I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.
If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
Walter E. Williams
May 1, 2015
American Contempt for Liberty
And you know what that leads to, right? Among other things a much lower productivity and standard of living for everyone without an “in” with the political leadership.
I was recently in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (see below) and will share pictures in a later blog post.
Then you go to the grocery store, and it’s like 90% of the people are just in a pack. They don’t know. They have no connection to food at all. And so it’s very nice. You know, we were raised with it to know that thing that you took is gonna be your dinner meal.
Wyatt Russell
March 12, 2026
Kurt Russell offers ‘no apologies’ for traditional hunting lifestyle
As I have said before, seeing how food is grown and harvested on the farm is an alternate reality. The same applies to the harvesting of domestic animals and wild game. I work in an office overlooking part of a city. There are nearly 200 people in a large office each with huge computer screens each doing their part to prevent, track, and stop bad guys attempting to gain access to our nation’s critical infrastructure. I then visit the farm in Idaho and find the differences incredibly profound.
See also: Riley Green finds reality at home farming and hunting in Alabama over fame | Fox News.
Acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol and sold widely under the brand names Tylenol and Panadol, may also increase risk-taking, according to research from 2020 that measured changes in people’s behavior when under the influence of the medication.
This seems a suspicious. The drug has been in use for decades and this side effect is just now being discovered? Maybe. But it going to need more study to seriously convince people.
To add to the suspicion, the study was done in 2020 and this article is just a rehash of that six year old study.
For heterosexuals, rates of infidelity are four times higher than the rate of open relationships. By contrast, for sexual minorities (with the exception of lesbians), rates of open relationships are higher than the rate of infidelity.
Justin Lehmiller @JustinLehmiller
Posted on X, March 7, 2026
See also Rates of Consensual and Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy Among Heterosexual, Gay, and Bisexual Adults – Sex and Psychology. This article gives us the numbers:
- Overall prevalence of infidelity: about 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lesbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who described “other” sexualities reported nonconsensual nonmonogamy (defined here as agreeing to be sexually exclusive with a partner, but one or both partners cheated or had an affair).
- Overall prevalence of open relationships: 2% of heterosexual participants, 32% of gay participants, 5% of lesbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who reported “other” sexualities.
The way I initially read the post on X was that open relationships result in lower the rates of infidelity. But reading the article I find that even with a higher prevalence open relationship as sort of a “safety valve” the infidelity rates are actually higher.
I’m not sure what to conclude about this other than, “That’s interesting.”
If you don’t own a rifle, your opinion is mostly irrelevant.
Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_
Posted on X, August 14, 2024
There is a surprising amount of truth in this. This is particularly true in the political arena.
I want the American people to understand that if it was not an imminent threat, it was a solidly, aggressively patient threat waiting to pounce at any moment to do great damage to American interests.
Nazee Moinian
March 11, 2026
Iranian-born scholar warns regime was an ‘aggressively patient threat waiting to pounce’ on America
The contribution of Iran to the U.S. war in Iraq in the 2000s was far beyond “patient” and “waiting.” I personally know servicemen killed and severely maimed by Iranian supplied weapons.
I don’t talk about work much for various reasons, but I will say that cyber-attacks from Iran on U.S. critical infrastructure are, for all intents and purposes, continuous. I cannot imagine the attacks are any less frequent on U.S. allies. The attacks have mixed success, but it only takes the right one to cause great harm.
Hence, Moinian is only wrong to the extent which she implies Iran had not yet done or attempted significant damage to U.S. interests.
The U.S. and Israel have decapitated Iran and probably are working on the neck and shoulders of the religious leadership. The apparent thinking is that Iran will soon run out of people volunteering to be leaders or change their evil ways.
That makes sense. At least at first thought it does. Let’s run through a little thought experiment I have had a few times with some close friends a decade or two ago.
Imagine an alternate timeline where SCOTUS came up with different result in the Heller decision and things went downhill from there. Today, in this alternate timeline, U.S. gun owners realize all they have left is the 100 million guns and a few billion rounds of ammo they had hidden before everything else was confiscated. They still have the firepower and now the motivation to remove the tyrants and restore liberty and the true meaning of the U.S. constitution.
In a coordinated attack, with the help of insiders during the state of the Union address, they take out POTUS, all his cabinet, the VP, and the Speaker of the House. They then make it known that everyone who voted for the unconstitutional (in the eyes of the gun owners) laws must be removed from office and replaced with constitutionally friendly politicians. If not, minds will continue to see the light in the most literal sense.
What would the response be? Would the remaining anti-gun politicians go into hiding or give up power? Or would they double (and/or triple) down?
I believe that the smart money, in the best-case scenario, says, “That’s an interesting question.” The more likely result is a police state and mass killings of innocent people.
What are your thoughts on what to expect in this alternate U.S. timeline and what that might tell us about what the Iran response will be?
I have changed the order from the original post to make things clearer:
Israel destroys bridge in Lebanon, threatens Gaza-scale destruction
On Wednesday night, Hezbollah launched 200 rockets at northern Israeli communities.
…
Israel destroyed a bridge in southern Lebanon on Friday and dropped leaflets in Beirut threatening Gaza-scale devastation as it deployed more troops to fight Iran-backed Hezbollah and warned of more attacks on the country’s infrastructure.
…
Israeli aircraft dropped flyers over Beirut threatening to inflict damage on Lebanon similar to the devastation the military wrought on Gaza during its two-year war with Hamas. Much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble and nearly all its population displaced.
“In light of the great success in Gaza, the newspaper of the new reality arrives to Lebanon,” the flyer said.
Another flyer called on Lebanese to strip Hezbollah of its weapons. It featured two QR codes to links on WhatsApp and Facebook, accompanied by a message telling Lebanese to make contact if they want to see “real change” in their country.
I am reminded of the leaflets the U.S. military dropped over Japanese cities (Warning Leaflets – Nuclear Museum). Japan did not heed them even after Hiroshima was vaporized. A similar lack of response will occur in Lebanon. Verbal persuasion is difficult in most people and in essentially impossible in religious extremists.
There is a reason why we have expressions like, “Using a clue bat”, and “hit them with a clue by four.” It takes a different type of “persuasion” to change the minds of these people.
The distribution of the leaflets is the right thing to do. But only to somewhat reduce the guilt of those delivering the bombs the harshness of the international criticism. The rockets will continue to be launched into Israel and, sadly, real change will come from the sky.
Peace is possible: through superior firepower and willingness to use it in the most devastating and efficient (and sparing) way achievable.
We should try that.
Sarah H. Hoyt
March 6, 2026
All We Are Saying Is Give Peas A Chance – According To Hoyt
I never understood people who insist that in order to have peace we needed to disarm. Or the variation where they thought the Mutually Assured Destruction policy was insane. Whenever I tried to engage with people like this, they would either “prove their point” via vigorous assertion (raising their voice and repeating themselves) or go silent. I took the silent treatment as they had not really thought it through and were attempting to engage their brain when I asked them to explain how this worked. I was fine with this. But the vigorous assertion type annoys me. They are all emotion without no data or logic. Those types are a disgrace to humanity and a significant number of animal species.
As much as I dislike violence, I realize that sometimes it is the only way. Particularly with those “vigorous assertion” types. There are non-emotional types you need to worry about too. People can have faulty data or drastically different fundamental principles and arrive at conclusions which involve the elimination of “the rich”, “the poor”, “intellectuals”, “capitalists”, etc. But it seems at some point they, or at least their useful idiots, morph into a version of the “vigorous assertion” class.
If they get themselves worked up into a high enough emotional state, they become physically violent. And with enough numbers they become genocidal.
You can only communicate with these in their native language such that they truly understand. And there are very few more vigorous assertions they understand better than bullets and bombs.
I was invited to do a panel at La Verne University on Bruen.
State Senator Portantino, who pushed a ton of CA gun control bills, was also set to appear. I told them I was happy to do it, but didn’t want my presence to cause their higher profile invitees to drop out and ruin their event. They were confident they wouldn’t, so I agreed.
Portantino dropped out last minute, appearing only for a few minutes on Zoom and taking no questions. Another gun control professor also dropped out. So it was just me, a pro gun prof, and a middle of the road guy.
I torched Portantino as a coward and rebutted every point he asserted.
Antigunners are, generally, cowards.
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, March 6, 2026
I’m not certain I call it cowardice if you know you will get slaughtered and cause damage to your cause in the process.
There is a lot of evidence to support the claim this behavior is common. They know they cannot win on legal, principle, or practical grounds. They can only win on lies, deception, and emotional manipulation. They are evil.
Mass shooters in the U.S. range in age from 11 to 72. Twenty-year-olds committed more mass shootings and injured more people than any other age group from 1966 to 2024.
Twenty-eight-year-olds committed more mass shootings than any other age group, but the deadliest mass shooting in history was committed by a 64-year-old man. Therefore, there is no apparent direct link between the number of victims and the perpetrator’s age.
Cassandra McBride
March 6, 2026
Average Age of Mass Shooters in the U.S. (Updated 2026)
Note that in the first sentence “Twenty-year-olds” refers to people in their twenties, not just people who are 20 years old.
There is more to the story at the link if you are interested. But the bottom line for my intended use is that prohibiting people between 18 and 20 (inclusive) years old from purchasing a gun is not justified from a practical standpoint of reducing mass shootings even if such a ban could pass constitutional or philosophical barriers.
Beyond the links to sexual satisfaction and positive emotional reactions, research indicates more complicated findings surrounding women’s feelings about orgasm. When women are asked directly about the role orgasm plays in their lives, women often explicitly state that they do not care whether or not they orgasm. However, indirectly, another story emerges. Women who orgasm are much more satisfied with encounters than those who do not. Indeed, women are five times more likely to enjoy a sexual encounter if they orgasmed during the experience. In sum, orgasm is strongly related to sexual satisfaction, even though women indicate it is not important for them.
A great deal of this incoherence may be explained when considering expectations and the importance women attribute to their own orgasms. Regarding orgasms as relevant for one’s sexual well-being was found to be one of the strongest predictors of orgasm frequency. So, in turn, the relationship may be simple: if I experience orgasm then I expect orgasm, and if I expect orgasm, it becomes more relevant for my sexual satisfaction, desire and pleasure. This implies that orgasms are not irrelevant for female sexual well-being, but rather the lower frequency of their occurrence may lead women to alter their expectations, and say that they are fully satisfied even if they orgasm “only” 60% of the time.
Marie-Feline Dienberg, Tanja Oschatz, Jennifer L. Piemonte & Verena Klein
August 17, 2023
Women’s Orgasm and Its Relationship with Sexual Satisfaction and Well-being | Current Sexual Health Reports | Springer Nature Link
Via Peri-orgasmic phenomena: Why some laugh, cry during climaxing (side note from my own related survey: one woman told me her nose itches uncontrollably after she has an orgasm. Another woman said the “Oh god!” cries were uncontrollable because “It feels so good I think I’m going to die.”).
For me, most of the paper was “blah, blah, blah <nothing really new, did you need to write a paper on this?>.” But the information above was new and interesting to me. But it does make sense from a broader psychological perspective.
People rationalize their situation. People without much money will tell themselves and others, “Money can’t buy happiness/love/etc.” Or, the old adage, “I felt sorry for myself when I did not have shoes until I met a man with no feet.” Or the ancient Aesop’s tale of the fox and the grapes.
And closer to my usual topics, people deprived of their inalienable right to keep and bear arms will claim they are safer without guns in the hands of private citizens, discounting or oblivious to the many genocides of unarmed citizens.
If we were the problem, you would know about it.
You are angry about the present moment, but you are the one who voted for decades of executive overreach that allowed this regime to grow like a cancer.
You do not get to acquiesce to forty years of executive actions and suddenly discover constitutional outrage only when it fits your partisan narrative.
My heart breaks when I see the city I grew up in flames. But what breaks it even more is knowing that this suffering—borne by generations of Iranians, paid for by American blood and treasure—was compounded by years of your denial about what this regime is.
You cannot stabilize a government whose ideology requires bloodshed. And you cannot postpone confrontation forever without multiplying the eventual cost.
The world is not facing this moment because we finally acted.
The world is facing this moment because for decades many refused to acknowledge the true nature of the Islamic Republic regime.
Tahmineh Dehbozorgi @DeTahmineh
Posted on X, March 5, 2026
There are many people who still refuse to acknowledge the true nature of the Islamic Republic regime. Most of them seem to be affected by TDS. Such mental health cases are probably beyond help and there is no point in having a discussion with them.
There are reasons to consider in opposition to the moral necessity case which I think is well proven as in above.
A more principled opposition would be, the US Constitution does not grant our government the power to be the world’s policeman. Or a practical opposition would be our history of regime change for the last 80 years has been very poor. I keep wondering, was there something fundamentally different about how we handled Germany and Japan post WWII? Those were two extremely different bloodthirsty cultures and yet the U.S. helped them reconstruct their societies into productive and comparatively free nations. More recent efforts have been far from anything approaching satisfactory. Is it that we completely eliminated the toxic cultures in Japan and German? If so, then that may mean the eradication of Islam is required to enable the incubation of national neighbors fit for a civilized world.
This would be the most important acknowledgment of all yet to be realized and the reason we will face this moment again and again until we do realize it.
Iranian civilians certainly have a legitimate need to arm themselves. It is difficult to understand the horrors they face under the current Islamic regime. They can be arrested, jailed and tortured on mere suspicion. Their security forces can shoot them dead on the street for no reason without any fear of a legal response.
While a $440 Turkish-made Colt .45 doesn’t provide the firepower required to save its owner from dozens of Iranian security forces armed with AKs, at least it offers the owner the ability to take a few with them.
Lee Williams
March 5, 2026
Gun control in Iran was failing even before our first strike – Second Amendment Foundation
Imagine a world in which the Iranian people had all the firearms they wanted before the 1979 revolution. Even if the Shah had not seen the light and implemented needed reforms before the citizens took up arms to persuade him, having arms after the revolution would have enabled “second thoughts” on the nature of the revolution.
And, of course, having them now would make the removal of the current leadership much easier.
Sure, as pointed out by Williams, the black market is supplying a few arms to the oppressed citizens. But having plentiful ammo and especially open training and practice opportunities is vital to having the skills to confidently put those tools to work.
One shouldn’t exaggerate the economic fallout from this war. But it isn’t occurring in isolation: There are many stresses on our economy, and this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back — a straw that becomes heavier the longer the war goes on. Furthermore, if Trump is this erratic now, what will he do as the midterms get even closer?
Paul Krugman
March 04, 2026
Reality Sets In on Trump’s New War – Paul Krugman
My general rule of thumb is if Krugman makes a prediction, then bet against whatever he said. Let this post be a marker to test my rule of thumb. I’ll add a post to go live in six months to see how his prediction turned out.
Researchers at Australian start-up Cortical Labs have taught human neurons grown on a chip to play the classic Doom game. In 2021, they had already used 800,000 neurons to play Pong. Now, with four times fewer brain cells, they can play a much more complicated game.
But the wildest thing about it is probably the “Cortical Cloud,” an interface that allows developers to program the neurons using Python. Using this API, independent researcher Sean Cole was able to teach the cells to play Doom in about a week.
…
The technology making this possible is the CL-1, a “biological computer” chip. The biological component of the CL-1 system consists of human neurons derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These cells, typically repurposed from adult skin or blood samples, are differentiated in a lab into functional cortical neurons. Once matured, approximately 200,000 of these living cells are integrated onto a high-density microelectrode array (HD-MEA), essentially creating a specialized silicon chip featuring thousands of interface points.
Mihai Andrei
March 2, 2026
200,000 living human brain cells just learned to play Doom and this is just the start of it
With only a two hundred thousand neurons Copilot says this is comparable to the CNS of:
A small crustacean (e.g., a copepod or amphipod) is the best biological analogue to a 200,000‑neuron system.
- More complex than worms
- Less complex than insects
- Within the right order of magnitude
- Capable of simple learning and coordinated movement
I could support a claim the ethical issues are nonexistent at this level. What about when it is comparable to a small mammal? Or a primate? A human? An order of magnitude larger than any mammal?
What will be the capabilities of a Cortical Cloud requiring a warehouse the size of a city block?
We live in interesting times.
Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FINAL.pdf
We reverse and vacate Benson’s convictions for possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
One has to wonder if the anti-gunners will appeal this decision to SCOTUS as they did the Heller decision. It would make me laugh if they did.
This is great news in a number of ways. The obvious is the win for standard capacity magazines at the appeals court level. But an even bigger reason to celebrate is the circuit split it creates. This pretty much assures SCOTUS will accept an appeal from someone.
I am convinced that war will begin and Iran will be at the center of that war. The problem is that Iran is much stronger than Ukraine or Palestine, and therefore a proxy war against Iran will have unpredictable consequences. Among these, the least unpredictable is the generalization of the war when China concludes that, with the defeat of Iran (which is very likely), it will no longer have access to the energy resources essential for its expansion. It should be borne in mind that China has just suffered a huge defeat in Venezuela and that Latin American countries are to China what Middle Eastern countries are to the US. Their loyalty stems from convenience and, moreover, they are under increasing US pressure to reduce their relations with China.
It is therefore very likely that World War III will begin. As I said, the signs are evident, but that does not mean it will not come as a surprise. Just as Cuba is the same as Gaza, but without bombs, World War III could begin with any weak link in US-EU-Israel imperialism. I suspect that this weak link is the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The war begins with the loss of economic power on a global scale and escalates with the collapse of dollar-based financial capital. Bombs can be used as causes or as consequences. The only way this will not happen is if the gold reserves that countries have been frantically accumulating prevent it. I highly doubt it.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos
March 2, 2026
World War III is about to begin
I quote Santos here not because I think he has something profoundly correct to say, but because I believe it to be profoundly false. Yes, there is a nonzero possibility of WWIII breaking out. But with the major military support lining up on one side of the current fight, I do not expect it to spread worldwide or major players to take what is almost certainly going to be the losing side. Sure, the U.S. having control over China’s oil supply will be a problem for them. But I don’t see China thinking that is justifiable cause for war. I expect the U.S. will use it for bargaining power in trade deals, not for the destruction of China. I expect Iranian oil to be flowing again in a few weeks to any country that is reasonably friendly to the West. Venezuelan oil is also going to be available to reasonably friendly countries. The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and to a certain extent the addition of oil on the world market will be bad for U.S. oil producers. Expect prices to drop in a few months as the conflict settles and the supply lines are reestablished.
As further evidence of Santos being out of touch here is his recipe for avoidance of WWIII:
Is there nothing we can do to prevent World War III?
Yes, there is.
1- An international petition asking UN Secretary-General António Guterres to resign immediately in view of the high probability of war and the UN’s inability to prevent it.
2- Take to the streets in defense of Cuba and Iran as we did in defense of Palestine.
3- Organize protests in front of the US and Israeli embassies and EU representations.
4- Considering that the most repugnant (though not the weakest) link in the US-EU-Israel triad is Israel, boycott Israel through the BDS movement.
He thinks protests change things. No, protests are for virtue signaling. Trade (or lack of it), diplomacy and physical force change things.