliberate aim.
(b) Correct holding and trigger pressure are of
increased importance.
(c) The firer must be able to fire with either hand.

The occasions on service when a pistol is likely to be used
are rare but, when the necessity does arise, it is essential that
shots should be delivered accurately and very quickly. The
pistol should, therefore, normally be used at close range,
i.e. 25 yards or under, and the instinctive action of a man
suddenly confronted with an opponent within this distance is
to fire instantly by sense of direction. Under such conditions,
the quickness with which one or more effective shots can be
fired is more important than the close grouping of the shots.
The pistol is effective up to 50 yards, hut considerable skill is
necessary to hit an adversary at this distance.
My, my, things do change, don't they?  'Unsuitable for deliberate aim' my ass.
I do have a weakness for the Webley line.  One thing I'd love to find: Lyman used to make a mold for a .45 caliber hollow-base wadcutter; it'd work perfectly for recreating the Webley Patented Man-stopper Bullet.

Time to borrow another post from the Dutchman, for those who can't go to that site:
I laughed when I read that Magpul has one final slap at the state authorities of Colorado before voting with their feet and taking many jobs with them to a freer clime:
We are proud to announce that within a matter of days we will be going live with a new program. Due to a bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature, there is the possibility that Colorado residents' ability to purchase standard capacity magazines will soon be infringed. Before that happens, and Magpul is forced to leave the state in order to keep to our principles, we will be doing our best to get standard capacity PMAGs into the hands of any Colorado resident that wants them.
Verified Colorado residents will be able to purchase up to ten (10) standard capacity AR/M4 magazines directly from Magpul, and will be given immediate flat-rate $5 shipping, bypassing our current order queue.
Our customers outside of Colorado, please know that our PMAG production will continue at an ever-increasing rate until we do relocate, shipments to our distributors in other states will continue, and that we do not expect relocation to significantly impact PMAG production. We are also aware that Colorado is not the only state with existing or pending magazine capacity restrictions; we are working on programs for other affected states as well. (Emphasis supplied, MBV.)
Good on 'em. Meanwhile, Politico reports that Obama's gun strategy falling short in Senate.
Another advocate with close ties to the White House effort expressed frustration with the inability to create the bipartisan consensus Obama has praised in public.
“There is a sort of nativist craziness from a sort of number of people who never want any of their information about their gun ownership in the hands of the government,” the advocate said. “Those things are hard to deal with because it is essential that those records are kept somewhere.”
"Essential?" To whom? Call me a "nativist crazy" I guess but whatever bill emerges into intolerable act, we will disobey it. William Diamond's drum still sounds the long roll. (See previous parts of this series here,hereand here.)
I was visiting a local gun store on Monday when a man in his forties came in, looking for "a tube I can bury my best guns in." The counterman referred him to nearest surplus store. As he turned to leave, I asked him, "Why do you want to bury your best guns?" He responded, "So I'll still have some after they confiscate the beat-up ones." "And if they do that," I asked, "when do you think it will be safe to dig up the others?" He blinked, twice, then answered, "After all this shit has blown over." I could have argued further, but didn't have the time to waste. He departed, pulling out of the parking lot in the direction of the surplus store.
I was reminded of the framed copy of a Churchill quote that hangs on my wall, presented to me as a thank you by a local candidate for judge who I once helped with his campaign back in the late 90s:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
This thought was kicking around in my brain last night during my regularly scheduled insomnia when I recalled something from one of the books from the list that Doctor Richter had first recommended to me back in the winter of 1976-77: Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. Not from Hoffer's work, but rather from the Introduction by Sidney Hook. Richter also, as I recall, had Hook's The Hero in History on that list.
I remember identifying with Hook as a fellow ex-communist who had seen the light and become a staunch anti-communist. So last night, motivated by this twinkle of a long-ago memory, I rose and went to the shelves and pulled down my 1963 Time Books edition of The True Believer.
Hook's Introduction is as much a critique of Hoffer's broad stroke analysis as it is approving. This was the observation of Hook that tugged at my memory:
There is nothing that a fanatic will not do to achieve his goal: the end justifies the use of ANY means. There are some things which those who are not fanatical will refuse to do in defense of their ideals, even at the cost of their lives. . .
Those who in the face of totalitarian threats today (MBV: remember this was 1963 when Hook wrote this) say that survival at ANY price is the be-all and the end-all of existence have in effect capitulated to the fanatics who are unafraid to die. As a morality, this view is contemptible; as a strategy it is unimtelligent. It is morally contemptible because those who endorse it will swallow any infamy in order to live a life unworthy of man. It is unintelligent because the only thing which can restrain fanatics is fear of failure. Even Hitler probably would have kept the peace had he known or feared his aggression meant destruction for his cause. Where fanatics have no fear of failure, the liklihood is that in their insanity they will destroy themselves in fanatical war against other fanatics. In that case, those who have sacrificed integrity for life will have lost their lives, too.
The gravamen of this analysis, which I believe is not inconsistent with Hoffer's main position, is that moral integrity is not a monopoly of true believers. Those who love life must be prepared to risk life in behalf of the values which make life worth living. Those who desire peace with freedom rather than the peace of slavery must always be prepared to resist aggression at the cost of their lives. Otherwise, there will be no alternative to the warring absolutisms of true believers until oblivion descends upon the race of man.
The people who seek to destroy the Founders' Republic in order to achieve their "higher purpose" are, at the core of them, fanatics. They seek our liberty and property in service to their "right-thinking." It is ironic then that they call us "gun fanatics" when in fact all we seek is to be left alone with our God-given, natural and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property.
Yet if we desire to maintain those rights -- all other political efforts having failed -- we must resist in armed civil disobedience at the point of our rifles. Reluctantly, to be sure, but firmly. To do otherwise, to bury our weapons and hope for the best, is but craven, self-defeating cowardice.
End his post
I hadn't heard of that from Magpul; BRAVO!


Keith said...

Many thanks

Windy Wilson said...

It isn't "Nativist Crazy" when you personally met relatives who wore uniforms on both sides of that late unpleasantness known as WW2, including one who spent 7 years in a Soviet PoW camp AFTER the war and who came home to die within the year of kidney problems developed at the camp, your local hardware store owners when you were growing up had those unfashionable scrawled-number tattoos on their forearms, and the parents of your friend in Junior High School had the extreme misfortune to be visiting relatives on Kyushu when THAT round of unpleasantness broke out, which meant they missed the problem of Executive Order 9066 by experiencing worse. Every adult male I knew wore the uniform at one time or another. Every adult had his or her life changed in amazing ways by that war.
Anyone who can look at WW2 and NOT conclude that the problem is excessive government power is too stupid to vote, and maybe exercise any privilege or duty of citizenship beyond paying taxes.

EgregiousCharles said...

I've come around to thinking there is some point in burying a gun or two. I thought for a long time that the time to bury them was the time to dig them up and use them. But then I thought, what if I'm one of the first to come home from work and find the safes broken into and empty and a note from the confiscators? That's when I want to have something to dig up. Of course there's always a chance that I'll be arrested at work at the same time; but I don't think the corporations that own the legacy media and donate to Democrats will like that, and thus the Democrats won't either.

Windy Wilson said...

Egregious Charles! I half remember some quote from you from probably 6-7 years ago in which you said something about whenever something bad is done in this world the perpetrators are described with words that include white males. Islamic terrorists bomb trains? Religious extremists. Megafauna extinctions as the Pleistocene ends? Not Aboriginals or Native Americans or even Indians) -- Early Man. Good things, however, are ascribed to "people of color", so it is Aboriginal Art in Australia.
What was (if you know anymore) the correct quote?